March 26, 1924

CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take some definite and immediate action to prevent the illegal diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes through the Chicago Drainage Canal and that action should be taken to prevent further waste and to secure specific enforcement of the Treaty between Canada and the United States as to this matter, inasmuch as this diversion is not only seriously lowering lake levels but is a danger to the public works of Canada and its provinces and an interference with the harbour development of our country and with navigation and is such a direct violation and breach of the Treaty as calls for immediate action by the government of Canada.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion speaks for itself. The subject matter which it covers is one of the most important which is likely to engage the attention of the House this session, as the illegal diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes through the Chicago drainage canal is a very serious menace to our country not only from the navigation and power standpoints, but from the standpoint of the Dominion, provincial and municipal interests involved. The motion urges that some additional steps be taken by Canada to prevent this illegal diversion. This matter has been made a football, so to speak, in the American courts, in the state legislatures, and before the Rivers and Harbours Committee of the United States Congress, and it is time for Canada to act.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask hon. members on both sides if they would kindly refrain from conversation during the debate, in justice to the speaker who is addressing the House. The remark made a moment ago by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was quite in order; too many members are chatting with each other and preventing the speaker from being heard.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHURCH:

Although Canada is suffering most-in fact almost entirely-from this diversion of water which is going on every minute in the hour and every day in the year, Canada is standing still, is taking no active steps to prevent a breach of the Boundary Waterways treaty of 1909 relating to this matter, a convention entered into between His Majesty's government of Great Britain and the United States of America. The consideration of this treaty occupied several weeks of the time of this parliament in 1909, and it was debated at length in the British House and in the United States senate and congress. Professor Coleman, one of the greatest geologists on the American continent, says that if this waste goes on much longer, lake Erie and lake Ontario will become nothing but a duck pond and the falls of Niagara will dry up. The people of Canada have been too lax in this matter, and I say

Great Lakes Levels

that not only of this government but of the previous government as well. Canada should long ago have insisted upon adherence to the terms of the Boundary Waterways treaty in order that the rights and privileges of the people of this country might be respected. The treaty provides as follows, by section 1:

The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall for ever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally.

The treaty provides that the section which I have just quoted, as to preserving the rights of navigation, shall apply to lake Michigan and the harbours, rivers and streams in and about lake Michigan, and that the interests of navigation are paramount. But still we have to-day the condition of which I speak.

I would like to give a short sketch of Canada's side of the case. The Great Lakes constitute the largest and the most extensive navigable inland waterway in the world, and the diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage commission has permanently lowered the level to such an extent as to interfere with the development of navigation. The Chicago drainage canal has lowered the levels of the Great Lakes by diverting an amount of water equal to the volume that goes over the American Falls at Niagara, the reduction in level being effected by a diversion of the natural flow from the St. Lawrence and the gulf by the construction of channels to the gulf of Mexico by way of the Des Plaines, Blinois and Mississippi rivers. Under natural conditions these waters would flow through the lakes and down to the seaboard. This reduction in the lake levels is a matter of national concern both to Canada and to the United States. The waterways treaty from which I have quoted provides definitely for the conserving of the water levels of the Great Lakes for navigation purposes, regarding that condition as essential. The treaty provides that no diversion of boundary waters between the two countries shall be made without the express authority of the governments of both countries, and corresponding provision is made with respect to the diversion of other waters which materially affect the level or flow of these boundary waters. The present diversion through the Mississippi valley, which is a scheme carried out by the city of Chicago on the principle of the dilution of sewage and the flushing of the sewers, gives rise to conditions which certainly call for discussion

45i

and adjustment as between the governments of both countries. I am sorry to say that the government of one of the provinces and officers of municipalities along the Great Lakes, seeing that the Dominion government did not appoint some one to put forward their case, found it necessary last week to send a deputation to Washington, to appear before the harbour and rivers committee of a foreign country with regard to a British treaty and the preservation of the rights and privileges accorded under that treaty to municipalities and provinces of Canada.

Let me give in a few words a brief sketch of the Chicago side. Their case is very largely founded on a fallacy and a misstatement of facts with respect to the treaty. The Sanitary Commission of Chicago has jurisdiction over all sanitary matters in connection with the greater city of Chicago, and operates over a definitely prescribed area. For many years, from 1848 down to about twenty years ago, Chicago had a great deal of difficulty in handling its sewage problem, as is the case to-day with every large city on the Great Lakes. They tried many systems, and subsequently a commission was appointed by the state of Illinois and the engineers recommended the dilution principle to which I have referred, involving the taking of water illegally from the Great Lakes. This sanitary commission is in difficulty by reason of this illegal diversion of water from the Great Lakes system to the Mississippi river. The water is diverted, of course, for the purpose of diluting the sewage effluent with sufficient water to render it inoffensive. The Chicago commission are now seeking authority from the Rivers and Harbours Committee of the United States for the use of water now being diverted from the Great Lakes system, and they have been sending delegations to cities on the Great Lakes to try to turn aside opposition to their programme. One of these deputations including the chairman of the commission, visited Cleveland, Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa for this purpose. As a remedial measure in this connection the Chicago Drainage commission say that they are prepared to construct storage dams at a cost of $2,500,000, one to be erected above the Niagara Falls near Buffalo and another at the Galops rapids in the St. Lawrence. But nothing these gentlemen can do in the way of erecting dams can return to the Great Lakes and to the rivers of Canada the 4,167 cubic feet per second of water which is diverted every second all the year around and turned into the Mississippi valley. The storage dams that the Chicago Drainage com-

Great Lakes Levels

mission propose to erect will not compensate Canada, which is losing $35,000,000 per annum by this diversion. It is pointed out by the Chicago officials that these storage dams will restore the lake levels which have been disadvantageously affected by this diversion, but that cannot be done. No storage dams can ever compensate for the 12,000 cubic feet per second which the Chicago commission are diverting all the year round and the resultant economic waste to Canada.

This question has never been properly presented to the Canadian people-the people of Canada have really been asleep on this question, as well as their legislatures and the federal government. They are not alive to the great and serious menace to the business and transportation interests and trade and commerce of this country by this illegal diversion of the water of the Great Lakes. There is no use standing still and allowing a treaty between the two countries to be regarded as a scrap of paper by the people and the government of the United States. The United States government have too long allowed this diversion, as the International Joint Commission has pointed out, as the Supreme Court has also pointed out, as Secretary for War, Mr. Weeks, has also pointed out and urged that action should be taken in a federal way to prevent this illegal diversion of water. Two supreme courts have declared this diversion to be illegal under the boundary treaty between the two countries.

I am glad to say that the government at Washington have come to the help of the municipalities on the other side of the border, and yesterday Mr. Secretary Weeks took very strong ground against this illegal diversion, as appeal's by a despatch appearing in the newspapers of this country to-d'ay. I quote from the Toronto newspapers of Tuesday, March 25:

Because the diversion by Chicago of water from Lake Michigan does " substantial " injury to commerce on the Great Lakes, even to the harbour of Montreal, Secretary of War Weeks to-day reported against the Madden bill, intended to authorize withdrawal of 10,000 feet per second of lake water.

The secretary's report was sent to S. Wallace Dempsey, chairman of the House, Rivers and Harbours committee, which is considering the Madden measure.

Secretary Weeks intimated that Chicago ought to be as well able as other lakes cities, to provide for purification of sewage without taking so much of the lake water that levels are lowered to the damage of navigation interests. He also showed that the compensatory works proposed in the bill could not be constructed without the consent of the Canadian government.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, the government of the United States are awake to the situation, and there are at the present time

two suits pending before the United States Supreme Court to prevent this illegal diversion.

Who are the interests in Canada and the United States who are opposed to this diversion? Every important navigation interest in Canada right up to the head of the lakes has protested against this diversion, and they have presented their case at the bars of various tribunals, petitioning for a remedy. The proposal of the Chicago Sanitary District is to install regulating works to compensate for the water taken from the Great Lakes, but it is impossible by artificial means to compensate for the thousands of cubic feet per second which are being illegally diverted from the Great Lakes to the Chicago Sanitary District works. The interests of Canada are being seriously interfered with. Against this illegal diversion there are also the states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, who all come to the help of the Great Lakes system. After a conference with Solicitor General Beck of the United States, these five states have joined with the federal government in an application to the Supreme Court of the United States to prevent this work. In addition 350 municipalities in the province of Ontario, comprising practically all the cities, towns and villages in the more settled portions of the provinces, including such large cities as Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Kitchener, Brantford and Windsor, which have the municipality-owned Hydro system-representing an investment of $250,000,000 have all protested through the Canadian government, and^ the United States government as well, against this illegal diversion. The states of Michigan, Wisconsin and New York, and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the federal government of this country and the United States federal government have all registered strong protests against this illegal diversion, and the press almost without exception on both sides of the line, except in Chicago, have taken the same stand. One of the ablest papers in the United States, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, points out:

Two suits are now before the Federal Supreme Court challenging Chicago's right to this diversion of water. The four Illinois bills, on whose behalf the Chicago delegation journeyed to Cleveland this week, would reverse the anticipated decision of the court before it is made. They constitute a reflection on the court, as the errand of the Chicago delegation reflected on the common sense of Cleveland. This effort of Chicago should be resisted at every point. Particularly it should be resisted by the lake cities on both sides of the international boundary. Congress and the parliament may well join hands to end the illegal, unfair and destructive policy of water diversion. Investments totalling untold millions are jeopardized. More than

Great Lakes Levels

tliat, the friendly relations of the Republic and the Dominion are threatened. We have expressed the opinion before that it is hopeless to cry for Canadian co-operation on the St. Lawrence as long as the government at Washington even appears to condone Chicago's continued theft of lake water. No real friend of this international waterway will lend an ounce of support to one of these drainage diversion bills.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer shows that the real water pirate of the Great Lakes is not Sir Adam Beck, but the Chicago Sanitary District, which is now launching an electrical development project and a Chicago-to-the-Gulf waterway in the hope of getting the help of southern Illinois and the states of the Mississippi valley in its fight to retain the stolen waters of Canada and the states fronting on the Great Lakes.

I might also point out that the Attorney General of Wisconsin, Mr. Ekern, in a very able brief which he prepared for a conference of the Great Lakes harbours, showed that for every inch of depth lost in the lakes the shipping companies lost three quarters of a million dollars per annum. The Chicago diversion has lowered lake Michigan nearly seven inches and lake Ontario nearly five inches. The mayor and council of Milwaukee are also very strong opponents of Chicago in this matter. The Attorney General of Wisconsin in his brief says that the lakes save the two countries 85,000,000 annually in transportation costs, which indicates the importance of preserving intact this waterway.

I might point out that if there is any dispute as to the construction of the treaty, that is a matter for the International Joint Commission. That commission in its report presented to this House in January, 1922, took very strong ground against this diversion of water from the Great Lakes and urged that the matter be referred to that commission to prevent.

In addition, we find opposed to this illegal diversion the Attorney General of Michigan. The cities and towns in his state are very much alarmed. He says that the two largest rivers that flow into the lake at Chicago are the Grand and the Fox, contributing approximately 10,000 cubic feet per second. The state of Wisconsin also is very much interested in this matter, and Attorney General Ekern says in his brief before the court, "If Chicago is to be permitted to illegally divert the water of the lakes, why not Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo and other cities?" With reference to the proposal of the Chicago sanitary officials that compensating works could not be erected, he expresses the opinion that they have no thought of ever carrying

out that policy. It is necessary that the federal governments of both countries should be urged to prevent this illegal diversion. Great international interests such as navigation, with all the complicated questions which navigation involves, are at stake. Water levels in the harbours and rivers of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence, and water powers, are affected as well. All these interests aie in jeopardy every day and every hour because of this illegal diversion of water, and it is most important that the government of Canada should call on the government of the United States to respect the treaty and compel the Chicago Sanitary commission, which have treated it as a scrap of paper, to respect it.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of navigation should be paramount. The treaty recognizes the fact, and it declares that any subsidiary rights must be subsidiary to the rights of navigation. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec are interested in this question. Subject to the rights of navigation the surplus waters of the Great Lakes system, the beds of rivers, the beds of streams and the banks and rapids belong to the provinces. That, I think, will be admitted by the law officers of the Crown. Yet the rights in these, to say nothing of the rights of navigation belonging to Canada, are in' very serious jeopardy at the present time by the diversion complained of. The depth of water in the harbours of the Great Lakes has been lowered to a serious extent,

I have already shown how that reduction in depth has interfered with navigation in the American ports on lake Michigan and lake Erie, in fact in the ports generally on the American side of the border. I can speak with practical knowledge and certainty as to conditions in Toronto and other lake harbours. I am the chairman of the Harbour Commission at Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Board received the representatives of the Chicago commission when, they visited Toronto last summer. They spent several days in our city conferring with the Harbour Commission and Provincial Hydro. They came to Toronto and tried to make out that the conditions were not as bad as they were represented to be, and to eliminate opposition to their plans contended that our harbours were not suffering to the extent alleged as to lake levels, but the reports of our own engineers, the reports of the engineers of the federal government and of the governments of Ontario and Quebec show that the depth of water in the rivers and canal systems of this country is being seriously

Great Lakes Levels

lowered and interfered with by the diversion of the Chicago Sanitary commission. As I say, the federal government is interested in this question to a very important degree in connection with navigation rights. The province of Ontario has also very important interests at stake. The surplus waters in the Niagara river, for example, belong to the government of Ontario which has erected works on that river involving an expenditure of $2/5,000,000. The provincial government consequently takes the position that if the federal authorities will not move to prevent this serious encroachment upon their rights it will have to do something itself. And the municipalities of Ontario have adopted the same position. The diversion of water has had very serious results upon navigation in some of the smaller Canadian ports on lake Ontario, lake Erie and lake Huron. In consequence the Dominion government has been compelled to make large expenditures for dredging in small harbours in order to increase the depth of water. Let me say to those who have been preaching economy that that is one of the reasons why the federal Department of Public Works has been obliged to undertake so much dredging and harbour votes in the province of Ontario. In olden times, before there was any such diversion as we now complain of, there was no harbour work carried out at many of these smaller ports. But the lowering of the lakes water level has made dredging compulsory and consequently every year we see votes of money for dredging purposes in harbours where work of this kind never used to be done. This aspect of the question is not denied by those with knowledge of the matter; it is acknowledged by all authorities on this question. It was acknowledged that lake levels were affected by W. J. Healy, president of the Sanitary Drainage system, when he came to Toronto to endeavour to get support for the application of the commission to divert ten thousand cubic feet of water per second. It is admitted by all that the Chicago diversion seriously interferes with the navigable capacity of the waters of the Great Lakes, and their connecting rivers.

The officials of the Hydro-Electric commission also say, "That the provisions of the Canadian treaty for a settlement by joint commission on questions or matters of difference between the United States and Canada offer a further reason why no administrative officer should authorize a further diversion of water, manifestly so injurious to Canada, against Canadian protest."

This question has never, at any time, received the consideration in the House which

its importance demands. Last year only one question was put to the government on the subject, the most important that parliament could consider. The government were asked by me on April 13, 1923, whether any protest had been made against the diversion. The reply to me of Hon. Mr. Lapointe was "Yes, but not recently." The then Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated:

The government believes that the diversion of water at Chicago has injuriously affected the navigable capacity of the connecting channels of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

The importance of this question can be estimated from the fact that the diversion of ten thousand cubic feet of water per second belonging to the people of this country means a loss to Canada which has been estimated by hydraulic engineers to reach the enormous sum of $35,000,000 per annum. Furthermore, Mr. White, of the Conservation commission agrees with this in his report and the engineers of the Hydro Electric commission, have also estimated that the wastage to the people of Canada involved by the diversion represents a sum of $400,000,000. If the interested municipalities on this side of the International boundary cannot get the federal authority to take action they intend to place their case before the Rivers and Harbour Committee of Congress at Washington themselves and seek redress there.

Where is this diversion going to stop? The city of Chicago has been proceeded against in a large number of cases arising out of the unsanitary conditions which prevail there. The death .rate from typhoid in Chicago once is said to have been one of the highest on the continent. They have to do something to provide a sanitary remedy, They will either have to spend 8100,000,000 on a modern extended sewage disposal plant, or else use additional water from the Great Lakes in order to get rid of their sewage and flush their sewers. All this illegal diversion has been going on with the quasi consent of the government of Canada. The time for further procrastination has gone by. The moment has come for action on the part of this government. They have ignored the wishes of the Canadian government, and the sanitary commission of Chicago has continued to divert water greatly in excess of the 4,167 cubic feet per second for which it has the sanction of its own government. It has not the sanction of the treaty to divert that quantity of water per second. They only do it by virtue of a temporary permit from one of the previous secretaries of war, Mr. Alger. It has never had even the sane-

Great Lakes Levels

tion. of the government of Canada for the diversion of 4,167 feet. The diversion of that quantity of water is illegal under the treaty without the consent of other countries and it is costing the people of this country thousands of dollars. But the United States are not satisfied with diverting 4,167 cubic feet. The commission admitted in Toronto, and they have admitted before the courts, that they are diverting water in excess of this amount, even up to the amount of 10,000 cubic feet per second, without attempting to secure permits from the proper authorities.

In designing the canal the Sanitary commission, although they only had a temporary permit to divert 4,167 cubic'feet, designed their canal so as to serve a population many hundreds of thousands greater than the population of Chicago to-day. One of the engineers admitted in Toronto that the capacity of the canal was 14,000 to 16,000 cubic feet per second. The action of the Sanitary commission in diverting from the Great Lakes system this enormous quantity of water which is being turned into the Mississippi and gulf of Mexico is illegal, and it is without parallel in the annals of the continent to which we belong. It is illegal for them to divert from our great system of waterways this great quantity of water for the benefit of a few people in that country. In my opinion the minister should tell the House what active steps he has taken to prevent the continuation of this diversion, inasmuch as the protests which have been made from time to time have been made by his own government, and by the Dominion Marine Association, the Civic Federation of Montreal, the Atlantic Shipping Company, the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto, the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, the Canada Steamships Company, the Canadian Water-power Board and the boards of trade of the Dominion, including the Montreal and Toronto boards of trade, and many other organizations. Now what does the government propose to do, in view of all that I have said? The most eminent geological engineers have pointed out the effect it is going to have on this country. Professor Coleman, who is backed up in his opinion by other eminent geologists, states that this cannot go on forever. He states that it will have very disastrous effects, and says that the Niagara river will be dried up, and the St. Lawrence river will become unnavigable. He says:

A tilt of fifty feet would drain the whole of the Great Lakes into the Mississippi. "Is this beyond the

possibilities of modern engineering skill? he asked.

"It is not. A mere deepening of three drainage canals would result in a similar state of affairs. It is entirely possible to drain the whole of the Great Lakes in this way."

The great geologist is backed up in his opinion by the son of one of the former presidents of the United States, Professor Ulysses Grant, a great geologist of the Northwestern University of the United States, who says-

Even as it is nature is playing its part in drying up the lakes system and reducing the rivers to streams.

He says that in 2,000 years the school children of Buffalo will gaze at the dry cliffs that were once Niagara Falls and listen with wonder to their teachers telling them that a mighty river once tumbled over it at the rate of 220,000 cubic feet of water every second.

By 3924. Professor Grant declares, Niagara will cease to flow, leaving lake Ontario

stranded. . .

It is a long report. He says the diversion of the Chicago Drainage canal will destroy many rivers and harbours on the 4 p.m. great lakes. Professor Coleman says that the Niagara river, small as the Ottawa, would be draining lake Erie, and that was all.

Professor Coleman further says that the immediate cause of the present receding of the lake levels is the Chicago Drainage canal and its diversion.

Now there you have the opinions of geologists who are studying the question of lake levels and the geology of the Great Lakes, and whose duty as professors is to study such problems. They say that the direct effect is as I have stated. The Chicago people say, "Oh, Canada is taking water from the Niagara river for power purposes." The treaty provides that the rights of navigation are paramount, and that the rights of the people of Canada, so far as the Niagara river is concerned, are as follows:

Canada is allowed by the treaty 36,000 cubic feet per second and the United States by the treaty is allowed 20,000 cubic feet per second.

Hon. gentlemen must remember that that means 16,000 to the good for Canada, but we must remember the United States is exporting from Canada 12,000 cubic feet of Canada's allotment. Adding 12,000 to the 20,000, it means that the United States is taking 32.000 cubic feet per second, and Canada 36,000. Canada has carried out the treaty to the letter both as regards navigation and as regards the water of the Great Lakes for sanitary purposes and for power purposes. The people of the United States, through the Chicago Drainage commission, have violated

Great Lakes Levels

almost every clause of the treaty. Do not forget that the water which Canada takes fiom the Niagara river for power purposes is all returned to the river. The water which they take out of the river at the village of Chippewa for the Chippewa Development is returned to the river at the village of Queens-ton, but in the case of the diversion by the Chicago Sanitary commission from ten to twelve thousand cubic feet per second are taken which never comes back. It is diverted through the streams of Chicago and the county of Illinois, right down the Mississippi river, and flows out through the gulf of Mexico. The people of Canada have kept their treaty, but the people of the United States have not by allowing Chicago to act this way.

I may say that Canada's power resources have been sacrificed at the present time, and I say Chicago has no right legally even to the 4,167 cubic feet per second.

They have been given permission to take it by their own government, but Canada has not concurred in that as the treaty provides. They are illegally diverting 4,167 cubic feet without Canada's permission, let alone the addition up to 10,000 cubic feet which they are illegally now taking. They are not only taking this water for sanitary purposes, but are diverting it for power purposes. The' Chicago Sanitary commission has become a hydraulic power commission for part of that city. They are utilizing the illegally diverted waters of the Great Lakes, and a part of it is being diverted for hydraulic power illegally.

With regard to the compensating features, the compensation works are not a compensation for the great power lost. Obviously, the proposal to make an investment in some permanent works of only $2,500,000 as is proposed by the Sanitary District, could not be taken into serious consideration as a means of compensating for an annual loss of upwards of $35,000,000 per annum to Canada as estimated by hydraulic engineers.

Now,_ it is impossible for the Chicago Sanitary District or any other agency to do anything by means of the regulation of levels of the Great Lakes to compensate the Dominion of Canada for its loss in the international waters which Chicago is diverting.

It cannot be said that the proposed compensating works on the Galops rapids on the St. Lawrence river, costing $2,500,000, or the compensating works on the Niagara ri'ver, could be considered as a sufficient compensation for the illegal taking of this water. No fixed sum could ever compensate the people of

fMr. Church !

Canada for the loss of from 10.000 to 12,000 cubic feet of water per second on the Great Lakes. These excess waters belong to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for power purposes, and from the point of view of the electrical energy to be developed from them they are worth some $35,000,000 a year altogether apart from the question of navigation. This loss is annual; the people are losing money every hour of the day through this diversion of waters that should be used for the development of electrical power; and when it is borne in mind that the cities and towns on the Great Lakes are to-day suffering from a shortage of power for commercial purposes it will readily be seen how serious a matter this is to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

We had a visit in Toronto from these gentlemen of the Chicago drainage commission, among them being W. J. Healy, president and the engineer. They had visited a number of cities on the Great Lakes for the purpose of combating the opposition to their programme; and their object could be stated in three or four words. These gentlemen admitted that it was a question of dollars and cents with the people of Chicago; they illegally diverted the waters of the Great Lakes for the purpose of flushing their sewers instead of treating the sewers locally as other cities on the lakes have to do. There was no equivocation on this point; they admitted that their motive was a financial one, and apparently it was immaterial to them whether they broke treaties or not. Now, there is a legal phase of this question and I desire to read a part of the treaty. I have already dealt with Article one, which provides that the rights of navigation as between the two countries shall be equal and paramount. So that, notwithstanding what interests may be at stake on either side, the parties are bound by the provisions of this treaty as to navigation. This fact has been admitted by the Supreme Court of the United States as well as by the Canadian authorities. The second part of the treaty provides that the contracting parties shall enjoy similar rights as regards the use of these waters for the purposes of navigation. As to the different purposes for which these waters shall be used, a certain order of precedence is laid down which shall be observed. I quote from the treaty:

Great Lakes Levels

The followoing order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this order of precedence:

(1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;

(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation;

(3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.

The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses of boundary waters on either side of the boundary. The requirement for an equal division may in the discretion of the commission be suspended in cases of temporary diversions along boundary waters at points where such equal division cannot be made advantageously on account of local conditions, and where such diversion does not diminish elsewhere the amount available for use on the other side.

It is provided that if there is a dispute between, the parties, they shall resort, not to the Supreme Court of either country but to the International Joint Commission appointed for the purpose. And this they have not done in the present instance. When these people appeared before the harbour commission and Hydro Electric Power commission when in Toronto, the chairman asked the attorneys for the sanitary commission whether they had consulted the treaty on these questions, and what the treaty had to say about them. Counsel for the sanitary commission of Chicago declared that the requirements of the drainage commission of the city of Chicago were paramount because they had reference to sanitary matters which had precedence and priority.

But the treaty between the two countries never contemplated that the waters of the Great Lakes should be diverted by the Chicago Drainage commission, for if that had been the intention it most undoubtedly would have been explicitly stated. There is not a word about the Chicago Drainage commission anywhere in the Boundary Treaty, and lawyers will tell you beyond any question that the treaty should be construed strictly; you cannot read into it words which would convey a meaning that never was intended between the parties originally contracting. As I have said, however, counsel for the Chicago commission admitted that the financial consideration was the one that moved them; and their engineer gave the whole thing away when he interrupted his associate, declaring that it was a matter of dollars and cents. He said, "We may as well tell you that we want to flush our sewers, and the diversion of the waters for this purpose will save us millions of dollars."

I may say that a temporary permit for the diversion of the waters was granted in 1S99. In March of that year congress passed an

act placing the navigable waters of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of War, who automatically assumed control of the Chicago river, which is considered navigable. Many of the Canadian people wondered what the Secretary of War had to do with the rivers and harbours in the United States, because in this country they are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. However, acting on that act of congress, the courts of the United States declared the Chicago river a navigable stream within the meaning of that law, and on the 8th of May, 1899, the then Secretary of War of the United States authorized a temporary diversion of 5,000 feet per second. In 1902 this was reduced to 3,333 cubic feet, and in the same year, in December, it was increased to 4,167 cubic feet. In June, 1910, a provisional permit was issued limiting the flow to that quantity, but this permit was not agreed to by this country. On June 30, 1910, Mr. R. S. Oliver, Acting Secretary of War, issued a provisional permit to the sanitary district to open a channel from the Calumet river to its existing main channel so as to substitute two routes instead of one between lake Michigan and its canal, one of the conditions being that the amount of water withdrawn from lake Michigan through the Chicago and Calumet rivers together should not exceed the 4,167 cubic feet per second, already authorized to be withdrawn through the Chicago river alone. The Calumet-Sag channel extends from a junction with the little Calumet river to a connection with the main channel at Sag, a distance of 16.2 miles. Its function is to reverse the flow of the Calumet river diverting all the sewage of the district south of 87th street away from lake Michigan. Work was commenced on September 18, 1911, and the water was turned into the completed channel on August 25, 1922. The legality of the diversion of water for sanitary purposes was tried before Judge K. M. Landis, one of the ablest judges in Chicago-now High Commissioner of Baseball. Judge Landis reserved his judgment and did not give a decision until 1920. Even then he merely handed down an oral decision in which he said:

" The finding of the court is, on the evidence in this case, that diversion has resulted in the lowering of the lake' level and the reversal of these currents (the Chicago river) which latter fact is not controverted. On the evidence that the lowering is an impairment of navigable capacity, even though it amounts to no more than three or four inches, and as to the lowering to that extent there could be no controversy on the record, the court's finding is against the contention of the defendant (the sanitary district) on the proposition that this is a necessary thing for the salvation of this

Great Lakes Levels

community. That is, that without this water this community will be at the mercy of disease germs from which it suffered before this diversion began, and from which it has by this diversion been practically relieved, as shown by statistics.

"The court has complied with this rule of law, that navigable rights are paramount, and even though the sanitary district is driven to the necessity of making some other provision, granting that the War Department and Congress should refuse to give contention to this question of sanitation (i.e., refuse to permit the desired diversion in the interests of sanitation?) it is entitled to the law, which I must obey, that a navigable right is paramount. In the last analysis, should Congress and the War Department, in consideration of all these matters, decline to permit the necessary diversion, the burden is on the district of providing some other method of relief. In other words, the defence that the diversion is necessary for the purpose of sanitation, as against the rule that a navigable right and navigation right is a paramount right, is immaterial." In order to allow the sanitary district a chance to appeal to the War Department for relief no order was made restricting the flow.

On the retirement of Judge Landis from the bench without having issued an order the case went to Judge Carpenter of the federal district court, who went over the evidence and arguments, and on June 20 last, a formal order against the diversion from lake Michigan of more than 4,167 cubic feet of water per second was entered against the Sanitary District of Chicago, but the district was given six months to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. This appeal and one other is to-day pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. In order to subvert what has been done by the courts of the United States, Senator Madden introduced a bill in congress this session, known as the Madden bill, which last week was considered by the Railways and Highways committee. The province of Ontario and the city of Toronto and other municipalities were represented. I am sorry to say that the Dominion government was not represented. The bill is to be reconsidered further on the 15th of April, and I hope the Dominion will then have a representative on hand to look after Canadian interests.

This question has been made a football by interested parties in the United States. But a treaty between two great nations should not be considered as a mere "scrap of paper". Therefore I am glad to see that at last the government of the United States is going to insist on the observance of the treaty and take the necessary steps to put a stop to the illegal diversion of water from lake Michigan by the city of Chicago, which is at present proceeding at the rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second.

Three hundred and seventy-three Ontario municipalities have at stake an investment of $275,000,000 in power development, and I was

requested by the district from which I come to bring this matter before the House. I think there should be an effective answer made in this House to the country to the illegal claims of the sanitary commission of Chicago. The commission laid their case before Toronto, Hamilton, and Montreal, and before the Dominion government, but many statements in their brief were proved to be incorrect. There is no question whatever that the diversion is not sanctioned by the treaty. This is not contested even by the sanitary commission of Chicago, and it is admitted by them that they are diverting the water for sanitary purposes without any treaty priority in order to save the city the cost of installing a proper sewage system, The diversion seriously interferes with the water levels of the Great Lakes. This is admitted by the engineers of the Chicago Sanitary commission, and they also admit that sanitary and power purposes are entirely subsidiary to those of navigation. Therefore their case falls to the ground.

I want to see the government do something stronger than sending a telegram or simply drawing up a memorandum of protest. The treaty should be observed. There should be a meeting of the International Joint Commission, which was constituted for the purpose of dealing with and preserving the navigation interests of both countries, and also their power interests, on which trade and commerce so much depend. I urge upon the Prime Minister and the government that immediate representations be made to the United States government that this is not a question for the courts but for the International Joint Commission, which should be directed to exercise the powers and functions vested in them under the treaty, and so put a stop to the illegal acts of the municipal government of Chicago, and to the Boundary Waterways treaty being treated as a scrap of paper so far as Canada is concerned. Both countries should stand by their honourable treaty herein.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):

Beck, is authority for the statement that in two years' time a power shortage will develop.

I would like to refer to the popularity of this public utility in the city of London, from which I come. Speaking in the House last session I gave a few figures in this connection and in doing so I had to trust to my memory. Subsequently checking up my statement I found that it was altogether too modest. I have here a statement from the general manager of the Public Utilities Commission of London, dated last June, in which he says that while the privately owned company which supplied the city with electric current generated by coal prior to the hydro development charged for domestic use and light 10 cents per kilowatt hour, the average charge to-day made by the Hydro is 1.8 cents, or less than one-fifth of the original cost. He says further:

Power for factories was supplied by the privately-owned company for $10 to $150 per horse-power per annum. This department is supplying power to-day at from $20 to $25 per horse-power per annum.

The amount spent on plant in London is $2,000,000. Other assets, such as stock and accounts, amount to $300,000, while the net debt is less than $1,000,000, so you will see that in addition to supplying power and light at the above low rates the department has net earnings of over $1,000,000. The saving to the citizens of London is inestimable, but might be placed conservatively at over $5,000,000.

The amount of power originally contracted for by the city from the Hydro-Electric Power Commission was 3,000 horse-power; to-day we are using between 18,000 and 19,000 horse-power. Hydro is doing work in London that would require 200,000 tons of coal a year. Practically every house is connected, there being 17,000 customers, and 4,000 of these are using hydro for cooking.

Since that was written, extensions of the system have been made in the country districts surrounding the city, and the service seems to be as popular with the rural dwellers as it is with the city people. When a public utility is patronized to such an extent by the masses of the people as it has been in London and district it will surely become as popular, when available at. as low prices, in every city, town and hamlet in the country. Indeed, it has even now become such a necessity that any interference with the source of supply is little short of a calamity.

The Ontario Minister of Power is authority for the statement that if 10,000 cubic feet of water per second were diverted by Chicago and were returned to its natural channel, it would develop at the falls and rapids of the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers approximately

500,000 horse-power. If the power shortage which is mentioned by Sir Adam Beek develops, it means that we must use more American coal than we otherwise would, with its attendant adverse trade balance and adverse exchange rate.

It would seem that Article 5, of the Boundary Waters treaty makes some, provision for domestic and sanitary use, and if in the interpretation of the Boundary Waters treaty some small diversion of water is allowed Chicago, it would seem the part of wisdom that this government should insist on having free access at all times to the water flow records of the Sanitary District of Chicago, and free access also to the regulating works and all other parts of its canals for the purpose of checking records or making water flow measurements.

This seems necessary in view of the answer given by the government on March 19, to a question I had on the order paper as to how many seeond-feet Chicago is now diverting. The answer was that the government did not know definitely. As Chicago has shown such a disposition to override the rights of others, it would seem that a strict account and checking up of her diversions would be quite in order. Chicago is a big city, and has shown all the arrogance of the huge and great in this matter. She has all the problems of a big city, but that is no reason why she should shift her problems to the territory around the Great Lakes. Her plain duty is to install modem sewage disposal works, so that this undue diversion of water need not take place. She should be taught that there are such qualities as fair dealing and honour between municipalities and governments, as well as between individuals.

If the United States government, in spite of the protests which have already been made, continues to allow Chicago to divert this tremendous amount of water from the Great Lakes, it is equally guilty, with the city of Chicago, in a breach of the Boundary Waters treaty, and that course of action does not make for friendly relations between the two countries.

The province of Ontario has taken an active part in the protest at Washington. I hope the government fully realizes the importance of this question in the matter of navigation and in relation to public works, and that they will take steps to protest vigorously against any further extension of this diversion of water, and will insist that the Boundary Waters treaty be strictly observed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior):

I am sure that no one will object to the vehement protests that have been made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for London (Mr. White) with

Great Lakes Levels

reference to the diversion of water from the Great Lakes by Chicago for drainage purposes. I did not come in contact with this question until the middle of the past summer, but one does not need to have very much information upon it to realize that all that the hon. member for North Toronto has stated with respect to this diversion is true, and that his statements as to the effect upon the levels of Canadian waters were not exaggerated at all. It is a serious thing for navigation, and more so still for power purposes-power being so very much needed in connection with further development in Ontario and along the lower stretch of the St. Lawrence- that 10,000 second-feet of water should be diverted from the Great Lakes and international rivers. It is needless for me to reiterate what he has said. He has stated that in 1902, without consultation and without the permission of the Canadian government, permission was given to the Sanitary District of Chicago by the United States government to divert for sanitary purposes 4,167 per second-feet of water. Additional amounts have been taken from time to time by the Chicago Sanitary District; I need not go into all the details because they have been given by my hon. friend, but at the present moment the amount diverted is in the neighbourhood of

10,000 second-feet.

This diversion of water has been a matter of controversy during the past eight or ten years between the citizens of Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan, bordering on the shores of the lake. The question appears to have come actively before the Canadian government in 1912. In 1909, when the International Joint Commission was appointed, this water was already being diverted, and as my hon. friend has pointed out this question has never been referred to the International Joint Commission by either government.

I might point out that the situation has become particularly acute during the last summer-and I am not offering this as any excuse at all for the diversion-by reason of the low levels of lake Superior and its tributary waters and coming through the Soo there has been a shortage almost equal to the amount of water diverted by the Chicago Sanitaiy commission. I am not offering that as any excuse at all for the extreme low levels that prevail in the St. Clair river, in lake Ontario and in the lower stretches of the St. Lawrence, but I just mention it in passing when I say that the most acute stage has been reached during the past summer, with considerable inconvenience for the municipalities along these waterways.

In addition to the diversion of this water for sanitary purposes, there is at the present moment a bill before the United States Senate for the purpose of creating a ship canal from Chicago to the gulf of Mexico. That, of course, is sponsored and backed by the interests diverting this 10,000 feet of water, and more, if possible.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Just before the minister

leaves that point he said that the question had never been referred to the International Joint Commission by either government. Will he explain why not?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

Answering

my hon. friend offhand, I think the fear was that the International Joint Commission's jurisdiction did not extend prior to 1909. The diversion was never agreed to by Canada, but was granted by the Secretaiy of War of the United States. That may have been the reason, but I really cannot explain why reference has not been made to the International Joint Commission, but undoubtedly the question could be referred to them. Judging from the records, the government of Canada would appear to have pinned their faith to an objection to a diversion not only of 4,167 feet but of any diversion of any sort whatsoever, and I get that impression from the first report that was made to the American government. There was an order in council passed by the Canadian government on the 27th of March, 1912, No. 249, which recommends the appointment of certain gentlemen to go down to Washington and protest against this diversion of water. It authorizes them to attend the meetings that were to be held at Washington in March of that year in connection with the Chicago drainage scheme, and to oppose on behalf of the Canadian government any proposal which would result in lowering the levels of the international boundary waters and in the St. Lawrence river. So, apparently, the government of Canada were not willing to ^concede that Chicago had the right to divert one single foot of water from the Great Lakes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The minister

has given us one protest, and the date. Would he be kind enough to follow that up?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

I propose making reference to all of them. At the moment I wish-in a brief way because my hon. friend (Mr. Church) has covered the whole ground very thoroughly-to rehearse what has happened. In 1902, as I pointed

Great Lakes Levels

out, Chicago got permission to divert 4,167 feet, but from time to time the project in Chicago has been enlarged until the proposition now before congress is for the construction of a canal, in addition, of course, to the use to which the drainage organization have been putting this water. Recent statements would indicate that this concession is not to be granted.

As I pointed out a moment ago protests have been registered repeatedly by the people of the United States. They were joined in this protest by the federal government itself, so that Chicago in asking for the diversion of water was opposed by the surrounding municipalities and states backed by the federal government. The reference to the court that my hon. friend speaks of is still before the Supreme Court of the United States. The recent development, I wish to mention in passing, is the request by bill for the provision of a canal to the gulf of Mexico. I do not intend, nor do I think it would serve the purpose of the House, to read all the protests that have been made by Canada. Suffice it to say that, so far as I understand the matter, every protest registered through the British Ambassador to the Secretary of State of the United States was emphatically against any diversion whatever. That is the stand the Canadian government have taken throughout the whole of these proceedings. The first on record is, as I have pointed out of 27th March 1912. On November 23, 1912, despatch No. 45 was sent in protest and there were protests on February 25, 1913, June 8, 1916, June 9, 1916 and April 15, 1921. The despatch of the last mentioned date contains this statement:

The Canadian government are therefore confident that the government of the United States will not countenance Chicago application, or take any step in the matter affecting Canadian interests without arranging for discussion with Canadian government. My ministers would be glad if you could take an early opportunity of making representations in this sense to Secretary of State.

All these representations-without reading them all, or placing them all on Hansard- are of the one character, that of* protest. That,

I wish to impress on the House this afternoon, has been the attitude of the government throughout.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) said that particular notice had been given to this matter by the International Joint Commission, and that in their annual report for 1922 they draw the government's attention to the matter as it then stood. Is that correct, and if so what did they say?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

I have not that report before me, and I am not familiar with the statement of the commissioners, but I may say that during the course of the investigation of this matter I interviewed Mr. Magrath, a member of the commission and asked him whether, in his opinion, this matter had not been referred to that body. His answer was largely along the lines that I have indicated to the hon. member who asked the same question a few moments ago. In the case of the application for the diversion of 4,167 feet there was nothing to prevent a reference of the matter to the commission except that I do not think the Canadian government, following the position taken by previous administrations, admit that any diversion has been authorized or agreed to by the government of Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Perhaps my

hon. friend would not mind reading the protests that have been made during the present emergency. The matter has become very much more acute of late, and it would be desirable to know what position has been taken during the last two or three years?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

I have in

my hand a copy of the representations that were made in a letter of 19th December, 1923. It reads as follows:

Sir,-I have the honour to represent that numerous communications have been received by the Canadian government from various interests and corporate bodies directly concerned, protesting vigorously against the diversion of water from lake Michigan. The position of the government of Canada in opposition to and in protest of the injurious effects of this diversion, both to navigation and water power has been fully declared in representations which have been made to the government of the United States. The attitude of the Canadian government was clearly made known in a brief filed with the Secretary of War of the United States on the 27th March, 1912, and in subsequent despatches under date of the 23rd November, 1912, 25th February, 1913, 8th June 1916, 9th June, 1916, and 15th April 1921, to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington for transmission to the government of the United States.

In connection with the aforementioned representations, it has been brought to the attention of the Canadian government that on or about the month of June 1923, the government of the United States was granted an injunction restraining the sanitary district of Chicago from diverting water from lake Michigan, and further, that this injunction would not become active for a period of six months, to permit the sanitary district time in which to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I am accordingly to ask that His Excellency the Governor General may be humbly moved to request His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington by telegraph, to inform the government of United States that the declared attitude of the government of Canada in the above matter is unchanged.

I am further to suggest that His Excellency may request His Majesty's Ambassador to cause appropriate enquiries to be made regarding the legal proceedings

Great Lakes Levels

undertaken by the government of the United States, which the Canadian government confidently trusts will be vigorously pressed.

I may say that on February 13, and again about ten days ago, two other despatches have been sent to the Secretary of State through the British Ambassador, to which we have not yet received replies. I would not therefore care to give the contents of these communications. Suffice it to say they are, if anything, more vigorous in character than the preceding despatches. However, all are along the same line, and the moment we receive replies I shall be glad to place them on the Table.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Perhaps there

is a reply to the despatch of December 19?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

No I have

not the reply. When the replies have been received I will be glad to place them on the Table. I do not feel at liberty to table the despatches to which replies have not yet been received from the United States. You will see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, how grave the government of Canada believe the situation to be.

My hon. friend said that we had contented ourselves in making a protest. That is true. The government of Ontario and the municipalities were represented before the committee of the Senate who were hearing representations with respect to the bill that 1 have just mentioned. We have taken the opportunity to place on record our protest against this diversion. We have treated it separately entirely from the matter of the St. Lawrence waterways, although we fully believe it is very vital to this project when the whole matter is under review by the Engineering Board, as it is sure to be one of the matters that will have to be taken into consideration. If I might express a personal opinion, I would say that I hope that most of the members who are interested in this matter in agreement with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church), will raise their voices in protest in parliament. We are doing our part as far as humanly possible. We are not making threats, it is true, but we are pointing out what a very great menace the diversion of this water is to the international waterways, so far as Canada is concerned.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The government has made a protest. In addition to that protest, has the government asked the United States government to carry out the terms of this treaty?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

The treaty, as my hon. friend (well knows, does not deal with the original protest. I pointed out that Chicago appeared to be on one side, and the federal government and the states surrounding Chicago, particularly Illinois, where a great nuisance has been created by the diversion of this water, on the other; and they have registered a most vigorous protest against the treatment of the sewage lay the city of Chicago. We have registered our protest as an interested party, and received fair assurance that further diversion would not be permitted; and as the American federal government had joined in the protest and in the fight against Chicago, we felt on fairly safe grounds in that regard. If more drastic measures should be taken, I think the government of Canada stands ready and willing to take them, but beyond that, so far as I know we have not gone.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
CON

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

What would the hon. minister suggest as a drastic action? Would it be a claim of reparations for damages?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

I have not a legal mind, but my hon. friend will see at once that if it comes to the question of settlement for damages, there must be an admission of the destruction. So far we have vehemently and strongly taken the position that we did not at any time and do not now agree to any diversion at Chicago of the international waterways. That is our position.

I pointed out to my hon. friend a

5 p.m. moment ago that one of the reasons, as far as I could gather, why the matter had not been referred to the International Joint Commission by the Canadian government was that they did not want to change that position, that they did not want to admit in the slightest degree that in any way they were agreeing to 4,167 cubic feet being diverted, but rather against even ' one foot of water being diverted.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink
PRO

John Millar

Progressive

Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):

I wish to refer very briefly to this resolution-not briefly because it is not important, for I believe it is important, but briefly because it has been fully dealt with by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), the hon. member for London (Mr. White) and the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). I can readily understand that the manufacturers can point out at once the loss that it means to the manufacturing, as well as to the shipping interests, and to those who live along these waterways. I wish, however, to touch on a point or two in connection with

Great Lakes Levels

the transportation of grain, because to the grain grower this is a matter of vital importance. The part of Canada which is growing most of the grain at the present time is placed in a peculiar position. We have been permitted to continue for the last decade, I may say, in the growing of grain, largely because in Russia, where they have large areas of fertile land close to navigable rivers, they have been somewhat backward in their methods of dealing; but I fear that in the very near future Russia, if she comes back, as I believe she is likely to come back, is going to be a very keen competitor with Canada, and if we are going to hold our own and continue to grow grain so far from tidewater, where transportation means a great deal, every few cents saved is of vital importance. A matter that is affecting the level of our lakes at the present time is the forests. They are being cut away quite rapidly, and the more they are cut away the lower the level of the water in our lakes. A short time ago, perhaps a year, I read the report of a commission. I have not it at hand, but I remember it made the statement, in connection with the carrying power of boats, that when a large carrying boat is loaded down to about fifteen or sixteen feet, every extra inch means eighty tons: that is if it is loaded to go one foot deeper, it will be carrying 960 tons. Hon. members can readily see what it means to be deprived of six inches of water. To those not accustomed to shipping, who do not look deeply into the matter, the loss of six inches may seem to be a trivial matter, but I remember quite distinctly reading that evidence to which I have referred in the report of a commission. Many of the ports along the Great Lakes at the present time have a depth of about 19, 20 and 21 feet, and if we lose a very few inches of .water, it will cause trouble for the boats that are now on the lakes. They will simply be compelled to make their trips with less than a proper load, which will add greatly to the transportation costs of grain, and that will react on those who are producing the grain. As I pointed out before, it may dry up the flow of grain from the western prairies to the European markets much sooner than would otherwise occur. I believe that in the course of twenty years the flow of grain from the prairies of western Canada to the European market may be greatly lessened by the keen competition of other countries, the one to which I have referred particularly, but it is likely to increase the trade with the United States. I believe that the United States will be compelled inside of twenty

years to remove their tariff against Canadian grain, but in the meantime, as I have pointed out, every inch of cargo capacity on the Great Lakes means a gain to those who are producing the grain. I was going to say that, judging from the minister's reply, it was quite apparent they had been taking this matter quite seriously, but I hope they will use every power and every weapon they possess to prevent the diversion of, not merely

10,000 feet per second, but 4,000 feet per second which seemed to be agreed upon between the Chicago interests and the federal power of the United States. I am glad that this matter has been brought up and fully discussed, and I will close by urging upon the government the importance of this question to the growers of grain in the West.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Sub-subtopic:   EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF WATER BY CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Permalink

March 26, 1924