April 19, 1926

CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I was not talking of hydroelectric development, but of coal mines in Nova Scotia and Alberta. I am not casting any reflection upon the administration of the Hydro Electric in this province under the late management or under the present management, except to say that it is not so efficient and not so satisfactory in its results as we get from the operation and control by private companies in the province of Quebec. That is my opinion; my hon. friend is entitled to reserve his own. I was talking about the utilization of coal. Now there the government of the country might intervene and assist. Furthermore we are on the eve of still greater developments in the matter of fuel. There is enough fuel between Ottawa and Montreal, and I believe it will be developed within the next twenty-five or thirty years, in peat beds to permit of supplying at a much cheaper rate than is now being done the entire industrial needs of the western part of the province of Quebec and eastern Ontario. The fuel is there. It can be utilized and it will be utilized some day. It is not, I suggest, the duty of the government-especially the federal government which has no control of these matters of property and civil rights-to undertake the ownership and management of either water-powers or of coal. I suggest again, with regard to water-powers, that within fifty years we will develop electrical energy in such shape and form, and transmit it so cheaply and efficiently, as to render water-powers almost valueless. As to coal we should now attempt to utilize its by-products and save the millions that are going up in smoke every day in this country, save them as they are doing in the public interest in other countries, especially in Germany and in some parts of the United States. The time will come when private enterprise and individual initiative and invention will find some way of utilizing our peat so as to give us cheaper heat, cheaper power and cheaper

light than we have at present through either of the other sources. Therefore, iMr. Speaker, I certainly am opposed to this resolution because I see no need for it. It would be suicidal if parliament adopted it and carried it into effect.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Would the hon.

member give us some idea of where we are going to get that cheap power in the future of which he speaks?

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I gave my suggestion.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Yes, but where

are we going to get this power which is going to put water-power into the discard?

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Well, I do not pretend to

speak from a scientific standpoint but I will say this: If you had asked me five years

ago whether we were going to have communication through the air by radio I could not have told you. I believe we are on the eve of developing electric energy from the air at a cheaper rate than electric energy has ever yet been developed. I believe that within twenty-five or thirty years at the most we will be able to utilize our peat beds to supply cheaper electric energy, if you will, but certainly cheaper heat which produces electric energy, than is now developed from the coal which we use.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LAB

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):

I

quite agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that we are on the eve of very great and important changes in hydro-electric development. I quite expect to see, even within my own lifetime, some tremendous changes in that regard. I hope to see within the very near future-I fully expect to see it-the transmission of hydro-electric energy without the use of transmission wires. Experts are now getting very close to the point in their experiments where it will 'be possible to transmit electric energy for very long distances without the use of wires. When that comes about it will mean a tremendous revolution in hydro-electric development in all parts of the continent.

The previous speaker made one or two references which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. He stated that under private ownership there is a certain amount of initiative which you are hardly likely to have under public ownership. I think I am quoting the hon. gentleman correctly. With that particular statement of his I am bound to take issue. I come from a city where we have quite a large hydro-electric undertaking which is entirely publicly owned and publicly controlled. There is no commission in charge

Socialization of Natural Resources

of it, it is controlled by the city council of Winnipeg. Before Winnipeg went into its own hydro-electric development the people of that city were paying 20 cents per kilowatt hour. The moment it became mooted that the city was about to develop its own electric energy and supply it to the people the price came down to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. When the civic hydro-electric development became an actual fact the city council supplied the people with electricity at 3J cents per kilowatt hour. In addition to that there was a 10 per cent discount. Now the average rate of hydro-electric energy to the domestic consumer in that city is just slightly over two *cents per kilowatt hour. There is no privately-owned concern on the continent which can -compare in the matter of initiative with the publicly-owned utility of the city of Winnipeg. I say that because for a number of years I had some connection with it, being a member of the Winnipeg city council. In fact so enterprising is the management of -this utility that the opponents of public ownership are always on the alert and always on- the move to try and check the initiative which it displays at varioiis times.

Now what have we done with this publicly-owned utility? I wish to say that we areeven ahead of the city of Toronto in thatregard. What is the use of a publicly-owned utility unless it can give better service than one which is privately-owned? I say that these publicly-owned utilities can and do give better service than privately-owned concerns no matter in what part of the country theyhappen to be. If they were not doing that

there would be no publicly-owned utilities. Now, our own public utility in Winnipeg, in addition to giving one of the lowest rates of any prevailing on the American- continent, has introduced the very latest developments in hydro-electric enterprise into the homes of the people. Housewives, who at one time found their work a drudgery, have experienced great vel-ief as a result of the enterprise which has been shown by our hydro-electric system. I think I am correct in stating that there are more electric appliances used in Winnipeg than are to be found in any other city of the same size in any part of the world. In the city of Winnipeg there are several places where these electric appliances may be bought on easy terms by the people. Each year private corporations in that city have complained because the civic hydro-electric management can sell at a lower rate and give better service than private corporations.

What else have we done in Winnipeg? In addition to bringing about a most important *electrical development there we have done

something which no other city in Canada has done as yet. As the result of our electrical development Winnipeg has the first publicly-owned central heating system in the Dominion. There are approximately one hundred of the large buildings in the centre of the city which are heated from the central heating system, and perhaps it would be of interest to hon. members to find out how that came about. A few years ago Winnipeg was troubled very much by the storms which blew down the transmission lines between Pointe du Bois, where we get our hydroelectric energy, and the city. Accordingly it was decided to establish a steam standby plant so that at any time when the wires were down the city should not be without a continuous hydro-electric service. Following the establishment of that standby plant we installed a central heating system so that the boilers necessary for the steam standby plant could also be used for the purposes of a central heating system. The consequence is, as I have already mentioned, that a very large portion of the centre of Winnipeg is now heated by the central heating plant. What is more important than that is the fact that as a result of our having that plant in Winnipeg there are certain times of the year when we do not use even one ounce of coal to heat a very large portion of the city. The heating of these buildings in the centre of Winnipeg is done by hydro-electric energy which comes a distance of 78 miles over transmission lines, and by the white fuel, as we term it. We heat a very large portion of the city at times by the utilization of off peak power, when it would otherwise be necessary to use coal. Now no private enterprise in this country has gone as far with this form of public utility as the city of Winnipeg. No other city in Canada has a central heating plant attached to its electrical development and can utilize the off peak power to heat buildings. Hon. members tell us that under public ownership there is less initiative than under private ownership. One fact mentioned by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was that $650,000 was paid by the Montreal Light Heat and Power Company in income tax. I wonder where they got the $650,000? And when they paid that amount in income tax, I wonder how much their profits must have been for the year? If they had no profit, they would never have paid that money. But there is one thing, that where we have a publicly-owned utility, as we have in Winnipeg, or as they have in Ontario, if any profits are earned, those profits go to the consumer. In Montreal, if I remember my figures correctly-and I can be

Socialization oj Natural Resources

corrected if I am wrong-the cost to the consumer is about twice as much as it is in the city of Winnipeg. In Winnipeg, which is about one-fifth the size of Montreal, our total revenue from the sale of hydro-electric energy amounts to approximately $2,000,000 per annum, and, assuming that three times the quantity of electricity is sold in Montreal as in Winnipeg, it would amount to $6,000,000. Hon. members can easily figure out how much more the people of Montreal are paying for their light, heat and power, and can understand why the private corporation in Montreal is able to pay $660,000 income tax. I might give one other instance in regard to what we call initiative. I sometimes wonder what hon. members mean when they use that word. It is rather a difficult word to try to understand, and one would think from what we hear, that it was only in private ownership that there was an initiative. In other words, I would understand it to mean that a man shows initiative when he is working for a private corporation in order that he might make additional gain or profits. I think I am correct in /that assertion. But, Mr. Speaker, there are to-day professions where people study, give their energy, give the best that is in them and give their very life, where there is not one cent of profit to them. There are men practising in the medical profession who come under that category. It is one of the traditions of the men and women who work in that profession, who give of their talents, their skill and their lives, that they shall not receive one cent of reward for anything they may discover as the result of their own private initiative.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
CON

John Léo Chabot

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OHABOT:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LAB

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

The men of the medical profession have for years laboured hard, and when they discover something of benefit to humanity, they give it to the world without any reward, except perhaps the honour or glory that is bestowed on the man or woman who makes the particular discovery. Xn recent years people have recognized, even in this parliament, the work of men like Dr. Banting, who discovered the insulin treatment for diabetes, and yet Dr. Banting and those who were associated with him did not have any reward in view when they were labouring to make this discovery. But men of the medical profession have laboured because they thought they might render a service to mankind.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

They are not business men.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LAB

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

No.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

What about scientists such as Marconi?

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LAB

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

Yes, many men have worked for the benefit of humanity. It has been a time honoured custom with men of that class that when they have discovered something they have never attempted to commercialize it. We all know and recognize that fact. Then if it is possible in the medical profession it is possible in other lines of activity as well. When hon. members say that under public ownership there can be no initiative, I think they have not given sufficient study to the meaning of that word in relation to public and private enterprise.

No hon. member in this House who understands the development of public utilities in this country or any other country can rise in his place and defend private enterprise. Why it was private enterprise that gave us the Canadian National railway. It was the muddle and mess that private ownership made of that undertaking that compelled the government to take hold of it. If private enterprise is so beneficial to a country, why did they not make a success of it before it came into the hands of the government? And now that the road is in the hands of the Dominion of Canada, if the people of Canada will allow the management to operate the road free from interference by individual members of this House and free from politics, it will be a success, the same as other public utilities have been.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):

The resolution placed before

the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to regain for the use of the people the coal mines and water-powers which are now being exploited in the interest of private corporations rather than for the needs of the people.

I do not intend to detain the House more than a few moments, nor do I intend to espouse the cause of private or public ownership, but simply to point out some of the difficulties which we must meet in connection with a resolution of this kind. One of the first difficulties is that under the Act of Confederation those public utilities which are mentioned in the resolution remain under the control of the provincial government. But I agree with my hon. friends who have spoken that a great deal can be done to bring about uniformity in the mining of coal, for example, and uniformity in connection with the development of water-powers. The province of Ontario perhaps is the great, outstanding example of the utilization of electrical energy by public

Socialization oj Natural Resources

enterprise, and has given the lead in that direction. There are other provinces which have not followed in their footsteps up to the moment, but Ontario is the outstanding example of the development of this public utility under provincial government auspices. The federal government controls the natural resources of the three prairie provinces. In Alberta we have coal mines carried on to a very considerable extent and in the other provinces we have the development of water-powers. I intend to speak only of what the federal government has done in this connection. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, the federal government no longer sells our natural resources; it issues leases which carry very strict provisions for a certain number of years for the development of (waten-powers and the same thing prevails in connection with coal mines. The privately-owned coal mines in Alberta were disposed of years ago; none has been disposed of in that manner since 1907. The stage is all set, if needs Ibe and if unanimity of opinion should prevail with the provinces for the development of coal mines, if you will, under public auspices. The same condition prevails in Nova Scotia where coal mines are owned by the provincial government and operated under private enterprise.

I want to speak for a moment of what we have been able to do in connection with the preservation of the forest wealth of the country. The same condition prevails. The provincial governments, with the exception of the three prairie provinces, own and control their forest wealth. In my attempt to get uniformity of action I found a great deal of suspicion abroad in the minds of the provincial authorities, and I admit that the feeling is sometimes too prevalent that there is a desire on the part of the federal authorities to interfere with provincial rights. The provincial authorities are always jealous and suspicious of their provincial rights and perhaps they have a right to be. But in the case of forestry we simply had to mention the fact that more forest wealth was being destroyed in Canada by fire and insect pests than we were manufacturing and selling in the finished state and we were bound to take some action hoping in some way to stem that devastation of our forest wealth. We began to approach the problem three or four years ago from the angle of inviting annually to conferences representatives of the provincial governments. We have accomplished a great deal in this way and we have 'learned a great deal from the provincial officials. But what we are aiming to do and will have done

within a very short period is to have a uniform system of cutting from one end of Canada to the other. We have not accomplished as much as we would like to do, but we have made splendid progress in that direction and I think we are at the stage now where we can change our own system of forestry. In other words, we can take the control of cutting which formerly was under the Timber branch of the Department of the Interior and put it under the control of the Forestry branch. Let me mention one recent lease issued in Manitoba for cutting pulp-wood. In that lease provision was made for reforestation of the area as it was cut. In other words, the cut will be over a period of twenty-five years under reforestation regulations which will renew the growth in twenty-five years so that you will have a perpetual forest for the maintenance of the mill. These are some of the things we have been able to accomplish by the simple expedient of getting representatives of the provinces to meet with the federal authorities and to agree on a uniform system of handling this great natural resource of Canada.

I believe a great deal could be accomplished in the same way for the coal mines. Very few of the provinces are selling their water-powers in toto to-day.; they are nearly all leasing them, and probably the day will come when the provinces themselves will think it is good business to operate their water-powers and electrical systems as Ontario is doing and as the federal government is doing in a much larger way in the operation of the Canadian National Railways. The primary object behind anything I have been advocating or been able to accomplish in this connection is to conserve to the people who come after us this great natural wealth which we own in such abundance in this country. We know beyond question of doubt that coal is being mined to-day in a most extravagant manner and we are making examination into a better method of coal mining in order that that natural resource may not be dissipated at such a rate as it is going to-day.

Something has been said-and I think a great deal more may be said-upon the subject of investigation and study of better methods for the conservation of our natural resources and the manufacture of them. We have in the departments of the federal government-and the same thing is true of the provincial governments-a body of men who are zealously carrying on this work. More and more our attention is being directed towards it; more and more research work is being carried on, and while we spend a great

2576 COMMONS

Socialization of Natural Resources

deal of money for example in an endeavour to utilize low grade coals in the Saskatchewan area and have been criticized for that expenditure, much progress has been made in the solution of that problem. _

The same thing may be said of peat which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) mentioned this afternoon. The government of Ontario and the government of Canada by joint action have developed machinery whereby peat can be manufactured economically and sold as a fuel in this part of the country. True, you cannot ship it any considerable distance, but we know how the work can be done. The company who undertook to finance this plan have encountered some difficulties, largely because of the unsympathetic attitude of the people with respect to the manufacture of this fuel, and naturally it has the antagonism of the coal men. All these factors tend to make the matter somewhat difficult, but if we have in mind all the difficulties that are in the way, I think the main function of the government in working towards this end that is so eminently desirable, is to carry on these investigations. We are carrying them on in a number of ways. One discovery that has been mentioned, the value of which nobody can estimate even in millions, is that of Marquis wheat. At the moment an investigation is being carried on for the purpose of discovering if possible how to eliminate the recurring seasons of rust that strikes the wheat crop of western Canada and indeed the wheat crop of eastern Canada. At least fifty or sixty important investigations are going on at the present moment, all with a view to the better utilization of our natural resources, to the prevention of disease, to the discovery of new methods of utilizing the natural products of the country, and at the same time you will have an enlightened and educated public opinion so that, after the demonstration of public administration of our National railways and public administration by the Hydro Electric of Ontario, you will not have any difficulty in persuading the various provinces to join hand in hand in bringing about public ownership of our water-powers and coal mines. That is my candid opinion and I rather welcome a discussion of this kind because it focuses public opinion upon what has been done and the possibilities for the future. The discussion will not have been in vain, but I do say that the success at Winnipeg, the success of the hydro development in Ontario, the success of the Canadian National Railways will all tend-

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

And the Toronto street railway system.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

If you will.

Generally speaking, I am bound to say that public ownership has proven to be successful and in the best interests of the consumer; and after all, he is the patient, burdenbearing individual of this or any other country, and his interest is but too frequently lost sight of.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LIB

William Duff (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Is the House

ready for the question?

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the House can very well divide upon this question without doing some damage to the very pleasant relations now existing between the provinces and the federal government with respect to these matters. As I have tried to point out, there is always the fear that we are encroaching upon the prerogatives of the provinces. I would be very glad indeed if my hon. friend would withdraw his motion, the discussion having served the purpose for which he introduced it. But if he presses it to a division, personally, while I am thoroughly in accord with public ownership, I do not want to get in the position of serving notice on the provinces that they must do certain things or this government will interfere with what are clearly provincial rights and provincial duties.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I would not have risen but for the rather uncertain note in the last sentence of the Minister of the Interior's speech. He seems to think there is some special reason why the House should not divide on this motion, that it would be perhaps in the nature of an affront to provincial governments if we were to pass it. Well, I do not know whether that result would come or not; I do not see why it would. But whatever the consequences, the resolution has no terrors for me. I cannot see how anybody with any appreciation at all of the situation in Canada would dream of voting for the motion that this government, this parliament should take steps to become, I presume the owners,-we are going to regain them in some way or other-of the coal mines and water-powers of this Dominion so as to operate them for the use of the people. I do not know that we would require to discuss the general merits of public ownership as opposed to private ownership. I am in favour of both. Each has its sphere. But if the discussion would be appropriate on another occasion, it has no application here.

Transcontinental-Freight Rate

Whatever we are going to publicly own and into which we should step before we dictate operate, we are not going into the provinces to the provinces as to how they manage their to take provincial property and tell the pro- own resources. Therefore without fear of vincial authorities that we intend to ex- offending anybody, without the slightest propriate it from them and operate it difficulty at all, I would vote against the ourselves. If we intend to extend the resolution. The hon. member who moved it sphere of public ownership, surely we are may have another interpretation, but I cannot not going to start first into property owned conceive of any other interpretation consistent by the provinces, which they are quite at with what is the well understood division liberty to operate if they desire. It would be of rights and responsibilities in this country much better to start at something over which between the provincial and the federal authorwe have jurisdiction. There is a time and place for all things under the sun. There is a place for private ownership-a big place- and there is a place for public ownership; just where the line should be drawn is a question. It would be presumption, it would be folly, it would be madness for the parliament of Canada to indicate its intention to take over the coal mines of Nova Scotia, owned by the government of that province; to take over the coal mines of Alberta which are now, or are soon to be, I believe, the property of the government of that province. Whatever else we do we will surely not do that.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I wonder if the right hon. gentleman will permit me to say that I do not think he was present when I stated my idea of this resolution? Had he been, I do not think he would express himself as he has.

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I do not know what is the hon. gentleman's idea of the resolution;

I was speaking of my own idea of it, and I was gathering that idea from the wording of the resolution. How are we going to take measures "to regain for the use of the people" the coal mines of Nova Scotia? How could we regain them unless we took possession of them any more than they are regained today? The same would apply to the coal mines of Alberta; and likewise to all the water-powers. Our water-powers are pretty well understood to-day to be wholly within provincial jurisdiction. There has been some question as to certain of them-

Topic:   SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF COAL MINES AND WATER
Sub-subtopic:   POWERS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Permalink

April 19, 1926