February 25, 1941

"THE CANADIAN TRIBUNE"

QUESTION AS TO VERBAL NOTICE OP SUSPENSION GIVEN BY MOUNTED POLICE


On the orders of the day:


CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), but in his absence I shall put it to the government. I have just received a telegram from the editor of the Canadian Tribune stating that he has been advised verbally by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of the temporary suspension of his paper. Is it the policy of the department to suspend without official written notice from the department to the publisher? If that is so, we should understand the position.

Topic:   "THE CANADIAN TRIBUNE"
Subtopic:   QUESTION AS TO VERBAL NOTICE OP SUSPENSION GIVEN BY MOUNTED POLICE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I would assume the department would give official written notice; but whether written notice would be given in the first instance, or through an officer at the time of taking action, is a point I would have to leave to the Minister of Justice to assume. I expect the minister will be here to-morrow.

Topic:   "THE CANADIAN TRIBUNE"
Subtopic:   QUESTION AS TO VERBAL NOTICE OP SUSPENSION GIVEN BY MOUNTED POLICE
Permalink

NATIONAL HEALTH

INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OP COMMITTEE AT THE PRESENT SESSION

CCF

George Hugh Castleden

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) if at this session it is the intention of the minister to recommend the appointment of a standing committee of the house on health?

Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): No, it is not.

Topic:   NATIONAL HEALTH
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OP COMMITTEE AT THE PRESENT SESSION
Permalink

QUESTION AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLD SINCE AUGUST 1


On the orders of the day:


NAT

Ernest Edward Perley

National Government

Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) would be prepared to give the house a statement as to the amount of wheat sold since August 1 last, to whom sold and the average price received? If he has not the information at hand to-day, perhaps he can give it to-morrow.

Topic:   QUESTION AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLD SINCE AUGUST 1
Permalink
LIB

James Angus MacKinnon (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

I have not, of

course, the information at hand, but I shall look into the matter referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and give some answer at the earliest possible moment.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Topic:   QUESTION AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLD SINCE AUGUST 1
Permalink

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


S6. Departmental administration, $220,800. Mr. MaoNICOL: Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was asked some questions in connection with the proposed agreement between Canada and the United States in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway. I should like to make an observation or two in reference to what I understand is to be part of that agreement. Supply-External Affairs On January 26 the Toronto Telegram contained an article entitled "Seaway Draft Includes Plan for Diversion," I should like to quote briefly from that article as follows: Diversion of Ontario waters into the great lakes is provided for in the draft agreement reached at Ottawa between representatives of the Canadian and United States governments on development of the St. Lawrence, according to Doctor T. H. Hogg, chairman of the Ontario hydro commission. The diversion plan would permit Ontario to flow water from the Albany river into the great lakes. I presume that should really read "from the Albany river watershed into the great lakes." If that statement is correct, the proposed agreement will provide for the diversion of water from one watershed into another. I am very much concerned over this because I have covered the district thoroughly and am well acquainted with the situation in connection with the waterways of northern Ontario. Article 3 of the Boundary Waters treaty relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States and Canada, under which was set up the international joint commission, reads: It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions heretofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement between the parties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or divesions, whether temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall be made except by authority of the United States or the dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdictions, and with the approval, as hereinafter provided, of a joint commission, to be known as the International Joint Commission. When the proposed St. Lawrence treaty is passed by this house and by the United States congress, if this article states the matter correctly it will contain a clause permitting diversion of water from the Albany river watershed. The Albany is a wholly Canadian watershed; it belongs to the James and Hudson bays. In spite of what has been said to the contrary, this country will be settled at some time in the future. There may not be great numbers of farmers as there are in southern Ontario, but there is some fine arable land up there. Important mines will be developed, similar to those which are located east and west of this area. After this settlement occurs it will foe found that this water which may be diverted under the treaty is needed for the development of power to be used in the north. According to article 3 of the Boundary Waters treaty the United States congress would have to give its assent to the cessation of the flow of this water southward once it has been diverted. In my judgment this water will be forever lost to northern Ontario as far as any future development is concerned. I feel quite strongly on this question. I regret exceedingly that other hon. members are not denouncing this proposed diversion. In my judgment it is wholly unnecessary. I feel sorry for the Prime Minister. I do not think that he agrees wholly with this diversion, but the premier of Ontario has given him such an unpleasant time-I will go so far as to say that it is largely undeserved-that perhaps he thought he could be placated by letting him have the water from northern Ontario. I would not do that at all; I would fight him to the last ditch and not allow the diversion of any water from northern Ontario. I have been trying to stir up northern Ontario over this question, but I have not been very successful; few people seem to be able to comprehend the significance of the loss of this water. At present the country is unsettled and people cannot appreciate its future needs. I was glad, however, to read an editorial in the Northern Tribune, which is published at Kapuskasing, a town which is represented by you, Mr. Chairman. The editor of this paper endorses the stand I have taken. I had hoped that all northern Ontario editors would rise to the defence of that section of the country. In my judgment this diversion will be nothing less than an outrageous tragedy. I should like to quote briefly from what the editor of Northern Tribune has said. I feel he almost deserves a vote of thanks by this house for having had the courage to write this editorial. It reads: The north has a good friend in parliament, in one respect at least. Mr. John R. MacNicol, M.P. for Davenport Toronto, has made almost a life study of the Hudson bay watersheds. That was a nice thing for that editor to say about me, because I live at least a thousand miles away from the area I am talking about. He goes on: In particular, Mr. MacNieol has contended that the water powers of the north belong to the north, as a pledge of her future, and he has strenuously opposed every proposed alienation of those water powers as diversion enterprises for the benefit of other areas. Unfortunately, his has been almost the only voice in parliament raised with any vigour to defend our interests; and so it is easy to understand why we can't make a successful fight. This question is a very complex one, and its understanding requires considerable travel and study. I have been up and down these rivers, and I would that every hon. member would rise in his place and denounce the Supply-External Affairs



proposed incorporation into this international treaty of the diversion of waters from northern Ontario. The editorial continues: This newspaper has always maintained that the north's water powers and streams belonged to us up here and should be conserved. The very politicians and other orators who paint such glowing pictures of the future of Canada's north show by their attitude on this matter of water powers that they lack the conviction which should fortify their utterances. If we are going to have prosperous industrial centres and sound agricultural development adapted to the tempering climate, in the future so raptly envisioned, why are we now alienating the potential water powers that would be a necessity to ensure that future? Alienating. for the present? No, not if the international treaty applies. But as a matter of fact they will be alienated forever, because, as the government well knows, the United States congress would never permit the stoppage of the flow of these waters once they were diverted. Why? What effect have they on the waters of the great lakes? They have none at present because Chicago is taking so .much extra water, but if Chicago can ever be stopped from robbing the waters of the great lakes, once you have .plants established all along the great lakes, riparian rights will be established alongside the harbours of the lower lakes and rivers based on the water levels thus established and the United States could never be prevailed upon to permit the stoppage of the flow of that water. I do hope that the Prime Minister, if he feels this is necessary for the sake of peace between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada for the duration of the war, will see to it that a clause is put into the agreement providing that when the war ceases the diversion also shall cease and the water shall thenceforth belong to northern Ontario. Diversion is being denounced everywhere. It is being denounced in congress and throughout the United States by their leading men. At the present time Chicago is again proposing to submit a bill to congress to ask for the diversion of more water. I am thoroughly familiar with the situation in Chicago. They find it perhaps more difficult than any other great city in the world to obtain the water supply required to take care of their domestic sanitary problems. While I am wholly opposed to their diversions I cannot wholly blame them. While I oppose them, I admit that they have the right to go after more diversions. On January 13 of this year a meeting was held in Detroit of the Great Lakes Carriers' association, which was attended by the engineers of various great cities such as Milwaukee and others along the shores of the great lakes. The secretary of the association, Mr. R. F. Malia, said this: The state of Illinois intends asking .the supreme court on Monday to amend the decree handed down in 1930 restricting the Chicago diversion. The report goes on to say: Mr. Malia stated Illinois was expected to ask the supreme court .to permit the diversion of lake Michigan water to be increased from 1,500 cubic second feet to 5,000 cubic second feet. That is exactly the amount that is going to be poured into lake Superior and finally into lake Huron and lake Michigan, and away would go our water at once, just as I predicted it would, if these diversions were allowed to take place. I have not the slightest doubt that the United States congress will in due course accede to the request of Chicago and the state of Illinois. They have their ears tuned to the political winds just as we have here, and had the Prime Minister not happened to have his ear attuned to the political winds in Canada I do not believe he would have tolerated these diversions for one second. But he was in a tight corner. The works for one of them had already been completed before they got the necessary permission. Just fancy a provincial government committing an act like that in violation of an international treaty without the consent of this government! But the provincial government proceeded to erect works on the Kenog-ami river, fourteen miles north of Long lake, cut through the height of land and constructed a canal through the international watershed, in spite of the opposition of this government. When these works were completed and $2,000,000 had been spent on them, they finally got the consent of this government to proceed and let the water flow. I would not have given my consent. I would have let those works rot until kingdom come before I would have allowed an international agreement to be set at naught. The very same thing is going to happen again with the Ogoki river. I only wish I had the power or strength or knew what I could do to arouse public opinion in this matter-particularly in northern Ontario, Mr. Chairman, which is going to be the great loser; for a large volume of potential power on this river will be lost forever to northern Ontario. I have been trying my best, I frankly admit, to stir up Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I have not yet made any headway. They have some interest in the matter because they have a great port on Hudson bay, the port of Churchill. I have been there and I predict that some day it will Supply-External Affairs be a great port. I do not know whether the diversion of water from Hudson bay will affect it or not, but the late Captain Bernier, in a letter from which I quoted last session, was of the opinion that it might. I have communicated with the engineers and the ministers of public works of Saskatchewan and Manitoba but I have not been able to get them to move yet. Manitoba and Saskatchewan should send delegations down here to protest against the inclusion in this agreement of anything that might at any time affect the levels of Hudson bay. I do not know that the levels would be affected. I have read an article that said that such a suggestion was silly. I am not engineer enough to know whether it is silly or not, but Captain Bernier was a great authority and I am prepared to take his word. He made some strong statements about the water levels of Hudson bay. He is dead and gone, but he was a very great engineer and sailor, and did a great deal for Canada. In my opinion he should have been knighted. He never received the recognition he deserved. Now, let us review the position. Starting in the east, on the St. Croix river, at Grand Falls, or Sprague's falls, as it is sometimes called, there is a dam across the river at the international boundary, and the whole flow of the St. Croix river is now taken through the state of Maine and poured back into the river a little further down. That may be under an agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the government of the state of Maine; I do not know. But the fact which stands out is that the whole of the river goes through the state of Maine to be used for power purposes. Then, on the St. Lawrence river, the southern branch just east 'and south of Cornwall, as the Prime Minister knows, 25,000 second feet of water are diverted out of that river down to Massena, down the Grass river, and back into the St. Lawrence, in open defiance of the Ashburton-Webster treaty and our own international joint agreement. That condition was to last only until the end of the last war. The last war ended in 1918, and that water is diverted just as freely to-day as it flowed in 1918; we cannot stop it. At the other end of the line, Chicago has taken 10,000 second feet. I do not know whether that has been reduced recently, but that is the amount they were allowed, and according to the article I read, application is to be made to take more than the 1,500 cubic second feet allowed by the supreme court. I wish I could impress sufficiently upon the Prime Minister that when this treaty comes up again, whatever we are compelled to-day to do for the so-called production of power, these points should be seriously examined. I do not believe the argument about power production. Just a short time ago the hydroelectric commission issued a statement that they have ample reserves of power; and surely to goodness 80,000 horse-power will not have any great effect on the production of munitions, particularly when they must have had more reserves of power than that. Finally, to come back to where I began, if the diversion of the Kenogami river and the Ogoki river, two tributaries of the Albany, comes under the jurisdiction of the Boundary Waters treaty, the flow could never be stopped without the consent of the United States congress. That means that from lake Superior to James bay there would be a corridor right across northern Ontario over which we would have surrendered our sovereignty as far as the absolute control of our water goes, and as to which we would be subject to the consent of the government of the country to the south. I have not a word other than the kindest to say of the government of the United States. In that country we have the best neighbours in the world; we should thank God for such neighbours. But that fact would never induce me to surrender any sovereignty which this country has. It may be that water has to be poured into the great lakes, but that is not my opinion, because I believe that if the Warren report of 1921 and the report of the engineering board of review of 1920 were carried out at Niagara Falls, there would be ample water on both sides of the river. The reports state that we both can take 10,000 second feet, and the level of lake Erie would be raised as it should be, and the building of the proposed works in the Niagara river would likely not cost more than is going to be squandered in northern Ontario. We are told that those commitments will cost $3,000,000, but having in mind what the Chippewa canal cost as compared with what we were told it would cost, and having in mind also the disparity between the estimated and the actual cost of the Kenogami works, I have not the slightest doubt that the cost of the northern Ontario works will be many millions more than we are told it will be. And that expenditure it is proposed to make in war time. Those bon. members who come from the west via the Canadian National railways passed recently the station of Ferland, north of lake Michigan. What did they see there? They saw large piles of equipment and numbers of men going up to build a railway and construction works to take material up to Wa-boose falls, on the Ogoki river; and this in war time, when men are needed in much more Supply-External Affairs



important places than in the bush, and where next summer they will encounter hordes of mosquitoes and black flies. That is where the grandfathers of the black flies come from; they are so big that they take a cube of a quarter of an inch out of one's neck, and send word back to their relations to come and get some more like it. If I were prime minister of Canada-which would be impossible-I would not allow this work to go on while men can be employed elsewhere much more effectively. While our school children are denying themselves ice cream cones and picture shows in order to buy war savings stamps, these millions should not be squandered in northern Ontario. I would not allow it; it is unnecessary. I repeat this because I want to make it as impressive as I can. If the Prime Minister is compelled to insert in that agreement that the waters shall be diverted from northern Ontario, it should be stipulated that diversion shall continue only until the war is over. The war cannot last, I hope, more than three or four years, and it would take that length of time to do the work, so that it may well be delayed until the termination of the war.


LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Munitions and Supply)

Liberal

Mr. HOWE:

I should like to make a few remarks, as member for Port Arthur, in reply to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicoI). I seldom speak in this chamber as member for Port Arthur, and I think there is a feeling in my riding that I have come to be too much of a statesman and too little a member for the constituency. Port Arthur is a great riding. It is large in area. It extends from the boundary of Fort William east past White River, and from the shores of lake Superior to the shores of James bay. In that riding is the entire development which the hon. member for Davenport has been discussing-the Ogoki and the Long Lac diversions.

My hon. friend is a great friend of the north country. He is, I believe, one of the few members who have gone as far north as Churchill to make himself familiar with northern conditions. I believe that he has toured the Ogoki country and made himself familiar with that section. But in my opinion, I am sorry to say, he looks at the north from the viewpoint of Toronto. Looking out from his home in Toronto over lake Ontario-and a most beautiful view it is-I fear that his vision is foreshortened, that he cannot appreciate the vast expanse and huge development of the northern ridings which you, Mr. Chairman, and I represent. His discussion would lead the house to believe that the Ogoki is being diverted wholly to provide water power at Niagara falls. We have no objection to supplying water for Niagara falls

provided we get the use of the water in the north; and I am happy to say in connection with this particular diversion that we do get a very material benefit from this development, in the north itself. The Ogoki water is diverted into lake Nipigon. From lake Nipigon to lake Superior, a distance of about fifty-five miles, it passes through two separate power developments, both of which, I may say, are in operation and developing power. In the course of that passage it develops, I believe, an additional 110,000 horse-power- certainly over 100,000 and possibly 125,000. Similarly, from the water that is diverted into the Long Lac-and there again we have a ready-made development-there is a potential horse-power of 35,000. My hon. friend suggests that it is far better to keep the water running into Hudson bay. I hope to see all parts of my riding equally developed. I believe we have a magnificent country there and I expect to be the member until the population along the borders of Hudson bay about equals the population along the borders of lake Superior. At the present time, however, for some reason the population has become established along the shores of lake Superior. We have two large cities there and fifteen or twenty thriving communities, all forming a part of the riding, and all adjoining lake Superior. In that area there are very considerable war industries. In Fort William we have the largest aeroplane plant in Canada, giving employment to about one-third of the entire number of persons engaged in the aeroplane industry in the whole of Canada.

Topic:   QUESTION AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLD SINCE AUGUST 1
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What are they making?

Topic:   QUESTION AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLD SINCE AUGUST 1
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Munitions and Supply)

Liberal

Mr. HOWE:

Hurricanes, the aeroplanes that are winning the war; and they are turning them out at the present time at the rate of fifteen a week. In Port Arthur we have a shipbuilding plant that has a splendid record in the production of corvettes for the Canadian navy. We have other war industries in these towns. We have a large mining industry which is served from the Nipigon power development. We have in the Long Lac mining fields, which obtain power wholly from the plants I am speaking of, a large production of gold which is greatly needed to provide exchange for war industry. At the head of the lakes we have four pulp and paper mills. While these are not producing gold they are producing pulp and paper which is so largely used in the United States and which is converted into gold. We are short of power in that area. In the north we believe, and my hon. friend will find it rather difficult to convince the people at the head of the lakes otherwise, that it is good business to divert

Supply-External Affairs

water now flowing into Hudson bay into the more populous part of that area and to use that power at the head of the lakes.

Topic:   QUESTION AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLD SINCE AUGUST 1
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Permalink

February 25, 1941