Francis Henry KEEFER

KEEFER, Francis Henry, K.C., B.A., M.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Port Arthur and Kenora (Ontario)
Birth Date
July 24, 1860
Deceased Date
December 4, 1928
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Henry_Keefer
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=23ca8c35-19b1-477b-a9c5-a78e891e6801&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Port Arthur and Kenora (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for External Affairs (November 7, 1918 - July 1, 1920)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 54)


May 31, 1921

Mr. KEEFER:

This is the telegram the Prime Minister hands me: Sioux Lockout is a divisional point on the English river. There is a little sawmill at present, and it expects to develop into quite a considerable town.

Sioux Lookout, Ontario, May 30, U9I2H. Hon. Premier Meighen,

Ottawa, Ont.

We herewith petition you respecting Bill now before House referring to control of Lac Seul waters.

Lac Seul is the source of the English river.

We petition that the natural rights of our town in Pelican Falla water power on the English river be protected by an amendment to the Bill to restrict the raising of Lac Seul to a level which would destroy any portion of the present horsepower development available at this point.

The Bill proposes to give power to the board to regulate and hold the waters up there, which would affect the present horse power. The first Bill which was introduced had to be amended when the Prime Minister's attention was called to the same, to make it a little fairer to these people. It even purported to give the right to shut off the flow of the English river entirely.

Should Bill now under consideration pass in its present stage and commission appointed raise level of Lac Seul sufficient to deteriorate Pelican Falls, it would be a serious handicap to our present and future industrial development, which development is an essential necessity for the proper financial assistance to our town to assist in supplying finances for our educational and other municipal requirements, which assistance is urgently needed.

There is development under way there and they hope to bring in population which will help them to maintain their schools.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1921

Mr. KEEFER:

They are three or four hundred miles up the lake and river at International Falls and they are not in any way affected by the dispute at the outlet of the lake of the Woods. So far as I know, they are not involved in this Norman dam matter. I do not know whether the same company owns it, but Mr. Backus is connected in some way With the International Falls plant and with this new proposal to build at Kenora. He has no plant at Kenora; I think he bought an old sawmill there, but he is not operating there. He has no power plant operating, and he is now starting to develop his power plant under his agreement with the Ontario Government, and he is held up, properly, by the Dominion, because he has not complied with chapter 115. There is where the Federal Government can, if it wants to, put whatever conditions it desires to impose upon his application.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1921

Mr. KEEFER:

When the Norman dam was built, the Rollerway dam was taken away.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1921

Mr. KEEFER:

They can take that dam out of there now, but the Government does not want to touch it, because the owners would want compensation. It cost $300,000 or $400,000 to build. One thing I do not like about this Bill is that there is no provision for compensation. If you are going to take this dam, which has been for the benefit of the public, there should be compensation.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I think this Bill is unwise. It is very contentious legislation, and is probably going to lead to much litigation and dispute between the Ontario Government and the Federal Government, and probably with private interests. It is going to arm Mr. Backus with a grievance. He will say: This is the way I am treated by the Federal Government; they have introduced this Bill and they are legislating me out of my natural rights to keep up a dependable flow; I am willing to discuss the question of dependable flow with them, but they will not discuss it with me; they want the United States to Carry out the recommendations of the International Joint Commission, but as they are not dealing fairly with me, I ask you not to agree to the adoption of the report. The Bill will also arm the people, at the northwest angle which is in the United States, with a grievance; they are opposed to the raising of the level and the flooding of their farms.

Lastly, I think this legislation is unnecessary because authority already exists under a federal -statute. I think we would be wise not to raise any question of conflict between the Government of the province of Ontario and this Government.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1921

Mr. KEEFER:

Yes. But no decision has yet been reached about it. No power plant can be built there, and it is a power plant that is sought to be built to-day and which the people are very anxious to go on with, but it cannot go on without this Government's consent. In addition to that you have the control over the Norman dam, under these joint Orders in Council, under

the agreements, under the undertaking that was quoted and under the courts of the land.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink