Leland Payson BANCROFT

BANCROFT, Leland Payson

Personal Data

Party
Liberal Progressive
Constituency
Selkirk (Manitoba)
Birth Date
August 6, 1880
Deceased Date
February 27, 1951
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Payson_Bancroft
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=b51147ec-fb01-4e00-bc55-826415ff1c97&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
PRO
  Selkirk (Manitoba)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB-PRO
  Selkirk (Manitoba)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 48)


March 4, 1929

Mr. BANCROFT:

As I understand it, the

Minister of the Interior consulted the Manitoba members, and then ascertained the views of the provincial government. The provincial government is the only body that is directly responsible to the people of Manitoba. Having done so, he acted on the advice of the Manitoba government, It has been stated that the minister did not oonsult the Manitoba members. I was one of those consulted by him in that connection. To my knowledge he consulted eight of the Manitoba members. We agreed, that, owing to the natural resources agreement our responsibility in the matter had ceased. Some four or five others he did not need to consult for he knew they were in favour of the lease.

It has been stated that the Bracken government has got into difficulties over the granting of the lease to the Winnipeg Electric Company, and will probably be defeated. I travelled extensively through Manitoba during last fall, I met many people and I attended a number of farmers' conventions. As a result I am of the opinion-I may be wrong-that a large majority of the people of Manitoba are in favour of the present agreement. I believe it will be ratified by the legislature. In my judgment, if the Bracken government had been defeated during the turmoil of the last two weeks, the government that succeeded it, regardless of party, would have put through the same deal.

The amendment and the resolution in my judgment would put the people of the western provinces in an inferior position as compared with their fellow-citizens in the other provinces in the development of their natural resources, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against both.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATURAL RESOURCES
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1929

Mr. BANCROFT:

The resolution moved

by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington declared that the natural resources of the western provinces should be returned to them without any strings attached, but if the resolution and the amendment now before the house passes, the resources of the western provinces

660 COMMONS

Natural Resources-Mr. Bancrojt

will not only have strings attached to them but they will be " roped and hog tied " by the other provinces. The amendment now before the house represents the Conservative policy on the question of the natural resources. Provincial rights are to be over-ridden, restrictions and limitations are to be imposed upon the prairie provinces. The development of the natural resources is to be subject to the whims of this house and of the senate.

The policy of this government with respect to the natural resources was clearly stated by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Thursday night. Speaking on this resolution the right hon. the Prime Minister said:

Water-power to-day is coming to have a significance in industrial development which it has never bad heretofore in the history of this country. The people of western Canada, appreciating that fact and realizing what it means to have possession of their water-powers, are anxious to have those water-powers under their own control to further in the manner they think best the industrial development of their provinces.

A little later on in the same speech he outlines the government's policy:

This government took the position that the right thing to do was to say that we believed the western provinces should be put as nearly as possible in exactly the position they would have been in had they had their resources from the moment they were created as provinces. That is the position we have taken in this new agreement; it admits of no debate or doubt, and having taken that position we intend to stand by it. We intend to see that the western provinces obtain their natural resources on a basis which will put them, so far as may now he possible, in the position they would have been in had they had the administration of their natural resources from the time they were created as provinces, and that means the right for their government and legislatures, not our parliament to decide what is to be done.

There can be no doubt which of these policies will appeal to the western provinces.

During the discussion of this resolution the Minister of the Interior has been severely criticized for his action with regard to the lease of the Seven Sisters falls power site. Some hon. members have said that after the Manitoba federal members had decided by a vote of ten to four against the granting of the lease t-o the Winnipeg Electric Company, the minister went ahead with the deal. I might remind some of my hon. friends from the province that in a case like this it is just as well to be fair. There are seventeen members from Manitoba; ten and four do not make seventeen. The fact is that of the Manitoba members ten were opposed to, and seven were in favour of, the granting of the lease. This afternoon the minister expressed

fMr. Bancroft.]

a preference for the views of those members from the province who were supporting the government. Well, fourteen of them are behind the government. Of these fourteen, seven were in favour of, and seven opposed to, the lease. So I submit he could not get very much guidance from them in view of that difference of opinion.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATURAL RESOURCES
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1929

Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):

At this late hour I shall not delay the house at any great length, but there are a few remarks that I shou'd like to make in opposition to the resolution and the amendment now before the house. The resolution reads:

That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.

The amendment strikes out the words "natural resources," and substitutes therefor the words "water-powers."

In my judgment both the resolution and the amendment are aimed at the natural resources and water-powers of the three prairie provinces. I shall speak more particularly of the province of Manitoba.

The water-powers of Manitoba are very, very valuable. The Winnipeg and "Nelson rivers are the chief sources of the water-powers of Manitoba. Winnipeg river drains lac Seul and the lake of the Woods into lake Winnipeg. This great river, falling over the rocky slopes on the western end of the Laurentians. creates a great amount of water-power, about three-quarters of a million horse-power.

The Nelson river, which flows from lake Winnipeg into Hudson bay, is four hundred miles long, and falls seven hundred feet in its course. This river is capable of producing somewhere around three and a half million horse-power. The people of Manitoba are very proud of these natural resources. They feel that these water-powers are their own property, that they belong to the people of Manitoba, and that no one else is directly concerned in their development or disposal.

The water-powers of Ontario have been developed or disposed of by the government of that province, representing the people of Ontario. The water-powers of Quebec have been developed or disposed of by the government of that province, representing the people of Quebec. Both these provinces have seen fit to develop and dispose of their water-powers without consulting the federal parliament. They never thought of consulting the Canadian senate. Yet if this resolution and amendment carry to-night, the people of Manitoba cannot develop their water-powers without first coming and consulting the federal members in this house from Ontario and Quebec, from the island of Cape Breton and from the Yukon, and if they succeed in convincing the majority of these members that their plans are good, next they have to run the gauntlet of the Canadian senate before they can proceed to develop what they believe to be their own water-pow'ers. I cannot understand how any member from Manitoba, and this applies to the members from the other prairie provinces as well, can vote for a resolution Which places the people of the province of Manitoba in an inferior position, as compared with the older provinces, in the matter of developing their natural resources. Surely the rights of the people of Manitoba are not less than the rights of the people of the older provinces. If they are, it is high time we knew about it.

Not much more than a week ago the house unanimously passed a resolution moved by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) declaring, in effect, that in the best interests of confederation, and the economic development of -western Canada, the three western provinces should be granted their natural resources free from restrictions. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) supported that resolution, and in view of his action then I cannot understand how he can now move a resolution which places a restriction upon the return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces. The whole house approved of the return to the provinces of those resources. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the acting leader of the opposition, who moved the amendment now before the house, supported the resolution of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, and yet his amendment would place a very serious restriction upon the development of the natural resources of the western provinces.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATURAL RESOURCES
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1929

Mr. BANCROFT:

I did not say anything about the action of this government. I do not know anything about the action of the government on this resolution. I said that the resolution had been accepted unanimously by the house.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATURAL RESOURCES
Full View Permalink

June 9, 1928

Mr. BANCROFT:

Yes. These houses

could be rented to the guards and officials of the institution and interest on the money invested in them could be earned in that way. Without a great deal of outlay some houses could be constructed there that would be a credit to the department, which certainly cannot be said of the present buildings.

Another matter to which I wish to refer- and I have mentioned it in the house before- is that the f'arm in connection with that institution might well be run in connection with or under the supervision of the experimental farm as a demonstration farm. I am sorry to say that we have a great deal of labour in that institution which is well situated in every way to make an ideal demonstration farm for that district. All I would suggest now is that the work be supervised by the officials of the demonstration farm at Brandon, and in that way it would become an object lesson to the farmers in the district. At this late stage in the session I will not detain the house by saying any more on the matter, but I hope the minister will look into it when he goes west this summer.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INDEMNITY OF MEMBERS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Full View Permalink