February 26, 1925

CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):

The minister is quite right when he says that he does not suppose that the House will want to have everything that was said last year rehearsed. I do not think the House would, I think no one would reasonably expect it. But the House would be very much more interested to know what progress has been made, to know why it is that we still continue to be in the position of having an obligation-which so far has not been denied -flouted.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

In what way

has it been flouted?

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:

My right hon.

friend wants to ask a question?

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am asking

in what way the obligation has been flouted?

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:

My right hon.

friend was not listening to me. I asked why we are in a position of having an obligation, which as yet has not been denied, flouted? Surely the government know that water is still being taken? I assume that they know that. I would assume from what the minister immediately interested had said

it would not be necessary to point out to the government that water is being taken. I would have assumed that it was not necessary either to point out that we had a treaty dealing with this matter. Why, that was admitted last year. What we are interested in knowing to-day is surely this: There is a treaty admitted. There is the admitted taking of the water. What is the reason the treaty is not observed? Is there any reason to be given, or are we to understand that the matter really is-

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):

Does my

hon. friend infer that there is a treaty allowing the American government to take any water?

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:

No, no. I am afraid I shall have to go into the whole history of the matter again. I thought the minister understood the situation.

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):

My hon.

friend spoke about a treaty.

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:

Certainly, the

treaty in connection with the waters of the Great lakes, providing that they are not to be withdrawn. Well, there we are. There is the treaty, the water is still being taken, and we have not yet been told why. What is the reason put forward for the taking of the water? Is the reason really, as was almost in so many words stated by the minister-and I was very sorry to hear him stating it-that the only way the United States government can be got at is by an ultimatum, to be followed by force? Because that is what my hon. friend said.

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):

Oh no, I

did not. I said it was for my hon. friends to

suggest what action should be taken. We have gone the whole distance with protest, what else would my hon. friend1 suggest?

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:

Ah, I do not

think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) ever suggested force. The only suggestion of force that I heard came from my hon. friend the minister; I do not think he meant it.

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):

Let me repeat what I said if my hon. friend will permit. I said that we had gone the whole distance with protest through the proper channels. Now my hon. friend suggests that there is some other course, that we have not gone far enough, and I should like to know what that is.

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:

We do not know exactly how far the government have gone.

Great Lakes Levels

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):

We will be perfectly willing to bring down the despatches.

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 that will be the easiest thing to do, to table the despatches and then have this matter brought up another time. In any event I think it would be a good thing for the government that this motion should pass. It is merely backing up the government in taking the necessary action to look after Canada's rights. Do they object to it? I would assume not. If there is objection to it what is the objection? Is there not real sincerity in any action taken to look after Canada's water? I believe there is. Then why is there any objection to the House passing this resolution? I think the government should be asking the House to pass a resolution of the strongest possible kind in its aid. It really does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, a most extraordinary situation that a motion-which after all is really a motion asking the government to take any and all steps it can take to assert Canada's rights-should be objected to by anybody. There is another thing which seems to me to be very incomprehensible, and that is that in these two years-so far as the public know, so far as we glean from newspapers and the like-the question which is exercising public authority in the United States is not a question of solemn treaty rights, but is the question as to whether or not it is convenient to observe solemn treaty rights, just finding out where the balance of convenience is, whether this city here or that city there is going to be hurt more than Chicago will be helped. The effect of that would be lost a great deal if the government is in a position to take the House into its confidence. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly willing, if the mover of the resolution is also willing, that this matter should stand for the purpose of the papers being brought down. I understood the minister to say that he saw no objection to that course. If there is any objection I should like to continue my remarks.

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):

There is no objection to bringing down the papers.

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:

If my hon.

friend says there is no objection I do not want to delay the House.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Proceed.

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 do not know who is really-I suppose the right hon. Prime Minister-

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We should like to dispose of this motion to-night.

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

February 26, 1925