Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):

Will the Prime Minister lay on the table the full text of the answers given by the supreme court in connection with the reference relating to

the respective rights of the provinces and the Dominion in connection with water and water-powers, and also the factum presented by the attorney general in support of that reference?

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

If that is not already down, I will see, with pleasure, that it is brought down.

Mr. FANSHER (East Lambton):

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before the hon. member proceeds, a point of order was raised last night by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). May I ask him whether he persists in his objection to the amendment?

Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :

Certainly I do, Mr. Speaker, because I think the objection is well taken.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Solicitor General was automatically interrupted at eleven o'clock. Will he now be good enough to develop his point?

Mr. CANNON:

The point which I raised last night, Your Honour, is to the effect that the amendment which is now before the house ought to be ruled out of order because that amendment contains a principle different from the principle laid down in the amendment already adopted, and the house certainly cannot be called upon in the same debate to decide upon two different principles.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does any other hon. member desire to speak to the point of order?

Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):

I should like to point out that the Solicitor General last evening, when he read the subamendment- and I was careful to follow the hon. gentleman-omitted the very significant words " similar to ". Similarity is not identity, so on the point of principle alone-I am not pressing it at all-I contend that the amendment as passed does not bind the government to bring in an act identical with the Railway Belt Water Act. The contention of the Solicitor General depends entirely upon his al-

720 COMMONS

Natural Resources-Point oj Order

legation that this house has passed upon the principle of bringing in an act identical with the Railway Belt Water Act; but the words " similar to " clearly indicate that the government in bringing in that act have some leeway. However, I will leave that aside and direct the attention of the house to my amendment, which does not clash, either in intention or in wording, with the principle declared in the subamendment. My amendment reads:

And in the opinion of this house such water-powers should not be disposed of until ratified by the legislatures concerned.

I was careful, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the objection which the Solicitor General has raised in his point of order. In the wording of the amendment I carefully avoided anything that would seem to indicate that we were wishing to impose upon the western provinces the will of this house. The intention and the wording of my amendment agree in this, that it is only an expression of opinion on the part of this house, which is meant only to have a moral influence upon the procedure in the western provinces.

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word in regard to the point of order. While the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) was speaking last night it was suggested that he might move an amendment, and I tried to imagine the nature of any amendment he might move which would not be out of order under rule 413, which says:

No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by its vote on a former amendment.

With the question of the propriety of submitting an amendment I am quite in agreement with the ruling already made, but the whole point turns on whether or not the present amendment is in violation of a principle which has been already adopted, and this is the point I would like to urge. If I understood aright the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) it was to the effect that the water-powers of the prairie provinces should be turned over to these provinces by an act of this parliament and that legislation should be passed by these provincial legislatures giving effect to that act. When that amendment was adopted I thought we were imposing no restrictions or burdens upon the provinces; I thought they were to be free to act according to their own judgment, and my contention is that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Nelson is

out of order because it does violate that principle in that it seeks to impose a limitation instead of permitting the full application of the principle we adopted yesterday in that amendment.

Mir. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I submit that

whatever may have been in the mind of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), there is nothing in the amendment such as he has suggested. It is very clear that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre simply stated the principle that legislation should be introduced along the lines of the Railway Belt Water Act, and that the provinces should be given the right to administer their own resources. I take it that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Nelson simply goes on to state a condition under which the provinces may be given this right of administration. We must remember that after all the Dominion government is the trustee, and in passing any legislation here this government can arrange the conditions under which it will suggest that the provinces administer this act.

Mr. DUNNING:

But the hon. member

who moved the amendment stated that that was not his intention in moving it, that his amendment was practically a pious hope which we might transmit to the provinces but in no sense a condition. That statement was made just now by the hon. member who moved the amendment.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I quite realize that the mover of the amendment made that statement and technically that may be correct, but I would point out that in practice we are suggesting, if you like that word, the conditions under which that administration would be carried out, which I take it we have a perfect right to do. I would go so far as to say that whether or not it is contained in the amendment as interpreted by the mover, this parliament has a perfect right to state the conditions under which the resources will be turned over to the administration of the provinces. If the mover of the resolution simply expresses that pious wish, as I think he does, perhaps that is even less binding than the conditions I would like to see substituted. We have only that before us, but in any case the condition is there; it does not alter the original principle that the provinces should be given the right to administer their resources in the interim.

Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):

I find it necessary to say a word on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The subamendment

Natural Resources-Point of Order

which has been adopted provides that there shall be no further disposition of the water-powers but that they shall be administered in effect according to the water acts of British Columbia, or similar acts to be passed. Anyone familiar with what are known as the water acts of British Columbia knows that they do not provide for the alienation of the water-powers of that province. The proposed amendment states that the disposition of water-powers shall not take place without the consent of the legislature, therefore we are in this position: The subamendment

adopted yesterday stated that no further disposition of water-powers should take place but that they should be administered under the water acts of British Columbia.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Under similar acts.