Mr. RYCKMAN:

That is true, and this

amendment goes a step further, but in my opinion it is quite legitimate and quite in order. It provides that in addition to the good we have taken by the subamendment there shall be no actual disposition of the water-powers without the sanction of the legislatures.

Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

I am not

a lawyer and I do not intend to discuss this question technically, but as I understood the amendments as they came up the amendment moved by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) would have made it necessary for the western provinces, had they wanted to dispose of any of their natural resources, to come to this house and obtain an act of parliament. The subamendment changed that and practically gave the assent and the approbation of this house to the policy which has been carried on by the Minister of the Interior in the past, and a forward step was made in the matter of the return of the natural resources to the western provinces. Now, as I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson, he wants to take back something we have already done, or some part of it, and should the amendment of the hon. member be adopted we will be tying a string on the resources we turned over in a certain way yesterday. I agree with the objection of the Solicitor General, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule out of order the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nelson.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Leader of the Opposition):

If I understand the meaning of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nelson it is to meet this diffi-

7S594-46

culty: There is at present no legislation passed by this parliament and there is no legislation passed by the three provincial legislatures to give effect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, which was adopted. There will be an interval before such legislation can be passed, and I understand the object of the hon. member for Nelson to be that until such legislation is passed there shall be no granting of the water-powers under the control of the federal government without the consent of the three prairie provinces.

Mr. DUNNING:

The legislatures of the

provinces.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Very well, the legislatures of the provinces, although I think "provinces" would be a better word. However, to me the meaning is plain: There is no machinery at present, and until legislation is passed this amendment suggests that there shall be consent by the provinces before any of the water-powers are parted with by this government. That does not change the principle of the amendment which was passed, it endorses it; it provides only for an inter regnum, as it were, which we had not provided for. In my judgment, the amendment is wholly in order.

Mr. DUNNING:

There have been several meanings adduced with reference to this last amendment. The meaning attached to it by the mover (Mr. Bird) is that it is only intended as a sort of pious hope that the legislatures will decide that no disposal of those resources shall take place without their ratification. The acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) puts an entirely different meaning upon it, and the other hon. members who have spoken have put still another meaning upon it. The point of order raised by myself last night, and afterwards reinforced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), had reference to the relevancy of the actual words to the amendment already adopted by the house.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have heard the argument on the point of order raised by the Solicitor General, and I have no hesitation in ruling that the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) is quite in order. The original motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) was that no disposal of the natural resources Should be made in the future unless ratified by parliament. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) restricting that principle to water-powers. There was a further amend-

722 ^ COMMONS

Natural Resources-Speaker's Ruling

ment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) which stated that no water-powers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be alienated unless they came under the administration of those provinces under powers to be granted by this parliament similar to those granted to the province of British Columbia to administer the water-powers in the railway belt as set forth in the Railway Belt Water Act, and being chapter 211 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. That subamendment was carried.

But does it prevent an hon. member going further and, without calling in question the principle of that subamendment,, suggesting only that words be added in order to give the three legislatures additional power in connection with the water-powers to be assigned to them? Let me explain how and when amendments may be moved. The following appears in Bourinot at page 320:

Amendments may, however, be proposed to add words to the main motion, or amendment, as amended.

That :s the case in the present instance. This statement is confirmed by Redlich at page 232:

If a motion is amended, the altered motion has to be dealt with as a principal question, and disposed of by a question. Thence arises the possibility of a subamendment, a subsidiary motion in the second degree, which can be interposed between the proposal of the question on the first amendment and the final putting of this question. An amendment to an amendment, then, is in order.

Cushing on Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, has this to say at page 618, section 1587:

It frequently happens, while a question is pending and under discussion, that some other question-subsidiary, incidental or privileged- arises or is formally moved; in which case, the question, first moved, called sometimes the main, that is, primary, or principal question, is superseded or suspended for the time being, by the new question. When this proceeding takes place-as soon as the new question arises or is formally proposed-that is the question to which members must speak and every member is at liberty to speak to it, notwithstanding he may have spoken to the former.

An example of this occurs when an amendment is moved, which of course supersedes the original question until it is decided. While the amendment is pending the main question can not be spoken to, but when it has been decided, whether agreed to or rejected, the original question is revived and can be spoken to as before. Even though I had doubt in the present instance as to the regularity of this amendment, and I have none, I think the principle of the expressive power of the House of Commons should be

asserted and vindicated. I do not think this amendment changes or alters the principle which was adopted yesterday; it only adds a condition in the proposed mode of administration of the water-powers; it expresses the view that the legislation based on the Railway Belt Water Act, when presented to this house, shall be so framed as to admit of ratification in the three western legislatures.

I therefore rule that the point of order is not well taken. The amendment is in order.

Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):

I had nearly finished my remarks last night, and I believe I would have done so had it not been for the contention raised that the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) was not in order.

I was endeavouring to dhow that for many years the water-powers on the Winnipeg river and the waters of the lake of the Woods had been under review by this parliament. An act known as the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act was passed in 1921 which sought to preserve for Manitoba the water-powers on the Winnipeg river on which the Seven Sisters falls are situated. The following year an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend this act, and during 1923 another amendment was introduced. During the discussion of that year it was made quite plain that most of the Manitoba members were opposed to the repeal of this act; they seemed to consider that it was in the interests of the province of Manitoba that the act should remain in force. In supporting that principle the then member for South Winnipeg, Mr. A. B. Hudson, had the following to say:

I think parliament would make a great mistake, having regard to the interests of Canada as a whole, to repeal this legislation.

The then member for Brandon, the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), was very much interested in having this act remain on the statute books. He had the following to say:

I know the position the city of Winnipeg is in, and I know if these water-powers are hampered or interfered with, a disaster and a tragedy will be caused to the city of Winnipeg. There is no question about that.

It seems to me that the opinion of the hon. gentleman whom I have quoted was that it was preferable for the control of these water-powers to be vested in the Dominion parliament. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), however, informed us last session- and we knew it to be right-that this act was repealed. The government last session in effect said this: We declare that these wateT-powers are not in the general interest of

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King

Canada; and having made that declaration they proceeded to grant rights to a private corporation, in compliance, of course, with the wishes of the Manitoba government. What this amendment seeks to establish is simply to make certain that in future such deals in connection with water-powers in any of the western provinces shall be approved by the legislatures of the provinces affected. Surely we are not afraid to trust the people's representatives. If these leases are wise deals; if they are good leases, surely they will bear investigating by the legislatures concerned. For my part I think the amendment is eminently desirable. There seems to be of late a disposition to alienate some of these water-powers from the control of the people, and I should be sorry to see these great natural resources, which mean so much to us in this day, alienated in any way whatsoever without a full discussion taking place in the legislatures that are concerned. The amendment is highly desirable and in the best interests of all concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, the whole question has become so involved that I am inclined to believe many hon. members of the house may not appreciate the full significance of some of the amendments which are being moved. This much I think is clear, namely, that we are first of all dealing with the disposition of natural resources; second, that the particular natural resources we are at the moment concerned with are water-powers; and, third, the water-powers only in the provinces of Manitoba, .Saskatchewan and Alberta. A fourth factor is introduced by the amendment which relates to "ratification," as it is termed, by provincial legislatures. No doubt "approval" is what is meant. If we keep those four essentials clearly in mind I do not think there will be much difficulty in seeing just where the amendment of my hon. friend would land us if parliament should be tempted to pass it.

Yesterday the house accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) whereby it agreed that the water-powers of the three western provinces should be transferred to those provinces for purposes of administration. It was recognized by the house that an immediate transfer would be impossible. Indeed, it was recognized that some little time might necessarily elapse before the transfer as required by the amendment could be made, for the reason that first of all parliament would have to amend its own legislation, so as to [DOT]S594-46J

bring the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to their water-powers into a position corresponding with that of British Columbia with respect to water-powers in the railway belt; in tb-' second place that the three western provinces would on their part each have to pass enabling legislation which would give them the necessary powers to administer the resources when they were transferred. Clearly as a result of that amendment there are two periods of time that have to be taken into consideration. I do not agree with the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) when he says that the amendment of my hon. friend is restricted to only one of those periods. There is no restriction in the matter of time. It is a short amendment which says that no disposition Shall be made until there is ratification by the provincial legislatures.

Mr. DUNNING:

Ratification of each disposition.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, ratification of each disposition, as my hon. friend has just said. Let us take the two periods separately and consider what the amendment means in relation to them. There is first of all the period between the present moment and the time at which parliament has amended its present legislation and the time that all three of the western provinces have passed their enabling legislation. The amendment means that in the interval the federal government cannot transfer any water-power without the legislatures of those provinces ratifying the disposition that has been made. In other words, the transfer can be made effective only after the legislatures themselves have ratified what has been done. That is a delegation of part of the obligation of parliament in the matter of administering the resources. Resources that are under the control of the federal government can be administered only by this government. Any legislation which tends to delegate that power is ultra vires of parliament. That in a word, is the position in regard to the first period. This federal parliament cannot divest itself of full responsibility in the matter of a transfer of resources by delegating any phase of that transfer to a provincial legislature so long as the resources are under the control of this parliament. So long as the transfer has not been made this parliament cannot delegate to any provincial legislature the legislative power over such disposition. Any provision which amounts in law to a delegation is ultra vires parliament. Let us understand that

724 COMMONS

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King

clearly, because that is one reason why the government cannot accept the amendment. It asks us to do something that in our opinion is ultra vires parliament.

Mr. BIRD:

How would that apply to the subamendment?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am referring to the subamendment. I am dividing its application into two periods, the period prior to the transfer, and the period subsequent to the transfer of the resources from our administration to -the provincial governments for their administration. The amendment relates to the transfer to the provincial governments for the purposes of their administration. I am speaking now of -the period that would elapse between the present moment and the transfer, and I say that in that interval of time my hon. friend's amendment, if it were passed, would compel us to attempt something that was ultra vires parliament. We cannot divest ourselves of a power which is exclusively ours with respect to territory and resources which are under our administration.

Let us consider the other phase. The second period contemplates the provinces in a position to administer their own resources; it necessarily contemplates the legislatures of those provinces deciding what, in their opinion, it is most advisable to do in regard to the disposition of the natural resources in those provinces. They will have to pass water acts of their own. If they do not trust their governments, they can put into their water acts, as one of the provisions, that the government shall have no power to do anything, only the legislature, and then the legislature becomes the executive; that is what it comes to. I am inclined to feel that much of -the difficulty all through this debate has arisen through a failure on the part of many to comprehend the essential distinction between the legislative function in government and the executive function. The crown acts through the executive in executive acts; it does not act -through parliament. Some of the amendments which have been moved are an endeavour to transfer the executive function from a responsible ministry to a legislative body, and as such, they do not have regard for the customary practice under British parliamentary institutions.

Let me come back again to what is involved in the amendment with respect to the powers of these provincial legislatures. Once the provinces are entitled to administer their own resources, this amendment, if it is passed, would in so many words declare that the provincial legislatures of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta could not authorize their (Mr. Mackenzie King.]

governments to dispose of natural resources in the nature of water-powers except, in the case of each, by the legislature itself ratifying every such disposition. Since when, Mr. Speaker, has this parliament had the right to tell any provincial government or legislature what it shall do or shall not do in the administration of its own affairs? Are we not going pretty far afield in respect of our own rights and privileges when we undertake here in this parliament at Ottawa to tell the three western provinces of Canada that they shall not have the right to legislate as they please with respect to the disposition of water-powers, concerning the administration of which we are giving them full and plenary discretion?

It comes back again to the position we were in with respect to the original motion. Here is an effort, not so intended, I admit, but, nevertheless, in effect, to strangle the three western provinces in the matter of the disposition of their water-powers, as compared with the other provinces of Canada. Supposing my hon. friend moved in this house that no power would be given to the government of the province of Ontario to make any disposition of its water-powers except by an act of the provincial legislature. How long would he be countenanced in that attempt by hon. gentlemen opposite? He would be told at once that that was none of this parliament's business, that the Ontario legislature is as supreme and sovereign in its rights as is this parliament in its rights, and that we have no right -to dictate to Ontario how it shall manage its own affairs. The governments of the western provinces are responsible to their legislatures, and if the governments of the western provinces are not doing what is right then it is for their legislatures to say so. Two of the governments of the western provinces at the present time are Progressive governments, and I am amazed to find that it is my friends of the Progressive party opposite who are the ones of all persons in this house who seem to be most critical or suspicious of Progressive administrations. They seem to feel that wherever there is a Progressive government in office, they should in some way restrain it from performing an act for which it will be responsible to its own legislature. May I say that so far as I personally am concerned, I do not take an attitude of that kind with respect to the responsibility of ministers to their legislatures. I think that governments fully appreciate what their responsibilities are, and that they know very well where their power and authority comes from before they will perform any act. The provincial ministers are responsible to the provincial legislatures; the Dominion ministers are responsible

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King

to the Dominion parliament. You cannot make a Dominion ministry responsible for some act of a provincial legislature, or a provincial ministry responsible for some act of the Dominion parliament.

So, Mr. Speaker, I contend that with the best-of intentions my hon. friend's amendment would put us in a strange and in an impossible predicament, and for that reason we cannot accept it.

Let me come down to one concrete effect of the amendment in a situation which is of considerable importance at this very moment. Forget for a moment the province of Manitoba, which undoubtedly is most in the mind of my hon. friend. I think that the government and the legislature of Manitoba have probably had enough in the way of experience already to make them go pretty gingerly in the future in respect to anything they may do with respect to water-powers in that province. I do not think my hon. friends from Manitoba need be the least bit afraid that any government in Manitoba from now on, if indeed it ever felt otherwise, will ask this government to do anything with respect to water-powers for which it does not feel it has the full support of the provincial legislature. But take the case of the province of Alberta. What is the position in regard to Alberta at this moment? We are, or we believe that we are, practically at a settlement with respect to the transfer of natural resources to that province. If this resolution passed, and were intra vires, and were to be acted upon, and Mr. Brownlee, the premier of Alberta, were to-morrow to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to make some disposition of a certain water-power in that province, no matter how urgent his desire and wish might be, the minister would have to reply that he could not do it, that he would have to wait until the legislature of Alberta reassembled and ratified whatever disposition he was in a position to approve. Similarily, when we are transferring the natural resources, this government would be obliged under this resolution to insert in any contract with the Alberta government that the Alberta government could not have back the water-power resources with authority to the ministry itself to make any disposition of those resources, that the government could only have the water-powers back on the condition that the legislature itself approves every disposition which the government makes. Now is that a fair position in which to put a government such as the government of Alberta? Is it a fair position in which to put the government of Saskatchewan? Is it

a fair position in which to put the government of Manitoba? And these are the only governments that are affected by the amendment of my hon. friend. It does not affect the other governments of the Dominion in the slightest particular.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that, from one point of view, the proposed legislation is ultra vires, and that, from another point of view, it implies that this government may impose its will on the legislatures of provinces, which have complete autonomy and full rights with respect to matters under their own control, to say nothing of other objections which might well be raised, we cannot accept the amendment, and I cannot but feel that my hon. friend, if he appreciates that such is the effect of his amendment, will probably not press it unduly.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

If the amendment were

adopted, would the three prairie provinces be then on an equality with the other provinces?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

They certainly would not. The whole effect of the amendment is to put them in an inferior position as compared with the other provinces of Canada.

Mr. MARCIL:

I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):

I

was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment as amended.

Mr. CANTLEY:

I was paired with the

hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. GOTT:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). I would have voted for the amendment to the amended amendment.

Mr. POULIOT:

I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment as amended.