APRIL 25, 1947
Private Bills
2435
[...] pletely new area in Canada, an area that has
great promise. Section 20 of the bill provides:
The works and undertakings of the company
are hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.
I believe this bill is worthy of the support
of every hon. member in this house. It will
certainly open up a vast new mining area in
Canada and provide employment in a part of
the country which is devoid of opportunities
for employment at the present time.
Mr. HAZEN: Is there any dominion legislation
which provides for the payment of a subsidy to a company that constructs a
railroad declared to be for the general advantage of Canada?
Mr. CHEVRIER: I know of no such subsidy paid
under conditions set out by my hon. friend. At one time assistance was given
for the construction of branch lines, but that was many years ago. That
certainly is not the policy of the government today.
Mr. HAZEN: Is there any legislation on our statute books
about it?
Section agreed to.Â
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7—Line of railway described.
Mr. MacNICOL: Is either the minister, the hon. member who
introduced the bill or the minister of reconstruction in a position to say
whether it is the Marguerite, the Moisie or the Wacouno-
Mr. MacNICOL: Why is the Marguerite mentioned, because it
is ten miles west?
Mr. CHURCH: I should like to ask a question of the
Secretary of State for External Affairs. This section gives authority to the
company to construct and operate a line of railway running into Labrador,
which is not a part of Canada. I would ask the minister what is the
meaning of these words:
provided that authority be obtained from Newfoundland for the construction and operation
of
this section of the railway—
Note this:
—thence northwesterly to a suitable port on
Ungava bay.
There is no port there at the present time.
Will this interfere with the negotiations between Canada and Newfoundland as to the
latter joining Canada, announced in the house
the other day by the Secretary of State for
External Affairs? And where is the port on
Ungava bay? Do the words I have quoted
mean that this company can negotiate with
another government over the head of the government of Canada? Can a private company
and private people do this? I should like to
know from the Minister of Transport whether
the Canadian National Railways has abandoned this territory on the St. Lawrence and
in Labrador.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will try to answer some of the
questions involved in the request made by the hon. member. What is being
done here has two aspects. One is the incorporation of a company
which thereby gets the right to act as a person; the second is the grant
to that company of the right to build a railway in Canadian territory. Under
our system no one, neither a company nor an individual, can build a
railway without a charter from the government of Canada if it is to be
interprovincial or if it is to connect Canada with another country, or from a
province if the railway is to be entirely within the
province. This parliament can grant no rights to build a railway outside its
territory, but it can give a company the capacity to receive such rights
from the appropriate authority. That matter came before the privy
council several years ago. One was a case concerning the John Deere Plow Company,
and the other was a case concerning the
Bonanza Creek Mining Company. The capacity to receive powers can be
granted by this parliament in creating a corporation, and that is all
that this parliament can do with respect to any portion of the railway
that would be outside Canadian territory. It can have the
capacity to receive a franchise from the sovereign of the territory
outside Canada where it may operate. I do not think that would be dealing
with a foreign government over the head of the Canadian government any more
than it would in the case of a United States company that gets a charter
here for the operation of a subsidiary in Canada. There does not appear
to be any international conflict here. All states assert the right to
give companies the capacity to receive powers from whosoever may be
willing to grant powers to them.
With respect to the port on Ungava bay I
have no information whatsoever. I do not
know whether there is a port there or whether
one can be developed there. But reading the
bill I gather that the intention is to have a
2436
Private Bills
COMMONS
railway that would go out of Canada, through
Labrador, then come back into Canada and
proceed through Canadian territory to Ungava
bay. But the company will not be able, under
this charter, to do anything outside Canada
without getting a franchise from the sovereign
of the territory outside Canada where it
may desire to operate.
Mr. CHURCH: We are a party to Great Britain's granting of
a ninety-nine year lease, binding Canada with America, which is practically a freehold
of all the Newfoundland bases, and that
includes Labrador inland as well as on the ocean. In view of that
agreement, have we the power as a parliament to go into Newfoundland and give
away, not only the bases, but the land and the bay where they are trying
to develop a port? Ungava bay is a big bay and they have no port there
yet, and the bill is in the dark on it. Have we the power to do this in
view of the ninety-nine year lease made by the British government with the
United States for the use of all these bases in Newfoundland
and right down to British Guiana, Which is the size of Great Britain? You
know, Mr. Chairman, that in the last war German boats came right up the St.
Lawrence and we had a secret meeting of parliament in connection with
that. I contend that Canada is bound by that ninety-nine year lease and
that we have no power to part with this property.
These people told the railway committee
that they had dealt with a former Newfoundland government before the war. I would
ask
the Minister of Transport, what was the nature
of the arrangement, if any, the said company
made with the old provisional government of
Newfoundland? What form did it take? Was
it just an act of the provisional government?
If it was, no wonder Newfoundland went
bankrupt. I think the committee is entitled
to this information. Does not the agreement
with the United States for a ninety-nine year
lease of bases include not only the bases on
the ocean but the bases on the land and in
Newfoundland and all of Labrador, and all
the inlets on the coast? In the last war
German boats were up near Iceland and
Greenland, ofi' Newfoundland, and in the St.
Lawrence and Hudson strait, and we had to
send ships up there. It cost a lot of money
and lives.
The House of Commons is passing this bill
blindly, and we shall regret it in the days to
come if we hand over all this territory to
private ownership forever. It is not a work
for the general advantage of Canada. It is
not even within Canada. So how can it be
for the general advantage of Canada when the
territory and inlets are not in Canada at all?
We might just as well claim that inlets and
coves in China are works for the general
advantage of Canada. I should like to know
if the legal department of the crown has been
consulted about this bill. I do not like
to worry the Minister of Justice. I shall not
ask him for his legal opinion, but I think he
should have been consulted as to whether
this bill is worth the paper it is written on.
It goes over the heads of the Canadian and
British governments and over the head of the
provisional government of Newfoundland.
Great Britain had a temporary trusteeship
over the whole country of Newfoundland while
the war was on. I should like to know who
drafted and recommended this bill. I think
all that information should be on the table.
So far as I am concerned I do not think it
makes any difference. I feel that I have done
my duty as a member of parliament in calling
the attention of the committee to what is
involved in this omnibus bill.
Most of the people are fine people. They
are not being criticized personally at all. I
do not blame them for coming to parliament
and asking for this legislation, because this
is a pretty easy institution which we have
assembled here. Nobody would give away
that property in this way if they owned it
themselves. What we are dealing with here
is the mining industry.
Mr. McKAY: On first view this bill appears to me to be a
virtual monopoly. If that is so I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether
it will prohibit the operation of any other railway
company in that particular area. If it does not I cannot see that
there should be any real objection to the bill. On the surface it does
appear to me, though, that it would prohibit all other railways from
going into that district.
Mr. CHEVRIER: I do not think there is any difficulty in
answering the hon. member's question. This bill, no more than any other
bill which is approved by a. committee of the house, creates a monopoly. Any
other corporation or company which seeks similar rights can apply to
parliament in the same way as did this company, and its application will
be dealt with by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph
lines. While I do not know what the answer would be, I am sure that the
committee would want to give such corporation similar rights to these. The
answer is, therefore, that this bill does not preclude another company
from making application.
