MAY 6, 1947
Private Bills
2825
Mr. CHURCH: I want to ask one question about section 7. We
are giving the company the right to build a railway and, as the Secretary of State
for External Affairs said the other night, we can
only give them jurisdiction in Canada, and only capacity to act. I would
call the attention of the government to a meeting held today between fifteen
representatives of Newfoundland and the British government in London, England, regarding
Newfoundland's
future government. The representatives of Newfoundland were insisting
that Labrador be part of that country, and said they are now to come to
Canada in June and go into the question of the tenth province of Canada's
federation, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the whole future of it.
Under section 7 the company is given power to act, capacity powers only
as a corporation to construct within Canada. To proceed with construction beyond Canada.
they will have to deal with
Newfoundland. and Labrador. I understand that they dealt with them
twenty years ago but spent only about $100,000. While I do not believe in
railways and coal mines and electric distribution systems being taken over
as is now being done in England, I believe that the Canadian National
Railways should have had a survey made of this territory not only in
Canada but in Labrador. The policy of our national railway in the past has been
to go into territories far less profitable than this proposition may turn
out to be. While these mining men are going in at their own expense and
surveys have been made under section 7, the fact remains that we are giving
away public property. We have only the capacity to give the company
railway and subsidiary powers to operate within Canada. For anything else
the company wants outside Canada, hotels, power, highways, ocean services,
vessels, elevators, wharves, it will have to deal with the provisional
government of Labrador and Newfoundland. I would: ask the Secretary of
State for External Affairs if that is not right?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. gentleman is quite
right, though perhaps not quite complete. The purposes of this bill as I
read it are two-fold. One is to incorporate a company, thereby giving it the
capacity to acquire powers through any jurisdiction that may be willing
to grant powers to it; and the other is to build a railway from a point on
the St. Lawrence in Quebec to the border between Quebec and Labrador.
That is something which, under the British North America Act,
can be granted only by parliament. There is no doubt that the parliament of
Canada cannot grant the right to the company to build
a railway in Labrador, but the parliament of Canada can grant the capacity to
the corporation to go to the government of Labrador and acquire
from that government the right to build in the territory governed by the commission
government.
Mr. POULIOT: A moment ago I heard one hon. member say that
he has the right to argue in this committee just as well as in the railway
committee. He is perfectly right. The difference is that in the
railway committee witnesses and experts can be heard and be asked
questions to satisfy the minds of hon. members who desire information.
(Translation) :
Mr. Chairman, in order to ascertain the
opinion of the provincial government in regard to this bill, I sent a copy thereof
to
the premier of Quebec, asking him to kindly
let me have his views.
I received today the following telegram,
copy of which I shall hand over to the hon.
member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). It
reads as follows:
Thank you for your kindness in sending me
copy of Bill "H"
re Quebec North Shore and
Labrador Railway Company, which I have received this morning, a few moments before
the
house met. Insofar as the territory of the province of Quebec is concerned, it is
obvious that
the provincial authorities alone have the power
to deal with hotels, water power and their
operation as well as with transportation by
truck, bus and automobile. In the province of
Quebec, there are proper agencies having the
power and the duty to supervise and control the
operations arising from the use of highways and
the development of provincial natural resources.
As always, we are prepared to cooperate sincerely with the federal authorities in
order to
solve the problems which concern both the
dominion and the provincial authorities, according to their respective constitutional
rights and
on a friendly basis if possible. However, you
understand that encroachments can never serve
as a basis for cooperation. Again I thank you
for your courtesy in this connection.
Maurice L. Duplessis.
I wish to ask the hon. member who has
sponsored this bill whether it is the intention
of the company to have subsidiary companies
exercise the rights which may be granted to
it under this bill. It is necessary to distinguish
as between the right itself and the power to
exercise such right.
This information would be of great interest to the public.
(Text):
Mr. RINFRET: I do not think the general remarks just made
by the hon. member for Temiscouata apply to section 7. They might apply
to section 11. I will reserve my reply until we reach that section.
