940
The Address—Mr. Dorion
COMMONS
The question of expense may be raised. Let
me point out that the total amount paid by
the Canadian National Railways out of its
revenues in respect of pensions is only 2.6 per
cent. I make this appeal to the minister. I
ask him to give consideration to assuring the
railway employees of the Canadian National
Railways that degree of security after retirement which other classes in this country
are receiving today.
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (CharlevoixSaguenay): I
should like to take advantage of this debate to express my personal views on
a matter which is of very great importance to the people of this country,
and especially to the province of Quebec, namely, the question of the
ownership of the Labrador territory. I have given some study to that question;
I was particularly interested in it because I have the honour to
represent the only constituency in the dominion that is bounded by the
Labrador territory.
When the delegates of Newfoundland came
to Ottawa last summer and met the representatives of the Canadian government to
study the possibility of Newfoundland entering into the Canadian confederation, I
endeavoured to follow as closely as possible
the discussion which took place at the time.
The reports given us by the newspapers failed
to give us a full account of the discussions,
and when we were called for the present
session I was glad to have the opportunity of
reading the report which was published by the
government in two volumes entitled: "Report
of meetings between delegates from the
national convention of Newfoundland and
representatives of the government of Canada."
I was also much interested in reading the
letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr.
Mackenzie King) on October 29, 1947, to the
governor of Newfoundland, together with the
"proposed arrangements for the entry of Newfoundland into confederation" which was
annexed to the letter, and printed in a separate pamphlet, under the caption: "Terms
believed to constitute a fair and equitable
basis for union of Newfoundland with Canada
should the people of Newfoundland desire to
enter into confederation."
Notwithstanding the vote which was taken
in the national convention of Newfoundland
some days ago, I am sure that the question
involved is not disposed of, and we may well
rest assured that in the near future the question of the entry of Newfoundland into
our
confederation will be the subject of further
discussions. That is the reason why I feel it is
our duty to study as closely as possible the
conditions under which the Canadian government would see fit to accept this new province
in our confederation.
We must not forget either that our neighbour to the south seems to be very much
interested in the settlement of that matter.
Not later than last Thursday, January 29, we
could read in the newspapers a dispatch from
Washington as follows:
An unofficial, tentative proposal from Newfoundland for "closer association" with
the
United States is receiving scant attention here
this morning. It would call for interference
by the United States before the approaching
plebisicite in the colony to the extent of a
declaration promising support for an independent government and for help in developing
a
steel industry in Newfoundland and Labrador
which, it claims, would save the United States
from becoming dependent on Canada for iron or
steel.
Everyone knows that when we speak of
developing a steel or iron industry in that part
of the continent we have in mind the territory
known as Labrador on the mainland, much
more than the island of Newfoundland itself.
That is the reason why it is of the utmost importance to ascertain whether that territory
belongs really to Newfoundland. In the course
of my remarks I will endeavour to show, Mr.
Speaker, that notwithstanding the report of the
judicial committee of the privy council made
in March, 1927, that territory still belongs to
the province of Quebec. Mark you, sir, it must
be noted that the privy council did not render
a judgment, a judicial decision; it was no more
than a report on a reference which, as I will
show later on, was badly drafted, incomplete,
not properly presented, and proper action on it
has never been taken.
In reading the report of the conference which
took place last summer, I noticed that quite
a number of questions were asked by the Newfoundland delegation for the purpose of
establishing the position of the parties in regard to
the matters involved in the questions. I was
quite surprised to read at page 158 of volume
2 of the report the following question regarding Labrador:
Question: If Newfoundland joined Canada,
would. Labrador remain a part of the province
of Newfoundland?
Answer: The Canadian government has
always felt that it is bound by the award made
by the judicial committee of the privy council
in 1927 with respect to the Labrador boundary.
The Canadian government assumes that, if Newfoundland became a province of Canada,
Newfoundland Labrador would be a part of that
province. Section 3 of the British North
America Act of 1871 might also be consulted. It
is clear from this section that the parliament
of Canada cannot alter the boundaries of &
province without the consent of the legislature
of the province concerned.
FEBRUARY 6, 1948
The Address—Mr. Dorion
941
In reading that question it came to my mind
that if the delegates of Newfoundland thought
it advisable to ask it, it was surely because
they were far from being convinced that the
matter had been finally settled by the report
of the privy council; otherwise I cannot
imagine that they would have asked such a
question.
I was also very much surprised to read in
the proposed arrangements submitted to the
government of Newfoundland by the Prime
Minister the following paragraph, page 5 of the
pamphlet, section 2:
The province of Newfoundland will include
the territory of Labrador defined by the award
of the judicial committee of the privy council
in 1927 as Newfoundland territory.
And one may further notice that such
statement comes right at the beginning of the
proposed arrangements, as if it was one of
the most important questions to be decided.
We can surely infer, from the special care
and the particular consideration given to
that matter relating to the boundary between
the province of Quebec and Newfoundland,
that it has never been settled before, and
that the interested parties are willing to take
advantage of the entry into confederation of
Newfoundland to settle the matter finally. But
my contention is that the Canadian government has not the right, has not the legal
power, to dispose of a territory belonging to
the province of Quebec; and I will go as
far as to say that even if there was an agreement between Newfoundland and Canada
to
that eflect, it would be ultra vires of the
powers of the government, and the problem
itself would not be solved.
Since the Canadian government rely upon
what they call the award of the judicial committee of the privy council for the purpose
of
admitting the rights of Newfoundland over
the Labrador territory, I will endeavour, Mr.
Speaker, to explain and to prove that nothing
whatsoever has been finally decided by this
report and that the province of Quebec still
has jurisdiction over that territory.
To enable us to understand as clearly as
possible this important problem, we must go
back as far as 1763 and see what were the
different measures which were passed by the
imperial government as well as by the
Canadian government in relation to that
matter.
Everyone knows that in 1763, by the treaty
of Paris, the French government ceded to His
Majesty the King of England all the territories on the North American continent. In
the same year a commission was issued under
the great seal of His Majesty, by which
Captain Graves was appointed as "Governor
and commissioner in chief of the island! of
Newfoundland and all the coasts of Labrador
from Hudson strait to river St. John". This
gave jurisdiction to the governor of Newfoundland over Labrador coast itself, and
also over a part of the coast in the gulf of
St. Lawrence as far as Anticosti island.
In October of the same year, 1763, the
British government decided to form four
separate governments in North America-
Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and
Granada.
The government of Quebec had jurisdiction
over the territory adjoining the St. Lawrence
river starting from river St. John. But in
1774, by the Quebec Act, it was enacted that
all the territories on the mainland would form
part of the government of Quebec. Therefore,
in virtue of that act, the governor of Newfoundland lost his jurisdiction over all
the
territories included in the Labrador peninsula.
Later on, in 1809, the Newfoundland Act
was passed by the British government, and
then all the territories that were given to
the government of Newfoundland in 1763
were restored to the same government.
Finally, in 1825, by an act called. "The
British North America Act of 1825", it was
decided that the part of the coast of the gulf
of St. Lawrence from river St. John to Anse
Sablon in Belle-Isle strait would form part
of the province of Quebec.
One may observe that in each of these acts
we find no mention of the inland territories;
they all deal with the coast itself.
We now come to 1871, when the British
North America Act of 1871 was passed by the
British government. We find it in chapter
28, 34 Victoria, and it is entitled, "An act
respecting the establishment of provinces in
the Dominion of Canada". Section 3 of that
act enacts:
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time, with the consent of the legislature of any
province of the said dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of
such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be
agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with
the like consent, make provision respecting the
effect and operation of any such increase or
diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
I should like here to draw the attention of
the government to the principle clearly
established by that statute, to the effect that
the parliament of Canada cannot do anything
regarding the boundaries of a province without first obtaining the consent of the
province
concerned. The government of today should
942
The Address—Mr. Dorion COMMONS
take note that in virtue of that statute there
are provincial governments and that in many
matters these provincial governments must
have their say before the parliament of
Canada takes any decision.
In virtue of that same principle, the statement I read a few minutes ago, made by
the
Prime Minister in connection with the proposed arrangements concerning the territory
of Labrador, should not have been made
without the consent of the province of Quebec.
Furthermore, the same principle is in accordance with the British North America Act
of
1867, section 92, paragraph 5.
Not only do we find the enactment I have
just mentioned in the British North America
Act of 1871, but we see that in 1898 this principle, regarding the consent of the
province
concerned in all matters pertaining to the
alteration of its boundaries, was applied when
an act respecting the northwestern, northern,
and northeastern boundaries of the province
of Quebec was passed by chapter 3 of 61
Victoria, statutes of Canada.
A similar act was passed by the Quebec
legislature in the same year 1898, and therefore, in accordance with the principle
enacted
in the British North America Act of 1871,
the Canadian government, with the consent
of the Quebec legislature, decided that the
boundaries of the province of Quebec should
be extended to James bay, and then to the
east Main river and further to the Hamilton
river, as far as Hamilton inlet, on the Atlantic
coast. By this statute, the northern boundaries of the province of Quebec were limited
to the Hamilton river, which, as everyone
is aware, is within the territory known as
Labrador.
In the year 1912, by chapter 45 of 2 George
V, the parliament of Canada decided to extend
once more the territory of the province of
Quebec together with the territories of Manitoba and Ontario. By section 2 of chapter
45 it was enacted that the new boundaries of
the province of Quebec would include what
was called at the time Ungava territory; and
it was clearly established that the new
boundaries would include the territory north
of Hamilton river, that is to say all the
Labrador territory.
As we have just seen, the two Canadian
statutes giving expressly to the province of
Quebec the territory claimed by Newfoundland were passed in 1898 and 1912, that is
to
say, at a time when the imperial government
had the right to disallow any act passed by
the Canadian government. Therefore, these
two statutes, having never been disallowed,
must have their full force and value. It has
been contended that they were ultra vires,
but if such had been the case, why is it that
the government of Newfoundland did not
ask the British government to disallow them?
We must therefore conclude that they were
tacitly confirmed by the British government
and tacitly accepted by the Newfoundland
government. That is the reason why I said
at the outset that the territory known as
Labrador peninsula belongs to the province
of Quebec.
In 1920, after discussions had been started
between the government of Newfoundland and
the government of the province of Quebec
regarding the issue by the government of
Newfoundland of a licence for cutting timber
in the neighbourhood of Hamilton river, the
Canadian government decided to refer to the
privy council the question of the boundaries
between Quebec and Newfoundland.
A first memorandum of agreement between
Canada and Newfoundland was signed on
November 11, 1920, but it was later amended
and replaced by a new agreement dated
November 20, 1922. We must notice here that
by this agreement the two political parties
which existed at the time—the Conservative
and Liberal parties—did not hesitate to violate,
one after the other, the principle enacted in
the British North America Act of 1871. Everyone is aware that in 1920 we had a Conservative
government here in Ottawa, and that in
1922 we had a Liberal government. In fact
on behalf of the Canadian government the
first agreement was signed in 1920 by Mr.
Charles J. Doherty, and the second one in
1922, on behalf of the same government, was
signed by Sir Lomer Gouin.
It is worth reading the main part of that
agreement, which is as follows:
In the matter of the boundary between the
dominion of Canada and the colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula:
The government of the dominion of Canada
and the government of the colony of Newfoundland having mutually agreed to submit
for reference by His Majesty to the judicial committee
of His Majesty's Privy Council, for their decision, the following question, viz.:
"What is the location and definition of the
boundary as between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula under the
statutes, orders in council and proclamations?"
And it is signed by the Attorney General of
Canada and the Attorney General of Newfoundland.
However, we must take note that the real
dispute was not between the Canadian government and the Newfoundland government,
but between the latter and the government of
the province of Quebec. How is it that the
province of Quebec was not a party to the
reference made to the privy council? We see
that the proceedings for the Canadian govFEBRUARY 6, 1948 The Address—Mr. Dorian 943 ernment were signed by four attorneys general,
one of them being Charles Lanctot, then
attorney general of the province of Quebec;
but officially and legally the province of
Quebec was out of the case. The least that
could have been done would be for the
Canadian government to submit the proposed
agreement to the Quebec legislature in accordance with the British North America Act
of
1871, and obtain the consent of that legislature.
I must add that in signing such an agreement in 1922 the Liberal government discarded
an engagement that had been taken in
1908 by their leader, the then prime minister,
Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In fact, on July 13, 1908,
in introducing in this house a motion for the
bill that was passed in 1912 regarding the
extension of boundaries of Manitoba, Ontario
and Quebec, we find, at column 12,789 of the
Hansard of that year, a statement made by
Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Speaking of the dispute
which had arisen between Newfoundland and
Quebec, he said:
We have taken the precaution to ask the province of Quebec to be a party to that arbitration
because it is interested in the boundary where-
ever it may ultimately be decided to be.
And further on he says:
In 1881, when the act was passed extending
the boundary of Manitoba to the frontier of
Ontario, the contest was removed from Canada
to Ontario and Manitoba; they were the parties
who fought the issue. In the same way, if we
allow this territory to go to Quebec, Quebec
will become interested in the question; then,
though we retain. our sovereignty, I think they
should have a say and become a party to the
question.
Notwithstanding that engagement, as I said
a few minutes ago, when the second agreement
was signed in 1922 by the Liberal government
it does not appear anywhere that it had been
signed with the consent of the Quebec legislature. And today the present government
goes
much further in putting aside the directions
given by its ex-leader, and does not hesitate
to dispose finally of the same territory without
consulting the province of Quebec. That is the
reason why I contend that this offer by the
Canadian government to the government of
Newfoundland is not worth the paper on which
it is written, and I am sure that the province
of Quebec will never assent to such an agreement. That is also why the present government
should refrain from offering to Newfoundland a territory over which it has no
jurisdiction, so as to prevent a regrettable misunderstanding which would result in
a real
conflict between the Canadian government and
one of the provinces.Â
Let us now make an analysis of the value
of the report of the privy council and see if
we can find in it some final solution to the
problem. It is interesting to note in the reading of the report itself that Their
Lordships
clearly show that the question submitted to
them was not properly and completely presented. If we refer to page 2 of their report
we read:
But the duty of the board is not to consider
where the boundary in question might wisely
and conveniently be drawn, but only to determine where, under the documents of title
which
have been brought to their notice, that boundary is actually to be found.
Further at page 11 of the same report, the
Lord Chancellor states:
In these circumstances the question to be
determined is not whether Newfoundland possesses territory upon the peninsula of Labrador,
but rwhat is the inland boundary of that territory. Is it to be defined by a line
following
the sinuosities of the shore at -a distance of one
mile or thereabouts from high-water mark, or
is it to be found at the watershed of the rivers
falling into the sea on. that shore? No third
alternative has been suggested by any person.
And at page 14:
The case for Canada admits that it may be
found impracticable to lay down such a line
upon the land, and suggests that, in order that
neither party may suffer by reason of this
difficulty, the boundary should be drawn along
the coast at a distance of one mile from high-
water mark; but Their Lordships cannot think
that in- adopting such a proposal they would be
performing the duty cast upon them by the
terms of reference to determine the boundary
"under the statutes, orders in council and
proclamations."
Then we come to the conclusion of the report,
which we find at page 23, the last words of
which are: "and they will humbly advise His
Majesty accordingly." Therefore that report
shows not only that the question was not
properly submitted to the privy council, but
that there was no binding decision rendered.
In fact we must ask ourselves what was done
after and as a consequence of that report. Was
there any legislation by the Imperial, the
Canadian or the Newfoundland government?
There was none. Was there any treaty or any
agreement embodying the findings of the privy
council? There was none either. Then I believe I am right in contending that the Whole
matter still stands as it was decided by the
Canadian statutes of 1898 and 1912.
Â
Furthermore I contend that this matter
should never have been submitted to the privy
council because it was a tribunal of one of the
parties. I must however emphatically declare
that I would not for a moment cast any reflection on the integrity and honesty of
the
members of the privy council; but as a matter
of fact I do not think we ever saw in the history
of the world a case of delimitation of
boundaries being submitted to the tribunal of
944
The Address—Mr. Hazen
COMMONS
one of the interested parties. My contention
is that the question should have been submitted to an international arbitration in
which
all the parties, and especially the province of
Quebec, was represented. There is no doubt
that the whole matter is still wide open, and
I hope that someone will find some way of
arriving at a final settlement of the question.
Mr. D. K. HAZEN (Saint John-Albert) : Mr. Speaker, this
debate affords me an opportunity for which I have waited some time,
to bring to the attention of the house a matter which concerns
the maritime provinces. I refer to the shipping of Canadian goods through
Canadian ports. I believe I would be remiss in my duty as the representative in
this house of the seaport of Saint John if I did not say something about
that matter at this time, as certain acts of the Canadian government railways in
recent months have been detrimental to the development of
Canadian trade through Canadian ports and the cause of deep resentment in
the maritimes.
To give the story from the beginning I want
to refer to an Associated Press dispatch from
Portland, Maine, dated July 23 last, which
quoted Mr. R. C. Vaughan, president of the
Canadian National Railways, as saying in an
interview that the C.N.R. has "a big stake"
in Portland, and that "we're going to do everything we can for the port of Portland."
This statement did not pass unnoticed in the
maritime provinces. It was regarded there as a
reversal of government policy and a betrayal
of maritime workers and maritime interests.
The Canadian ports of Saint John and Halifax, which are washed by the waters of the
Atlantic ocean, and are open both summer and
winter, look to the officials of the Canadian
government railways to use their utmost
endeavours to promote the use of those ports
in the national interest and in furtherance of
government policy, or what has been government policy in the past.
The workers of the ports of Saint John and
Halifax, who rendered great service during the
war years and who are harassed now by a
steadily increasing cost of living, look to the
Canadian National Railways to provide them,
as far as it is possible, with continuous
employment. They know that everything the
C.N.R. does for the port of Portland is done
at their expense, and that the trade sent
through Portland takes dollars from their
pockets.
In an editorial on July 25 last the Saint John
Telegraph-Journal said that Mr. Vaughan's
statement —
-is a clear threat to Saint John and Halifax,
for whatever is done for Portland by the nationally-owned railway system will be done
at our
expense.
Continuing, the editorial said Mr. Vaughan's
statement was-
——an open admission that the objective of the
C.N.R. was to build up ports of the United
States, even though it means destroying the
business of the national ports of Canada.
The press of Halifax was also quite outspoken in condemning Mr. Vaughan's alleged
remarks.
On July 25 of last year Mr. J. D. McKenna,
mayor of the city of Saint John, wired the
Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) protesting Mr. Vaughan's alleged statement. After
quoting it he said:
I hesitate to believe that Mr. Vaughan was
guilty of any such indiscretion—If Mr. Vaughan
made the remark credited to him I think be
displayed bad judgment, and I am quite sure
he cannot be voicing your views or those of the
government. To suggest that the money of
the people of Canada be used to develop Portland, at a time when Saint John and Halifax
are in dire need of additional port tonnage, is
suggesting a policy which, it was generally
understood, ended in Canada over twenty years
ago. I know that no member of the government is more interested than you in maintaining
the earnings of Canadian ports. Just how
this can be done by sending this business to
United States ports is beyond my comprehension, and the understanding of any real
Canadian. If Mr. Vaughan made the suggestion, I
think that some announcement should be made
at once to assure Canadian ports that their
interests will be safeguarded and at the same
time disillusion the people of Portland as to
any such promise.
In reply to the mayor's telegram the
minister wired as follows:
I have your telegram referring to statement
alleged to have been made by R. C. Vaughan,
president of Canadian National Railways, which
I have not seen. Please let me assure you
that statements of policy always emanate from
the government or one of its ministers. The
policy of the government is to encourage and
assist its national ports to the fullest extent,
further, to use the facilities of our national
ports to the maximum and to increase those
facilities when required. In evidence of this
the government has spent from 1936 to 1946,
for capital and reconstruction of our national
ports, approximately $18,000,000. This year's
estimate for the port of Saint John contains
initial appropriations which will mean eventual
expenditure within a year or two of approximately $3,000,000. National harbours board
informs me surveys are under way for further
expansion. All of which is an indication that
government has very much in mind the development and expansion of facilities at the
port of
Saint John.
The mayor of Saint John replied to this
wire as follows:
Thanks for your telegram of the 26th instant.
Interpret it to mean first that even if Mr.
Vaughan made the alleged statement it carries
no weight; second, that your answer is a definite contradiction that Portland will
be developed and it is also an assurance that Canadian [...]
