1955-02-11

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Vera Grace Westley Stewart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Freda Margery Turton Pellerin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Sieglinde Rosa Wolf Coss.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Marie Vina Lebel Duhamel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Florence Pearl Loader Varden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Smith Tero.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Elizabeth Annabel Clouston Grandjean.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Miriam Rabi-novitch Yampolsky, otherwise known as Miriam Rabinovitch Pollack.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of George Angus Robinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Gerald Willy Moore.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Desneiges Primeau Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Gladys Krass-ner Garoff.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Margaret Aitken Robertson Comis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Marie Rose Barsey De Board.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Maureen Theresa May Baker Reed.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Henry Schoen. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Harold Archie Donaghy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Beatrice Ellis Oakes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Rose Blum Brenner.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Georges Ovide Normand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Marjory Grace Darling Downey Picktell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Francis Joseph Ellis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of John McKin-nell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Ada Garland Skakle Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Shirley Elizabeth Saul Hutchison.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Rotha Dodgson Webb.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the answers which I received at page 891 of Hansard relative to questions asked with respect to the application for landing of one Harold C. Banks, is the minister aware that the information contained in an article in Maclean's magazine by Sidney Katz is directly opposite to the answers I received and that that information was obtained from an official of his department?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, I am not aware of any information obtained by any writer for a magazine from officials in my department. I do not know how I could be aware of it unless they happened to report it to me. I doubt very much if this information was received from any official of my department, and in any case it does not happen to be true.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the minister investigate this matter because the information on which I based my question-


An hon. Member:: Order; this is a speech.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -was apparently secured in front of witnesses?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not think I should make any investigation beyond what I have already made. I sent for the application form that was filled out by Mr. Banks and I examined it myself. As a matter of fact, it is just an accident that I do not happen to have it right here in the house now. For the hon. lady's benefit, and for the benefit of anyone else who is interested, the way this mistake arose on the part of the writer of what I thought was otherwise a very good

Inquiries of the Ministry article was that question 17 on form 1000 at the time Mr. Banks was landed was an entirely different question. Some months later or perhaps a year later form 1000 was altered to include this question which had never previously been asked of anyone. No doubt it was a misapprehension of those facts that occasioned the inaccurate statement appearing in Maclean's magazine.



INQUIRY AS TO SOUTHERN ONTARIO CABINET REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there anything in the rumour that has been circulated recently to the effect that the Prime Minister is planning soon to give the great industrial area of southern Ontario cabinet representation?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I know nothing whatever of these rumours. If there is any change in the cabinet the house will be duly notified.



REPORTED AGREEMENT ON RENEWAL OF GATT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce state whether or not it is a fact that in the negotiations at Geneva agreement has been reached for the renewal of the general agreement on tariffs and trade?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The negotiations have not yet reached that stage, Mr. Speaker. I am told that it will be another three weeks before a final conclusion is reached. However, action has been taken to rebind the duties that apply in the present agreement. They have been rebound for a further period.
[Later:!


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to correct an answer to a question of the hon. member for Eglinton that I gave before three o'clock. I said at that time that steps had been taken at GATT to rebind the schedule of tariffs. I got that impression from a rather hasty reading of a letter from Geneva this morning. I am told that while progress has been made in that direction, the actual binding has not taken place and may not take place until the end of the session some two or three weeks hence. I should like to make that correction because


I would not like to take responsibility for giving out wrong information on tftis particular subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister in position to say what if anything has been reached by way of agreement? I understood there was some agreement that had been reached over there somewhat along the line indicated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are moving toward agreement, but no agreement is reached or is final until it is completed. The agreement is under negotiation and many factors are still open for discussion. All I can say is that progress is being made.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) or, in his absence, the minister acting on his behalf. Are letter carriers operating out of a number of the postal stations in the city of Montreal being required to work a six-day week, despite their opposition to such a practice? Could a statement be made In connection with this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, there is no such intention on the part of the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received a request from the comite conjoint d'etude des problemes economiques du Quebec metropolitain, of which I have a copy, concerning the alarming situation of unemployment in the metropolitan area of the city of Quebec? If so, has the minister taken any steps toward the immediate solution offered in the communication of the comite conjoint d'etude des problemes economiques du Quebec metropolitain?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: With respect to the first part of the question, the answer is yes. I received a telegram dated February 4.
In reply to the second part I might say that in so far as the question applies to public works, I answered on the same date, February 4, stating that a reference to the estimates for 1955-56 would reveal that the Quebec area had not been overlooked when

planning our program of public projects. We are endeavouring to implement our program, having in mind the situation prevailing in the Quebec area.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to make available other public works to take care of the alarming situation of unemployment in the metropolitan area of Quebec, in addition to the sums mentioned in the estimates?


Robert Henry Winters: All I can say is that the situation is clearly in mind, and will be given every consideration when the supplementary estimates are prepared. Beyond that I cannot commit the government at the moment.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he is now prepared to answer the question I drew to his attention yesterday.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was just waiting until hon. members opposite had completed asking their questions, at the conclusion of which I was prepared to answer the question asked yesterday. I might add that this matter was also drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green).
The answer is that, other than the upward revision in the maximum amounts payable to funeral directors, the new regulations as covered by order in council P.C. 1955-102, dated January 20, 1955, did not change the administrative policy of the department as covered by instructions over a lengthy period. However, due to difference in interpreting the instructions in some districts, it was considered advisable when the regulations dealing with the increased rate were being amended to incorporate some of these instructions in the regulations.
The department has always stressed the point that those entitled in the case of a death which occurred in a department hospital had the right to make such arrangements for the funeral and burial as they wished. Furthermore, the department would not undertake the funeral and burial arrangements unless specifically requested to do so when there was a next of kin or other person 50433-681
Inquiries of the Ministry competent and willing to make such arrangements. This practice is now incorporated in the regulations.
The new regulations make it quite clear that the maximum amounts will be paid in every case where a veteran dies while on departmental treatment strength if in receipt of treatment for his service disability. In all other cases, that is, those receiving domiciliary care or treatment for a non-service related condition, the regulations only permit payments of or towards the funeral and burial expenses where, in the opinion of the department, the estate and the resources of a surviving spouse, where applicable, are insufficient.
This has been the administrative policy of the department over an extended period, although departmental officials in certain instances in the past may have improperly relieved the next of kin of making the funeral and burial arrangements, thus making it necessary for the department to advance payments to cover the charges and subsequently originate claims against estates in certain cases.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Have representations been received from the Hudson Bay route association, or other interested bodies, for the appointment of a customs appraiser at the port of Churchill, to the end that expedition in clearances may be achieved there? What is the attitude of the government in this matter?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The Hudson Bay route association, with the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver), appealed to the departmental officials on Tuesday of this week, and the answer was given to the delegation that the matter was under consideration, that up to date it has not been finalized, but that it is being further considered.



REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE AT BRANDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is he aware of the need for a permanent income tax office in the city of Brandon to serve the

Inquiries of the Ministry rural population of that area? Is it the intention of the minister to establish such an office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this is the kind of question that could be asked when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue are being studied in committee of supply. I think the hon. member should be patient enough to wait until committee of supply is studying the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, at which time his question could be asked.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was anticipating the end of the fiscal year, which more or less makes it matter of urgency.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked whether the federal Department of Fisheries had refused a permit to a German firm to operate a fish meal plant at Louisburg, Nova Scotia. This inquiry arises out of a letter sent to me by the Sydney board of trade, of which copies were sent to him and to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Buchanan).
The answer is no; the federal government does not license shore plants. That is done by the provincial authorities.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Might I follow that up by asking the minister a supplementary question, because his answer is incomplete. Did the minister's department refuse a permit to that firm to bring a certain number of trawlers into that area, which refusal in turn prevented the establishment of that plant?


James Sinclair: Of course that was not the question the hon. member asked yesterday. There has been no refusal from Ottawa. If a plant is established in Canada, that firm would have exactly the same rights as any other Canadian firm to import used trawlers in keeping with our Canadian trawlers policy.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister tell us what that policy is?


James Sinclair: Every fish plant can import one used trawler. If they need more than that, they would have to build a new one in Canada, and then they would be given a permit to import another used trawler. But we certainly do not want 22 used trawlers brought into Canada to serve one fish meal plant.

(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I have no doubt that the house will allow me to refer to a sporting event of the greatest national and international importance, which took place yesterday in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think hon. members will have to learn through the newspapers about the sporting event to which our hon. friend wishes to make reference. I have no doubt that they will share his satisfaction in this regard.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I simply meant to point out that the champion, Mr. Narcisse Dompierre, is present in the gallery.
(Text):



MARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Pommer (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On page 1016 of Hansard there appears an answer to a question of mine having to do with the production of margarine during the calendar year 1954. The answer given is that the production of margarine was 115,868 pounds. I ask the parliamentary assistant whether that should not be millions, because in the answer to the second question he gives a total of 94,151,000 pounds as having gone into the production of margarine.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: shall be glad to go over the question with the hon. member and clarify it.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, from 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon to ten o'clock in the evening this house heard eloquent words from able and learned hon. members respecting the

guarding and maintaining of human and individual rights, provincial rights and the rights of this Canadian parliament. At that time we may have had our differences of opinion as to the best way to guard those rights. However, I feel certain that all of us will agree with the principle that they can best be maintained if we have greater and greater decentralization and diffusion of administrative power. Although that debate was thought-provoking and timely, the message seems to have been already lost, as is indicated by the bill which we are asked to consider at this time. Therefore, as I sat in my chair yesterday and listened to the debate and the arguments presented, one of the questions that I thought should be answered is, why in heaven's name has this government not practised what it so honestly professes to believe?
I should like to say at the very beginning that I am moved to take part in this debate by reason of the fact that Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements, is not only ill-advised, but was engineered for only one purpose. Unless we hear from the government members more forceful arguments than have been presented up to this time that purpose is purely a political one. Behind this bill is a picture which indicates the present unco-operative attitude of the federal government in their relations with the sister province of British Columbia. In plain language this bill is being introduced by the Liberal government to handcuff the Social Credit government of British Columbia from going ahead with its proposed Castlegar dam proposition. That project is obviously not to the liking of the Liberal party, but I believe it is generally thought of as being in the best interests of the people of British Columbia in the proper economic development of that region.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in his opening remarks on the bill, made little reference to the dispute between the government of British Columbia and the federal government on the Castlegar proposition. However, the show was given away when he assured the house at that time that for the present no other area was affected except the Columbia river and the Milk river, which we all know flow through British Columbia and Alberta.
This dispute was succinctly pointed out in a radio address by the Hon. R. E. Sommers, minister of lands and forests in the British Columbia government, when he spoke over
International Rivers
radio station CBU, Vancouver, Monday, November 29, 1954, at which time he said:
Under the federal proposal, we of British Columbia would have to pay out $2 million per year for fifty years for an annual net return of only $111,700. Under your government's proposal, British Columbia would pay out not one red cent for a minimum net return of new electric power worth well over $1 million annually while being secured in the knowledge-


Mr. Low:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in this country there are some freedoms that are very valuable. One of them is freedom of speech, but certainly there ought to be freedom to listen as well. Hon. members are making so much noise that it is impossible to hear what the hon. member is saying.


John Horace Dickey: Read it in last night's Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate what the hon. member for Peace River has just said. Hon. members will agree that immediately after the orders of the day are called each day there is usually some disturbance in the house, and I think this would be an appropriate opportunity to ask the co-operation of hon. members in giving the hon. member who has the floor as much silence as possible.


Mr. Byrne:: Is he making a speech or reading one?


Ambrose A. Holowach: To continue the speech of the minister:
Under your government's proposal, British Columbia would pay out not one red cent for a minimum net return of new electric power worth well over $1 million annually while being secured in the knowledge that your water resources and their vast potential in hydroelectric power are not in any way jeopardized.
To substantiate my charge that there is an unco-operative attitude by the federal government in relation to the provincial government, may I quote from the remarks of the Hon. R. E. Sommers during his address on the throne speech in the British Columbia legislature last month:
I hasten to say that this is not the only example of federal nonco-operation at the present time and in a moment I would like to give you a second current example. First, however, I would like to emphasize that previous to the assumption of control of the province of British Columbia's affairs by your present government, the federal government did not interfere in water resource arrangements being made by the province of British Columbia and other parties.
When the West Kootenay Power and Light Company made application for additional storage of waters on Kootenay lake (a part of the Columbia river system), the international joint commission agreed that this was desirable in order to firm up power downstream. The government of Canada endorsed this viewpoint, in the full knowledge that the province of British Columbia received no financial return from this additional storage being created on Kootenay lake. Yet, in the present

International Rivers
instance, with equally full knowledge that the province is to obtain a large revenue annually from storage on Arrow lakes, a strong threat of denial of the rights of the provinces is voiced at the Canadian federal level. In the case of this extra water storage in Kootenay lake, it should he noted that the Washington state power groups received the benefits of regulation to the extent of about 35,000 h.p. There was no Canadian federal interference on this use of the waters of B.C. There was no Canadian federal claim in this instance that B.C. was "giving away her water resources". Yet the view taken at Ottawa seems to be an entirely opposite one in the case of the proposed low dam, despite the fact that important power and cash benefits ensue to British Columbia upon the completion of the project.
I submit that this bill would never have been introduced if it affected the provinces of Ontario or Quebec or if a Liberal administration were still at the helm in British Columbia. I mention the provinces of Ontario and Quebec because the people there are concerned about their provincial rights and if this bill had concerned them they would have insisted upon every member of this house irrespective of his political affiliation rising in his place to voice a protest at this type of legislation.
I would like to remind the members of this house that the people of British Columbia and Alberta take a back seat to no one in the matter of protecting their provincial rights. Therefore we call upon all hon. members in this house to voice a protest against this bill, as it is the most compelling responsibility of every alert and intelligent citizen of this country to do so.
We should bear in mind the spirit in which this bill has been conceived. If the bill is passed let me assure the house that it will have far-reaching effect, much more so than many of its supporters presently think. Without even considering the financial merits of the proposition as submitted by the government of British Columbia, this bill will bring still greater centralization, regimentation, red tape and injustices to the provinces. This bill will create a precedent and a further basis for the invalidation of provincial jurisdiction. By this edict the government could well seize existing plants and embark still further on enterprises financed by the already overstrained taxpayers of our country. There is already too much government interference and government monopoly in fields which could well be serviced by private enterprise and without costing the taxpayers of this country one cent.
This bill will discourage the formation and flow of new outside capital to our country, upon which the progress of our country depends to such a great extent. To continue to discourage little by little the invitation of outside capital to share in the development
[Mr. Holowach.3
of our great country means a forward step for socialism, which if left unchecked may well mean that while in the international field we may be able to stem communism, in domestic affairs we may well have a socialist state.
Last but not least, this bill may alienate friends and bring controversy, misunderstanding and harmful counter-measures from our great neighbours to the south. As was emphasized yesterday, the atmosphere in which the international joint commission meets is quite delicate. What more harmful act could be done at this time than to introduce a bill which will produce nothing positive but which will damage further the negotiations which are being carried on.
To understand the problem completely we must know what is being attempted. It goes without saying that no fair-minded member of this house should possibly quarrel with the objectives of this bill unless he knows what are the implications of this bill. I refer hon. members of this house to the statements made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) as well as quotations made by men well versed in the details of the dispute.
In introducing this bill the minister took up three and a half pages of Hansard in arguing long but not well the reasons for the bill. What the house should know are the real facts which at this late date spark this bill. I would like to quote what the minister said as reported on page 871 of Hansard of February 4, 1955:
Obviously it would be a short-sighted policy indeed that would jeopardize the power resources of Canada for a short-term advantage, or for an inadequate return.
That is sound theory, but what are the facts? May I again quote Mr. Sommers, who should know. He stated in his radio address:
Southern British Columbia now has ample power available to it for the maintenance of existing industry. Southeastern British Columbia has a tremendous potential of power from the Columbia river system that can supply our needs for the foreseeable future. At the present time we have available 75,000 kilowatts of power surplus to our needs in the area. Furthermore, there are several very attractive sites for future development when the need arises.
Other speakers have given a vivid picture of the untold potential in the matter of water power that exists in British Columbia. If we couple that information with the fact that we are making tremendous scientific advances in the field of atomic energy, then I believe that the argument that we will be power hungry in a few years is absolutely unfounded. The possibility of building atomic plants to generate power is even now before us. To illustrate my point may I read an

article by the Associated Press from Halifax dated Saturday, February 5, 1955:
Nova Scotia Weighs Atomic Power Plant
The Nova Scotia Light and Power Company said it is studying the possibility of building an atomic plant to generate electric power.
The disclosure followed a statement by Premier Henry Hicks in Ottawa that the provincial power commission has been invited to consider building such a plant.
The company said preliminary discussions have been held with Atomic Energy of Canada agency at Ottawa.
It added that the discussions led to Nova Scotia Light and Power proposing to Atomic Energy of Canada that the two join in constructing an atomic-energy power producer of about 20,000 kilowatts in this province.
Premier Hicks, who also is chairman of the Nova Scotia Power Commission, said the commission had been invited by Atomic Energy of Canada to take part in the construction of a prototype reactor capable of generating 20,000 kilowatts of power.
A more recent example of additional sources of electric energy and projected plants to feed electric energy into power-hungry places appears in the New York Times of February 11, 1955. I quote:
Edison Will Build Atom Power Plant
Reactor near Peekskill, first privately financed, will supply city electricity.
The country's first private atomic electric power plant will be built near New York city.
He said the company hoped to apply for a licence from the Atomic Energy Commission before April 1. Consolidated Edison is the first utility company to tell Congress it is ready to go ahead, without government aid, since the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 opened the door to private industry for peaceful uses of the atom.
It seems to me science may yet find ways to crack the energy problems in the future by the utilization of other metals, and new scientific vistas will open an enormous area of possibility. This, in addition to the already outlined future potential of British Columbia water power, would indicate that there need be little concern over any possible shortage of energy in the foreseeable future.
As regards compensation, what more sensible arrangement could have been advanced than that outlined by the government of British Columbia? Mr. Sommers indicated the generous terms of compensation. I should once again like to quote from his radio address respecting this very point. He said:
Now what do we receive in a tangible return for permitting the storage of our surplus water?
This province will have delivered to it, entirely free of charge, 20 per cent of the amount of power generated at American plants on the lower Columbia river available from the net storage of some three million acre feet of water held by this new dam. This 20 per cent will amount to not less than 42,000 kilowatts annually available for the development and expansion of industry in those areas of the province where there is a need for power, or for sale elsewhere at the highest possible rate. There is also an agreement that if
International Rivers
a heavier delivery of power is needed over any specified period, this extra power will be forthcoming.
What does 42,000 kilowatts mean in the way of financial return? Using a very conservative figure of $20 per kilowatt year, it means more than $800,000 annually. Add to this the annual taxes accruing to the province from this project of $275,000 and we see a minimum annual income of over $1 million guaranteed for 50 years.
We have heard arguments regarding the damage which will be caused by flooding, but extensive damage could not be done by a low level dam at this point. It is possible that a high level dam might create some damage, but I understand that after extensive research and test borings in the area there is no possibility of a high level dam being built and thus very little possibility of any serious damage to agricultural and community property.
Mr. Sommers, in his radio address over CBU on November 29, 1954, stated:
Such a dam will not cause flooding of the Arrow lakes area as the water level will be held where it will not in any way damage existing communities, farm areas or transportation facilities.
In a letter dated January 4, 1955, from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) to Mr. W. D. Crowder, secretary-treasurer of the Trail chamber of commerce, the following appears, and I quote from page 3 of the letter:
It is estimated that as much as 4 million acre-feet could be stored without damage to agricultural land and that five to six million acre-feet could be made available without any serious flooding costs being incurred.
Mr. Speaker, let us now proceed to page 873 of Hansard, dated February 4, in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is reported as follows:
In guarding the national interest, we must be sure that any arrangements between Canadian and American interests are concluded at arm's length; that they are bound up in long-term contracts between responsible utilities; and that the recompense in power or cash for the resultant benefits in the downstream country bears a close relationship to a fair market price of the electricity so generated, as well as to the value to Canada of alternative water resource developments solely in this country.
In reply I should like to point out that this is precisely the motive behind the proposition advanced by the Social Credit government of British Columbia. On page 874 of Hansard for the same date the minister is reported as follows:
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize again that the authority asked for in this bill will enable the Canadian government to ensure that development and utilization of Canadian water resources covered by this legislation will be carried out in an efficient manner, thus protecting the national interests of this and future generations.

International Rivers
Hon. members will have noticed that international law and international practice have had much to do with the drafting of this bill.
One would think from the minister's remarks that the federal government alone is concerned in protecting the national interest of this and future generations. As a matter of fact, the inference is that the government of British Columbia is not so concerned. But surely the Liberal federal government is not claiming that it has a monopoly of wisdom, because if it is then I would like to know where one could find a better example of political society steeped in self-admiration.
Surely the people of Canada and the elected representatives of the government of British Columbia deserve some credit for foresight, and this government cannot alone insist, as seems to be the case, that it is not only the judge but the jury and policeman in deciding what is good for the people of that area.
The reference to international law and international practice is not important in regard to this measure. The important question is whether this parliament should have the authority to write domestic laws through international treaties which nullify provincial laws and the wishes of the people involved. What is the point of electing men to legislatures and then having this parliament nullify decisions which they make on matters purely local?
Surely this thought must have disturbed the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when, speaking at the United Nations, he said:
I wish to make it clear here . . . that, in regard to any rights which are defined in this document, the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada. By this I mean the rights of the provinces under our federal constitution.
I feel certain the people of British Columbia and of Canada as a whole will see through this high sounding reference to international law and practice. As a matter of fact, this entire dispute reminds me of an incident that took place in Alberta not long ago during the last provincial election. At that time the Social Credit government of Alberta insisted that if they were again elected they would adopt an export policy under which the great surpluses of natural gas in that province would be shared with the rest of Canada. At that time the Liberal politicians ran up and down our province crying the blues and telling the people what a great calamity would take place, and that we were bartering our rightful heritage. As soon as the election was over and the Social Credit government of Alberta was returned

stronger than ever, the provincial Liberals hung their heads in shame, while their federal counterparts went around the country insisting they were for the export of gas from the very beginning. Just how inconsistent can people be?
Let me inform this house that that very inconsistency on the part of the Liberal politicians was responsible for uniting the people of Alberta. I maintain that this same Liberal inconsistency will result in the people of British Columbia rallying to the cause of the Social Credit movement more strongly than ever. This inconsistency was referred to by Mr. Sommers in his remarks in the speech from the throne debate as well, and at page 24 of his address there are these very pertinent remarks:
Again I feel I cannot let this opportunity pass without mention of the inconsistency of federal authority thinking as between recent authorization of export of natural gas and oil from Canada to the United States and this matter of water. Surely these decisions must have been predicated on the assumption that provincial needs would be filled first and the balance that was not required locally would be available for export. This is a reasonable approach with which we have no argument, but we do suggest that the policies relative to export on one natural resource should extend to another, as in this case, water.
We have an immediate potential of 2,730,000 horsepower on the Columbia river alone which would meet all local power needs of that area for 50 years by conservative estimate. Yet we are faced with the threat of a federal veto. Surely this would seem to be a case of the federal authority being entirely willing to approve export of a non-renewable resource yet attempting to place obstacles in the development of an otherwise wasted renewable resource such as is involved in the proposed Arrow lakes development.
It is in the light of these examples of recent, yet apparently now bygone, federal policy of noninterference in domestic affairs that this government is surprised, to say the least, to find that the federal government, on questions of water resource development in B.C., has changed its hitherto consistent policy to an active one of nonco-operation.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the real cause of this dispute is a very simple one. It involves a story of one federal minister voicing objection to the British Columbia proposal, then running to Ottawa to rally the support of yet another minister who, we all know, packs a heavier punch, who in turn rallies the support of the well-disciplined, solid majority on the government side of the house to veto the lawful and thoughtful actions of the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia.
As I listened to the support that was being given the bill by certain individuals in the socialist ranks, it seemed to me that it focused our attention on yet another great problem in our country, a problem that was probably the result of the war years. I refer to the problem of centralization and

bureaucratic control. It is obvious that the socialists are justified in supporting the bill because, after all, it does cut down on the rights of the provinces.
Let me draw the attention of hon. members in the C.C.F. party to this point. While some of them may be supporting the bill because of socialist principles, it seems to me that the wool has been pulled over their eyes because there is a very strong possibility that the bill was introduced to protect vested interests in the province of British Columbia. In the same letter to the Trail chamber of commerce, dated January 4, 1955, one of the arguments advanced by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is: The terms of the agreement proposed by the
B.	C. government will have an unfavourable effect on the Canadian aluminum industry, particularly in British Columbia.
While it is certainly my wish that every industry in British Columbia prosper, are we to take it that the interests of one particular industry are more important than and overshadow the interests of the people of British Columbia? As Social Crediters, we will fight this bill in order to prevent the curtailment of a province's rights, because our concepts and political beliefs with respect to life and government call for greater and greater decentralization of power which is the only way to preserve the rights of the provinces and the worth and dignity of every individual in these respective communities.
Until better arguments are advanced by the government side, I am sorry to say that it is my view that the bill is intended for only one purpose, to bully the province of British Columbia into submission to federal dictates in a matter primarily local in character. While we Social Crediters are men of peace and harmony, we will fight because we certainly dislike bullies, especially if they are political ones.
I trust that the hearings and submissions before the external affairs committee, to which the bill is being referred, will indicate that the bill is not another classic example of the Liberals, assisted by their socialist
C.	C.F. midwife, giving birth to illegitimate and prejudicial legislation. I know of no other time when fuller and freer discussion was more necessary on an important matter.
The most effective contribution which hon. members can make to the cause of maintaining provincial rights and harmony in our nation depends upon a clear exposition of the nature of the dispute which prompted this measure and the high-handed methods of the government in dealing with one of the great provinces of this country. We of course are opposed to the bill first of all
International Rivers
because it is contrary to the best interests of the people of British Columbia. We are opposed to it because the bill is against the proper economic development of that province and against the best interests of a united Canada. The only interests which the bill seems to favour are the best interests of a few politicians and the Liberal party which seems to be more interested in perpetuating itself in office than in having concern for the little people of the country.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter this debate at all because I am of the opinion that unless you know something about constitutional law or are an engineer you should wait until you hear the facts in the external affairs committee.


Mr. Blackmore:: Too late then.


Tom Goode: May I give my young friend, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach), a little friendly advice. He has only been here for a very short time, but he will find that the external affairs committee consists of rather important members of the house who take their work most seriously. I think he will also find that his leader will make sure that the evidence brought out before that committee is to the point and not irrelevant.
My hon. friend brought me into this debate because he founded his speech upon a talk made over radio station CBU, Vancouver, on November 29 by the Hon. Mr. Sommers. I understand that he was making use of free political time on the air. The speech was considered both by listeners and by the Social Credit party as being a political speech. It was a good speech. I gave the Hon. Mr. Sommers full marks for it. It presented the provincial government's view on this matter but it presented it as a Social Credit political idea. No one will argue about that, certainly not my hon. friends opposite. The speech went on to attack the federal government with respect to a supposed veto. Undoubtedly a minister of the provincial government of British Columbia has that right when making use of that type of radio time, but it was a political speech.
Two days later the speech, printed by the queen's printer in Victoria on the order of the minister who had made the speech, was issued to every elementary school in my riding. It was sent under the stamp of the queen's printer and mailed to these schools for the extension of that information to the pupils there. I resent most highly, Mr. Speaker, as I am quite sure my hon. friends of the Social Credit party sitting in this house

International Rivers
resent methods of that kind. When we have a political matter to debate, my hon. friends and I will fight it out in this house and we will not use school children in the riding for political purposes.


Mr. Hansell:: Might I ask one question at this point? Do the cabinet members of the various provinces enjoy franking privileges? Because, if they do not, the member has left the impression that this material may have been sent out by members in this house.


Tom Goode: May I clear that up? That is a good question. This speech I have on my desk was received from the principal of one of my schools. While I was in his office the mail arrived and that letter was stamped by the queen's printer's meter, and the hon. member will accept my word, I am sure, and will investigate that in my riding. This was sent from the queen's printer, Victoria, and if it was sent on the order of the provincial minister then I feel the matter was handled in a most despicable manner. If it was paid for by the Social Credit party for mailing and printing, then the matter is much more serious because it was sent for motives that I certainly will not impute to my hon. friends across the chamber.
Now, we have got to the position, Mr. Speaker, of taking matters of this kind, which are most important to this country and very important to British Columbia, to each and every kiddy in my schools with only one purpose and that is the support of the Social Credit government in British Columbia. In view of this fact, I must rise in my place and make the protest that I have made.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: This Bill No. 3 which we have before us, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion is one of the most transparent outrages that has ever been perpetrated against the provincial governments of this country. It is nothing more or less than an attempt to crack the whip and beat one of these provincial governments into submission. I am going to point out to the government that their whip-cracking tactics will not do a bit of good because we Social Crediters have developed beyond the ox-cart type of government they apparently think we are, so a whip will not have any effect on the streamlined, mechanized type of government we Social Crediters have. This government tried that a few years ago against the province of Alberta, and they failed miserably because Alberta bucked them every step of the way. I might as well serve notice now that the Liberal machine, in spite of all the

tactics they adopt, will never stop the march of Social Credit across this country.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) based quite an argument the other day on the serious damage that might be done the economy of British Columbia and of Canada through the export of water. Then we listened to the eloquent and passionate appeals of the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) against the export of power and of water. They mentioned the fact that future generations might be affected by the action of this generation. Let me just quote from the minister's speech at page 1036 of Hansard for February 10, 1955. He said:
As I was saying, I had always thought of the hon. member for Lethbridge as a man of vision, but this afternoon it seemed to me when he was speaking about huge surpluses of power in British Columbia at this time he was forgetting what had happened in other provinces of Canada. Not so many years ago some people in authority in Ontario were claiming the right to export power to the United States. They based their demand on the fact that there was a huge surplus of power in their province, a surplus which would exist for generations. The hon. member for Lethbridge was making the same plea this afternoon. Only 20 years later-
The minister was interrupted at that point by a question of privilege by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). It was answered, and then he goes on to say:
Well, I believe it is exactly the same situation. Today Ontario is in a position where her last source of power is the St. Lawrence seaway development; and after that there is nothing else. And when we think how young our country is it will be realized that I am using the right expression when I say that a deal like the Kaiser one is equivalent to selling down the river or giving down the river the possibilities of power development in this country at this time. Future generations, or even ourselves, would regret it-and in a very few years' time.
Then he goes on to say, on the next page:
I do not believe that the needs of the United States should be our criterion when we decide what we are going to do with our natural resources. Of course, the hon. member for Lethbridge said in his speech that he was basing his talk on the radio speech of Mr. Sommers to the effect that British Columbia would get 20 per cent of the additional power that would be generated downstream in the United States by the storage of the water, and also 20 per cent of the additional power which would be generated by any future installations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement is nothing less than a distortion and a misrepresentation. There is not going to be any exportation of power into the United States, and there is not going to be any exportation of water into the United States. In addition, this scheme does not in any way affect any present or future power potential in that section of the country. I want to make that

absolutely clear. As a matter of fact, in his address in reply to the speech from the throne Mr. Sommers had this to say about these developments. He was referring to a map which had been placed in front of the members, and he said:
The map before you shows the location of known major potential power sites and developments in the Columbia basin in British Columbia as well as the hydro-power installations which have been constructed. The at-site power development should be in an orderly sequence following creation of the necessary storage and regulated flow. Such storage can be adequately provided in the Arrow lakes and behind the proposed Mica dam. The orderly sequence of at-site power development may then be undertaken in the following order, and in point of fact in some instances could be developed concurrently:
This is the order that was laid down:
1.	Bring Waneta No. 1 up to its full capacity of 500,000 h.p. by the installation of two additional generators.
2.	Waneta No. 2 to be developed giving an additional 500,000 h.p.
3.	Mica at-site power 800,000 h.p.
4.	Downie creek at-site power 500,000 h.p.
5.	Little Dalles at-site power 300,000 h.p.
This is an interesting and important fact.
6.	Murphy creek, valueless without the Mica and Arrow lakes storage, however with this storage it will give at-site power of 130,000 h.p. without any loss of head at Brilliant.
So that, far from endangering any future power developments this low-level dam on the Arrow lakes can ensure future power developments below that site which they could not possibly have otherwise-or without installations at Mica creek, one or the other.
So, in spite of the assertions of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), this thing can be of tremendous value, so far as future installations are concerned. And I think that is a fairly important consideration.
Those who are opposed to our view, those who favour the bill, have mentioned without exception what would happen if the federal government in the United States refused to export power into British Columbia. It would be simply this: If the United States government refused to allow the export of power into British Columbia, then the British Columbia government could take cash.
And that brings up another point. Speaking on this subject yesterday the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said this, as reported at page 1038 of Hansard:
Moreover this 20 per cent, which is supposed to come from Bonneville, would be an export of power from the United States to Canada. What would happen if the federal power commission refused a licence to export that 20 per cent from the United States to Canada? Where does the
International Rivers
British Columbia government stand on that deal? Nowhere. The only guarantee it has is a guarantee of moneys.
And that brings up an interesting point. What does it bring into British Columbia?- nothing but money! That is a typical Liberal outlook on money. They have no realization of the value of money put into provincial or federal coffers, unless it comes from taxation. But we certainly have. And it is high time the government of Canada came to realize that we can get money for the welfare of the people without taxing the daylights out of them. And this is one way in which the British Columbia government is going to obtain a million dollars a year or a little more, without adding to the taxation carried by the people of that province. And they are not losing anything by it.
What kind of thinking can the members of this government and their back-slapping backbenchers be doing when they think that the only place money can be obtained is out of the pockets of the taxpayers?


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Ray Thomas: It is just the same as if the Imperial Oil company were to say that the only place they can get gasoline is out of the gasoline tanks of the consuming public.
And I quite understand, too, the hon. member for Kootenay East interjecting so often, because he feels that his speech yesterday in support of the bill was so weak that he has to get in his afterthoughts by way of interjections during the speeches of other members.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: After all, I had only 40 minutes.


Ernest George Hansell: And you did not take all of it.


Ray Thomas: Probably he gave up because he realized he did not have much of a case, and that in that respect he was in the same position as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The only way he had of supporting his stand in the matter was by bringing in misrepresentations.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Who is she?


Ray Thomas: I will give you her phone number after I have finished.


Mr. Fulton:: What a high-level debate!


Ray Thomas: At no time has any of the members who have spoken in favour of the bill considered the fact that water is going through that area anyway, and that probably it always will. The Social Credit government in British Columbia is the only government, not only in the history of British Columbia but also of Canada, that has realized the value that can be derived from the flow of that water.

International Rivers


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How much money have they put into the Columbia basin survey?


Ernest George Hansell: You would not know; you tell us.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The federal government put in $4 million for study.


Ray Thomas: That is fine, and it shows once more the common sense of the British Columbia government; because they have been using the surveys carried out by the federal government to give themselves a source of revenue that otherwise they would not have had. They are simply taking advantage of the $4 million that the hon. member says the federal government has spent. And do not think we do not appreciate the fact that they did spend it. But what is the use of having a survey, if you do not take advantage of it? And that is exactly what the British Columbia government is doing.
And you should remember this, too, that when the Mica creek project is carried out at some time in the future-probably it will not be for another 10 or 15 years at least- the need for the low-level dam at Castlegar will be ended. But we still have a 50-year contract worth a million dollars a year because the Kaiser corporation needs the power now. And if we are going to sit back and wait for the Mica creek project to become a reality, we are going to lose several millions of dollars during that period of waiting.
But apparently that is what the federal government wants. Yesterday the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources denied that there was any political interference; and then he spent about 15 minutes- ineffectually I might say-in an attempt to tear down the British Columbia government, at the same time making what I considered was an inconsistent and emotional appeal, rather than one stating facts.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What about the Social Crediters in the House of Commons?


Ray Thomas: Apparently the Social Crediters in the House of Commons have you tied up so badly that you have to interject all the time. You could not prove your point yesterday.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are not proving it today.


Ray Thomas: And you cannot prove it now.


An hon. Member:: He can't prove anything.


Ray Thomas: Now we come to the main point, where the government says that anything in the national interest is going to be protected by the federal government. Well, I have heard that so often it is quite apparent to me that what they consider to

be in the national interest is something that would be in the interests of the government of Canada, and more particularly of the Liberal party. It has nothing to do with the welfare of Canada, at all. If this project is of such great national importance, as indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), then why have the only members taking part in the debate been those from British Columbia and Alberta-that is, with the exception of one weak and fainthearted effort by an hon. member from New Brunswick.
The government says:	Oh, we are unwilling to give any grants for educational aid to the provinces because in some small way we might interfere with provincial autonomy. That is a weak argument-when they are willing to walk all over a province in order to do something to justify their own desires. They are afraid that the Social Credit government of British Columbia might be given credit for making a good deal with the Kaiser corporation, and they are trying to prevent the province from getting that credit. This government tried the same tactics in Alberta, but it failed.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) accused us of talking blue ruin all the time. Well, the Liberal party in Alberta has been yelling blue ruin for 20 years. In spite of all these yells of blue ruin in Alberta we have progressed to the point, through the policies of the provincial government, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in another debate the other day rose in his place and asked whether the provincial government of Alberta would be in need of this assistance from the federal government. Apparently he thought we were too well off to need that assistance. That is how far we have gone behind, and it shows the absolute untruth of the cries of blue ruin and lack of integrity and the lack of ability of the Social Credit government, that they have not been able to succeed and they will not be able to succeed in British Columbia.
In speaking on this measure the other day,, the Minister of Trade and Commerce named specifically the Columbia river basin and the Milk river in Alberta. When questioned he said he did not think the Saint John river was applicable to this legislation. Apparently, the minister is not too familiar with his geography, because he forgets that the west branch of the Saint John river rises in the province of Quebec, flows through the state of Maine and back up into the east branch of the Saint John to form the international boundary between Maine and New Brunswick. Therefore, there definitely is an application so far as the Saint John river is

concerned. I am saying this for the benefit of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton.


Mr. Montgomery:: He already knew that and spoke of it himself.


Ray Thomas: I am glad the hon. member said that because I am absolutely amazed at the statement he made in the house last night and I am going to read from his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be a damn sight better than the one you are making yourself.


Ray Thomas: 
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Not in his
judgment, though.


Ray Thomas: How in the name of heaven can an hon. member rise in his place in this house and say: I do not care how much it damages other people so long as it does not apply to me personally or the people I represent. I wonder what the hon. member would say if he introduced legislation to help the potato growers of his riding, and we said: we are not interested in the potato growers because it is not of local interest; throw it out. We are just as interested in the people of New Brunswick in this regard
International Rivers
as we are in the people of Alberta and of British Columbia, and if it is dangerous to us, then it is dangerous to them. If it had no application to either one of those provinces and applied only to New Brunswick, if we thought it was an infringement upon the rights of the province of New Brunswick, we would certainly back it up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ray Thomas: We would certainly vote against it, and strike it down, if at all possible, and I would expect the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton to take the same stand on something that he does not want for his own constituents.


Charles Edward Johnston: He never
thought of that.


Gage Workman Montgomery: The only thing is, you are a little previous. We have not come to a decision to know where we stand on that yet.


Ray Thomas: The hon. member made it perfectly clear that he did not know whether he wanted to support the bill as it stood, but he was in favour of the principle.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Certainly.


Ray Thomas: In spite of the fact that he did not want it to apply to his own people. It is all right if they clamp down on British Columbia so long as they do not touch New Brunswick. That is not an attitude that an hon. member should take in this house on a bill of this magnitude.


Gage Workman Montgomery: That is only your
opinion.


Ray Thomas: Talk so we can hear you. It is on Hansard, and I quoted it.


Gage Workman Montgomery: That is all right; that is only your opinion of my stand.


Ray Thomas: There can be no mistake so far as the interpretation of that statement is concerned.
As was mentioned before, the whole argument of those speaking in favour of the bill seems to be that British Columbia is exporting water, or power, or both. They are not exporting anything, Mr. Speaker. When he spoke yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) said that this agreement could well upset the delicate plans of negotiations of the international joint commission; that he regretted very much that this thing was pushed in at this time because of the nature of the negotiations, and that we might throw everything that we have ever done out the window.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is precisely the argument.
107b

International Rivers


Ray Thomas: Precisely the argument of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I wonder what could be more damaging to the negotiations now under way, and what could be more damaging as far as the attitude of the United States is concerned, than to pass a bill that is going to stop the province of British Columbia from storing water within British Columbia so that the United States can make an orderly use of that water and get a better development out of that water than they are able to do now.


John Horne Blackmore: It is like a dog-in-the-manger attitude.


Ray Thomas: It is amazing.


Solon Earl Low: Co-operative effort!


Ray Thomas: It is amazing how utterly ridiculous some of these statements can be. On the one hand they say we have to protect our resources; we cannot give United States anything if it is going to endanger ourselves. I quite agree with these things. The fact remains that we are not exporting power; we are not exporting water; we are not losing anything.


Mr. Hahn:: We are exporting good will.


Ray Thomas: As the hon. member for New Westminster just said, we are exporting good will, and the Kaiser company is quite willing to pay handsomely for that export.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) said: "What is money?" What is a million dollars? I can understand that attitude when they are bleeding the people of this country as long as they have been without any regard whatsoever for saving money or cutting down expenses. What do we care? All we have to do is slap on another tax and the people ' will pay it. That is the attitude of the Liberal government, and always has been. As long as we can bleed the money out of the people, we do not have to care about money, and why should the province of British Columbia worry about money? I can tell you why they should. They have a deep-down heartfelt feeling for the welfare of the people within that province.
Two or three times during this debate there has been talk of a 50-50 basis. It makes me think of a sandwich that I once bought in a restaurant where it said on the menu under "Sandwiches" that the sandwich was half beef and half chicken. Upon opening up the sandwich I could find only one small sliver of chicken, the rest was all beef. I said, "I thought this was supposed to be half beef and half chicken". They said, "It is half a beef and half a chicken". That is exactly like the 50-50 proposition that this

government has been getting out of all international negotiations. In anything they have carried out so far that is about all they got out of it. The St. Lawrence seaway is supposed to be for the welfare of the people of Canada but this government is outpaying the United States 6 to 1 in order to get a 50-50 proposition.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is for the
benefit of the people of Ontario mainly, don't forget that.


Ray Thomas: As a matter of fact I cannot think of one instance in their dealings with any other country that this government has ever driven a good bargain. For some reason or another they always come out second best.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Ray Thomas: The hon. member says, "Prove it". I cannot think of a better example than the British wheat agreement where about $450 million was lost to the farmers of this country. Just to stick on this same subject of rivers, in negotiating the boundary with the United States between Maine and New Brunswick, when it was decided that the boundary would be the Saint John river they took the east branch and let the state of Maine get all in between the east and the west branches, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 acres being given away. Just big fellows.


An hon. Member:: We will get it back.


Ray Thomas: You will get it back all right. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones), when he was speaking yesterday, seemed to think that the trouble arose out of the failure of the British Columbia government to co-operate with the international joint commission. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, they set up the very commission with the personnel recommended by General McNaughton. How much more could they co-operate?
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary said that the British Columbia government should give in on this thing and come to the federal government to make peace. No provincial government in Canada has yet come to the federal government asking permission to carry out a project which is of strictly provincial concern, and they are not going to. It is ridiculous to have that sort of reasoning by a member of parliament. Just let the federal government pull in their horns, withdraw this bill and ask the British Columbia government to get together for a conference on this thing and I think you will find the British Columbia government will be only too ready to co-operate.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has told us how he is concerned about

the exportation of water, the exportation of electricity, the exportation of gas or oil; that we must conserve all these for the Canadian people. I agree entirely, but while he is saying this the Department of Trade and Commerce is exporting atomic materials which could be used for the production of power. Let us not forget that the radioactive substances which are being exported are extremely expendable. It is quite conceivable that we could exhaust our radioactive materials within a reasonably short time. Yet we are exporting these and nothing is said.
The minister gets up and with a great flourish talks about conserving our water resources. How are we going to hold this water back until somebody gets ready to develop it? It is going down across the border now. We are not exporting any water. As I mentioned a moment ago, we could be exporting a lot of good will by allowing the United States government to take advantage of the storage of water in British Columbia to enable them to make a more advantageous use of the waters of that river for down-river power expansion.
I cannot think of anything which would be a greater gesture of good will toward the people to the south than to do that very thing. Yet the government says that it cannot be done. The only reason that they have given so far is that there is a Social Credit government in British Columbia. That is cockeyed reasoning. The Minister of Trade and Commerce had better revise his thinking as far as his cockeyed expressions are concerned.
We are certainly going to vote against this and fight against this. This indicates the most flagrant disregard for provincial autonomy that has ever been perpetrated within this country.


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in this debate and to support the Social Credit party in its protest against this attack upon provincial rights. I do this because I consider it to be my duty as a member from Quebec to state that whenever there is an attack on provincial rights in Quebec or in British Columbia every member should fight to protect the plurality of governments which is the basis of our constitution.
Last year when the tax agreement problem was before us we members from Quebec rose to speak not because we were nationalists, not because it was a local question, as suggested by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod), because it was a matter affecting the rights of the provinces.
I shall not attempt to indicate approval or disapproval of the selling of power to the
International Rivers
Kaiser corporation since that is a decision which must be taken by the British Columbia government. That is their own business. But I do oppose centralization. Centralization is as dangerous in British Columbia as it is in Quebec or any other place in the country.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the point at issue at this moment concerns natural resources in a province whose provincial rights will be infringed upon. Little by little the federal government continue their centralizing activities. They wish to extend their control in this field as they have already done in the field of education by offering university grants while recognizing that this is a provincial responsibility. The same holds true in the fields of transportation, taxation, health, and many others.
That is why I felt it to be my duty to rise and support the Social Credit members who rightfully insist that provincial governments be left free to decide those questions which fall within their jurisdiction.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, the longer this debate continues the more obvious it becomes that this is a political measure.
We have heard a great deal from speakers on the government side of the house with respect to their desire to protect the national interest. But it has already been pointed out by previous speakers that the premiers of the provinces of Canada are just as good Canadians and just as patriotic as any member of the government which sits in this house.
Furthermore, I might add that you cannot have any national interest without safeguarding the welfare of the provinces. I would like to know how the action of the British Columbia government with respect to this Kaiser power deal is going to depreciate in any way the interests or the welfare of any other province in Canada. That is a point those on the government side of the house, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), have failed to answer despite their declared interest in the nation and their desire to introduce legislation to guard provincial powers in the national interest.
I cannot emphasize any more strongly than speakers who have preceded me that there is another motive in presenting this bill and it is a purely political motive. The arguments

International Rivers
presented throughout this debate and as they can be read in Hansard will leave no question in the minds of the people of Canada that there has been nothing said that could possibly contradict the contention that this move now being made by the federal government is for a political purpose. That political purpose is to discredit the Social Credit government of British Columbia.
But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the long run it will not do so, and I predict that this measure is going to backfire. I have no authority to say this and indeed it is only within the power of the premier of British Columbia to take this action, but I am quite certain that if the government of British Columbia called an election on this issue they would wipe the slate clean of any Liberals now sitting in that legislature. I do not suppose this government here would wish the British Columbia government to do that, and indeed I do not suppose the provincial government would go to the polls on that issue, for they would rather rely on their record, but I do not believe there is any doubt as to what the result would be if that action were taken.
I have some responsibility for keeping my fingers on the pulse of the political situation in Canada and I am quite certain this federal government would not wish to face an election of that sort in British Columbia.
I have listened carefully to previous speakers and with particular interest to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). The hon. member started his speech, as reported at page 1048 of yesterday's Hansard, by referring to the vein which this debate had taken. I would like to quote a sentence or two. The hon. member said:
I am going to try my very best tonight to do a little bit of peacemaking. I think the vein which this debate has taken is a bad thing for Canada, is a bad thing for British Columbia, and is a bad thing for this house.
Later on he said:
What we are dealing with here is not the Kaiser dam but a very important national responsibility.
If the vein of the debate ran such a course as to bring up the matter of the Kaiser dam, I would like to know who set the pattern for that type of debate.


Mr. Lesage:: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore).


Ernest George Hansell: The pattern was set a long time ago when responsible cabinet ministers went out to British Columbia and shot off their mouths. That was when the pattern was set. My leader says: "Irresponsible cabinet ministers". Well, they certainly were irresponsible in their actions at that time. I am not a psychologist or one who is particularly expert in diagnosing human frailties,
fMr. Hansell.l
but I will say that their statements out in British Columbia reflected the frustration of the politician. They were frustrated because they had been swept out of office in British Columbia and did not know which way to turn to gain recognition and favour with the people so that they might get back into office. They were frustrated, and they are today, and they said to themselves: "We are out to destroy the Social Credit government and we will kill anything they do if we can find any grounds upon which to do so".
Why did not these responsible ministers, responsible at least to the country and to parliament, get together if they recognized a danger in putting over a deal of this kind and say: Now, listen, this is a very bad thing; we will have to have a conference with the British Columbia government and see if we cannot persuade them that this thing is not in the national interest? Oh no, they did not do that-no, no. Their frustration led them to say: We will kill it even if we have got to tunnel through some mountains and divert the flow of the water of this river into the Fraser river.


Solon Earl Low: Silly.


Ernest George Hansell: Silly. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources looks up. Yes, sir, we say that is silly.


Jean Lesage: I had not known you were a water resources engineer.


Ernest George Hansell: What I am going to say is-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How many engineers do you have over there?


John Horace Dickey: They are always engineering something.


Ernest George Hansell: If the government thinks that it is ever going to do that, I should like to know where it gets the authority to divert the water of a river through a mountain tunnel into a river that is not an international river.


An hon. Member:: Pass legislation, I suppose.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, they would have to pass legislation to thwart provincial autonomy. If they ever did that I wonder what the British Columbia government would do. You see, that shows the thinking of the federal government-if we want to do anything we will go ahead and do it regardless. What do we care what British Columbia thinks about it? That is their thinking. That is their style.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). It was a very good speech, and a very sane type of approach. He may not

agree with us in everything; he may even join some of his colleagues and vote for the bill. I do not know what he will do, but when he knew this thing was in the air did he shoot off his mouth? I do not say he has never before shot off his mouth, but this time he did not. He did the reasonable thing. He even went to Victoria and spoke to the premier of the province and the minister of lands and forests. He said that he went there to get their view of the situation. Then he investigated the other side of the picture.
He is a private member of the house. What he did was what the federal government should have done. The hon. member urged that a conference should have been held and should be held today to see whether these differences cannot be ironed out if there is such danger. That is the sane approach to take to the thing. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) did not go to Victoria but he looked at the matter in what I thought was a reasonable fashion.


John Horne Blackmore: Rather statesmanlike.


Ernest George Hansell: Rather statesmanlike. That is the thing to do when we have to deal with a measure that affects provincial autonomy. I listened to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). It is a little hard for me to listen to him but I exercised some degree of self-control. When he talked about cooperation he lifted in the air a document that was supposed to have come from the British Columbia government. He showed how he had interleafed the document to indicate where they were talking about co-operation and so forth, and he urged co-operation. Let me ask him: Does this bill savour of cooperation?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: In what respect does this bill talk of co-operation?


An hon. Member:: Give him a minute to answer.


Ernest George Hansell: I cannot afford a minute, but silence reigns. Let me ask him: Has he analysed the speech of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) yesterday? Let me ask him how that speech can ever give any indication of co-operation.


John Horne Blackmore: Silence again.


Ernest George Hansell: Silence again. The minister when speaking yesterday-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: May I answer now?


Ernest George Hansell: -attempted to reply to some of the arguments of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). I am not going
International Rivers
to dwell too much on this point because the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas), who preceded me, dealt admirably with it. As found at page 1036 of Hansard yesterday, the minister had this to say:
And when we think how young our country is it will be realized that 1 am using the right expression when I say that a deal like the Kaiser one is equivalent to selling down the river or giving down the river the possibilities of power development in this country at this time.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has already challenged the minister to say what we are giving down the river. How can we be giving something down the river when the dam is to be built to hold the water back? It is a storage dam for the purpose of regulating the flow so that the water is not lost at flood season.


Jean Lesage: To the United States.


Ernest George Hansell: Of course, to the United States, where it would flow anyway.


Solon Earl Low: It is flowing.


Ernest George Hansell: It is flowing there right now.


Ray Thomas: And has done so for centuries.


Ernest George Hansell: And has done so for centuries. When the flood tide comes it will still flow in abundance. What ithe government of British Columbia is doing is preventing it from flowing so fast at flood time. That is all they are doing. The minister also said, as found at page 1041 of Hansard of yesterday:
In order that no sacrifice of our all important water resources may be made through too much emphasis being given to a short range view, such as advocated by the hon. member for Lethbridge . . .
I ask the minister to say in what way are we sacrificing our all important water resources when the dam is to be built to hold the water back?


John Horne Blackmore: Silence again.


Ernest George Hansell: Silence again. There is a lot of silence when they are challenged to come up with the real argument and the real evidence. What power would we lose, what water would we lose when we will hold back by means of the dam some three million acre feet of water in this country?
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources spent a good deal of time talking about the deal that has been made. He spent more than half his time dealing with whether or not the present agreement reached between the Kaiser interests and the British Columbia government was a good deal. As he tried to prove that it was a bad deal he waved his hands in the air like an old clucking hen in a chicken coop.

International Rivers


Jean Lesage: I thought you were going to say an old preacher.


Ernest George Hansell: "Peanuts" he said. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) was the first one who said "peanuts", and the clucking hen immediately cackled "peanuts". I am not going to argue whether or not it is peanuts. It is a million dollars a year or $50 million over 50 years; it may be $2 million. He may say it is peanuts, but we have not yet heard what kind of a deal he wants. We have not heard yet what kind of a deal would satisfy this government. I say again that throughout more than half his speech he dealt with the fact this was not a good deal. This appears to be the main reason this bill is being offered to us today, and the basis upon which we are asked to pass it.
If that is so, let me ask this. Does the government set itself up as the referee or as the dictator of provincial deals? If that is so, then we have here a glaring example of the continual centralization of authoritative power in the hands of the dictators here in Ottawa. The other day the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) gave an excellent speech on the trend toward centralizing power in this government. Here is an example. Let me ask, is this to be regarded as a precedent for any future deals or contracts that provincial governments may wish to make? I ask the question because this move can be interpreted as that. I should like to ask that question of all those who come from the province of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). I wonder if his province will countenance a precedent like this, with this government setting itself up as the one to say whether a provincial deal is good or bad.
11 do not believe that the deal is peanuts, but supposing it is; what has that to do with this government? I believe even provincial governments, because of their provincial autonomy, have a right to drive a bad bargain is they so desire. That is their own responsibility. We do not believe this is a bad bargain, but this bill would indicate this government thinks it is. My leader says the government has not proven as yet that it is a bad deal, even though the minister spent most of his time emphasizing that that was the basic reason for the bill.
He went further and said he hoped that when the bill went to committee we could have experts testify as to whether this is a good or bad bill. Now, can you beat that? They are saying they want a parliamentary committee set up to decide whether or not a provincial deal is a good deal. Can you beat that? That comes from the mouth of


the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I claim, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a declaration of war on provincial rights; that is what it is. I am reminded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) has stated already that it is a declaration of war.
I want to deal with one other matter. It is a matter that I do not want to slip by without some notice. It needs more notice than perhaps this house has paid to it, and that is the point that was brought out by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) yesterday. When he was bringing out this point I noticed the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) with his head buried in some book or something. It may have been Hansard or it may have been a contract with some other government, I do not know. There he was, with his head buried, reading. I could not see whether or not his eyes were moving, but don't ever think his ear was not tuned to what the member was saying.
What was he saying? Well, I should like to put it in my own words. He went out to the back yard, and he said, "What is it that smells around here? It is something pretty bad." He traced the smell to the garage, opened the door and said, "My, something is wrong here." By lifting up a few loose boards, he dragged out what was smelling and said, "Here it is." I do not know how many noticed it. What did he say? I shall not read his speech, but he told the house that if this deal were completed British Columbia was likely to get cheaper power which would be in competition with power from the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, a subsidiary of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, 51 per cent of the stock of which is owned by the Canadian Pacific. What this bill does-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend mentioned my name in connection with that matter. I believe he mentioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Just what did I have to do with the contents of that statement?


Ernest George Hansell: You would have nothing to do with that statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you very much.


Ernest George Hansell: You did not have anything to do with my hon. friend's speech. I am simply saying that when he gave it you were reading, but I think your ear was tuned to his speech. That is where I brought the minister into this, and I am saying-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I claim the right to listen to nonsense and read something else at the same time.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me ask the minister this. Is it nonsense to say that West Kootenay Power and Light Company is a subsidiary of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and that 51 per cent of their stock is held by the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, connect it up with the bill under discussion.


Ernest George Hansell: That certainly is not nonsense. One of the purposes of this bill is to protect that vested interest. There has been no valid argument to the contrary, so what can we conclude? The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), granting that he has some personal interest in this matter, has fallen victim to this thing. He is going to vote for something that is going to protect the vested interest of a private enterprise venture; that is exactly the position in which he is. He has swallowed it hook, line and sinker. He has been taken for a ride. The wool has been pulled over his eyes. I believe this bill is an attempt to pull the wool over all our eyes. The hon. member for Cariboo has scratched off a little of the wool. That appears to me to be the purpose of the bill. If it is not, government speakers will have to give some more valid reason than they have given so far. Those on the government side of the house who have spoken have failed miserably to make out a case.
I do not wish to reach a sort of anticlimax, but one of my colleagues sitting behind me has passed me a note, and it refers to a matter which I believe I should mention. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) contributed something to the debate; I do not know how valuable it was-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not very.


Ernest George Hansell: I cannot quite let what was said go by, because he left at least the impression that the British Columbia government were circularizing all the school children of British Columbia through the mails. He may not have intended to leave that impression, but he certainly did indicate that the provincial government was using the franking privilege-I suppose it is a privilege authorized by the queen's printer-in mailing government material to the people, and that this material had been sent to every school child in that province.
I do not think that is so. If any material was sent out-and I will take my hon. friend's word for it-I would say it was sent to school principals. That is quite possible. Frankly I see no reason why a government should not be able to put out the truth of a situation and place it before the school children, through their principals.
International Rivers


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Truth or propaganda, which?


Ernest George Hansell: The principal may use it, but he does not have to; it is up to him. And when my hon. friend talks about propaganda being sent through the mails, or with the authority of the queen's printer, let me tell him, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, that no greater volume of propaganda goes out under the franking privilege anywhere in the world than goes out from this government.


John Horace Dickey: Speak for yourself.


Ernest George Hansell: I am speaking for myself.


John Horace Dickey: Good.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not mind saying that I mail my speeches under the franking privilege, and I do not care whether it is called propaganda or not. Everything is propaganda. Everything you mail out is propaganda; it cannot be anything else. All the health magazines that go out, and all the stuff on foreign relations-and believe me I have seen some of it-is propaganda. I have seen it, because I have children going to high school who are studying international affairs, and they come home with literature received from departments of this government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member who has the floor will agree that he is now wandering a little far afield.


Mr. Martin:: I would say so.


Ernest George Hansell: I must agree that you are right, Mr. Speaker; but I got off on this tangent because the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond happened to bring that point up. All I say is that the impression should be corrected, and that the British Columbia government is not mailing this stuff to every student in that province. They may mail it to the school principals, and that is their business. The principals may use it or may not use it, as they choose. That may be the situation.
I say once again that the government should face up to its responsibility here, and that it should not strain relationships between itself and any provincial government. Why provoke strained relations, when there may be another way around? Why not withdraw the bill temporarily and say, "We will defer the matter until we get together with the British Columbia government and see if we cannot come to a settlement." If they think it is so serious, why not do it that way? That is the way they do most things; why not do this that way? I urge the government to withdraw the bill temporarily, until it can get together with the government of British Columbia.

International Rivers


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I shall not have much time to discuss the bill before we reach the hour for private members' legislation. However, I think I should take advantage of every minute afforded me, and I should not waste any of that time.
I am one who believes Bill No. 3, that we are now discussing, is one of the most important and far-reaching matters to come before this house in a good many years. I said "one of the most important", and I am sincere and earnest when I make that statement. There are those who seem to believe that we Social Crediters are putting up a battle against this bill simply to support the government of British Columbia, which happens to be a Social Credit government, and that we are doing this whether that government is right or wrong.
I do not deny for one second that to a certain degree we are influenced-and I said "to a certain degree"-by our desire to see that justice is done to a government in which we have more than ordinary interest, especially since the Liberal ministers from the provinces of western Canada over the years and at the present time have given and now give every evidence of believing that their main purpose in being here in this House of Commons is to malign and libel their own provinces. That has been done on so many different occasions, and I can point them out if I am challenged. I say this because the ministers, or some of them-not all-have given every evidence that that is the way they think, that they have a divine injunction to be down here for that one purpose of maligning, libelling and putting blocks in the way of their own provinces.
I think, however, that we in this group over the years have given ample evidence, plenty of evidence, that we are always ready to put up a fight to ensure that justice is meted out to every province in Canada, irrespective of its political stripe, or to any group or any individual in our country. Anyone who will go back through the records of the House of Commons will find that on several occasions the Social Credit group in this house have actually put up a stronger battle for another province than members who came from that province on matters involving provincial jurisdiction. I can bring evidence to show that that is true, too.
In the debate thus far on Bill No. 3, the Social Credit group has put up a strong battle against the growing arrogance of the Liberal party and its increasing indifference to the rights of the smaller provinces and of individuals, a government which has become old in power and smug and indifferent

through its long years in office with a big majority. That is what we have been fighting against, and it is most important that the people of this country know what it is we are driving at.
I cannot help wondering-and I know there are many hon. members in this house who also wonder-just how different the government's action would have been if it had been the government of Quebec that negotiated the agreement with some United States corporation for the storage of 3 million acre feet of water in a corner of Quebec for the purpose of preventing waste of water by turning it to use for downstream generation of electric power, a part of which electricity would come back into Canada.
Let that soak in. I am quite prepared to say with full responsibility that the situation would have been very different. There might have been a show of throwing down the gauntlet, just exactly as there was a show on the part of the Prime Minister in throwing down the gauntlet when Mr. Duplessis defied him with respect to the taxation agreement. But what happened? He went down to Quebec and sat down with Mr. Duplessis and attempted to work out a satisfactory conclusion to this difficult situation, a step which I thought was right. It should have been done in the first place. I say this. How much different this situation would have been if instead of British Columbia it had been Quebec.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have more Liberal seats in Quebec.


Solon Earl Low: I am quite sure the same arrogance and downright indifference to local rights, shown in the present situation, would have been totally absent if the province concerned had been Quebec or even Manitoba or Newfoundland. The amount of just consideration for a province's rights which can be expected from this government seems to be directly proportional to the number of votes the Liberals got in that province in the last elections, provincial and federal.
The province of Alberta, from which I come, has had more experience with the federal government in connection with the development of water resources than any province in Canada. Some of us in this group have had a reserved seat from which we could watch the show at close range. I am one of those. It has been my observation over the past 20 years that I have been engaged in an effort to help my country in public life-and ten of these years, by the way, were spent on the provincial side-that there has been a growing arrogance on the part of this government

in dealing with the provinces, especially those governed by other than the Liberal party.
Alberta has had many and varied relations with the Ottawa government in connection with the conservation and development of water resources. As far back as 1937, when the government at Ottawa wanted to move people out of certain drought-stricken areas onto irrigated lands in Alberta, we got a taste of what the exercise of power does to people when they get to Ottawa and begin to feel that there are really no limitations whatsoever to what they can do. We felt that, and I remember it very poignantly. In that particular instance to which I refer, moving people out of drought-stricken areas of Saskatchewan into Alberta, and in many others I could name that developed over the years, we saw arrogance displayed, Mr. Speaker, but we never at any time saw arrogance anything like what is being displayed at this time. It simply could not compare with the present instance at all. We are protesting against the attitude of a government and a party that have become power-drunk and crazy indifferent. We are only doing our duty by the Canadian people, who are now becoming aroused to this whole sorry situation as the facts are made known to them.
I made brief reference, Mr. Speaker, to Alberta's experience and observations over the years. If we had not fought hard against injustice during those years of the 1930's and up until the outbreak of world war II Ottawa would have wiped their feet on us with growing impunity. They tried hard enough; but finally, Mr. Speaker, be it said to the credit of both sides, good sense came to prevail, especially when the Liberal party came to understand that they were faced by a united and determined people in our province, determined to preserve their autonomy and their rights.


John Horne Blackmore: An enlightened and intelligent people, too.


Solon Earl Low: Consequently, Mr. Speaker, an inclination to co-operate was distilled into the hearts of the bureaucrats and the politicians down here, and we began a new relationship which I also saw and experienced and of which I was a part.
I am stating nothing but facts, Mr. Speaker, when I say that Ottawa has had no better cooperation in the various developments in the national interest than she has had from Social Credit Alberta. I am going to go further and say that she would have no better co-operation anywhere than she would have from the Social Credit government of British Columbia if she had the slightest inclination to go and seek it.
Private Bills-Divorce
I mention several of Canada's biggest irrigation projects when I speak on Alberta and our relationship with the federal government in the development of water projects, because in Alberta we do have several of the largest irrigation projects in the whole of Canada. I speak of the many prairie farm assistance projects as well, and the preservation of the tremendously valuable and important east slope of the Rockies watershed. I also speak of the exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources for the benefit of all Canada. I say that, in all of these things, the Social Credit government of Alberta is working in close harmony and the fullest co-operation with Ottawa, in the national interest.
I could mention also the effective and close co-operation with the international joint commission in their efforts to negotiate settlement of the Milk river, the St. Mary river and the Waterton-Belly river references. We have given General McNaughton, who heads the Canadian section of the international joint commission, full and complete co-operation; and we want it known, Mr. Speaker, that we appreciate the splendid job this man has done for Canada and our province. We have nothing but respect for the splendid way he has stood up to what he has had to do. We want it known at the same time that General McNaughton has not been trying to play base politics with his important responsibilities. That is something that needs to be said as well.
I am perfectly sure, I repeat, that British Columbia, if their co-operation were sought in this matter, would be prepared to sit down and give that co-operation; but no effort has been made to get co-operation, no effort has been made to go out and sit down with them and to get information about what they are trying to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is five o'clock the house will now proceed to private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Maxine Samuels Resseguier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Ginette Monique Cornu Lebegue.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Eugen Hart-berg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Joseph Pierre Emile Jasmin Rheaume.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Elizabeth Jane Marcelin Belanger.-Mr. Hunter.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Hugh McCrone Dunsmuir.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Hazel Winifred Edwards Welcher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Joan Audrey Baur Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Pauline Alice Leduc Sponagle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian Greenberg Seligman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marie Antoinette Demers Vigeant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Yoneyuki Watanabe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Leslie Sutcliffe. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Rita Ursule Labadie Huot.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Evangeline N. Rodinos Zolotas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Maria Lutz Kaczmarek.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Clare Taylor Belanger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Jean Claude Robitaille.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Ida Meitin Wooden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Fleur-Ange Francoeur Therrien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Maria Christina Vettore Austin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Roland Le-febvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Augustine Denonville Leclere.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mary Therese McSheffrey Richard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Pierrette Marsan Short.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Greta Irene Kokko Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Yolande Sega-tore Grandillo.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Annie Laker Gillen.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Juliette Bertha Langlois Miller.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Arthur Johnston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Bela Antal Kelecsenyi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Joseph Roger Gerard Doucet.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Elsie Amelia Armistice Wood Lavoie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Joseph Rene Romeo Lafrance.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Gweneth Leslie Clarke Atkinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Muriel Claire Wilson Hart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Violet Doris Hubbard MacGregor.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 60, for the relief of Christina Mellis Campbell Squires.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Katharine Hamilton Ellis Bishop.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Sheila Kathleen McNaughton Best.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Pearl Mendel-son Markus.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Leona Dalton Dawe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Ethel Tietle-baum Segal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Sheila Mary Power Stone.-Mr. Hunter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question on the motion for the second reading of these 44 divorce bills may I say that because I believe there is more important business before parliament than these 44 divorce bills 1 should like to move:
That the house do now proceed to order No. 24.



INDUSTRIAL STATUS OF WOMEN


Ellen Louks Fairclough: the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take very long today on the discussion of this bill, because this is the third time it has been presented to the house and the second time for it to be debated. In presenting the bill last year I produced certain arguments, and those arguments stand today as well as they did a year ago. Very little has happened in the meantime to change the picture, but I am hoping that what little has happened may have influenced certain members of the house in general and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in particular.
Last year while speaking I quoted certain statistics from the publications of the dominion bureau of statistics, and some of these have changed slightly. One change that has occurred since last year is that in January of this year the government of the United Kingdom gave to its women employees legislation which would provide them with equal pay for equal work, the system of implementing that legislation being a graduated scale which in a few years will result in complete equality for these women.
Another thing has happened since last year. In replying to my remarks on the introduction of the bill last year the Minister of Labour
Industrial Status of Women had the temerity to announce to the house that no representations had been made to him by the National Council of Women. I am sure the Minister of Labour has about as close a connection with that body as any member in the house, and he should have known that was likely to call forth an immediate response. In any event, he had his answer during the year. The National Council of Women have presented him with their request that this legislation should be supported by the government and later, in a brief which they presented to the government, they reiterated that request.
Since I spoke last year there has been a slight change in the size of the labour force and the number of women who compose a part of it. As of December 12, 1954, the latest figures available, the labour force was
5,414,000	of which men comprised 4,179,000 and women 1,235,000, or about 23 per cent. This is a larger percentage of the labour force than last year when the figure quoted was 22-2 per cent. It is interesting to note that in the period of almost a year which has elapsed the increase in the number of men in the labour force has been 13,000, whereas an additional 50,000 women have entered the labour force. These figures are significant.
Another significant factor is the number of women who pay taxes in this country. Inasmuch as these figures differ slightly from those which I quoted last year I should like to place on the record of the house the corrected statistics. According to the 1954 tax statistics the number of single women with no dependents paying taxes was 651,130, compared with 736,020 single men paying taxes. In other words, single women paying taxes comprise about five-sixths of the number of single men who paid taxes. With these statistics before us it seems odd that there should be any difference at all in the wages they earn for similar jobs.
Because of the short time available for this debate today, Mr. Speaker, and because I am anxious that some conclusion should be reached, I am going to rest my case very much on the argument I made last year. But I should like to reiterate the words of Mr. Kaiser, the United States government delegate to the international labour organization conference, which I quoted last year and which are found on page 40 of the seventh report of the committee on equal pay for equal work for women. Mr. Kaiser said:
The experience of the United States showed that the principle could be accepted alike by workers and employers; that it could be translated into practice; and that its application protected established wage rates against undercutting.
I think the latter part of Mr. Kaiser's remarks are significant, and I should like to

Industrial Status of Women repeat them-"that its application protected established wage rates against undercutting".
The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, covers only workers under federal jurisdiction. It proposes an accepted principle which is found in the laws of many lands and in numerous states of the United States of America, as well as three provinces of Canada. Without further remarks, Mr. Speaker, I recommend the measure to the consideration of the house.


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have again listened to my hon. friend with interest. I congratulate her on her presentation today which has been very brief, and I shall endeavour to follow her example as far as I can.
Last year she described the proposed law as "a progressive type of legislation that fits well into the changed employment conditions of our time". With this, as with many other things she said last year and has said today, I agree, for the increasing number of women in our labour force in Canada has brought the issue of women's wages to public attention in a very emphatic way, as never before in this country.
But the question is not one alone of equal pay for equal work. To my mind it involves the larger problem of women's wages in general. These are at a considerably lower level, certainly relatively, than the wages paid to men. I think any survey indicates that. This basic inequality is due to many factors, not the least of which is the customary practice of establishing the rates for jobs, in the traditional occupations of women, at lower levels than those authorized for the jobs for which men are hired. It is a situation about which we need to have more exact information, one for which equal pay legislation does not piovide a remedy.
The whole question of women's earnings in Canada, including the various factors involved in their determination, is one of the subjects that our new women's bureau has set itself to study. I know my hon. friend looks upon me with a sceptical eye when I talk about civil servants and departmental committees studying various things, but in this case I think she will agree there has been some evidence that a serious study has at least been started.
I should like to emphasize the importance of the establishment of our women's bureau. In the past my department has given a good deal of consideration to the special problems of women in employment. We are now equipped, I think, to do quite a bit more in this regard. We expect that the studies and research of the new bureau, and the availability of the results of that work to


all women in Canada, will make possible the spreading of information in regard to women's work, and equally important, if not more so, an analysis of the urgent problems that are involved. These activities, we believe, will be an important means of strengthening their economic status, and of obtaining proper recognition of the contribution they make to our labour force.
With respect to the hon. member's bill, from one point of view the question at issue is not the principle of equal pay for equal work. Acceptance of that principle as a standard for the community is, I believe, essential to social recognition of the value of women's work and the important part they play. My question is, without greater clarity as to the extent of the problem would legislation at the federal level contribute to the solution of the larger problem of women's economic position throughout the nation? It is my conviction that legislation designed to implement a broad principle is most effective when it is applied to a problem the elements of which are clearly defined. I am going to contend that this problem has not all those factors clearly defined. I hope we can get them so without too much delay.
My hon. friend will recall 1 said last year that while I was in agreement with the underlying principle of the proposal, until we had investigated further I was not prepared to support the legislation. Since that time the Department of Labour has made a study of the comparative wages of men and women in the same or similar job classifications in enterprises which come under federal jurisdiction. As members of the house are aware, in our civil service the salaries within any particular classification are exactly the same, whether for men or women. With respect to those working for the federal government at prevailing rates, it is the practice of my department to recommend that the rate for a classification be the same regardless of whether the work is performed by a man or a woman under the same job title. Taking these things together, I think I can say that this government and my department certainly do stand for the principle here enunciated.
Collective agreements and wage schedules in industries under federal jurisdiction in most cases establish the rate for the job. There do remain, however, a few schedules in which a differential occurs, but it does not necessarily follow that in such instances the principle of equal pay for equal work is always disregarded. To know exactly what the situation is would require further analysis and, in some cases, even field inquiries which are within our facilities to conduct. This work is going on now. At the present

time the lack of precise definition of the content of a job within the same classification makes it impossible to reach reliable conclusions as to the basis of the differential where it does exist. In some instances it may be related to the sex of the worker, but in many cases other factors enter, principally the nature of the duties involved in the work.
This whole matter of the content of the job has a bearing upon the question of equal pay legislation. Effective application of the principle in fact depends upon adequate machinery for the appraisal of a job. The fact that three provinces have passed legislation, as my hon. friend has said, requiring equal pay for equal work has been brought forward as a reason why the same thing should be done by the federal parliament. Although the three provinces have set an example, if you like, this is an argument that is not completely convincing because of the fact that the field of employment for which the parliament of Canada legislates concerning labour matters is quite different from that under provincial jurisdiction.
Consider the industries listed in the bill. I cannot refer to the bill in detail, Mr. Speaker, but everyone in the house knows the industries that are listed there as coming under federal jurisdiction. These are large undertakings, very highly organized undertakings, in which the practice of collective bargaining is feasible and in fact is now quite widespread. Of the slightly less than 400,000 employees in industries under federal jurisdiction, some 70 per cent are now under collective agreements.
This fact presents a situation in clear contrast to that which exists in the widely diversified and smaller industries coming under provincial jurisdiction. There are of course a large number of great and highly organized undertakings under provincial laws but there are at the same time a large number of small enterprises in which collective bargaining has not become the standard operational procedure.
This fact presents a situation in clear contrast to that which exists in those industries which come under federal jurisdiction. In those activities which do come within the provincial field, only some 32 per cent of the employees are under collective agreements. Of course the women within those activities would work out to approximately the same percentage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it certainly does not follow that if legislation at the federal level were considered essential it should follow in detail or even in some of its general features, a pattern that is appropriate to a province of Canada or a state 50433-69
Industrial Status of Women in the United States. Nor does it follow that the same methods should be used to ensure adoption of improved labour standards, including this matter of equal pay for equal work.
Within the federal field of jurisdiction, where for some years collective bargaining has been the accepted means of getting disputes settled, the legislation that is proposed in this bill could introduce unnecessary interference with normal processes of negotiation between management and labour. I do not point that out, Mr. Speaker, as an insurmountable obstacle to such legislation, but I point it out as a warning that in preparing federal legislation that factor should be kept in mind.
It is widely recognized that the enactment of a law is by no means the only method of ensuring the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. There are other ways in which progress can be made in that direction. The convention for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value adopted in 1951 by the international labour organization, which my hon. friend mentioned in another connection, recognized other methods of implementation. One of these was "collective agreements between employers and employees".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That convention has never been presented to this parliament.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The convention has never been presented to this parliament because it was pointed out by Canada's representative at the international labour organization, as my hon. friend knows, that in Canada this subject comes partly under federal jurisdiction and partly under provincial jurisdiction. Because of this our representative of necessity abstained from voting for the whole recommendation when it was put forward at the international labour organization. In these major areas of employment under federal jurisdiction it appears that the principle of equal pay is being observed. I appreciate the fact that there remain a small but nevertheless very important number of women under our federal jurisdiction who are unrecognized.
The investigation of all available wage data has shown that the extent of the problem is not definable without recourse to additional information. And here again I come back to those good words "study and research". This we are on the way to secure. As a matter of fact the house will recall that at the last session of parliament I said, when responding to my hon. friend's presentation of a similar bill, that it did seem strange that only recently we had received delegations from leading women's organizations, none of whom

Industrial Status of Women had raised this point in their presentations. I can see that the hon. member has been very busy since that time, because the situation is not the same this year.
The groups that have been making these presentations constitute a very important element of public opinion, and their representations have carried weight. I for one welcome such representations. But I would add this year, quite as bravely as last year, that not one of the groups making representations has brought forward relevant information regarding the nature and extent of the problem as they see it, nor has any of them outlined its position with respect to the substance of the legislation sought. In other words there has been no suggestion as to how we should go about introducing legislation in the federal field. This I feel sure they must be prepared to do when they ask that a law be enacted, because I. believe the enactment of a law can be justified only in relation to some clearly defined problem that exists somewhere within our society, whether it applies to women or to men.
In the absence of clear evidence of a problem under federal jurisdiction that warrants this type of action, I am not prepared to support this proposal for legislation at this time. But let me add quickly that I am fully prepared to provide the means for receiving representations as:to the need, and how it is felt by those making the representations that a federal law might meet that need. I shall go further and say that I extended to the delegation which met with representatives bf the government the other day an invitation to have their representations as to how legislation could best be worked out brought to the attention of the head of our women's bureau, sitting as chairman of the committee looking into this matter.
While my present position in respect to equal pay legislation for federal industries is based upon the considerations I have just outlined, there are one or two things I should like to say about this particular bill. In its main provision it is like several bills that have been introduced ir. the United States congress, but that tody has not yet seen fit to pass any of them.
This bill declares it to be an unfair wage practice for an employer to discriminate between sexes in. the payment of wages by paying wages to any female employee at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to male employees-and I wish to stress this-for work of comparable character on jobs the performance of which requires comparable skills. There I pause because, without wishing to be disrespectful, I suggest that these words are vague when regulating

the payment of wages. I would ask this. What is comparable work? And what are comparable skills? And, perhaps more important, who is going to decide what is comparable work and what are comparable skills?
Surely these words are open to very wide interpretation. Yet this bill would leave to a commission to be appointed by the minister the task of trying to place a reasonable interpretation on them in any given case, and finally would empower the Minister of Labour to make any order he deems necessary to carry out the recommendation of the commission.
I know that under the rules one must not refer to an earlier debate in the session, but I would call to mind what happened within the last few days, and I would wonder if this uncontrolled power which my hon. friend would place in the hands of the minister of labour, whether in this or any future governments, jibes with the stand so often taken, for instance, by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). There is no appeal whatsoever from the minister's order, and it is a punishable offence not to comply with it. In our act to avoid discrimination in matters of race, religion or colour we have gone to great lengths to see that checks are made, both before and after the matter is brought, to the attention of the minister, and that those allegedly aggrieved persons once again have a chance for appeal. This combination of wide administrative discretion, together with vagueness in expression of the intention of parliament as set out in the bill, hardly seems in keeping with some of the discussion in the house regarding a right to appeal from a minister's decision.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I do not consider a reasonable case has been made to demonstrate the necessity or advisability for this particular bill in the federal field at this time. And I am very -specific about those words. I appreciate that there is provincial legislation of a similar nature; but in view of the very limited experience they have had-and my hon. friend who no doubt has investigated this would agree, I am sure that that experience has been very limited-it is not possible to assess its usefulness with any degree of accuracy.
I think it is a reasonable position to take when we say that we should follow the operation of provincial legislation very closely. But until the extent of the problem under federal jurisdiction is more clearly defined, as I hope it soon will be, we should not take premature action which might be

regarded in some quarters as simply for the purpose of impinging upon provincial responsibility in this field.
I wish to repeat that I support fully the principle of equal remuneration for equal work, and all reasonable and practical measures for the extension of the application of the principle in this country. Since the recent establishment and organization of our women's bureau the department has done a good deal in this regard. It is the view of those who have engaged in this study that further investigation is desirable before final conclusions are reached as to the kind of legislative action in the federal field. I wish to assure my hon. friend that this investigation will be carried forward quickly to completion. And in doing so there will be opportunity for all private organizations and groups who have expressed general views in support of the legislative approach to confer with my department and produce relevant data in support of their views. That we will warmly welcome.
I hope that in view of what I have said, and after a discussion of this matter, the sponsor of this bill will not wish to press it to a vote but will feel that she has; accomplished her purpose. If she finds that is not possible, it will be clear from what I have said that while I am not denying the good principle involved here, I shall have to vote against second reading of this particular bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house, I would like to ask you to call it six o'clock and I move the adjournment of the debate.	[DOT]'
(Text):	-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member would like to move the adjournment of the debate because he does, not wish to commence his speech so close to six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a motion for the adjournment of the debate. Either we call it six o'clock or the hon. member moves the adjournment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or goes on speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the hon. members prepared to call it six o'clock at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Dupuis the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
50433-69J
International Rivers AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I had laid down the general proposition that over the last 20 years I had personally witnessed a growing arrogance on the part of federal governments, particularly the one now in office, which had inspired them to assume powers which in many instances it was not thought they should ever have attempted to assume. I believe I closed on the note that we wondered at this time where this arrogance and hunger for unchecked power is going to end. That is a very serious consideration for every Canadian worthy of the name.
For example, what foolish things might this government or perhaps some other government be led to do in the years ahead if this Liberal government can get away with what they are trying to get away with in connection with this bill? Under these circumstances what provincial rights will ever be safe, especially those which are in the twilight zone that prevails in connection with unallocated powers under the constitution? That is the question. i
, I listened most carefully to what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had to say. I intend to quote briefly from his speech, beginning on page 1037 of Hansard, where the hon. gentleman made reference to * clause 9 of the agreement between the Kaiser'corporation and the province of British Columbia. After quoting part of clause 9 which refers to the licence issued pursuant to paragraph 8, he had this to say in reference to the Bonneville authority: .
And* Mr. Speaker, the Bonneville authority, which is a United States federal agency, is not eyen a party to this agreement.


Mr. Herridge:: That is the point.


Jean Lesage: It is not even a party to this
deal. Here the Kaiser company guarantees to the British Columbia government that the British Columbia government will get 20 per cent of the additional power generated by storage, but it will get it from the Bonneville authority, which is a federal agency, and that federal agency is not a party to the deal. And moreover there is no agreement referred to here between Bonneville and Kaiser.

International Rivers
What is the guarantee? Where is the guarantee? Where do we go? The whole thing is up in the air. I never saw anything so childish: there is no guarantee at all. And, moreover, supposing Bonneville decides to provide 10 per cent of the power to Kaiser, the only amount Kaiser is obligated to supply is 50 per cent of that 10 per cent, which is 5 per cent.
It is perfectly evident that the minister did not have the detailed information that he could have had if he had been willing to negotiate on a reasonable basis with the British Columbia government. He did not even try to get information which would have enabled him to make accurate statements, both in his speech last night and in his letter. In both instances there are serious errors of omission.
Here are some of the things the minister could have found out if he had made the slightest effort to put himself on speaking terms with the British Columbia administration, which he did not. As the minister knows, the present Kaiser agreement is mainly exploratory. It does not pretend to be final in all respects. Before it is finalized there will be a contract between Kaiser and Bonneville which will be assigned to the government of the province of British Columbia. Guarantees with respect to the delivery of power, and the posting of the performance bond to guarantee delivery, are all part and parcel of a conditional water licence which can contain any terms and conditions which the province may wish to impose.
The performance bond will be issued by a reliable bonding company and will guarantee either the delivery of the stipulated amount of power in British Columbia or, in case of bankruptcy or failure of the company, a cash payment equal to the value of the electricity over the entire 50 years.
The minister knew there must be something of that kind; yet he stood up here and attempted to belittle and ridicule rather than try to get information. That information was available. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was able to see for himself when he went into the office of the minister of mines in Victoria evidence of a contract of that kind. He mentioned it in his speech yesterday-a very fair speech, by the way. The minister could not understand. That is something for which the minister is going to have to answer, the fact that he would make statements without any foundation whatsoever because he did not go and try to get information directly from the government concerned.
In the debate thus far hon. members on the government side of the house have offered severe criticism of the Kaiser deal, but up to this time not one of them has
FMr. Low.]
come up with a better proposal for an agreement. We have heard about a 50-50 deal. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he did not say that. I have heard mention of a 50-50 deal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did I say that I did not mention a 50-50 deal?


Solon Earl Low: You said that yesterday.


Mr. Quelch:: Read Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I recall what I said. If one party furnishes the flow and somebody else furnishes the head it rather suggests a 50-50 split of the benefit.


Solon Earl Low: I think the minister did say that he did not mention a 50-50 deal. Even if he did I point out to him that a 50-50 deal would not give the province of British Columbia anything like the net return the present deal will give. I say that if they sit back and criticize and belittle and ridicule a deal which the government of the province of British Columbia has made and then fail to come up with a better proposal, then by George I think they should either put up or shut up.


John Horne Blackmore: They have no proposal at all.


Solon Earl Low: They have no proposal at all. This matter cannot just be laughed off or ridiculed away, because it is too serious. The government ought to begin to learn that that is true. I should like to stress that. I think this thing can easily be proved. I stress the fact that the only way the water at the point involved in this matter, at the Arrow lakes on the Columbia system, will ever be used for any purpose will be by way of United States generation of power. Laying down that general proposition, I should like to have one minister get up and debate it and show that it is not true. They cannot. Under those circumstances the only conclusion anyone can reach who looks at this thing in all seriousness is that they are prepared to let this water go to waste for generations rather than have it made use of.
Liberal spokesmen have used scare tactics and extravagant statements to try to convince the people of British Columbia and other parts of Canada that if the Kaiser deal is consummated it will place a serious restraint or perhaps at worst have a destructive effect on the eventual full development of the Columbia river system. I say that Liberal spokesmen who make that claim cannot possibly bring evidence to support it.
While they talk that way in an effort to bolster the flimsy arguments they have to put forth in support of this bill, they ignore completely the fact that if the bill is passed it

could very well hold up indefinitely the Frobisher development on the Taku river in northern British Columbia. That possibility should be thoroughly investigated before this bill is allowed to proceed past second reading. That is a proposition which we are prepared to debate. Another reason we are fighting this bill is that it is just one more indication of the utter inconsistency of the government, especially with respect to energy and the export of energy. I want to point out some inconsistencies in connection with their policy in that regard, if one can call it a policy. Let us take oil, for example. Canada is not yet self-sufficient in oil. We have been trying our level best to become self-sufficient, but there have been times when we have had to draw heavily on the United States, and even though they were not self-sufficient and! had to draw it from the east they were good enough to let us have their oil.
We are exporting oil today, and there has been no problem in connection with that. That oil is being exported into the midwestern United States by way of Gretna, Manitoba. I would point out that that is a wasting asset, but what we are talking about now is a renewable asset and comes into a different category altogether. Let me illustrate the point with respect to gas. At the present time gas is being exported under licence from a very isolated section of southern Alberta where there is no concentration of industry. That is being exported to the Anaconda Copper company at Anaconda, Montana, and no one is raising a hurrah about that. Why did the Liberals not come in and raise the dickens because Alberta was making a deal with the Anaconda company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That deal was proposed by the federal government and recommended to Alberta, which province approved and implemented the proposal; and the gas is now being exported under federal licence.


Solon Earl Low: May I point out that in taking the stand they did they were showing their inconsistency. Furthermore, the province of Alberta gave them every co-operation in what they were doing. What else could we do? We did not have to give them the gas. We had control of that supply within the province, and no Liberal government could have objected to that. Not only that, but at the present time plans are being made for the export of natural gas from Alberta down into eastern Canada and concurrently into the midwestern United States. Where is the consistency in this policy?
International Rivers


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who asked us to arrange that?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, we asked you, but we asked for something more than that. We asked for a policy that would make it possible for us to export that gas and guarantee to the producers in our province a decent well-head price. I am not at all convinced as to the sagacity of the minister or the government in the way they arranged that whole deal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are very capable of shifting your ground.


Solon Earl Low: We are not shifting ground. I have already pointed out the utter inconsistency of the whole policy. Let us now deal for a moment with electricity. I have pointed out that already some electricity is being exported into a northwest power pool from British Columbia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a temporary basis.


Solon Earl Low: It does not make any difference whether it is temporary or not. The important thing is that it is being exported, and if there is danger of building up a vested interest on the other side there is just as much danger in this present export instance as there would be in regard to the proposal we are now discussing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Rave on.


Solon Earl Low: Let us use a little logic and reasoning instead of a lot of hooey. The minister's own atomic energy committee is manufacturing plutonium and other derivatives of uranium at Chalk River and exporting them to the United States. I believe a good case could be made out to show that these fissionable derivatives of uranium could be far more important to Canada in future years than the comparatively small amount of water power involved in the Kaiser proposition could ever be. Yet we do not hear the Liberals working up much hysteria about that.
Bill No. 3 should be withdrawn and put into cold storage until this government has the good sense to sit down with the provinces and work out a satisfactory and comprehensive natural energy policy which will be in the best interests of the whole of the country. When they do that it may be that legislation such as Bill No. 3 might be needed as part of an over-all policy. If so, then I imagine sensible people everywhere will realize it and give their co-operation in trying to get such legislation. But let us have it introduced in a sensible manner, as part of a comprehensive natural energy and fuel policy.
It is awkward at any time to try to debate the merits of a bill by tying it to a single

International Rivers
transaction or project. The whole effort of those who are trying to get Bill No. 3 through this house has been directed toward obscuring the real principle of the bill by constant reference to the Kaiser dam and the Columbia river development program. The Liberal party have played so much very questionable politics in this whole business that many of them are confused about the real intent and purpose of the legislation. For that reason, before I close I would like to bring the debate back to the real principle of the bill itself.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Your party took it away.


Solon Earl Low: What is the principle involved in this legislation? The minister who introduced the bill, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) who spoke for the Conservative party, and indeed several others appear to believe that the principle is provision for the development of Canada's water resources in the national interest. But I maintain that is not the real principle at all. The development of Canada's water resources in the national interest may have been the hope in the mind of the minister. It may even be one of his sincere desires. I am not going to claim, and I never have, that the minister is insincere. I have a great respect for him. Sometimes I differ sternly with him and I shall continue to do so if I feel that is warranted. But if that is one of his sincere desires then I say it is also the sincere hope and desire of every Canadian worthy of the name. We all want to see the water resources of the country developed in the national interest, and that certainly is the hope and desire of the government of British Columbia. I talked to members of that government about this project, and I gathered from them their complete sincerity of purpose and desire to do the right thing. Certainly every one of the Social Credit members of this house wishes to do his utmost to bring this hope to a full and glorious realization.
However, I say that is not the real purpose of the bill itself. The real purpose is to try to establish the federal government in complete and exclusive control of every body of water which rises in Canada and any part of which flows across the boundary line between Canada and the United States, together with all works and improvements that are now in existence or may be brought into existence along these rivers. I am referring to works which may cause a rise or fall in the level of the water at the boundary.


Jean Lesage: There is more in it than that.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I believe there is, but that is certainly enough.


Jean Lesage: I would ask the hon. member if, after reading this bill, he does not agree that it does not apply unless the works alter the use of water outside of Canada?


Solon Earl Low: That may be.


Jean Lesage: It is written in the bill.


Solon Earl Low: I do not think the bill makes that too clear. At any rate, by far the most serious aspect of this legislation is what looks like an attempt by the government to bring about an important change in the constitution by the simple process of passing an obstructive bill through this house.
That brings me to something I would like to say about the constitutional aspects of this whole thing. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources last night went to some lengths in his speech to show that the bill is entirely within the competence of the federal government because it comes under section 92, subsection 10, of the British North America Act. The British North America Act was devised by men of vision, men who were, I think, quite earnest and who did a good job. I have always felt that the division of powers as arranged in the British North America Act was sound, good and wise.
Section 91 sets out those subjects which are of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Section 92 sets out those matters which are of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. But there is another group, namely those powers that are in the twilight zone, not specifically allocated either to the one or the other. In this present instance the federal government has invoked the most invidious section of the British North America Act, section 92, subsection 10, and has used it as the constitutional basis for this bill. I say the section is invidious for the reason that every time it has been invoked it has engendered ill will and disunity in this country.
In the second place, that is a section which the framers of the British North America Act felt should be and would be used sparingly, because it involves the most sweeping powers. A government that was anxious to be fair and just and to promote national unity would be extremely careful in invoking that section of the British North America Act, especially in cases where for many years a province has been exercising rights under their own legislation without challenge, rights which are bound to be interfered with by the federal action now contemplated in Bill No. 3. When I say legislation which has remained unchallenged for many years, I refer to the legislation referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver East, the water act of

British Columbia of 1897. Governments of that province have been operating all these years under the powers given them by that act, which has never been challenged. The present government thought they had the authority under that act to go ahead, and in sincerity they went ahead to arrange a deal with the Kaiser interests for the development of water power which is now going to waste.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it becomes a most serious matter if the constitution can in effect be changed as easily as by passing this bill. What rights of any of the provinces could possibly ever be safe from an arrogant federal government which cared nothing for the feelings of those people who do not belong to the same political party as they do? I refer to the fact that the Canada Shipping Act was based on that very clause, section 92, subsection 10, of the British North America Act; and since that clause was invoked it has been used to make every grain elevator in my constituency, even down to the smallest one, a work for the general good of Canada.
That is how far you can go with this thing. I wonder how many barber shops could not be brought under this provision as works for the general good of Canada, and how many schools in this country. If a reckless government ever took the thought into their heads to go ahead and do it there is nothing could stop them if they had the gall to try to do it. I say that becomes a very serious matter to be considered by every Canadian.
Finally, Bill No. 3 is clearly an obstructive bill. It is perfectly clear from what has been said both outside and inside the house that the main purpose of the bill is to prevent the consummation of an agreement which is being negotiated by one of our provincial governments. That is a bad reason for any legislation, because there are other and much better ways of safeguarding the national interest. Second, the bill is punitive. It provides power to punish a province, and I think that is a bad principle ever to be established in legislation in this house. Third, it is presumptive. It is based upon the presumption that all the federal government needs to do to provide itself with powers to invade provincial rights is to invoke section 92, subsection 10, of the British North America Act.
For the reasons I have mentioned I am opposed to the second reading of the bill, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell):
That all the words after "That" in the motion for second reading of Bill No. 3 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the further consideration of this bill be deferred until the principle thereof has been referred to a dominion-provincial conference and considered by such conference".
50433-70i
International Rivers


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. Although he is entitled to ask that further investigation be made of a certain problem contemplated by the bill, the motion must be that the subject matter thereof be referred to an existing body, either to a standing committee or to a commission such as the board of transport commissioners or some other such organization. Otherwise where would the bill stand if nobody called a dominion-provincial conference?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ask the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member realizes that unless he amends his amendment I will not be able to accept it. If he will look at citation 657 of Beauchesne, third edition, he will see that the latter part thereof says:
[DOT] * * or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
By "committees, commissioners" what is referred to is the board of transport commissioners, for example, or committees that are in existence under standing order 63. Would the hon. member like to explain what his purpose was?


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I gave considerable thought to the procedure by which second reading could be prevented at this time in order to afford us a chance to give the matter further consideration, because I knew that if we were to allow second reading to pass the house would be agreeing to the principle of the bill, and the principle having been adopted certainly the important reason for debate would no longer exist. I have looked at Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, 1943, and at page 337 under "amendments" I discovered that there are two different ways by which an amendment can be moved. The first is by moving that the measure be given the six months' hoist. The second is as follows:
The question being proposed "That Bill No.-
In this case, it is Bill No. 3.
-intituled an act ... be now read a second time"; Mr. . . . moves in amendment thereto, seconded
by Mr	that all the words after "That" in
the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"The further consideration of this bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada".
This evidently was something that was used by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at some time in the past, and is cited here as one means by which an amendment can be made. I took it to mean that it could be used as the basis for our amendment.

International Rivers


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member looks at citation 657, which is a resume of the forms which an amendment may take, he will see that there is a footnote, May 390. If he looks at May 390, he will see that in addition to the three methods that are provided by citation 657, there are two or three other methods that have been deleted by Bourinot in his fourth edition and which do not appear in the 1943 edition of Beauchesne. This is because a practice has evolved, and previous Speakers' rulings make it so now, that what is understood by the reference of the subject matter of a bill to a committee must be to an existing committee or an existing commission.
Now, if the amendment were to read that the subject matter of the bill be referred to a standing committee or an existing commission, that would be in order.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact it appears that my amendment is out of order, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell):
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to another point of order. It is a very technical one, I admit, but we might as well keep things straight and I am sure hon. members to my left can take care of it. I believe the hon. member for Macleod has already spoken and therefore cannot be the seconder of this amendment. The hon. member for Peace River will have to find someone else.


Solon Earl Low: I shall find someone else. I shall say the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch).


Mr. Speaker:: This point is one which is technical, but sometimes we must take care of these little technicalities before they become serious offences. Therefore the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), that this bill be not now read a second time but this day six months hence. Is the house ready for the question?


Frederick George Hahn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; it was the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) who moved the amendment, not the hon. member for Macleod.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house, by consent, is willing to cure the technical difficulty raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), then perhaps we could consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia. Is the house ready for the question?


John Horne Blackmore: Before the question is put I desire to make several comments which I feel are necessary. In the first place, may I draw to the attention of the people in the country, as well as the members in this house, how serious it is for this house to give a bill second reading. Once this bill is given second reading the House of Commons of Canada puts its seal of approval on the principle of the bill.
As the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, it is not at all certain what the principle of the bill is. The bill is like a wolf in sheep's clothing. The sheep's clothing does not look too bad, but the wolf underneath does look bad. Now, the wolf that is underneath is the power to enter into the province of British Columbia and dictate policy in respect to the whole of the Columbia river. The general principle of the bill is to amend the Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, by an act of this parliament, and to base that act and its constitutionality upon the international joint commission and the boundary waters treaty of 1909.
I do not believe there is a member in this house or a responsible person in Canada who would be willing to base an amendment of the Canadian constitution on the boundary waters treaty of 1909 between the United States and Canada, in respect of international waters. Certainly I do not think there is a responsible person in this country over 18 years of age who would be willing to have the constitution of Canada amended by an act of this parliament, without any restraint whatever. This is the act of a power-hungry party that has been re-elected time and time again, sometimes by a minority of the votes in the country, but in such a way that it has so many members in the house it is impossible for the opposition to do a thing. The party in power has no opposition and can work its evil will, no matter how evil that will may happen to be.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We may have the support of the Conservatives on this.


John Horne Blackmore: I will just leave that language as it is. I said "evil will", but I am not saying any member of the house is particularly evil. I am suggesting the people who are back behind the Liberal party are evil, and that they are aiming at the destruction of freedom on the North American continent. I do not hesitate a minute to suggest that. This bill is one of the very best evidences of that fact, for I do not think any individual or any department whatever that was not under sinister pressure from someone behind the scenes would try to pass a bill of that kind.


Mr. Hardie:: Do you believe in ghosts?


John Horne Blackmore: Did you get what I said?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I did.


John Horne Blackmore: Now, it is just as serious as that, sir. If this house puts its seal of approval on the wolf that is down under the sheep's clothing, it is a serious matter.
Many members in this house have served on committees, and may know that just as soon as a bill is given second reading and goes to a committee, the chairman of the committee generally says, "Now, gentlemen, the house has already settled the principle of this bill; this committee has no competence whatever to deal with the principle." What have we to deal with under the terms of reference? We begin to single out the various clauses, and in the case of most parliamentary committees the procedure is disappointing, if not farcical. I have been on enough committees to know how that works out.
Generally speaking, a committee-and this is too bad-before ever it sits is told pretty well by the government what it is to report. The report could be written pretty well before the committee has its hearing. I have been on committees long enough to know that is the case, and it is very much the same with royal commissions. The royal commissioners are told what they are supposed to find before they ever have a hearing.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order Mr Speaker-


John Horne Blackmore: I know that sounds strange.


John Horace Dickey: I rise on a point of order__


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could indicate just how a discussion of the procedure of committees and royal commissions is relevant to the amendment that has been moved or to the principle of the bill?


John Horne Blackmore: I am thankful for the interruption, because the hon. member has given me an opportunity to repeat my statement for the benefit of those who were too busy reading newspapers to get it. The matter arose from a statement I made which implied that back behind a government like this are probably a number who contributed to the campaign funds to elect it.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that what he has said is relevant to the matter under discussion in this house.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, because I was pointing out how serious it is that the house should give approval to the principle of this
International Rivers
bill by giving it second reading, especially when the house knows so very little about the things involved in making up one's mind as to whether or not the bill might properly be passed.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member should speak for himself, not for other members in the house.


John Horne Blackmore: That is just a silly and childish remark. This hon. member is speaking for himself, and is quite prepared to take the responsibility for everything he says.
Then I go on from what I was saying. I do not hesitate to repeat that there is in this bill not only the sheep's clothing principle of the bill but also the wolf principle that is under the sheep's clothing. We can easily give approval to the wolf principle of the bill, thinking we are merely giving approval to the sheep's clothing principle that is covering up the wolf. Now, that is a terribly serious matter, and I propose to go on from there.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: And if you just keep your ears and eyes open you will learn something. In the course of 19 or 20 years in public life one can learn much if he keeps alert. I feel we should do something which would give the country as a whole, and the members of parliament as well as the members of the provincial legislature, a chance to cool down and get all the facts, and then make a sober and sound decision in respect of this matter.
_ There is no urgency about passing this bill at all. This country will not disintegrate if we do not pass this bill for six months or a year. No harm will be done. We could very easily do what the hon. member for Peace River has suggested, both in his first and in his second amendments; because if we give six months' hoist to the bill it means simply that we take six months to think it over. And we can very easily afford to do that, considering all that is involved.
I wish to say just a word or two to show how much at sea the ordinary person will be in approaching the principle, or the facts which underlie the position, let us say, of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. First of all I wish to say a word or two with respect to that minister. I think this young man is one of the most promising young men who ever came into parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is probably how he is elected, by promising.


John Horne Blackmore: I think, everything being considered, that this young man already has distinguished himself greatly both before the House of Commons and before the country.

International Rivers
Anything I say concerning the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is not meant in any way to reflect upon him. He is merely the minister in charge of the department, a department which has before it an enormous number of responsibilities. He depends upon public servants whose business it is to give him advice. Wellnigh unquestionably almost anything he says comes right from what his advisers tell him to say. So he is not altogether responsible for everything said by him in that respect. I want to make that perfectly clear, because there is no doubt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that although the remarks he has made were made with a certain amount of levity, that fact does not appear in Hansard. Anyone who is not here this evening and may read Hansard tomorrow would infer from what the hon. member said that the minister is not responsible for what he says in the house. I think the hon. member would not want to leave that in Hansard, that whatever the minister has said has been dictated to him by his advisers.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, in a moment or two I would have gone on to qualify that statement so as to make it perfectly clear. It is my desire to have the whole thing perfectly clear, and generally I succeed in at least some measure in that respect.
A minister in any government, in large measure, must rely for advice upon the experts in his department, and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is no exception. Being a young man filled with energy and activity, and with many responsibilities-


An hon. Member:: He has a Rhodes scholar for a deputy, too.


John Horne Blackmore: Probably more than one Rhodes scholar, and probably a good many graduates of the London school of economics, too. Some hon. members do not take the London school of economics very seriously, but I could give them information which would sober them down, I will tell you, on that subject.
Just to show how insecure the position of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is-and I do not include the minister in this at all-I would refer the house to the minister's letter, which of course he had to sign as the responsible minister, dated January 24, 1955, and addressed to J. W. Bailey, secretary of the meeting committee, Nakusp, British Columbia. I turn to page 2 of that letter and place on record some of the statements made therein, where the minister begins to give his reasons for
[Mr. Blackmore.1
opposing the Castlegar dam. These have been referred to before, but I wish to discuss them. This is No. 1:
It would be unwise to proceed with this project at this time.
Period.
The power potentialities of the Columbia river basin are still under investigation.
They might be under investigation for another 15 years, for all we know. Meantime the water is running to waste and nothing is being done about it. Meantime people across the boundary line of British Columbia are going without power which they could generate with that water. To go on with the letter:
Once the potential of this river system has been assessed-*
He does not say by whom, but presumably by the all-wise Ottawa people.

and recommendations have been made as to the carrying out of specific projects, both the United States and Canada will be free to exercise, commonly or separately, the rights retained and guaranteed under the boundary waters treaty of 1909. For instance, should Canada find it in its interests to do so, the flood waters of the Upper Kootenay river could be diverted through canal flats into the Columbia. They could then be utilized for power development through the full head of the Columbia river in Canada. These and other flood waters could then be fully utilized for stream regulation, power and other purposes in Canada. If these projects prove to be economically possible, they will change very considerably the planning of the development of the whole Columbia river basin.
How much more do we know about why this project should not be proceeded with, after reading all that? He says, "It would be unwise to proceed with this project at this time". I have read you the reason he gives; and it is so vague, so incomprehensible, so intangible that there is nothing substantial connected with it at all. I think all hon. members must recognize that.
Now, there is one of the main pillars upon which the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce, rest their case! Let us see how powerful the next reason is. It says:
No. 2. According to what is presently known, the project does not provide for the maximum use of the storage potential at the Arrow lakes and of the power potential on the Columbia.
Well, nobody said it did. Certainly British Columbia did not say it did. And why in the world British Columbia should know all that before it could agree to a simple little project such as would be involved in the building of a low-level dam at the outlet of the Arrow lakes, and agreeing with the United States that it could take 3 million acre feet stored up behind that dam and use it to firm up

their power production-I say why in the world they would have to go into all that is something that I think is quite beyond the ability of anyone to understand. Well, that is the support behind the second great pillar upon which rests the whole position of the government. Here is another classical paragraph. Probably this letter was written for the minister by some of the London school of economics experts in his department. I continue to read under No. 2:
There is another and even more important aspect to this question. The fall from the Castlegar site to Murphy creek above the city of Trail is about 40 feet.
What on earth would that have to do with it? I continue:
At the latter point, there are possibilities of dam sites.
When I spoke yesterday I spoke on two or three dam sites. I pointed out that it would be idle to contemplate the development of those sites until Waneta No. 1 and Waneta No. 2 were developed to the limit and electricity generated therefrom sold to British Columbia. Therefore to talk about Murphy creek in relation to the construction of the Castlegar dam site is just nonsense.


Jean Lesage: Does the hon. member know where that creek is?


John Horne Blackmore: There is enough right here.


Jean Lesage: Does the hon. member know where it is?


John Horne Blackmore: The Murphy creek site is in southeast British Columbia. That is about all we need to know. I could give more details but I have more important things to talk about. I read on under point No. 2.
At the latter point there are possibilities of dam sites.
I ask what conceivable bearing would that have on the building of the Castlegar dam? The letter goes on with No. 2:
The available head taken alone may not warrant a power development. If it is combined with the head at Castlegar, it would afford an opportunity to add 250,000 kilowatts of on-site power in British Columbia-
There is no sale for it in British Columbia at the present time because they already have a surplus of 75,000 kilowatts. I continue:
-while permitting the same or more production of downstream power as the Arrow lake storage project.
Maybe I ought to stop right here.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member read the next sentence? Since a letter which has been written and signed by me is being read
International Rivers
in this house, I believe the house is entitled to have the whole of the argumentation. The next sentence of the letter is obviously the most important part of that paragraph and I am afraid that is why the hon. member does not wish to read it.


John Horne Blackmore: I intend to read it. It is too rich for me to leave out. Every statement in this letter is an accumulation effecting a climax which is not good for the bill. Now, before I read on I just want to stop and explain why there is a great difference between a dam site which is built for the generation of power and a dam site which has to be built-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: We will leave off the "site".
The dam-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a great difference between a dam which is constructed for the generation of electricity and a dam which is constructed purely for the storage of water. This dam which is contemplated at Castlegar is to be constructed purely for the storage of water, not for the generation of electricity in Canada whatsoever, which puts the two types of dams in altogether different categories. Now, a dam which was constructed in this area for the purpose of generating electricity would be supported by nobody while the Waneta No. 1 site is not developed and the Waneta No. 2 is not developed at all, and there are 75,000 kilowatts of power surplus in the area. Surely it must be clear that there is a tremendous difference between a purely storage dam and a power generation dam and that has a tremendous bearing upon one's conclusions.
Let me go on to what the minister wanted me to read. I am happy to do it. I proceed with point No. 2:
According to expert advice, however, the realization of this last project may make the Murphy creek development economically unfeasible which would mean that 250,000 kilowatts of on-site power would be lost for British Columbia.
Note carefully how it is worded:
According to expert advice, however, the realization of this last project may make the Murphy creek development economically unfeasible . . .
The information I gave in my talk yesterday showed that when the potential production of Waneta No. 1 and Waneta No. 2 was achieved and the power all sold, and the time came for the development of the Murphy creek project, then the Castlegar dam site and the Arrow lake could be made to supplement the head of Murphy creek to the extent that Murphy creek would become much more effective as a producer of power.

International Rivers
I went into that yesterday; I shall not go into it again. I thought I explained it so that anyone who runs can understand it.
All of this material in the letter is supposed to be a reason why British Columbia would be foolish to allow an American company to come in and build a low-level dam, pay every cent for it and put in a service; why British Columbia would be foolish to allow them to store 3 million acre feet of water in the Arrow lakes and allow the water to go down into the United States to firm up their productive capacity in their plants. How can these reasons have any conceivable bearing on the wisdom or nonwisdom of what the British Columbia government proposes to do in relation to Castlegar? That must be quite clear.
The Murphy creek site is presently under investigation by federal authorities under the Columbia river reference.
There is no evidence that the matter will be thoroughly investigated in less than six or seven years. According to the British Columbia plan, if we allow them to go on with the Castlegar project they will have made about $3 million by that time to pay off $3 million of the great debt the Liberals created and left to them, and that is very important. I know this $1 million is just peanuts; but it was not peanuts when an Alberta bond issue of $1 million came due and was defaulted, and it would not be peanuts if British Columbia defaulted on a $1 million bond issue. It would be a mighty serious thing then to any responsible government.
British Columbia must be looking to these matters because, as I pointed out before, that was not so long ago. We have no assurance that we are not going into a depression; and if we go into a depression I will wager that the federal government at Ottawa would be meticulously careful that they did not infringe on provincial responsibility to look after unemployment. That will be the responsibility of British Columbia then. They left all the burden they possibly could on the other provinces. They left debt that was accumulated in Alberta by reason of the depression, just about $67 million as a result of the depression alone. Seemingly that could easily happen in British Columbia. Surely any responsible government should be looking for means to guard against that, to accumulate money to pay off the provincial debt and save interest which they could use for building roads and for other desirable things.
We now come to pillar No. 3. I think I have shown that there is not very much

substance in the two pillars thus far considered. Let us take the third pillar which is offered by the department in their approach to this bill. I read from No. 3:
The carrying out of the Arrow lakes project at this stage might delay . . .
There is no proof. Why, dear me, the sun might not rise a year from today, for all I know. I continue:
. . . might delay for quite a number of years the realization of other alternative projects-
What ones?
-more important to British Columbia and Canada.
What ones, for example? In my speech yesterday I dealt with Waneta No. 1, Waneta No. 2, Murphy creek and Mica creek, but not one of these is in the same class as this dam, because they are proposed to be powergenerating dams, while this one is merely a water-storing dam with the object of firming up power generated in the United States. Therefore this statement is just pure childish nonsense in its application to this project at Castlegar. Now, see the powerful reasoning that this bit of nonsense is supported by. I read on under No. 3:
It has been asserted that the Arrow lakes storage reservoir would not affect the development of the Mica creek project.
Yes, you can hear that bright young thing right out in British Columbia:
This assertion should be treated with considerable reservation-*
Pretty nearly any assertion needs to be.
-since under operating conditions it is doubtful that the most effective use of the proposed Mica creek development, of the proposed Arrow lakes storage and of the Grand Coulee project could be made without interference between them.
All vague. No evidence to support them whatsoever. No sign of any evidence. As matters stand at the present time it is the proposal of this government to get this house to endorse this bill, to put its rubber stamp on it before the house gets a chance to learn any of the underlying facts at all. That is pretty clever strategy, is it not? It sounds very much like the strategy that was worked on us in connection with Bretton Woods.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same kind of filibuster.


John Horne Blackmore: Just the same high-sounding, beautiful phrases that we had before. People believed them and were lulled off to sleep.
Careful co-ordination might minimize this interference but the last project in would have the lowest priority.
How do we know? There is no evidence. One purpose we had in making this motion was to give the minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce a chance to come and

share their knowledge with this house, to bring in their experts. We might move another motion so they can go into it further, and another motion, and still another motion for the same purpose. There is plenty of time. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) will also co-operate. They can come in here and use all the time necessary to tell the whole house all these facts. Let us not vote on a pig in a poke. That is what we are doing if we vote now on this Bill No. 3.


An hon. Member:: We know what we are doing.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course you know. These are the brilliant little fellows who do not know shucks about most things, who have been here hardly long enough to get themselves dry behind the ears; yet they know everything about how to run the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too much water around here.


John Horne Blackmore: I have lost my place here. I wanted to develop this matter in an orderly fashion. I read on:
Moreover It must not be forgotten that economically, those projects, at a given period of time, are alternatives-
There is nothing alternative about any one of these power-producing projects to this water storage project at Castlegar. There is no possibility that it can be. Just listen to the whole of this beautiful sentence by these graduates of the London school of economics. They must have been well trained in English.
Moreover it must not be forgotten that economically, those projects, at a given period of time, are alternatives and compete against one another to meet the same demand for power.
It does not say what projects there are. Nobody knows. All right, we can vote on this and nobody knows what will happen. The Castlegar project does not create power at all. It does not compete with any of the power-generating projects. Note how completely misleading that statement is. I notice the Minister of Trade and Commerce is enjoying himself and showing some signs of hilarity. I would appreciate it if he would tell us all the facts. Meanwhile we have to go by what we know of it.
For instance, it is highly probable that the Arrow lakes project would interfere with any arrangement being worked out with United States interests and the Bonneville power authority for 10-5 million acre feet of storage at the Mica dam site.
We already have evidence adduced in this debate to show that the Mica creek dam might not be developed for 10 or 15 years. Meanwhile all possibility of giving the United States the use of 3 million acre feet of stored water in the Arrow lakes every
International Rivers
year, the possibility of the United States having the advantage of that water, will go over the dam. There will be nothing to it. The $1 million per year that the British Columbia government would get and could use for all sorts of purposes will be lost. Just listen to the sound of this most impressive language. It is highly probable; we do not know who thinks that or why. Then we have all these wonderful paragraphs:
The first storage built will have a first call on idle equipment in the downstream power plants and will firm up a greater number of kilowatts per million acre feet.
Is it proposed ultimately to use the Mica creek project to supply the United States with water with which to firm up their power production? If so, then it is proposed to create exactly the same position as that prevailing in connection with the construction of the Castlegar dam. If it is dangerous for Canada to be "throwing away" its electricity or water it may be equally dangerous when these projects including Mica creek are in action:
The first storage built will have a first call on idle equipment in the downstream power plants and will firm up a greater number of kilowatts per million acre feet.
Not the slightest hint of explanation. Not an authority quoted. I read on:
The project that is going to be most advantageous for British Columbia and Canada should be supported.
Of course it should be, but that is no indication that the Castlegar dam is not exactly that project. Not the slightest bit of evidence has been adduced. The Castlegar dam project will begin to get results in three years, but it will be more than three years before they can start work on the others, as far as a person can judge.
It is far from being evident that the Arrow lakes reservoir is the one which will best serve the Canadian interests at this time.
Comforting, vague, uncertain. It sounds just like a composition you would expect to be written by graduates of the London school of economics. Just listen to these inspiring words. I read No. 4:
The terms of the agreement proposed by the B.C. government will have an unfavourable effect on the Canadian aluminum industry, particularly in British Columbia.
No evidence to prove that. No evidence to show that it would make any serious difference if it did, or to whom it would make a difference.
The future of this industry lies in its ability to export to American and world markets. While the cost of power at Kitimat may ultimately be around 3 mills, today with the development only partially completed and many of the capital outlays already made, it is more in the order of 7 or 8 mills. The reduction in cost will result from

international Rivers
greater production and depends largely on increased exports to the United States. This situation must, obviously, be considered most carefully before an arrangement is permitted which would allow a project in Canada to make power available from Canadian storage for use by industry in another country at a price little more than half what it costs to a competing Canadian producer.
You would think from that statement that they were going to create the most colossal amount of power. But what would be created is the number of kilowatts of which 42,000 is 20 per cent. That would not be enough to seriously disrupt any production here. What evidence have we that when this power is developed in the United States it will be used for the production of aluminum? There is not the slightest chance of that happening. That is just as false a bit of sophistry as you could read. This is a learned letter from one of the big departments at Ottawa where the wise men all live.
The terms of the agreement are bad for B.C. and Canada.
There is not a bit of proof advanced or a bit of evidence adduced to support that bald statement, which is as foolish, insubstantial and unsatisfying as the rest of that letter. But it continues:
If the negotiations between individual states in the United States can be used as a criterion, Canada should receive about 50 per cent of the total downstream power generated in the United States by the use of Columbia river water stored within her boundaries.
That is the first part. Apparently there are plans in operation in those states, but we do not know the facts about them. Now, are those plans or the dams involved to be built by an outside interest? And are they to be built free for the states concerned, in the manner in which this Castlegar one is to be built? Let us remember that a United States interest, the Kaiser corporation, is going to build this Castlegar dam free. It will not cost British Columbia a cent to build it, nor will it cost them a cent to maintain it. If a similar condition does not obtain in those states referred to in regard to their projects this conclusion about 50 per cent has no relation whatever to the evidence adduced. But let us continue:
For the more economic projects, the ratio could be expected to run somewhat higher in Canada's favour. The Arrow lakes provide one of the most "natural" and economic reservoirs in the Columbia basin, and yet apparently Canada would get a share of 20 per cent only of the downstream power available at Grand Coulee.
The force of that statement or lack of force depends entirely on whether a United States company has come to Canada, built a dam, paid for it, supported and maintained the dam every year, and is satisfied to give 20 per cent of the power for the use of the water;
[Mr. Blackmore.l
or whether the province of British Columbia build the dam at a cost of $30 million bearing interest at 5J per cent, which would amount to $165,000 per year.
If the government of British Columbia built that dam you justifiably would expect it to get 50 per cent of the power; but when a United States company builds the dam, pays for it, maintains it, receives the water which is stored and uses it to generate electricity and then gives British Columbia 20 per cent of that power, it might be giving a really good deal. It will therefore be seen that there is confusion in that statement I have just read, confusion which is worse confounded, and no substance of reason at all.
The next pillar is No. 6. I am sorry my time is running out, but this is the last point with which I wish to deal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall come back and entertain the house again if I am given another opportunity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the main motion carry?


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: It is conceivable that under normal circumstances a bill such as Bill No. 3 would not have engendered such protracted debate, nor would such strong differences of opinion have been expressed. However, it certainly cannot be said that the circumstances surrounding Bill No. 3 are in any sense normal. We have had a definite lack of information, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River as well as by the hon. member for Lethbridge and others. We are still of the opinion, and thoroughly convinced, that before Bill No. 3 is given second reading the information which has been requested should be made available.
I refer at this moment only to the letter written by the Minister for Northern Affairs and National Resources, and referred to by the hon. member for Lethbridge. In sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, we are faced with the indefinite, the opinion, the maybe, the suppose, but there was nothing substantial to back up either the observations or the opinions contained in that letter. In my opinion that is the most
International Rivers
disturbing aspect of this whole thing, especially when the letter went out over the signature of a responsible minister.
It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the government of British Columbia, a duly elected government responsible to the people of British Columbia, engaged in extensive consultation and utilized every means at its disposal to acquire all necessary information, following which it proposed to negotiate an agreement which, in the opinion of that government, was in the best interests of British Columbia. If that were true it would naturally, I believe, be in the best interests of Canada. It is impossible for me to conceive of anyone here or elsewhere assuming that the government of a province would not or could not or did not have in mind the welfare of the nation of which that province is a part. I feel that anyone who would suggest otherwise would not only be most unfair to the province, but would be doing a disservice to the people of Canada.
It has been pointed out in this house, again only a moment ago, that the Kaiser corporation would spend in British Columbia on the Castlegar dam the sum of $30 million. Moreover, the corporation would pay to the province of British Columbia $275,000 a year, and would make available each year an amount of electricity which based on a value of $20 per kilowatt hour would be worth in the neighbourhood of an additional $800,000 per year. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is not a good deal from that specific point of view, why in the world does not some minister stand and say why not? At the same time he could follow up by offering a proposition which might be considered better.


John Horne Blackmore: Or as good.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Well, yes, or as good. We are waiting for some minister to do just that. I repeat that whether you like the government of British Columbia or whether you do not, it is still reasonable to assume that the government is going to have in mind the best interests of the province of British Columbia and, I would declare it therefore follows, the best interests of Canada. Surely no responsible person is going to assume that a government, any provincial government in Canada, is going to sell out the interests of the province; yet that expression has been bandied about.


John Horne Blackmore: By irresponsible men.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would certainly call it an irresponsible position for men to take. Then, of course, you can follow it from there if you like, to determine the type of person who would likely do such a thing.

International Rivers
The federal authorities apparently did not, and do not now, consider this a good proposition. I checked the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce rather carefully. I do not remember the number of times that he used the expression "in the national interest" or something comparable to it. From the number of references I cannot help but conclude that he must construe some proposition, and I do not know of any proposition which he may have in mind other than the one in British Columbia, to be opposed to the national interest. I repeat that we have not had placed before us sound arguments to substantiate that position. We are still waiting for them.
The minister also has referred to the undesirability, if there is such a word, of the shortterm benefits. No one has established the fact as yet that these benefits may be short-term. I see substantial benefits over a considerable period of time. If my understanding of the proposed agreement is correct, after a specified period of time the works become the property of British Columbia. The minister used the term now and again, "inconsistent with the longer national view". I should like to know what he considers to be inconsistent. He used a broad, general expression which might refer to one thing or everything. If he believes that the Kaiser proposition is inconsistent with the longer national view, then I would suggest the minister is under an obligation to show us wherein it is not in the interests of Canada for the indefinite future.
The minister also has used the expression in his speech, "not the most advantageous development of a water system." We have not yet been given any clear-cut definition of what he means by the so-called advantageous development of the water system. Reference is made in the bill itself to this expression. I should like to know just exactly the type of proposition that the minister would lay alongside the Kaiser dam proposition which would be a more advantageous system for British Columbia and for Canada. It may be, but I want to hear what it is. We have not yet heard that.
The minister also referred to any scheme having to fit in with the general picture of water and power requirements in Canada. Well, the hon. member for Peace River asked the minister to give us the picture of the over-all national policy in this field. Until we do have such a picture it is virtually impossible for anyone, including the minister, to say that a certain proposed project does or does not fit into the so-called national picture of water and power requirements in Canada.
The minister also referred in his speech to certain works which do not include appropriate safeguards to protect the national interest. That expression also cropped up. But did he or did anyone point to this project and establish the fact that it does not include appropriate safeguards to protect the national interest? During the course of this debate I have heard no one undertake that.
What exactly is required by way of safeguards? We are waiting for an announcement concerning those safeguards. In what way and to what extent does the proposed project in British Columbia not fit into such a pattern? If it does not fit into such a specific pattern it is because of the fact that no pattern exists at this time.
The minister also referred to the fact that the rights of individuals in both countries must be protected. In what way and to what extent does this proposed project fail to protect individual rights? If it does not give that protection, then I am waiting to hear someone point out wherein it fails to do so. I understand-and I refer to what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-that where damage may be done to property along the Arrow lakes, and where flooding may be caused, compensation is provided, as it is provided in all such projects. I took it from what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West that if any project in Canada interfered in any way with one house or one acre of land, then a project such as that should be damned and not proceeded with. And I am not using that word in the sense of the holding back of water.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is not only the opinion of the hon. member for Kootenay West; it is the opinion of people in the Arrow lakes district.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would assume that the hon. member was quoting with approval. I could not help understanding, from his observations, that he was in agreement. Certainly he did not say, "My people say this, but I disagree with them".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am representing my people.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I think it is assumed that if I rise in the House of Commons and advocate a certain proposal, either I am in agreement with it myself or I make it clear that I am not.
The minister brought out a number of points with which I should like to deal. However, I have an amendment, and I am sure the house would like to hear it before ten o'clock so that hon. members may reflect upon it over the week end.

I move, seconded by the hon. member tor Bow River (Mr. Johnston):
That Bill No. 3 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
There has been evidence throughout this debate that a good deal of additional information is required. I, for one, cannot support the second reading of a bill unless I am satisfied in my own mind that I have all the information necessary to render a proper decision. And it is to the principle of the bill I am speaking at the moment. If we are asked to endorse the principle of the bill, as we are now asked, then all I can assume is that there will be a great many members in the house who are in a fog or a haze with respect to the actual principle at the time they cast their votes. Certainly I would find it extremely difficult to sleep tonight if I were to give approval to the second reading of this bill, in the light of the very scanty information we have concerning certain vital aspects of this whole matter.
My amendment simply means that we do not have to accept the principle of the bill at the moment, but rather that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on external affairs so that all information necessary could be acquired, and all hon. members in that committee would be in possession of that necessary information and could either approve or disapprove of the bill. It would then come back to the house and hon. members would then be able to face a vote on second reading and assert conscientiously that they were fully conscious of the implications involved. That is the position we find it necessary to take at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if this amendment passes it kills the bill for this session, because the amendment is that the bill be not read a second time.
I wonder why everyone is so frightened of the bill. What is the purpose of the bill? Well, the purpose is to require the federal government to agree with the province that this is a desirable project. If we so agree a licence is issued and the work proceeds. We have had the same situation with permits under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, and that act has expressed the accepted policy of this government since 1907. I have heard some great debates on this question.
My hon. friend says that this is legislation aimed against British Columbia. Well, if so the same principle has been aimed against other provinces in the past. I recall that one of the great debates of my first session of parliament was as to whether a licence should be issued to the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company to export 40,000 kilowatts
International Rivers
of power from its Cedars plant on the St. Lawrence river to the Aluminum Company of America at Massena, New York. That was really a debate. This echoes that debate; "the water is running down river anyway; why not use it?" That was the principal keynote. We have the members of the Social Credit party saying, "The water is running down the river, let us use it now. Never mind the future." That has been the keynote of this argument from that section of the house.


An hon. Member:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been told several times that there are 75,000 kilowatts of unsold power in that area; "Therefore never mind the rest of it. That 75,000 kilowatts is a lot of unsold power. Let the rest of it go to the United States."


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not interrupt you. Then there was the great debate between the Ontario government and the federal government about the export of surplus power from Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: An Ontario Liberal government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An Ontario Liberal government and a federal Liberal government at Ottawa. The two arguments were used there; well, the water is running down the river anyway; we have the unsold power being generated, why not export? Fortunately this parliament decided not to export that power and today, as I said earlier in the debate, the province of Ontario is developing its last hydroelectric power. The province of Quebec, instead of sending power down to make aluminum at Massena, New York, is using that power to make aluminum in Canada. We were then making it at a plant in the province of Quebec that was less than one-twentieth the size it is today. If we had been willing to send that power over the line the plant at Massena would have been a big plant today, and the plant on the Saguenay would not be the size it is today.
I point out that I said nothing that could be construed as being of a political nature in explaining the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is simply to require, in connection with international streams, that we pass on the desirability of the export of regulated water in the same manner as we do for electricity and natural gas. If the application will stand examination a licence may well be granted. We do not know too much about this proposal. We have been told a lot about it in this debate. All I have seen is the contract that has been tabled, but I am told by the leader of the Social Credit

International Rivers
party that there is much more to it than that. There is to be a supplementary agreement with the Bonneville power authority that is going to become a part of the contract. Well, perhaps that makes the arrangement enforceable, for in my opinion the contract certainly is not enforceable in the form that has been tabled in this house. The hon. member says it is going to be made possible to export British Columbia's share of the power from the United States into Canada, that export is going to be assured. Well, that may change the whole complexion. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that we get information such as may enable us to join with the province in working out a solution that is acceptable in the national interest.
I point out that we think we have a national interest in the power resources of British Columbia. To date the Canadian section of the international joint commission has expended $2,781,000 in investigations and study of the best use of the water resources of the Columbia river. We have in the estimates that are before the house at the present time a further sum of $641,360 to be spent during the next fiscal year in continuing the study of the best use of the Columbia river system.
Strangely enough, General McNaughton has not been consulted by the province of British Columbia about this transaction. He tells me that he was in Victoria on the day this contract was signed, and that he did not hear about the agreement until two or three weeks later. I may say that the most disturbed man about this situation is General McNaughton. He sees several years of work thrown away; he sees the program that he hoped to carry out for the Columbia river system made unworkable.
The Arrow lakes are the great natural reservoir of the Columbia river in British Columbia. As I read the contract, it provides that the Kaiser company, an American company that operates an aluminum plant in Seattle, is to have the complete regulation of the water levels in the Arrow lakes. This company has the privilege of storing the water in periods of high water and holding that high water as long as it likes and releasing it as it likes to make up deficiencies in the flow of the Columbia river system below the border.


John Horne Blackmore: To the extent of 3 million acre feet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three million acre feet of water happens to be all the water there is in the Arrow lakes that will be controlled by this dam. It must be remembered that this is not a temporary arrangement; it is for 50 years, and renewable after that.

In other words the Kaiser company will regulate the water levels and storage capacity in the Arrow lakes for 50 years and beyond. What can you do with the Columbia river if you have regulation of the Arrow lakes tied up by a corporation outside of Canada?
Frankly, if I wanted to play politics with this matter, which I do not; if I were to forget that I am a member of a government that is responsible for all of Canada, I would not introduce this bill. I would not say a word; I would let the government of British Columbia turn over the Arrow lakes lock, stock and barrel to the Kaiser company of Wilmington, Delaware, for their use and regulation. That would be playing politics. What we are trying to do is prevent a situation that we think is destructive of the best interests of the water resources of British Columbia and of Canada, for British Columbia is a part of the Dominion of Canada.
As I say, if examination proves that we are wrong, what happens? Well, we issue a permit; but we believe that this project is wrong. General McNaughton believes that this is wrong and contrary to the best interests of British Columbia and of Canada. Surely the Canadian section of the international joint commission, which has spent a great deal of money and three or four years of time in studying the possibilities of the Columbia system, have a right to know what the deal is and what effect it will have on the work they have planned for that area. Surely the federal government as a whole should be entitled to see the details of a contract made between Her Majesty's government in British Columbia and a company in the United States of America dealing with the use of a storage basin in Canada; for if there is any recourse for the United States for damage or nonperformance that recourse is not going to be against the province of British Columbia, it is going to be against the Dominion of Canada. If there are any claims from outside Canada they will not be filed with the government of British Columbia, they will be filed with the government of Canada.
It seems to me that a great deal of heat has been generated about a bill that simply asks that the information be laid on the table; that evidence be given that this is a prudent contract. We assume that if it can be shown it is not a prudent contract, the British Columbia government would be just as willing to abrogate it as we would be anxious to have it abrogated. If it could be shown that it is a prudent contract, of course a permit would be issued. It is just as simple as that.
Why all the speeches about the waters flowing anyway? Why not sell any power rights we cannot use immediately? We have heard that argument in every debate on hydroelec-

trie power export that has occurred in this house. Therefore let us not have any more of that. We know now, and we are quite prepared to quote back to any hon. member in that corner, the views he has already expressed in this debate bearing on the export of waterpower resources of Canada. To be sure of their views may be of some value to others in the long pull, but not to me. This debate has been almost entirely away from the point and has covered matters not discussed on the introduction of the bill, and not referred to in the bill itself.
International Rivers
On motion of Mr. Maclnnis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Monday, of course, is private members' day, but all hon. members know that the Prime Minister intends to make a statement at the beginning of the day. On Tuesday we shall have a motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.