1955-02-24

Mr. Speaker:: I have I am sure your permission to note the presence in our galleries of a most distinguished visitor, the minister of foreign affairs of Belgium, Mr. Paul Henri Spaak.
(Translation):
We extend to him the most cordial welcome and wish him a pleasant stay in this country.
(Text):
I need not relate the prodigious career of Mr. Spaak. It is already recorded in history. Suffice it for me to say that we welcome him not only as the outstanding representative of a friendly country but also as one of the greatest diplomats and statesmen of our time. Besides expressing our admiration for his many successful achievements, we pay him a special tribute for his untiring efforts and constant devotion to the cause of world peace.
In asking Mr. Spaak to accept our best wishes we want to assure him of the affection and friendship of the parliament of Canada and of the Canadian people towards his own country and towards the parliament and people of Belgium.
(Translation):
Mr. Spaak, our best wishes and most heartfelt prayers attend you.
(Text):



QUESTIONS


Mr. Bell:: 1.	Is the federal government pledged to donate $100,000 toward the erection of a sports centre In St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, is this amount to be paid in instalments and how many instalments?
3.	How much money has been paid to date?
4.	Did the original plans have to be changed in order to meet government requirements for qualifications?
5.	If so, what changes were made?
6.	Are similar amounts of money available for other communities in Canada?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No. An agreement under the policy of grants in aid of agricultural exhibition associations in the construction of buildings, similar to those elsewhere, was entered into between the Newfoundland Exhibition Association, Limited, and the government on September 2, 1952, for a grant of up to $100,000 toward the construction of an exhibition building at St. John's, Newfoundland.
2.	Yes, in ten annual instalments.
3.	$40,000.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Similar amounts were available to exhibition associations up to December, 1952, when the policy of financial assistance to agricultural exhibitions and fairs was revised.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 54-845
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	In what newspapers and on what dates was the civil service competition 54-845 in respect of the position of privy council officer advertised?
2.	On what date was the competition closed?
3.	How many applications were received giving names and addresses of applicants?
4.	Has an appointment been made? If so, who has been appointed and at what salary?


Mr. Pinard:: I have discussed this question with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and he has agreed to drop that part of his question under paragraph 3 concerning the names and addresses of applicants. With this reservation I am tabling the answer now.
1.	See attached list of newspapers with dates of advertising.
St. John's, Nfld., Evening Telegram, Jan. 22; Charlottetown, Guardian, Jan. 19; Halifax, Chronicle-Herald, Jan. 19; Saint John, Telegraph-Journal, Jan. 19, Times-Globe, Jan. 19; Montreal, La Presse, Jan. 19, Star, Jan. 19; Quebec, Chronicle-Telegraph, Jan. 19, Le Soleil, Jan. 20, L'Action Catholique, not available; Trois Rivieres, Le Nouvelliste, Jan. 19; Sherbrooke, Tribune, Jan. 19; Ottawa, Citizen, Jan. 18, Journal, Jan. 21, Le Droit, Jan. 19; Toronto, Globe and Mail, Jan. 19, Star, Jan. 18; Hamilton, Spectator, Jan. 19; London, Free Press, Jan. 19; Windsor, Daily Star, Jan. 20; Winnipeg, Free Press, Jan. 19, Liberte et le Patriote, Jan. 22; Regina, Leader-Post, not available; Saskatoon, Star-Phoenix, Jan. 19; Calgary, Herald, Jan. 18; Edmonton, Journal, Jan. 19; Vancouver, Sun, Jan. 20.

Labour Conditions
2.	Applications received up to February 4 are being considered.
3.	51 applications were received.
4.	No.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet before government notices of motion are called because I wish leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the alarming unemployment situation in Canada, as indicated by figures released yesterday, and the need for immediate action by the government to provide jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: I am tempted to ask immediately whether the hon. gentleman has leave to introduce such a motion because I feel, as he does, that the figures which were announced show that there might be some urgency for debating the question of unemployment. Today is Thursday, and I do not know exactly what the situation will be tomorrow, at which time we can go into supply without question put. The acting leader of the house might indicate whether there will be opportunity for an early debate by calling, perhaps, the Department of Labour.


Major James William Coldwell: It has not yet been opened.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar wish to add something at this stage?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Department of Labour has not yet been opened. No debate could occur on the estimates of the Department of Labour until the department is in supply.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as announced in the speech from the throne we intend, of course, to present to the house a bill making major revisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is not on the order paper, and therefore perhaps hon. members would feel that it should not be a factor in your decision. On the other hand, we are quite prepared to present another motion to go into supply at any time that it would be convenient to hon. members opposite, at which time this subject could be debated; and we should be glad to put in the labour department if that
[Mr. Pinard.l
motion is carried. It is the desire of the government to have at least one or two more items that can go to the committee of supply for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Would that arrangement meet with the approval of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not quite sure what the arrangement really is, Mr. Speaker. But this is a matter of some urgency, as I think you yourself suggested. If a debate could be arranged at a convenient date within the next few days the purpose would be served. Otherwise I think we should proceed with the debate this afternoon. I do not want to hold up the other business of the house, provided we have an understanding that this matter can be debated within the next few days. Today is Thursday.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members are aware that there is on the order paper a motion providing for government precedence beginning on Monday. If it would meet with the approval of hon. members I would suggest that we move to go into supply on either Monday or Tuesday if that motion is carried.


Major James William Coldwell: If that is done and we arrive at that understanding, inasmuch as this is Thursday, I do not think there will be undue delay by postponement until Monday. If that is the understanding I am quite prepared not to endeavour to interfere with the business of the house this afternoon, provided the matter can be debated on Monday.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before a decision is made in this matter I would point out that there has been a definite expectation on the part of hon. members that there would be an opportunity to discuss the report of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) following the prime ministers' conference in London and, I assume, a wider discussion of external affairs. We have not yet been informed when that discussion is to take place. I certainly agree with regard to the urgency of the subject which has been raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. We had intended to introduce the matter in another way. We support the argument that there is urgency about the discussion of this subject. However, I feel that the house should know exactly what business we are going to deal with.
In saying that, I wish to explain that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who has been guiding the affairs of the house, has extended courtesies to certain members in that respect. Nevertheless I think we should now know when the debate is going to take

place with regard to the report on the prime ministers' conference, and that this consideration should be borne in mind in making any decision as to when the other matter may be discussed. I would welcome the opportunity to proceed today with the discussion of the matter now raised.


Mr. Speaker:: It is extremely difficult, of course, to come to any agreement among the various parties with respect to arranging debates on either unemployment or external affairs by a discussion on the floor of the house. Usually the acting leader of the house meets with the representatives of the other parties. As long as he has given assurance that with respect to this particular matter with which we are now concerned some opportunity for discussion will be given at an early date, I think I have enough information at the moment to make my decision and to ask the house to support it.
As I told the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I agree with him when he says there is some urgency with respect to this matter. However, that does not necessarily mean the matter must be debated today. If it is to be done tomorrow or perhaps early next week- and I understand that the hon. member has expressed agreement to that sort of proposal -I would think his purpose would be served and that other arrangements for other debates could be dealt with through what we call the usual channels. If that arrangement meets with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I would ask if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has leave to withdraw his motion at the present moment. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR JOINT CONFERENCE ON UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? In view of the figures to which reference has already been made today and which were released yesterday, can he now answer my question of Tuesday? Is the government prepared to meet in a three-way conference or any other kind of conference to deal with the serious unemployment situation?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend asked me the question on Tuesday I had not then read the news dispatch to which he referred. Since then of course I have had a chance to read it. But I must add that since then I have not received any direct communication on this
Inquiries of the Ministry subject from the president of the Trades and Labour Congress. However, on any matters within my responsibilities as Minister of Labour I shall be glad, as always, to give careful consideration to any matter that Mr. Jodoin, as president of his congress, wishes to bring to my attention.
[Later: ]



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT PLANS TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour apropos of remarks made in the house earlier this afternoon. Will the minister say just what steps the government is taking and what his plans are to alleviate the present unemployment situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Since we have already agreed that a debate will be arranged in the near future, perhaps we might wait until the debate takes place before the Minister of Labour is called upon to indicate what steps he wants to take to curb unemployment.



EMPLOYMENT ON ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister make a further statement regarding the continued exploitation of unemployed workers by private agencies operating from a post office box number in Cornwall, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of yesterday morning, a copy of which report I have sent the minister?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is a question of some importance, I am sure, and I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question. I made a long statement on this matter on the 10th of February last, as found at page 1017 of Hansard. Since then the unemployment insurance commission has continued to have its local employment offices inform applicants as to how to proceed. From reports I have been getting it appears that steps that have been taken in this regard are proving reasonably effective. The Post Office Department has been co-operating with us in the matter, and the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General gave me this morning the following report:
The post office has been investigating the cases which have been brought to its attention. In one instance the department feels that the mails are being used for improper purposes and therefore, under section 7 of the Post Office Act, has issued an interim order to prohibit receipt of mails. In

Inquiries of the Ministry other cases which are being investigated sufficient evidence has not yet been obtained to justify depriving the advertisers of postal facilities.



ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT TOWARD UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the unemployment figures released yesterday, does the government still consider the present unemployment to be merely regional and seasonal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps that question might also be answered when we are debating the whole question of unemployment.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave an answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to lawyers engaged by the Department of National Revenue in connection with sales tax cases, at the conclusion of which he asked me if I could get for him the total amount paid to the 703 lawyers employed in the last five years for the services rendered. I now have this information, which indicates that the following amounts were paid in the respective fiscal years:
Year	Amount
1949-50 		
1950-51 			
1951-52 		
1952-53 		
1953-54



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Sybil Benneii (Halion):: In the absence of the Postmaster General I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Would the parliamentary assistant say if the Postmaster General has completed his investigation, commenced around the first week of January, into the non-delivery of a large quantity of mail posted in the Burlington post office between December 31, 1954 and January 3, 1955? If so, what are his findings?


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: As all hon. members know, the Postmaster General is absent from the house. I cannot state

definitely whether or not the investigation has been completed, but may I assure the hon. member that I shall look into the matter tomorrow and if it has been completed will give an answer then.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to Sir Winston Churchill's statement in the British House of Commons yesterday which indicated an apparent divergence between the United States and Great Britain with respect to the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, what is the viewpoint of the Canadian government with reference to this matter?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question, in reply to which I would call his attention to a statement I made on this matter in the house on January 25, during which I said:
... a distinction can validly be made between the position of Formosa and the Pescadores and the islands off the China coast now in nationalist hands. The latter are indisputably part of the territory of China . . .
Possibly I might add that we have given no undertaking and have no commitments in regard to the defence of these islands off the coast of China if they are attacked by forces of the Chinese communist government in Peking.


Major James William Coldwell: Nor, do I take it, have we any commitment with regard to Formosa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I have already said in the house that our only commitments in that part of the world are those arising from our membership in the United Nations and our signing of the United Nations charter.


John George Diefenbaker: Even though there are no commitments, has the Canadian government, in the position of interpreter between the United Kingdom and the United States, given any expression of its views?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, our views on this matter are very well known both in London and in Washington, and when there is an opportunity for debating this matter in the house, which I hope will be shortly, I might at that time reiterate those views here.

Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES


NORTHEASTERN SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received representations from a number of municipalities in northeastern Saskatchewan suggesting that the area be considered as a disaster area so that the victims of the 1954 flooding may be afforded relief?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. I have looked up the files, and I find that on September 13 the municipality of Ponass Lake No. 367 wrote me with regard to the matter and forwarded the following resolution, which is quite short:
On motion of Reeve Muir, that this district be now considered as an emergency flooded area, and that financial assistance to enable the resident farmers to carry on be requested from the provincial and federal governments. A copy of this resolution to be forwarded to the Hon. James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. T. C. Douglas, minister and premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon I. C. Nollet, minister of agriculture, Saskatchewan, and the Hon. John McIntosh, minister of municipal affairs.
I was sent a copy of that resolution, and three other municipalities sent copies of the same resolution, having received them from the secretary of this municipality. I wrote to the secretary of the municipality of Ponass Lake as follows:
Dear Mr. Westerberg:
I have yours of September 13th, and note that it is your desire to have a district established in your area which would be known as an emergency flood area and upon which you would hope to get financial assistance.
I note you are sending a copy of this resolution to me as Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and to the Hon. I. C. Nollet, minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan and to the premier and the minister of municipal affairs in the province. This would indicate that you are familiar with the general practice which is to make applications for that kind of assistance to the provincial government. It has been the practice in the past, and I presume still is, for any province to which such an application has been made to give consideration to the possibility of meeting the cost provincially before making any reference to the federal government.
I sent a copy of that letter to all the other municipalities and to the acting secretary of the wheat pool, who also sent me a copy of the resolution. I have heard nothing further with regard to it.


ARROW LAKES-STATEMENT ON PRESENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) asked me the following question:
In view of assurances given by the minister of lands, forests and mines of British Columbia that an agreement exists between the Bonneville power authority and the Kaiser corporation for the production of power in connection with the proposed Kaiser dam on the Arrow lakes, and in view of the reported statement in Washington by government officials that no agreement exists, is the minister able to give the house any information that will clarify the situation?
I said on Tuesday, sir, that I would try to secure definite information. This morning I received from our embassy in Washington a telegram dated yesterday which reads as follows:
This morning we called on Mr. Morgan D. Dubrow, manager of the Washington office of the Bonneville power authority, to see what information we could obtain at first hand about the relationship between the Kaiser aluminum company and the Bonneville power authority in connection with Kaiser's proposal to build a storage dam on the Arrow lakes.
Mr. Dubrow told us that the Bonneville power authority have signed no contract with the Kaiser aluminum company on their Arrow lakes proposal. He said that the question of a contract had been raised casually by one of Kaiser's executives a few months ago. Later the Kaiser company had made a more definite approach to the Bonneville power authority, saying that it looked as though they would be able to proceed with the construction of a storage dam on the Arrow lakes, and proposing that it might be possible to work out a contract with Bonneville for the generation and distribution of power. They proposed that the contract should provide that, of the additional power which could be generated as a result of storing water in the Arrow lakes, 20 per cent be earmarked for British Columbia and 40 per cent for the Kaiser company. The remaining 40 per cent would go to the Bonneville power authority as payment by Kaiser for the use of the authority's generating facilities. Bonneville power authority's reply was that they would have to think over this proposal before a definite answer could be given. Subsequently a committee made up of representatives from the army corps of engineers, the bureau of reclamation, the federal power commission and the Bonneville power authority was set up in the Pacific northwest for the purpose of reviewing the Kaiser proposal and its implications and reporting on its feasibility.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister who has just spoken? Has the minister received a copy of or any information concerning a letter signed by Mr. William A. Pearl of the United States department of interior, Bonneville power administration, under date of August 26, to the effect that they do not have any agreement with the Kaiser people and would

Inquiries of the Ministry only consider same if a contract were made with the British Columbia government?


Jean Lesage: No, sir, I am not aware of that letter.


UPPER THAMES VALLEY AUTHORITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister as yet reached any decision with respect to the request by the upper Thames valley authority for federal aid toward the construction of two dams near the city of Woodstock, Ontario, one on the Thames river north of the city and one on Cedar creek south of the city?


Jean Lesage: As I said last week, I have received briefs which involve works of much more importance than those to which the hon. member has just referred. I have received three briefs which involve very lengthy studies of their economic and technical aspects. It will take a certain time before I can reach a decision.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES CRASH NEAR BRAMPTON IN 1954    STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF PILOTS' ASSOCIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Has the minister been made aware of a statement by the president of the Canadian air lines pilots' association with respect to certain aspects of the report of the board of inquiry that investigated the Trans-Canada Air Lines accident near Brampton on December 17, 1954? In view of these facts-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of these facts is the minister prepared to reconsider the question of having a public inquiry, as was his original intention?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: My attention was drawn to the dispatch which appeared in the press this morning, but no representations by the pilots' association have been received by my department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Thank you, sir. Does the minister not feel the question which has arisen regarding the 16-hour day merits further inquiry?


George Carlyle Marler: My answer offhand would be, no.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF ARTS COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has any intention of implementing the report of the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences by setting up at this session the arts council?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer is that the government has not yet made any decision in regard to that matter.


DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATERIAL TO MEMBERS IN FRENCH LANGUAGE ONLY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roch Pinard: Last Tuesday, February 22, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) asked me the following question:
I should like to ask the Secretary of State when officials of the printing bureau were instructed to send out circular communications and questionnaires to members of parliament in the French language only?
My answer to the question is this. No instructions were given by the queen's printer that circular communications and questionnaires should be sent to members of parliament in the French language only. The hon. member for Wentworth was referring to a circular in the French language concerning the Canada Gazette, part II, a copy of which he was good enough to send to me. Under the authority of an order in council all members of parliament are entitled to receive, free of charge, the Revised Statutes of Canada and the Canada Gazette, part II, in the language they prefer, or in both the English and French editions, as desired and if requested in writing. The name of the hon. member for Wentworth appears on the English list as a member of parliament, and it also appears on the French list because he requested in writing, on November 30, 1953, copies in both languages. The records of the queen's printer indicate that the hon. member for Wentworth

is being sent the Canada Gazette, part II, in both languages as he indicated he desired.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State? Did I understand him to say that I had requested a copy of part II of the Canada Gazette in French?


Roch Pinard: That is what I said. If my hon. friend will refer to his own file he will see that his letter answering the queen's printer circular he had received a few days previously referred not only to the Revised Statutes of Canada but also to the Canada Gazette.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say in that connection that if the Secretary of State will have his officials refer to my answer they will see that I said, "In English only".


Roch Pinard: If my hon. friend from now on wishes to discontinue receiving it in French, I shall so inform the queen's printer.


AUTHORSHIP OF QUESTION CONCERNING HEALTH GRANTS
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to question No. 28 on today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. While I am interested in the subject matter, I must disclaim authorship of the question.


WAR CLAIMS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). Her question was:
Can the Secretary of State tell the house when those persons who have war claims pending may expect settlement?
In answer to the question I wish to inform the house that since the war claims commission, established on October 23, 1952, started functioning in January, 1953, a total of 14,683 claims have been submitted. Out of that number, 11,418 have been processed and disposed of. There are 3,265 claims still to be dealt with. It is hoped the commission will be able to complete its task by the beginning of 1956.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sybil Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) or, in his
Inquiries of the Ministry absence, his parliamentary assistant. In view of the fact that the Ontario minister of highways has announced the early commencement of the Burlington beach skyway, would the parliamentary assistant make a statement as to the position of the negotiations between the provincial government and the federal government regarding the federal government's share in the project?


Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given notice of her question, the answer to which is as follows. The basis and extent of federal government participation are clearly understood by the government of Ontario. When they are prepared to proceed there would seem to be no reason why an early agreement cannot be reached.



PROPOSAL EXTENSION OF PLAN TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister care to comment on a report in today's press that only between one and one and a half million pounds of butter will be sold through the very excellent plan of making surplus butter available to hospitals? If this is so, will stocks be made available to other deserving groups or institutions at the reduced price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I understand the report in the press, which I read, was a report made by one of the gentlemen in the press gallery on the basis of some information he had gathered somewhere. It has not been put out by the department. But I shall not be at all surprised if the amount of butter that goes out under the plan is not increased by more than two million pounds. There are some 20 million pounds to be disposed of, provided the weather is all right this spring; and maybe less than that, if it is not.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on February 17, on the orders of the day the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked me whether United States military engineers were making surveys along Canada's coast and, if so, why Canada was not undertaking such work herself.
1462

International Rivers
In reply I should like to point out that mapping and charting in Canada and the United States in defence matters is a joint project which is co-ordinated by the permanent joint board on defence. While each country is responsible for its own area, there are instances in which, to meet specialized requirements, joint teams comprising both Canadian and United States armed forces personnel carry out in Canadian territory, or in Canadian waters, certain defence project surveys.
I might add that the statement in the article to which the hon. member referred, and which he was kind enough to make available to me, is very general in nature and does not draw attention to any specific instance.
As a matter of fact I know of only one or two cases at most in which Canadian personnel have not participated in such military surveys. In those instances we could not make available the necessary qualified personnel at the time they were required.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that payments of income tax made at the source are made from three to 14 months in advance of ordinary returns, would the government consider allowing interest on those advance payments?
Hon, J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of government policy. When any change is made, it will be announced.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 22, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Shaw.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, General McNaughton, the distinguished chairman of the international joint commission, has opposed the Castlegar dam, otherwise called the Kaiser dam, proposed to be built by the Kaiser aluminum company of the United States at Castlegar narrows

at the outlet of the Arrow lakes enlargement of the Columbia river in southeastern B.C. at a point some 20 to 25 miles north of the United States border. It is proposed that this would be built at a cost of from $25 to $30 million. Behind this dam is to be stored 3 million acre feet of Columbia river waters, to be allowed to run down the Columbia in periods of low water and to regulate the flow of the river to enable generating plants downstream in the United States to produce more power. This would be impossible for them without such regulated flow. The Kaiser company have agreed to return to British Columbia 20 per cent of the power made possible by this storage.
Why is General McNaughton anxious about the Castlegar dam? Why does he fear that the project will mean to Canada a loss of her rights in the Columbia river for future generations? This is the great question the house must be able to answer before it can vote intelligently on Bill No. 3 now before us for second reading.
Liberal, Conservative and C.C.F. speakers have held that the house should give the bill second reading and then send it to the committee on external affairs to learn the answer to this question. Social Credit speakers have maintained that the house ought to send the subject matter of the bill to the committee to find the answer before giving the bill second reading and thereby endorsing its principle. The house is now debating an amendment to the motion for second reading moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) and seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). The amendment reads as follows:
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.
I support the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
I spoke first on Bill No. 3 on February 10, as reported at pages 1029 to 1036 of Hansard. I spoke again on February 11, as reported at pages 1096 to 1102 of Hansard. This is my third speech on the bill. Consequently I am "filibustering", according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In each of my two former speeches I endeavoured to give a clear picture of the situation pertaining to the Castlegar dam. In this talk I propose to go yet further in shedding light, not heat, on the situation.
The questions we need to ask ourselves are, first, what causes General McNaughton's anxiety concerning the Castlegar dam project? The answer to this question appears to be that the general believes the Castlegar dam project will result in the acquisition by the United States of a greater claim on and

control of Columbia's water than the United States could otherwise establish. If that be the case and there is no way of avoiding it, the matter is quite serious.
The second question is, granted that there might be found to be some urgency relative to the building of Castlegar dam, is there any way whereby British Columbia might neutralize the danger and yet build the dam? If there is not, that is an important matter to be known, too. I think the answer to this second question is yes. I see no convincing reason, nor have I heard any, why the United States, in order to obtain the benefits which would accrue to her through the dam, would not be willing and eager to waive all claims to additional appropriations which might otherwise be hers through the Castlegar dam project.
If that should be found to be true it would pretty well blow the balloon of opposition to smithereens, would it not? I do not see any reason why the United States would not be willing to waive such claims to possible appropriations on the river. Surely in times like these, and in a period when men have attained some degree of intelligence in international relations, especially Canada and the United States, we ought to be able to expect as much as that from the great United States.
The third question is, is there a measure of fundamental urgency relative to the building of the Castlegar dam? I believe the answer to that question must be yes.
Tjie fourth question is, do circumstances at present compelling the British Columbia government render it in high degree necessary for her to have United States private enterprise construct the Castlegar dam? To me it appears that the answer to question No. 4 is yes.
Question No. 5: If so, what could and should be done by the dominion government in connection with this matter? In my opinion the answer to question No. 5 is that the dominion government ought to advance British Columbia necessary financial aid to enable the province to discharge its responsibilities in relation to the construction of the dam and other means of conserving the resources of the Columbia river. I think it would be difficult to show that such is not the case.
Question No. 6: Does the present British Columbia government give evidence of adequate understanding of and alertness to the risks and all other matters involved in the Castlegar dam project, and does that government appear appropriately diligent in its efforts to have the whole situation well in 50433-931
International Rivers
hand, having regard to every aspect of plans and procedures, present and future? Considering the study I have been able to give to the matter I think one can only answer yes. The British Columbia government, as far as I have been able to find out-and I have probed into this matter with some care-give evidence to me of the most thorough preparation and understanding of the whole situation, and are not asleep at the switch in any respect whatsoever.
In my remarks today it will be my aim to present-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: I said what I thought. If hon. members laugh at it probably some of them do not know enough.
In my remarks today it will be my aim to present to the house and to the country some of my reasons for the answers I have given to these six questions.
May I begin by asking this question. Is Premier Bennett within his rights and his responsibilities when his government proposes and negotiates the Castlegar dam agreement? Hear what General McNaughton said on May 12, 1954, in the external affairs committee when speaking on the Mica creek dam, as recorded at page 174 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee. I read:
The people to build it-
I hat is the Mica dam, in this case. The general continues:
-the responsibility of building that dam, lies with the provincial government. They must say whether ^re going to build it themselves through the British Columbia power commission or whether they are going to bring in a group of private interests to build it. All these things are very definite possibilities, but the decision will lie with the provincial government.
That is point No. 1 that a good many of our over-eager ministers appear to have overlooked.
The next question we need to ask is this. Is Premier Bennett exercising evident circumspection in his handling of the Castlegar project? Is he keeping the situation fluid so the details of the project may be modified? To show that modifications are actually now being contemplated let me quote from the throne debate speech of Mr. Sommers in January, 1955, as follows:
Let me now turn to another facet of this question and that is the consideration being given as to whether the Kaiser company should build a dam or whether the British Columbia government should undertake this phase of the operation. If your government carries through with the building it is expected that extra revenue to the government, in addition to the 60,000 horsepower being developed free for British Columbia, and in addition to tax revenues, will amount to a possible

International Rivers
$600,000 per year income because of provincial financing of the dam. Based on an estimated cost of $30 million, the $600,000 will represent 2 per cent per annum of the investment.
I would like to emphasize that this alternative, in which the province would construct the dam, has been thoroughly reviewed and is disclosed to be a profitable operation. In essence the project could be stated as follows:
1.	The province would charge 6*275 per cent of the cost of the dam as represented by the net proceeds of the sum of money borrowed for this purpose, plus the cost of operation and maintenance (presently estimated at $200,000), and $275,000 in lieu of taxes, plus 60,000 horsepower delivered free to British Columbia.
2.	The Kaiser aluminum company would post an acceptable performance bond to guarantee these payments for 50 years and give adequate assurance of the capability of the Bonneville power administration to deliver its quota of free power to British Columbia over the 50-year period.
3.	The Kaiser aluminum company is required to advise the government of the province if they wish to enter into a new contract on these bases with the province building the dam.
Notice the word "required" there, not "asked", which indicates that the province is completely in control of the situation, notwithstanding some of the extravagant remarks we have heard men make. In this passage we see that a means of construction by the provincial government is being contemplated, having Mr. Kaiser pay for the stored water.
It will be argued that even if British Columbia herself builds the Castlegar dam through the British Columbia power commission and permits	3	million	acre	feet	ofwater to go down the Columbia and be used by United States concerns for the generation of power; that even if the province rather than the Kaiser company does that, the Castlegar dam project will be dangerous to Canada's best interests in the Columbia because primarily	3	million	acre	feet	of
water employed as a means of regulating the flow of the Columbia will result in the construction of greatly increased facilities in the United States and in consequent industrial expansion and greater and greater United States dependence upon Canada's Columbia waters, thereby establishing in the United States a vested right which in effect would give the United States a so-called appropriation on the Columbia in Canada, dangerously increasing their claim beyond that which now, under conditions of high and low water obtaining in the Columbia, they could possibly have.
This appropriation aspect of the whole Castlegar question is well developed in Mr. Barkway's Financial Post article "Water over the Boundary" from which I quoted in my remarks on February 22. I freely grant the probable validity of Mr. Barkway's contention concerning the dangers from United States appropriation on the Columbia as regards
[Mr. Blackmore.l
the Castlegar dam or even the Mica dam, unless appropriate steps are taken by Mr. Sommers and Premier Bennett to safeguard British Columbia and Canada against those dangers.
I feel confident, however, that the British Columbia government has given most careful consideration to every aspect of such dangers of appropriation by the United States, and that the British Columbia government has from United States agencies the most positive assurance-I am not stating that they have, I am simply confident it is so from what I have read-to be followed in due course by adequately binding commitments, obligating the United States as a nation, the individual states affected and all companies and individuals concerned to waive any claim to any appropriation on the Columbia, having regard to the boundary waters treaty of 1909, which might appear to accrue to the United States or any state or states or company or companies or individual by reason of the increased flow of the Columbia resulting from waters stored through the Castlegar dam and in good, neighbourly co-operation permitted to flow into the United States. It would be an astonishing thing if they would not give us a waiver in return for that kind of neighbourliness. I believe they would.
Would the United States be willing to make such binding commitments? It is only simple logic to assume that she would gladly do so rather than deprive herself of the full advantages which, through making such binding commitments, she might enjoy by reason of such full development of the potentialities of the Columbia as could be made possible through the most sincere and unselfish co-operation between the United States and Canada.
The Columbia river is a magnificent asset, extremely valuable to either Canada or the United States working separately, and much more valuable to the two nations working together. The peculiar characteristics of the Columbia river, both in the United States and in Canada, taken together with the special circumstances that surround and have hitherto surrounded British Columbia governments past and present in their efforts to develop the power and water potential of the Columbia river, render it almost if not completely impossible to develop the Columbia adequately except in appropriate co-operation with the United States. British Columbia has understood that; British Columbia now understands that.
The United States urgently requires water in the Columbia with which to generate power. The United States cannot possibly

obtain such water and power except by appropriate co-operation with British Columbia, in the course of which co-operation British Columbia will construct or cause to be constructed in British Columbia dams for storing Columbia river high water to be employed in controlling and regulating the flow of the Columbia downstream. By means of such regulation of flow it is estimated that one-fifth of the total power potential of the Columbia system, estimated at 34 million kilowatts, will be rendered possible, such one-fifth thereby being made available for equitable division between the United States and Canada as upstream and downstream benefits.
One-fifth of 34 million kilowatts is not a matter to be treated lightly on either side of the line, and is not a matter for hectic and exciting remarks. The successful defence of North America could easily depend upon the early adequate development of the full Columbia potential. The United States is aware of that. Our politicians in Canada should become aware of it. Having all these considerations in mind the United States would certainly be cogently motivated to agree to waive all additional appropriation possibilities in order to gain access to Columbia water stored in British Columbia.
What are the peculiar characteristics of the Columbia which render its full development so difficult for British Columbia? Here are the general facts about the Columbia river. The Columbia river rises in British Columbia, traverses parts of British Columbia, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon. Considering the head and flow, the Columbia in terms of hydro power ranks with the largest rivers in the world. Its average annual discharge is about 180 million acre feet. Its drop from the source in British Columbia to the mouth on the Pacific ocean in the United States is 2,652 feet. Of its total flow approximately 44 per cent originates in British Columbia. Of its drop in elevation, approximately 50 per cent occurs in each of Canada and the United States.
The Columbia is primarily a snow-melt stream. Thus the river fluctuates greatly with high flows during spring and summer and low flows during winter. Hence considerable storage of high-flow water is necessary if maximum benefits are to be derived from the Columbia by either Canada or the United States, or both, and there should be storage and maintenance of as nearly as possible a balanced continuous flow.
Recognizing and appreciating the facts of the situation in respect to the Columbia, the Hon. R. E. Sommers, British Columbia minister of lands, forests and mines, in the debate
International Rivers
on the throne speech in the British Columbia legislature on January 19, 1955, said:
Consequently it is apparent that for maximum hydro power production from the stream it is necessary that some portion of the high flows be stored for release during the low flow periods to provide as nearly as possible a balanced, continuous flow through the power-generating installations.
Keeping this in mind, and remembering that Canadian projects will be upstream from an eventual developed head of possibly 1,000 feet in the United States it is easily recognized that any storage development in British Columbia, where we have a similar low flow period to that in the United States, will automatically benefit all installations on the mainstem Columbia below the border. Therefore, it seems essential that full co-operation on an international basis should be sought, such that we operate our installations in conjunction with theirs, to produce maximum power from the resulting system, with agreements for the sharing of the benefits that accrue.
I ask all hon. members and all people across the country who read this, do those words indicate that man lacks in statesmanship? Do they indicate a lack of vision and understanding? Do they indicate any lack of interest or all-round responsibility? Do they indicate irresponsibility? I think only Liberal or C.C.F. politicians will answer in the affirmative.


An hon. Member:: You will see.


John Horne Blackmore: I know we shall see, and we will not have long to wait. My hon. friends should be trying to understand these things instead of talking nonsense, as are a great many people in the Liberal and Conservative ranks.
The Social Credit government, through the water rights branch of the British Columbia lands service, are participating actively in all phases of planning and development of the Columbia basin. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave as the reason for introducing this bill the attainment of orderly development. May I say that they do not need him interfering in their affairs out in British Columbia in order to obtain orderly development. They have been working on that matter for many years already, and they are working on it now. All that is needed is just financial help and a little bit of good sound common sense on the part of the minister in dealing with this matter, and all will be well without this bill.
I read another excerpt from Mr. Sommers' speech:
As investigations and collection of basic data nears completion, certain potential developments become recognized as key sites in the over-all plan. However, the details involved in some of the phases of the planning present many problems and variations, such that several alternative schemes must be studied to determine the most advantageous development.
The map before you-

International Rivers
He had before him an extensive map which I believe I have seen.
-shows the location of known major potential power sites and developments in the Columbia basin in British Columbia as well as the hydropower 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.
The minister was not the first to talk about orderly development. I continue:
Such storage can be adequately provided in the Arrow lakes and behind the proposed Mica dam. The orderly sequences 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:
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.
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.
Although Surprise rapids and Donald canyon sites are marked on the map, they do not appear to be very practical at this time due to the dislocation of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the fact that there is every indication that the Mica dam should be a high-head installation.
All the suggested installed capacities mentioned above would be subject to increase provided Canadian and American power systems were interconnected and the over-all generation made to the best advantage of the large grid.
Once more I ask this question. Does that sound like the words of an irresponsible person?
In this quotation we learn that at present under active consideration in the Columbia river Canadian section there are six major power sites awaiting development. To restate them, we have Waneta No. 1 with
500.000	h.p.; Waneta No. 2 with 500,000 h.p.; Mica with 800,000 h.p.; Downie creek with
500.000	h.p.; Little Dalles with 300,000 h.p. and Murphy creek with 130,000 h.p., a total of 2,730,000 h.p.
Mr. Sommers states that storage necessary to supply all these projects can be provided by two dams, at Mica creek and Arrow lakes.
How can the province of British Columbia manage to bring about the construction of the dams required to provide storage for these two projects first, as a provincial project; second, through private enterprise? The study of this particular question has a great bearing upon the attitude we shall adopt towards the Castlegar dam.
From the quotation from General McNaugh-ton which I read earlier in my present remarks it is recognized as being the duty of British Columbia to construct necessary dams on the Columbia river, or to manage to have them constructed.
By what means can British Columbia accomplish this task? Could she do so by public ownership, by doing the job directly herself? What the minister said in that one quotation I read indicated that he might be considering doing that, but under ordinary circumstances the danger to the British Columbia debt situation would be great.
Let us consider the Mica dam. Its cost is estimated at $425 million. There is some discrepancy, but this is the figure I have had given me. The total revenue of British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1954 was $169,033,874. Expenditures were $165,624,160. The total estimated revenue for the year ending March 31, 1956, is $194,522,469; estimated expenditures are $211,814,341. The net public debt as of December 31, 1954, was $139,370,142.24. Will any member of this house argue that British Columbia could safely commit herself to the staggering additional debt of $425 million?
I shall be reminded that the Mica dam when completed will be capable of supporting installations able to generate an estimated 800,000 horsepower and so will be self-liquidating. I point out that in the area contiguous to the Mica dam in British Columbia there is already a surplus of 75,000 kilowatts for sale, and the potential of an additional 250,000 horsepower easily and readily made available at Waneta No. 1 plant, and another easily and readily made available 500,000 horsepower at Waneta No. 2 site.
When I then ask my friend where and to whom the 800,000 horsepower coming from Mica dam would be sold, I shall probably be told that United States companies-perhaps the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation-will come into that area of British Columbia and establish industries, once being assured of adequate supplies of cheap power. Perhaps, but by no means certainly. Or I shall be told that since power can now be transmitted as far as 600 miles it might be feasible to sell this power from Mica to Calgary or to Vancouver or to some other place. Again perhaps. But would anyone in this house, if he were premier of British Columbia, commit that province to an obligation of $425 million which could so easily result in utter financial disaster, merely to discharge a responsibility to build Columbia water storage? No, he would not! I do not care whether he is the youngest man or the oldest man in the house.
Obviously if British Columbia as a province is to develop the Columbia river as to power and as to water, then British Columbia will have to be afforded financial help by the dominion government, and that

in extremely generous measure. She does not need acts like this one at present before us.
Why should not British Columbia receive ample help in protecting Canadian rights on the Columbia? Alberta, after far too much delay on Ottawa's part, finally was given financial help in saving for future Canadians what was left of Canada's rich heritage in the St. Mary river, and now the Belly and Waterton rivers, precious international streams in southern Alberta, as well as other rivers in Alberta. Saskatchewan has asked, and in due time will receive, liberal dominion help in preserving her Saskatchewan river. That is quite as it ought to be. Let British Columbia be granted without any further hesitation all the financial help she needs to save for Canada the priceless treasures of the Columbia. Let her be granted all the money she needs for this task, I say, without any strings attached in any way, shape or form.
Let us bear in mind how that noble sovereign sister province, in the propitious year of 1871, gave herself to our union, making this nation possible with the help of divine Providence. Shame on all unworthy Canadians who are this day conspiring to rob her of her freedoms in return for a niggardly bit of help in connection with the Columbia river. Because of this federal government's neglect she has had to turn to foreign private interests for aid in protecting the Columbia. That explains the present Castlegar dam proposal. I wonder how the shoe feels to be put on the right foot?
Second, can British Columbia successfully develop these power and water resources through private ownership, as she is attempting to do in the case of Castlegar? Does the minister know of any Canadian or British financial company that would be likely to build Mica dam and the generating plant required? We will certainly welcome an answer in the affirmative. What offers of American help have been received by British Columbia? It may be that several offers have been made. I have not as yet had time to investigate thoroughly enough to be able to say.
Here, however, is one. According to a Seattle Canadian Press dispatch appearing in the Nelson Daily News of December 8, 1954, the Puget Sound utilities council offered to build Mica creek dam, spending $250 million upon it, storing an estimated
10,500,000	acre feet of water, about twice that of Grand Coulee dam, in return for the additional electricity that could be generated
International Rivers
in United States plants with the water conserved behind the dam and sent down the river through regulated flow.
An official of that council had said that the council's proposal to construct the Mica dam would give British Columbia the "cheapest power in the United States or Canada."


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


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I shall go on with this the first opportunity I have. What [DOT] I have said must indicate that there are two sides to this Castlegar story.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak again in this debate, but on account of the amendment moved by the group to our left I have been delegated that responsibility by the members of the group to which I belong.
I rise to express the opposition of this group to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer, which is in these words:
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.
The hon. member for Red Deer when moving this amendment said, as [DOT] found at page 1105 of Hansard of February 11:
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.
The hon. member is quite incorrect in suggesting that the bill would come back to the house. In this connection I must remind the house that in the session of 1944 Bill No. 109, an act to incorporate the Alberta provincial bank, was introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and after he had moved second reading an amendment was then moved by a former minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, in the following terms:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce for consideration and report.
The amendment was accepted, yeas 93, nays 20. At that time the nays were of course the members of the Social Credit group. What was the result of that amendment? There was no consideration of the principle of the bill. Nobody ever heard any more about the bill in the house after that.
I suggest that if the present amendment were accepted it would have the same effect on the bill now under discussion. It would mean that the bill would be killed. We in this group are not in favour of killing the bill.

International Rivers
The whole attitude again indicates that the government of the United States recognized the fact that in dealing with this problem they have to deal with the government of Canada in the first instance. When we are dealing with problems of this nature they have to be dealt with on a national level because they involve matters concerning external affairs. This principle has been accepted in Canada up to the present time.
On the basis of that understanding this government has spent something in the neigh-Dourhood of $3 million on investigations of the Columbia river basin. This government's engineers and the engineers of the federal authorities in the United States have been co-operating for the past 10 years, working toward the development of a plan that would be mutually advantageous to both countries, and advantageous to British Columbia. This procedure, this practice and this expenditure, in my opinion, have been entirely overlooked by this piecemeal approach to the development of the river proposed by British Columbia.
It seems to me it must be obvious to anyone that when the government of the United States wishes to give effect to programs related to international rivers, it must deal with the government of Canada. Therefore, in our opinion, this legislation is certainly necessary to protect the national interest and permit the federal government to exercise its responsibility without question.
I want to deal with one other matter before concluding. I am not speaking at length this afternoon. During this debate it has been stated repeatedly that this bill is an invasion of provincial rights. I am quite sure the hon. gentlemen to my left are quite sincere in that criticism. I believe that is their major argument, that this proposal is an invasion of provincial rights. We cannot agree with them. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to provincial rights there are such things as regional, local and individual rights. The agreement between the government of British Columbia and the Kaiser corporation was signed without any consultation or interchange of views with the appropriate representatives of local governments or individuals concerned in my area. They were simply told of this development being proposed after the agreement was signed.
I want to bring to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in the development of the Columbia in the United States an entirely different, and in my opinion more democratic, practice prevails. Every consideration has been given to the rights and the views of the people directly concerned.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Naturally in my district there are a lot of people who are directly concerned with this development because of its effect on their property, their rights and their interests. There are a lot of people who are opposed to the proposed Kaiser dam because it would mean appropriation by a private company of Canadian waters.
I might explain that when I spoke last I mentioned that to my knowledge there was not a single organization in my riding that was in favour of this proposal. I must say, to be quite fair, that since I last spoke the Castlegar board of trade has endorsed this proposal. That is quite understandable. This municipality is below the dam, so that is quite natural. It is possible if the dam is built there will be $25 or $30 million expended near that community. That may have some effect on opinions concerning the matter. I can say this, that from the point where the dam is to be built north to Revelstoke there is strong opposition.
In support of my statement that the practice in the United States in my opinion is somewhat more democratic, I want to quote from Bill H. R. 4286, the Columbia valley administration act, which was introduced in 1949 by Mr. Mitchell. I do this to indicate that there are such things as regional, local and individual rights, as well as provincial rights. At page 6 of the bill we find this:
State and Local Participation
Section 5. The administration-
This means, of course, the federal administration in the United States.
-shall seek the advice, assistance, and participation of the people of the region and their state and local governments and organizations, public and private, to the fullest practicable extent, in the formulation and execution of programs designed to carry out the purposes of this act. To this end, the administration shall make arrangements for consultation and interchange of views with appropriate representatives of state and local governments, of the agricultural (including reclamation and irrigation), labor and business interests and of the general public of the region. The administration shall make arrangements for such consultation and interchange of views with respect to all phases of its activities and at all appropriate places throughout the region, and shall establish such advisory boards and councils (including at least boards or councils concerned with irrigation and reclamation, power, fishery resources, and navigation) as may be necessary or appropriate to achieve the objectives of this section. Any advisory board or council may submit for inclusion in the annual report of the board its comments in summary form on those policies of the administration with which it is concerned, and such comments shall be included in the annual report. For the periods during which they consult with the administration away from their regular places of work, such representatives and members of such boards and councils may receive their actual travelling expenses and a per diem allowance not to exceed $10 in lieu of subsistence.


Mr. Hahn:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I did not hear clearly the beginning of what he read. Who would seek whose advice?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This bill would establish the Columbia valley authority, and it would seek advice from local people.


Frederick George Hahn: But who would seek whose advice? Is it the authority that would seek the advice?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Columbia valley authority would seek advice.


Frederick George Hahn: In this instance, the advice of the province?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Of the regional and
local people, their organizations and representatives.
I suggest that Bill No. 3 makes it possible to give effect to similar procedure in Canada. This bill offers an opportunity for co-operation between federal and provincial governments, and the full consideration of regional, local and individual rights and interests. I think it is only fair to say that, as I heard them, the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated clearly that he is approaching the problem in that spirit.
Wherever the natural level of any river or lake was to be changed by any works on that river or lake, in Canada or in the United States, it has been the practice for the international joint commission to hold meetings in the area concerned, and to listen to the representations made by local organizations or individuals. I want to illustrate just how democratically the international joint commission has operated. They have not allowed anyone to erect a dam or to flood any property without holding a meeting in the area concerned and listening to the representations of farmers, labour organizations and individuals.
I shall illustrate that in two ways. Some years ago an application was made to raise the level of Kootenay lake. The hearing was held at Creston. In fact two meetings were held, one at Creston and one at Nelson. Farmer representatives made representations; labour representatives made representations; and individuals living along the lake who thought their foreshore rights would be affected were there. I attend most of the meetings in my area, and I know that in particular I attended this one. I was very much impressed by the fact that the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission very patiently listened to what was said, and particularly to one old gentleman who could not express himself 50433-944
International Rivers
very loudly but was very much concerned that his foreshore might be flooded unnecessarily.
The commission listened carefully to the representations of Creston farmers concerning the raising of the lake level and the water table under their fields. Before any order was granted by the international joint commission for the raising of the water level the people in the area were satisfied that the farmers in the Creston district were to be properly compensated, and the complaints of persons around the lake who thought they might be affected in the foreshore area of their property were properly looked into. The commission has been most careful to consider the interests of local organizations and individuals. I give that as an illustration of the work of a commission operating under the sponsorship of the federal government, a commission taking great care to protect the rights of the local people.
In addition I want to draw the attention of the house to the attitude of another federal department when doing anything that affects the rights or interests of organizations or individuals. I have found during a period of nearly 50 years that the federal Department of Public Works is most considerate in that respect. If the federal department is going to erect a structure which will change the flow of a stream or divert the flow of water so that land will be eroded, docks affected, private wharfage affected or booming grounds affected, the federal Department of Public Works to my personal knowledge over a period of 50 years has always made certain that local representations have been heard and local interests were protected. And if this work had to be undertaken, then the necessary crib work and mattresses were put in to protect the property line from erosion, and to protect the interests of everyone concerned.
I mention these facts to bring out the point that in addition to provincial rights there are regional, local and individual rights. My argument is that in my personal experience over the past 50 years it has been clearly indicated to me that wherever any department or agency of the federal government had to deal with problems which might affect regional, local or individual interests, they have been most careful to see that those interests have been protected.
When this bill is passed, surely we can expect this same protection and the same consideration of regional, local and individual interests. Sir, we in this group are particularly opposed to the appropriation of Canadian waters in international rivers by United States private interests. Once again I repeat.

International Rivers
we hope that the early development of the Columbia river power and storage potential at Mica creek will result from co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and the government of the United States.
I trust this measure will soon receive second reading, and that members of the external affairs committee will soon have an opportunity to commence the hearing of witnesses, the taking of evidence and the study and investigation of many problems of constitutional-in some people's minds-engineering, financial, regional, local and individual matters, so that when this bill finally becomes law we will have laid the foundation for satisfactory and permanent co-operation between federal and provincial governments for the development of the potential of the Columbia river to the mutual advantage of all concerned both in Canada and the United States.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, it seems my lot in this debate to have the privilege of following the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). This afternoon I have a confession to make. Apparently he and I are ex-Liberals. The only difference between us is that quite often he forgets the party to which he owes allegiance at the present time, whereas there is no doubt whatever in my mind.
However, I am also pleased to note that there is a certain softening in his speech this afternoon in comparison with what was given to the house a few nights ago. There is a stronger plea for co-operation with the provincial government. I spoke on this subject on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my speech was based entirely on a plea for a provincial and federal conference to settle this dispute. I have no apology for anything I said at that time, and I have learned nothing since to make me sorry that I took the stand I did.
At the present time we are speaking to an amendment. That amendment is to the effect that we delay second reading of the bill at this time and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. I am not an old timer in this house, but in the short time I have been here I have become convinced that once the principle of a bill is approved by this house, any amendments made in committee or elsewhere are of minor importance. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is too vital and too important to go before a committee at this time, where we can expect very few, or at the most, minor, changes.

I have been reading a good deal about this whole subject in the last few days. I read an article by Mr. Minifie; I read an article by Bruce Hutchison; I read an article by Senator Reid, and I noticed a big heading as follows:	"Kaiser bill one of the biggest
steals". We read both sides of the question, Mr. Speaker, and by so doing we hope to arrive at a conclusion which to our minds is just and fair. We have heard and we have learned quite a lot about the general and popular feeling in the minds of the people of British Columbia and of Canada since this bill came into the spotlight.
Before going on to some of these things I am going to refer to the answer which was given today by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) to the hon. member for Kootenay West. The answer and the text of that telegram imprinted upon my mind more fully than ever the fact that this matter is in such a stage of negotiation and is so vitally important to the United States, Canada and the province of British Columbia that no step should be taken at this -time that is going to endanger the results we hope to get by such negotiation.
In connection with the article, I might say that I came to the catty-should I use that WOrd-conclusion that the United States government, in putting forth a plea for negotiation with the federal government over the Columbia development, thought possibly they could drive a better bargain with the federal government than with the government of British Columbia. I cite the St. Lawrence seaway proposition as a case in point.
I have some other articles here that confirm our stand that there is too much indecision in this matter before it can be brought to a speedy end. The hon. member who preceded me referred to the decision of the Castlegar board of trade. Unfortunately he does not consider their opinion of too much importance, and he passed it off by saying, "Well, they are below the dam and it would affect them in no great way." I believe that boards of trade throughout Canada, not only at Castlegar, give pretty fair consideration to problems that are placed before them for attention.
Right here I should like to put on record the fact that a board of trade in my own riding-and I am referring to the city of Vernon board of trade-held a meeting in November which I attended. The question of the Castlegar dam was brought up. There is a division of opinion, and we are not denying that fact; but at this board of trade meeting they decided to set up a committee to

get the facts and the data on this project before they would pass an opinion on it. They have not yet arrived at a conclusion, because as soon as they had reached a decision I was to be advised.
I should like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the decision at which the Castlegar board of trade arrived was the result of the deliberations of the committee which was set up some months ago. It is a serious question that requires a lot of study. Apparently, the people of British Columbia are giving it that study. Therefore, we are asking that action be delayed with respect to endorsing the principle of this bill until all the facts are before us.
I hold in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Times of February 11, as follows:
Last night in Rossland a spokesman for the Kaiser aluminum company gave the first public defence of that company's actions in the Arrow lakes power deal with the provincial government. Robert A. Sandberg, who is a public relations expert for the company, gave the Rossland chamber of commerce a reasoned and intelligent summary of Kaiser's part in the negotiations.
Up until now that company has been silent, obviously thinking the matter was one for the provincial government to handle. Now the time has come when the public of this province wants to know all it can about the proposal.
We suggest that many other groups in the district would profit from hearing the Kaiser case.
I quote this, Mr. Speaker, just to bring to the attention of this house the fact that the people of British Columbia are alive to the serious problem with which they are faced, and are giving it their very best attention.
I hold in my hand an article by Tempus, which was referred to a short time ago. Most of us are fully aware of the party who hides behind that nom de plume, and I am sure we respect him greatly; but I am going to read the closing sentence of his article on the dam. It is this:
Just for once the federal government could be wrong.


Mr. Byrne:: The province has been wrong a hundred times.


George William McLeod: I do not care if they have been wrong a thousand times; we are considering a question that is vitally important to the people of British Columbia, and so long as there is doubt in the minds of people nothing should be rushed through this house to interfere with the proper conclusion that should be arrived at in connection with this dam.


Mr. Goode:: Will the hon. member permit a question? How would he justify the action of Mr. Sommers, who said that regardless of the federal opinion he would take this matter to court?
International Rivers


George William McLeod: Well, that is something that is their right. They certainly are under the impression that their rights are being invaded by this measure, and the only place to have it settled is in the courts of this country.
I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) refer the other night during this debate to the little city of Revelstoke. He used quite glowing words in painting the picture of that little town. I agree with the hon. member's description; in fact I would go a little further and say that this is a town on the banks of the mighty Columbia which we are discussing at the present time, situated at the foot of Mount Revelstoke in one of the finest and most verdant settings of British Columbia.
The city of Revelstoke is vitally concerned in the Mica creek dam, but that city is no more concerned in the completion of that dam than I am. If I thought for one moment that this project would interfere with the development of the Mica creek dam I would oppose it 100 per cent. I make that statement with conviction. However, from my studies of this and my contacts with people, not only in Ottawa-not in Victoria, because I have never discussed this with the Victoria officials- but with other people who I believe know what they are talking about, I am convinced that there is an orderly plan for the development of the Columbia and the Mica creek dam. The first step is the Kaiser dam project. Until that is built I am convinced that Revelstoke will be wanting and waiting for the Mica creek dam.
As was mentioned in the house the other night, in the southern part of my riding there are many problems connected with irrigation. Just stop and think what this legislation will mean. There would have to be a federal water rights board in British Columbia to look after the rights on the rivers. Any person who wanted to establish a little dam to irrigate his land would have to find out where that water eventually found its way, whether it went into the United States or through Canada into the Pacific or even into the Arctic. There would be two boards, which would create confusion. There would be overlapping and overriding of rights, which would be a cause of confusion for years to come. It would affect irrigation projects, domestic water supply, domestic power supply; all those things which are of such vital importance in the southern and western parts of my riding.
My opposition to this bill is based more and more on the belief that the centralization of power in Ottawa is a serious thing. I believe in the rights of the provinces, in provincial autonomy. I believe that legislation

International Rivers
which has been on the statute books at Victoria since 1897 is worthy of respect and consideration. By means of this bill all that is going to be swept aside. If ever there was a case of interfering with the rights of the provinces this one could be labelled one of the greatest.
Reference has been made to how these things will be managed, that they will receive more capable management and better administration, which I believe is not a fact. Be that as it may, I am not in agreement with it.
We have heard a lot about co-operation with the provinces. This cropped up in the press a few days ago when some reporters were interviewing the premier of British Columbia. As reported in the Vancouver Province of February 14, Mr. Bennett said that they had never been told by Ottawa that the Kaiser dam was a bad deal. Just think of that. We have all this furore and opposition to a bill to block a certain deal in British Columbia and this central authority has not had the decency to tell Victoria that in their estimation they have made a bad deal and that the central authority were going to do something about it. They were not given an opportunity to state their case.


Tom Goode: Did Mr. Bennett ever ask for any advice from Ottawa?


George William McLeod: I maintain that Mr. Bennett does not have to ask for advice. The province of British Columbia has had this right since 1897 and they would be weakening their stand if they came and asked this government for co-operation or for a conference.


Tom Goode: They ask them for everything else.


George William McLeod: Mr. Bennett continued, "All the co-operation has been on our side. We seek nothing but good will. At no time have we refused to co-operate". It is all right for hon. members across the chamber to smile, but I know this to be a fact. I mentioned it in the house a few days ago. I referred to the brief that was presented to this government on December 14, 1953. That was a reasonable brief presented by the three top men in the provincial government at Victoria. What reception did they get? Now they ask if Bennett has ever asked for co-operation.
I am not going to labour the situation at too great length this afternoon. I would like to deal for a moment with the question of minority rights and provincial rights. They both have a lot in common. I was glad to read an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of February 18. Apparently a bill had come before the Quebec legislature affecting the
[Mr. McLeod.l
rights of minorities in the ownership of property, and these were the words of Mr. Duplessis:
In Quebec we have a long-established tradition that those of the minority are assured their rights will be respected. If this bill were approved it would be a matter of force overriding the rights of the weak.
If ever such words could be applied to anything, it would be to the action of the federal government in trying to push this bill through the house to interfere with the rights of the province of British Columbia. As this debate has carried on we have heard but very few speakers from the Liberal benches. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougail) express some doubt the other night. Knowing the ironclad grip with which Liberals are held in this house, I thought that that was quite a show of strength by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard. We have heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) state a very good case. But since then, with the exception of the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) who, as soon as he was assured by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that his river would not be affected, sat down very gracefully and meekly, we have heard nothing from that great Conservative party as to the merits of this bill.


Mr. Fulton:: Have patience.


George William McLeod: I should like to say to these Conservatives that when this confederation was formed, the most jealous guardians of the rights of the provinces were the Conservative fathers of confederation. Where is that spirit today?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Waiting until you are all talked out.


George William McLeod: The only evidence of it we have is when a member thinks it is going to interfere with his particular river and then when he finds out, on the word only of the minister, that it is not going to do so, he sits down. I should like to remind the hon. member that when this act becomes law, this minister may not be in the house. In any case it is going to be the courts of Canada that will decide, not the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any other minister in this house.
I should just like to make a little closing remark. We in this little group stand alone. We admit that. We are aware of that fact and we are not ashamed of it. We are not waging a battle for the Kaiser dam; far from it. We are not waging a battle for the Kaiser aluminum and chemical interests; far

from it. We are waging a battle only for the right of a provincial government to manage the affairs of its people in the way it feels is in the best interests of its people. On the basic principles on which our movement is built, we can take no other stand. If this measure were aimed at Alberta, even the C.C.F. province of Saskatchewan or any other province of Canada, our stand would be the same. I want to read you this excerpt. This is not something that has been cooked up since this bill came before the people. It is from the manifesto of the Social Credit Association of Canada:
The Social Credit Association of Canada believes that a comprehensive conference of representatives of the dominion and all the provinces should be held for the purpose of considering:
1.	The existing legislative and administrative organization in tne provincial and federal spheres.
2.	A more equitable allocation of powers and financial responsibility as between the provincial and Canadian authorities.
3.	Ways and means of facilitating the drafting, adoption and the implementation of a Canadian constitution that will place in the hands of the people more effective control over matters of policy.
4 The establishment of a continuing committee or permanent secretariat to strengthen the relationship between provinces and between the dominion and the provinces.
That is our stand, Mr. Speaker. For that reason we have no apology to make for the time that we are taking in this house to present to you and to the people of Canada the questions that we feel need clarification at this time and to present the plea that it is only in the interests of national unity that conference and negotiation should be proceeded with before the drastic action of Bill No. 3 becomes effective.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on second reading of this bill commenced on February 4, I outlined the stand of this party. It may be summed up again to this effect. We believe that this bill should be sent to a committee. As a matter of fact, during the debate on the throne speech, I suggested that that course be followed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has eventually agreed to that suggestion. As Your Honour knows, he has stated that the bill will go to the standing committee on external affairs.
Our stand was sincerely taken because we believe that this measure is one which is ideal for study by a committee. It is perfectly obvious that, no matter how long debate goes on in this house, we are all talking of things about which we know very little. Perhaps we do that on other occasions as well. However, here is a case where the evidence of experts is needed before any member of this house is qualified to say whether or not the
International Rivers
bill is a good one. When it goes to a committee General McNaughton and officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources can be called. If the British Columbia government really wants to have the merits considered, it can send its own experts here to give evidence and can arrange to have the Kaiser people send witnesses as well. No one has suggested that the hearings of the committee will not be practically wide open. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave that intimation the other night. I have no reason to question the fact that, when the hearings are held, an honest attempt will be made to get the facts. Then it will be possible for members to decide what they think about this bill.
In my earlier speech I pointed out that we did not consider ourselves bound to support the bill throughout, even though it was given second reading. When it has been considered by a committee and has been reported back to the house, we will then take our stand on the merits of the bill after we have had the opportunity to study the merits and the demerits.
But what is the question before the house this afternoon? It is a motion by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), both from the province of Alberta. It is really touching to see the solicitude of Alberta members for our province of British Columbia. Six of them have taken part in this debate and one of them, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), has made three 40-minute speeches, all purporting to protect British Columbia. The unfortunate fact is that many of the Alberta members, I am afraid, are of the opinion that my native province is now a colony of Alberta. That may be one reason why they are rushing in to protect us from all comers. However, this amendment reads as follows:
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.
That is the third amendment moved by the Social Credit party. The first amendment was that the principle of the bill be referred to a dominion-provincial conference. That amendment was ruled out of order. Then as an amendment they moved the six-months' hoist. Of course, if passed, it would have killed the bill. From the speeches that have been made in the debate on the present amendment it is quite evident that the real purpose is again to kill the bill.
Under these circumstances we do not propose to support the amendment, for two reasons. In the first place, if the amendment is carried it means delay and more delay. In

International Rivers
the second place, should it be carried the result would be that the actual terms of the bill could not be considered by the external affairs committee. We believe that it is of great importance that they should be dealt with very carefully in that committee.
I emphasize first the objection to delay. Here is a case where a dispute has developed between the two governments. There have been blasts and counter-blasts. There was a blast in the house the other night by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) which in my opinion was unfortunate. This question is not going to be settled by fiery speeches from any part of the house. Sooner or later the two governments must get together if the Columbia river system is to be developed to the maximum extent possible, and, believe me, that is where the real interests of the people of British Columbia lie, in getting the Columbia river system adequately developed.
I do not believe there are many people in British Columbia who are much interested in the fight that is going on between the two governments. They are concerned about the proper type of development being undertaken. That is quite impossible if the dominion government and the government of British Columbia cannot reach agreement. I need only point out what has happened with regard to the development of power on the St. Lawrence river in connection with the seaway scheme. There you have the province of Ontario co-operating with the dominion government. You have a huge scheme going ahead with everybody working together, and the result is going to be that the province of Ontario and the nation as a whole will derive the maximum benefit from this development.
That is what must be done with the Columbia river system. There again is a huge power potential. It will mean as much or more to the people of British Columbia, not only those of the present generation but of future generations, as any development that has ever taken place in the west coast province. Here there is a vast potential project. Everyone who was a member of the external affairs committee last year was impressed by the evidence given by General McNaughton as to the possibilities of the Columbia river. This river constitutes a challenge to both the government of the dominion and the government of the province of British Columbia. I do not believe it is in the best interests of any Canadian that the whole project should be held up by talk in the house or by a failure of the two governments to get together. The longer we delay, the more loose talk there is going to be and the more 
friction will develop between the two governments. There has been far too much already, and I am hoping that the bill can be sent to the committee today and that next week we can start hearing the expert witnesses.
Our other objection is that if this motion carries the terms of the bill cannot be considered in the committee. For example, there is the definition of an international river. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources told us that there were some 20 rivers in Canada which would come under the definition of an international river. We must study that definition. Then there is the definition of an international river improvement which is even more important because it is more complicated and more difficult. We must find out what sort of improvements on international rivers are to come under the bill. Then there are the provisions for forfeiture, for the seizing of works and for penalties, all of which require study because they are provisions which might lead to very serious trouble in this country.
Again, there is the application of the bill to works already in existence. There are many works on the Columbia river at the present time, and apparently they will come under the terms of the bill. That question too must be studied by the committee. Then there is the constitutional question, the whole issue of whether the bill is constitutional or whether parts of it are and other parts are not. The external affairs committee can go a long way towards solving that problem by calling the law officers and getting their reasons for drawing the bill in the terms in which it has been presented to the house. We believe that a study of the actual terms of the bill is of the utmost importance, and for that reason too we want to see the bill go to the committee and go there just as quickly as possible.
I repeat the stand of the Progressive Conservative party. It is that we reserve our right to oppose further progress of the bill in the house if we should find, as a result of the hearings in the committee, that the bill is unsound. But for the time being until it has been studied by the committee we believe that the proper course is to have it go to the committee and go there just as quickly as possible.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Does the hon. member for New Westminster wish to ask the last speaker a question?


Frederick George Hahn: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: With the permission of the member that can be done. Does the hon. member agree?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member referred to
the co-operation between the province of Ontario and the dominion authority with respect to the development of the St. Lawrence seaway project. Are the two projects not entirely different, and do we not find that there is some difference of opinion with respect to under whose authority the Columbia river comes?


Howard Charles Green: No, I think the conditions are
very much the same. The government of the province of Ontario realized that it was necessary for the two governments to cooperate. Legislation was put through the two houses. As to the Columbia river development, the government of British Columbia seemed to realize that co-operation was necessary until last fall when it made an agreement with the Kaiser corporation without telling the dominion anything about it at all. Last year in the external affairs committee we were told that all General McNaughton's work was being done with the fullest co-operation of the British Columbia government and, furthermore, that all the benefits that General McNaughton could get for Canada were to go to the province of British Columbia. The British Columbia government was the sole beneficiary of all General McNaughton's work, yet for some reason or other a deal was made without telling General McNaughton about it. There has not been the type of co-operation that has existed between the dominion government and the government of the province of Ontario in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway project.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am the third of the four speakers who have risen this afternoon on the question now before us to state that it was not my intention to speak twice on the matter. However, because of certain statements, and information which has reached me today, 1 feel it imperative that I again enter this debate, f, sir, am opposed to the amendment now before us.
Although this is only my second session in the House of Commons, I have had 24 sessions' experience in a provincial legislature so I believe I know something about procedure. A motion to refer a bill to a committee leaves the bill within the control of the house. A motion to decline second reading of a bill and refer only the subject matter to a committee is exactly the same as a hoist motion; it is a motion to kill the bill. I do
International Rivers
not support any contention that this bill should be killed. I want to say in all sincerity that if the hon. members who belong to the Social Credit group, who have remarked that they are interested in truth and in facts, were really interested in truth and in facts they would not be moving this amendment. They would not be speaking as they are. They would want to get this motion for second reading through so that the bill could be referred to the external affairs committee, where they would have power to call for persons and papers and get the evidence they say they want.
Now, sir, I sincerely hope this bill will get to the committee just as speedily as possible. I hope that at a very early meeting of the committee, the committee will send out an invitation to the government of British Columbia to come down and give their facts and give their evidence. I would hope also that the committee would send a particular request to the minister of lands and forests of British Columbia to come down and give evidence. I have, sir, a particular reason for hoping that the minister of lands and forests will appear before the external affairs committee when that committee deals with this matter.
On February 10 of this year I spoke on this subject and I had this to say as reported at page 1026 of Hansard, about two-thirds of the way down the first column:
One oi the first questions I asked was the matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr Byrne) a few moments ago. What is the relationship in this matter with the Bonneville power authority? The minister told me they had seen the agreement signed between the kaiser corporation and the Bonneville power interests. Although there is no mention of that in the contract, such an agreement is in existence.
I said that, Mr. Speaker, and the Hansard report is correct. As I explained when I spoke on February 10, knowing this matter was going to come up in the House of Commons, and being a member representing a constituency in British Columbia, I went to Victoria. I saw the premier, and I saw the minister of lands and forests. I asked for the fullest possible information as to their viewpoint and the facts on this proposal of Kaiser to build a dam in the Columbia river. I said, sir, that in my conversation with the minister only once did he say that something was in confidence. What he told me in confidence I have kept confidential. When I spoke on February 10, I gave a true picture of what the minister told me concerning the background and facts related to the view of the government of British Columbia. Sir, standing here in my place as a member of

International Rivers
the House of Commons I say that the statement which I made on February 10, as covered by the Hansard report, page 1026, is correct.
This morning I received, airmail and special delivery, a letter from the Hon. R. E. Sommers, minister of lands and forests in British Columbia. I want, sir, to place this on the record because somebody is guilty of a terminological inexactitude and it is not I. This, sir, I will file with you. The letter I received reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Winch:
I have been following the debates on Bill No. 3 in the House of Commons very closely.
On page 1026 of Hansard 1 noticed that you quoted me as having informed you that I had seen a signed agreement between the Kaiser corporation and the Bonneville power administration relating to possible water storage in the Arrow lakes. There must be some misunderstanding on this point, as I am sure that what I did tell you. was that I had seen a signed letter from the Bonneville administration stating, that it believed that a satisfactory agreement could be worked out with the Kaiser corporation relative to this matter. I have attached a copy of this letter in order to clarify my verbal statement to you.
I know that with your many years experience as a legislator you would, naturally, realize that British Columbia would not issue a conditional water licence to Kaiser unless British Colvunbia was satisfied that an agreement had been signed between the Bonneville administration and the Kaiser corporation, and no water licence has as yet been issued.
I do hope this will set the record straight and I remain,
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) R. E. Sommers.
I want to reiterate here what I said on February 10. I state right now that I asked the minister of lands and forests if there was any arrangement between the Kaiser corporation and Bonneville on power, because, on the basis of his own statements in the press and by radio, Kaiser would get 40 per cent of the power produced, Bonneville would get 40 per cent and British Columbia 20 per cent. There had to be some understanding, so I am going to state very clearly and concisely the answer I got: "The question you raise, Mr. Winch, was one which we considered, and I told the Kaiser representatives that they had to prove to me that they had an understanding, an agreement with Bonneville, otherwise the deal was off." He said, "Shortly thereafter, in my own office here in Victoria, the Kaiser representatives came back and gave me what to me was conclusive proof that they had an understanding, they had an agreement with the Bonneville power corporation." That, sir, is a fact. Yet this morning, I get this letter. I did not see the letter which I now have on the day that I saw the minister of lands and forests in British Columbia. This morning, he sends me a copy of it.

I want to place this letter on the record, too. The letter is headed, "United States Department of the Interior, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland 8, Oregon: Office of the Administrator, August 26, 1954." It reads:
Mr. Norman L. Krey Manager Northwest Operations Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation 5C5 Spokane and Eastern building Spokane 1. Washington.
Dear Mr. Krey:
This is to confirm the information previously given to you by me concerning the Bonneville power administration's position with respect to the construction of a dam at Arrow lakes to provide for storage of Columbia river flows. We have been consulting with you in regard to this matter since early this year, ever since you first approached the British Columbia government with respect to the possibility of such construction. We have also had conversations with other interested parties. We have been unwilling to make any commitments with respect to our position concerning an Arrow lakes dam until all of the facts in connection with such construction become available. We are of course anxious to see the Arrow lakes construction proceed and believe that we will be able to work out satisfactory arrangements with you for the allocation of the increased federal prime power if you are successful in your negotiations with the British Columbia government. Our preliminary analysis indicates that there is a possibility of the costs in connection with the storage and in connection with the additional facilities for the generation and transmission of power from this storage being met by the sale of the power at reasonable rates.
We will be interested in hearing more concerning your negotiations with the British Columbia government.
(Sgd.) William A. Pearl, Administrator.
Sir, when I spoke on February 10 I tried to give what I thought was a fair presentation of the position of the British Columbia government. But, sir, as time goes on we learn things. I received this letter this morning from the minister of lands and forests. I presume therefore that it is the latest information dealing with the position of the Bonneville power administration itself. And it means what? It could mean only this, that the government of British Columbia has had no understanding and has no authority whatsoever, and does not know the amount of power it could get back if this dam went through. Because, according to Mr. Pearl, the administrator of this corporation, they have made no commitments. And there has been no decision whatsoever as to what they want for the generation of power.
And yet, sir, if this is the document that Sommers told me about in the middle of December then, on the basis of a document of August 26 in which there is no agreement and nothing definite, only one month later- on September 17-the province of British Columbia signed a contract with the Kaiser people. On what basis could they sign any

contract? On what basis could they sign a contract, when the only company that can generate the power says, on August 26: we have made no commitments?
In view of the fact that I received this letter from Mr. Sommers this morning, and a copy of the letter of August 26 from Mr. Pearl, I have an idea that the political tail of Mr. Sommers is now in the gate, and that vocally he is trying to weasel his way out.
There is only one way in which this can be answered now-there is only one way. And it is not from the floor of the House of Commons. That way is by passing the second reading of this bill so that it may be referred to a committee with power to call for persons and papers. And if my hon. friends on my left are sincere they will ask that this motion be now put in order to get it in front of that committee so that not only they but the government of British Columbia car* come on down here to Ottawa and either put up or shut up.
And, sir, may I conclude with this-and I think I have been pretty fair all along in what I have said-that a committee of the House of Commons not only has power to call for persons and papers but also, I believe, has the right to subpoena. And, sir, if those who say that we are invading provincial rights, and that the government is playing politics, do not voluntarily come down here, then I suggest, sir, that we subpoena them.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deal with the terminological inexactitudes of the hon. member's address based, as it was, entirely upon hearsay. But I imagine from what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has just said that certainly there is some element of doubt in what might have occurred in a particular office on a particular day at a particular time.
I have two or three notes here upon which I would like to comment. One is that, during the course of his address, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested that the support hon. members in this group have received has been entirely that of a group from Alberta, with whom I am happy to be associated. I am very pleased that we get support from somewhere in the house, because most certainly we cannot depend upon members from British Columbia to give us any, in the discussion on this bill. Apparently, to begin with, they are biased. Hon. members outside the Social Credit group have taken the view that we are here for
International Rivers
only one purpose, that of setting up a filibuster. An hon. member across the way mentioned only a short time ago that that is so, and I have seen similar references in the newspapers recently.
Mr. Speaker, we, too, want the facts. And because we do not happen to have as many members on the external affairs committee as do the other parties, we shall have only one opportunity to present our case as we see it, and that is from the floor of the House of Commons. Of course that does not apply with the same force to the two individuals from this group who are on the external affairs committee. I am not suggesting for one moment that other members will not do some probing; but I do say it is only natural that if a man is interested in opposing something for a particular purpose, he will probe much more deeply than he would if his feelings were otherwise.
In the course of his speech the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said the place to settle this is in the courts, and there are others who agree with the hon. member. He has said it would be in the national interest to do so. I would draw to his attention the fact that everything that happens in any province, municipality or district in Canada, everything that happens to any individual, is in the national interest. And if it is not, then we are not a nation.


Mr. Knight:: Even education.


Frederick George Hahn: And my good friend from Saskatoon says, "Even education"; and how right he happens to be! I would draw this fact to the government's attention. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) asked the question: Did Mr. Bennett ever ask for the advice of this government? The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) answered the question a bit earlier. If he had only taken the trouble to listen he would have heard that the United States federal authorities sought the advice of the state rather than the federal authority itself trying to discover whether or not it was within their jurisdiction. Up to this time, Mr. Speaker, the province of British Columbia has never been denied the right of development along other rivers or this river in particular. It will be recalled that earlier in this debate we discovered that the Skagit river was one of the first to be developed and there was no interference from the federal or any other authority.
In respect to the obstruction of this particular legislation and the so-called filibuster that we are accused of carrying on, I would say this. There are two or three specific purposes behind our speaking in the debate. The

International Rivers
first one the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered the other evening. We were endeavouring to get an admission from the government that they would give to the province of British Columbia an understanding that this bill, if it does become law, will permit the agreement to be consummated. I am willing to take the minister's words for that. Apparently, there is some doubt in his own mind. There is great doubt in the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), that the deal depends upon its own validity. I am not here to discuss and I have never discussed the validity of any Kaiser proposal, or of the provincial deals with them. Our object is to decide whether responsibility rests with the provincial authority or the federal authority, so that we can go home and say that we have a fair deal, if it is at all possible to get one. There are other purposes behind our bringing up this question at this time. The first question is the constitutionality of the bill and the other is provincial rights, and our responsibility as members of parliament.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer has been read several times. I shall read it again:
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.
This amendment has served one purpose, if no other, namely, it has established that the government recognizes the possibility that the Kaiser-British Columbia deal is a fair and good one. It has served a worthwhile purpose in so far as the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned.
However, we need to discover the legality of this particular bill and the authority upon which it is based. In that connection, section 92, subsection 10, of the B.N.A. Act deals with certain rights which have been assigned to the provinces and to the federal authorities. Paragraph (a) of subsection 10 reads as follows:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
These are assigned to the federal authority. One thing that strikes me as being very important is the question of railways. If railways come under the federal authority, are they not of national interest? Why have we not a bill to take over the Pacific Great Eastern Railway? I bring that in to indicate that it is an important factor. We are told from time to time by hon. members of the government that they have that authority vested in them by section 92 of the British Nor :h America Act. Is it not in the national

interest, Mr. Speaker, to conserve the forests and forest products? Would it not be just as simple for this government to say that they were going to take over all the forest industries in Canada? We have forests in every province, and not in just one particular province. Should they not also, in the national interest, take over flooding? In 1943, in my particular part of British Columbia, the lowlands were flooded. The federal authorities came to our assistance. They did not pass legislation saying that all districts that are subject to flooding come under the federal authority. They tried in every way to avoid that. Whenever they get a chance to avoid spending a dollar you may be sure they will do it.
What about the conservation of iron ore in Quebec? That surely would be in the national interest. In 50 years or 100 years from now we may have a terrific industry in iron. Why should that not come under the national authority? I am sure that my friends of the C.C.F. party would say: "Let us nationalize everything". This Social Credit group does not stand for nationalization of anything unless we feel that the national good of the nation as a whole would be helped by carrying on that industry when it becomes necessary. We pass on to private enterprise the carrying on of industry wherever that is possible.


Mr. Philpott:: To Henry Kaiser.


Frederick George Hahn: I beg your pardon?


Elmore Philpott: You are against nationalization, but you are for Kaiserization.


Frederick George Hahn: I had not thought of it in that way; but if Kaiser can help the people of our province, as I know he will, then we certainly are ready to try to help him along.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: The federal government did not lend any money to help develop the oil industry in Alberta.


Frederick George Hahn: No. I would suggest that the minister would help the people of British Columbia more if he introduced a bill saying that it is in the interest of the nation to extend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into my province and particularly into my area.
I contend, sir, as I said earlier, that up to a certain point, when this government finds it in the national interest to make the provinces and the municipal districts pay heavy taxes, they do so; but it is not in the national interest when they have to expend any more money than is absolutely necessary in any one of the provinces to try to help them get along. As 1 say, at that point co-operation seems to end.

I come now to the principal question on this bill. Will any province besides British Columbia be affected? How will it affect the people of Alberta? They have the St. Mary river dam today. Is it going to change Alberta in any respect, or the revenue of Alberta? I say no. In Saskatchewan they have the Souris river and the Frenchman river. Is it going to affect that province? Can we develop power or anything else there? It is not going to affect New Brunswick-no, not those people. It is not going to affect Ontario. It is not going to affect Quebec and Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or Manitoba. It is going to affect just one province, British Columbia, and it is in the national interest that this national government should take it over; at least that is what we are given to understand.
Where are our champions of free enterprise?


John Horne Blackmore: And of freedom?


Frederick George Hahn: The essence of free enterprise is the right to exercise one's faculties to the best of his abilities so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others in what he is doing. Did British Columbia interfere with the rights of the Dominion of Canada? Is the development of the Columbia river in British Columbia affecting the rights of the province of Alberta or of the province of Saskatchewan? Is it affecting any other part of Canada? Can we transport the water from the Columbia river in British Columbia to any other province? Is it possible to take the power and send it across the mountains? Are those mountains of such a nature that we could send the power through to Calgary? We know that the answer is "no". It is not feasible.
Canada is not doing that. She did not have the right to do it before. Now we suddenly find that it becomes necessary to take that right from British Columbia, to challenge her and her rights. Where are these champions of liberty, truth and justice? I am looking for them, for those people who always say that they are giving the true story.
Look at your newspapers right across this country and see how much of a national problem this thing is. I defy you to find more than half a dozen papers, even the local newspapers of Vancouver, devoting more than a relatively small space to it. That is how national it is. I wonder if it is because this little happy group of men here are trying to bring out the truth to the people. I do not think so. Maybe it is in the national interest that we should squelch all this talk against Bill No. 3 and its enactment into law. Possibly we should have a law that the Social Credit group should be squelched on this particular occasion.
International Rivers


An hon. Member:: Go back to the Alberta press act of 1937.


An hon. Member:: You do not know anything about it.


An hon. Member:: You just do not want the truth.


Frederick George Hahn: I am ready to give the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) an opportunity to tell us all about the press act. He might be able to introduce a bill into the house, and as he is a Liberal I am satisfied it will get a more careful scrutiny than one we might present to the house. We would then have the privilege of discussing the Alberta press act or any other press act that has ever been brought into existence in days gone by.
I want to know where are those champions of liberty, truth and justice, the defenders of these things. Those people who in weeks past were ready to get up to speak about a human bill of rights would be well advised to ask themselves how you can get a human bill of rights if you are going to vest everything in the power of the national government. If you want a human bill of rights you must give the provinces their bill of rights, you must give the local districts their bill of rights.
I do not want to labour that point, but there is an important factor involved in these things. Every time we get centralization of authority within the centre of this government or any other government we give away a part of our own particular human rights, especially when it affects only one particular province as does this bill.
There is one further step. I mentioned earlier the responsibility of members of parliament. I should like to ask the indulgence of the house to quote certain excerpts from bills and debates which have been brought up in this house in past years. One debate I should like to refer to is that of the parliament of Canada on confederation in 1865 and also the debates during the session of 1877. These are books that are revered by Canadian citizens everywhere. In years gone by I have frequently wondered what particular value there was in the teaching of history, but I think I found its particular purpose at this time.
There were certain fundamentals and principles that make up the basis for confederation and we should keep these in mind. When we think of this Dominion of Canada we must remember that it is not made up of just one or two particular provinces; it is the dominion as a whole. First, I should like to refer to page 377 of the debates of 1865 when the Hon. Mr. Langevin, who was
1482	HOUSE OF
International Rivers
solicitor general and from Quebec, spoke. At that time the province of New Brunswick had export licences on timber and when they came into confederation they wanted that right to be retained. Mr. Langevin said:
As to New Brunswick, the duty on the article in question is their principal revenue, as coal is almost the sole revenue of Nova Scotia; and if they had been deprived of them, they would have peremptorily refused to join the confederation.
I do not hear anybody applauding now, out at that time the report indicates "hear, tear". If the government which was formed at that time had taken from the province of New Brunswick the right to export its timber or had denied that right to Nova Scotia those two prdvinces would not have joined confederation at that time. Mr. Langevin then went on to say:
Their demand was perfectly just, and could not be refused.
Then on March 28, 1871, as reported in column 661 of the debates of that day, Sir George Cartier, a commoner of that day, when speaking on the bill to admit the province of British Columbia into confederation, had this to say:
He invited the freest and fullest discussion on each and every clause but he would remind them that the bill was in the nature of a treaty . . .- that the amendment of one paragraph or one item of those terms would defeat the whole project.
When British Columbia came into confederation she came in under a form of treaty. Members in the house at that time considered that a form of treaty. I am satisfied that they did it for only one purpose, to protect the rights of that particular province.


John Horne Blackmore: Their sovereignty.


Frederick George Hahn: This is an amendment to that. It is taking from that power and right what was theirs at that day. British Columbia was happy to come into confederation because her rights were not being tampered with at that time. She sacrificed a lot to become a member. We hear people say peanuts, that it is a sell-out, that it is a steal when referring to this particular deal. Unfortunately I am not a constitutional lawyer nor a lawyer of any kind. If I were I might have more of these things at my fingertips and be able to refer to them as so many hon. gentlemen of the two senior parties in this house are able to do. On April 3, 1871, as reported in column 777 of the debates of that day, Mr. Campbell, a member, said that British Columbia gave to the railway a continuous grant of 20 miles on each side of the railway. That was the grant that was given. Was that a steal? How much was the property worth even at that time? Well over $50 million. What did Ontario do in comparison? She
rMr. Hahn.]

gave every other 20 miles on the right of way. I know we are not debating what was given by each of the provinces and under what terms they came into this agreement of confederation; but I say that it has an important part to play in the establishment of the rights of the province of British Columbia and of those of each and every province that is in existence today.
I might carry on and say that British Columbia received $100,000 a year from this government for their share of land, as I understand it. Newfoundland had been offered, four years earlier, $150,000 per year in perpetuity. The indications are that the people of that time did not realize the value of land in the province of British Columbia.


Jean Lesage: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that what the hon. member is saying at this time has nothing to do with the amendment which is now before the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The point raised by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) had occurred to me but I am not going to say at this time that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) is out of order because, as I followed his argument, he is endeavouring to bolster an argument that this bill has an effect on provincial rights and is laying the groundwork for it. He will, I think, permit me to say that at times he has gone fairly far afield. If he is going to conclude his argument in the time allotted to him, perhaps he had better stay as close as possible to the bill.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am staying very close to the bill in my own mind at least, so far as relevancy is concerned, in having to do with the rights of the province of British Columbia and not just of British Columbia but of each and every province within this dominion.
I now carry on, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Sir George E. Cartier, on March 28, 1871, as reported at column 661 of Hansard, had this to say. This was another example that British Columbia was coming into confederation so that her demands or her part of the treaty would not be amended:
The customs duty collected under the tariff of the colony amounted to $350,000,-
Note this closely.
-which would give about twice as much per head for the population, as was collected in the Dominion.
Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has been paying through the nose ever since she came into confederation and she is continuing to do so. There is hardly a member of this house that dares to get up or is getting up

to establish the truth of that particular statement. Now she is to be kicked around. It is an interesting fact that at the time of entry of British Columbia into Canada Mr. Campbell, on March 28, 1871, as reported at column 658 of Hansard of this date, had this to say:
It was also urged that the population were larger consumers of dutiable goods, than the population of Canada were and would therefore return more proportionately to the revenue.
Why were they willing to give this? So these rights would not be taken from them.
I wonder, as has been said before, if the same treatment has been accorded to British Columbia as is and has been accorded, let us say, to the other provinces in respect of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway project. I wish at this time to come relevantly to the matter of water itself. I have in my hand a copy of a minute of a report of the committee of the privy council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on June 19, 1947. The purpose behind this order in council was to outline the policy in respect of water rights between the provinces and the federal authority. Let us see what they had to say in 1947 in the privy council order:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated June 17th, 1947, from the Minister of Agriculture, representing that in connection with the construction of such large water development projects by the prairie farm rehabilitation organization as are approved by the governor in council and for which funds are provided by parliament it is desirable-
Note this.
-that the respective responsibilities of the dominion and of the province in which a project is constructed should be clearly defined and the procedure to be followed in regard thereto be established:
Lest someone say that this has to do with agriculture and possibly irrigation, may I say that so has the Arrow lakes project.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, advise that Your Excellency may be pleased to approve the following principles to govern the policy of the dominion in respect to such projects:
1.	Before Canada undertakes the construction and operation of a project it will be necessary for the province in which the project is located to enter into an agreement:
(1)	to transfer any water rights required for the construction and operation of such project;
(2)	to make available to Canada any provincial crown lands which may be required for dam site, reservoir or canal right-of-way purposes in connection with such projects;-
And note this.
- (3) under which the water will be utilized by the province or some other authority or organization on the terms set out in such agreement. Thereafter, Canada will at the cost of Canada proceed with the construction of its share of the project at the earliest possible date.
2.	Canada will operate any project constructed pursuant to this policy in such a wav as to
International Rivers
maintain so far as possible the minimum flow determined by the prairie provinces water board for the stream upon which the project is constructed;
3.	Canada will make a legal survey of any lands necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the portion of any project to be constructed by Canada pursuant to this policy and will file a plan or plans of such survey in the appropriate land titles office and in the water resources office of the province.
4.	In the construction of an irrigation project hereunder Canada will undertake and assume responsibility for the construction of the main reservoirs and any connecting canals, and will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of such works; Canada will deliver to the province such water as it is agreed the province will utilize at such place and for such fee as may be agreed upon between Canada and the province. If the province does not desire to utilize all of such water Canada may enter into arrangements with others for the delivery and use of any water not taken by the province.
You will notice that it is the province. It is signed by A. D. P. Heeney, clerk of the privy council.
I now come to the member responsibility in connection with this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


Frederick George Hahn: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did that order in council make any reference to international rivers?


Frederick George Hahn: No; it made no reference to international rivers but it was delegating the authority. Many of the rivers in the province of British Columbia which run into the Columbia river are being covered by this particular bill and are or should be subject to this particular order of the privy council. But because they run into the Columbia they are considered as international rivers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that not make a difference?


Frederick George Hahn: Not specifically as to whose authority this might be under. But I have not time to get into a controversy.


Jean Lesage: You have enough on that point.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member can take care of himself quite well. Give him a chance.


Frederick George Hahn: I should like to deal with member responsibility before six o'clock. Solicitor general Langevin in 1865, on February 21, had this to say. Part of this, Mr. Speaker, deals specifically with the protection of provincial rights:
Total population in 1861-
He was referring to Canada.
-was 3,300,000 souls, and of these the total number of Catholics amounted to 1,494,000. Thus they will be numerous enough to protect their religious and other interests: and those interests will be in

International Rivers
a position of safety in the local legislatures. We do not seek to be allowed privileges which others have not-
But notice this.
-we only wish that our rights may be respected as we respect those of others.
That was the purpose of the members of the House of Commons at that time, namely to protect the rights of local interests. This, sir, is a local provincial problem, and we should be protecting the rights of the province. These words are just as applicable to British Columbia today as they were at the time when confederation was being brought about. Further, the hon. solicitor general had this to say, as found at page 384:
History is before us to prove that there will always be an opposition-
I should like the members of the official opposition to recognize that.
-and that if an attempt is made to oppress any one section of the confederation, its representatives would unite in a body with the minority, and having thereby constituted a majority, would prevent any injustice on the part of the federal government.
If the official opposition dies, we will do the job for them. Where is this unity when there is oppression of one province? Our province is claiming that it is being oppressed in this particular respect, and yet we find that because half a dozen other members of our group who come from the province of Alberta rise to help to defend us they are castigated for their action. I say "hear, hear" to them. Is it just that British Columbia's one great natural resource should be sacrificed to the rest of the dominion through the introduction of this bill? The federal authority apparently has set itself up as judge and without discussion has decided against the provincial authority. We find that to be very true. Certain cabinet ministers made specific remarks as to the deal that the province of British Columbia was consummating.
Where are these mouths that were going to speak so much in favour of the protection of provincial rights? I say they are indeed dumb mouths whose lips are sealed in mute evidence that this whole thing was set up under a false premise.
The hon. solicitor general Langevin, as found at page 368 of the proceedings of February 21, 1865, also had this to say:
Under confederation-
Remember, this is the confederation that British Columbia entered in 1871.
-there will no longer be domination of one race over another, and if one section should be desirous of committing an act of injustice against another section, all the others would unite to prevent it.
Where are these people who will stand up and speak to prevent the injustice that the

government of British Columbia claims is being perpetrated against them? I should like to re-emphasize before I take my seat that this is not and should not be a fight with respect to the merits of the Kaiser dam, but rather we should try to present the problem of provincial autonomy and provincial rights as they exist in the minds of the people of the province of British Columbia, in our own minds and, in fact, in the mind of everyone in this dominion.
I have one final statement which I believe deserves close scrutiny. It is found in sessional paper No. 18 tabled in 1871, and is a letter to Governor Musgrave of British Columbia, datelined Ottawa, February 1, 1871. It reads:
The terms of union are in nature of a treaty. They have been extensively published in Canada, and accepted by British Columbia. The Canadian government, therefore, think they have no right to alter those terms. After acceptance by Canada, parliament may, in its discretion, modify the tariff on the request of British Columbia. I have no doubt that parliament will consider any proposition made by you, with a desire to meet your views as much as it properly can.
The letter is signed by Lord Lisgar.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Low:: That is all right. He will go ahead.


Mr. Quelch:: Just wait until the next time you make the same request.


Alexander Bell Patterson: There are times when
courtesy is a rather neglected attribute in this house, and it has been revealed as such in the last several days.


John Horne Blackmore: Even decency.


Alexander Bell Patterson: However, I wish to take part in this debate, and regardless of the attitude of members across the way we insist on our right to carry on the debate, present the facts as they are and state the position not only of the people of British Columbia but of the people of Canada. I do feel there are times when courtesy might be extended, but it certainly has not been on the present occasion, nor on other occasions.


Solon Earl Low: Not even one minute's worth.


Charles Edward Johnston: We will remember it. Don't make any mistake about it. It will be remembered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tempus fugit.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Constitutional issues do
come before us in this house, and I have been reminded that in the last few days there have been a number of issues that have

come to the surface with respect to dominion-provincial relations. I certainly feel that the present one is of vital concern and one that certainly fits into this particular and specific category. Therefore, in rising to take part in the debate I am reminded of the fact that I am speaking to an amendment to the motion now before us in effect giving-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Bell Patterson: The amendment to the motion now before us, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill No. 3 be not now read a second time and that the subject matter be referred to the committee on external affairs. I recognize, of course, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in introducing this measure, after stating the reasons for its introduction, referred to the fact it should be referred to the committee on external affairs. However, like some other members, I am under the impression that once a bill passes second reading the principle of the bill has been approved. When it goes to committee, it is then just a matter of discussing the details of the measure.
This is one reason why I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). He referred to the fact he was anxious to see the bill go to the committee. I believe he did state that neither he nor his party could support this amendment, and therefore I suppose we are to take it that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and others in the Conservative party, are in favour-


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Talk for yourself.


Alexander Bell Patterson: You have not got up to say anything to the contrary.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: You are talking now.


Alexander Bell Patterson: You have had your opportunity. I understand they are supporting the principle of the bill and are, therefore, in favour of a further concentration of power in the central government here in Ottawa. We are unalterably opposed to the principle of the bill and that is the main reason why we are so anxious to see the subject matter referred to the committee before this measure is given second reading. As I say, if second reading is approved then the principle will be approved.
Canada, of course, is a federation. It is a federation in which power is shared, and
International Rivers
within the constitution certain stated authority rests with the provinces, and the central parliament is free to legislate in other fields. Section 92 of the British North America Act designates provincial rights. In clause 10 we find this:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(c) such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
I suggest there is a very delicate situation existing here. It seems to me as though the needle is very delicately poised. Before this parliament invokes this particular provision and exercises this overriding authority, it should very carefully consider its position. It has been suggested that this is a borderline case or an item in the twilight zone. Evidently this parliament must legislate before it can rob the province of certain rights and exercise authority over these particular types of works. The procedure, I suggest, will have a devastating effect upon dominion-provincial relations. At the moment, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority, otherwise they would not be introducing this particular measure.
Not only, Mr. Speaker, does the federal government not have the constitutional authority, but I suggest it does not have the ethical or moral right at this juncture to invade the fields of authority the provinces have been exercising-I may say, without challenge by this federal government-throughout the years. When we consider this bill we think of the extent to which it goes.
The governor in council may, for the purpose of developing and utilizing the water resources of Canada in the national interest, make regulations (a) respecting the construction, operation and maintenance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand the hon. member is reading from the bill? He will, of course, not refer to the clauses in the bill itself.


Alexander Bell Patterson: All right, Mr. Speaker,
thank you. We find that through this bill the government proposes to take control and usurp those rights and privileges that the provinces have exercised in the past. I suggest the measure is of tremendous import and wide authority.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, the measure was introduced to protect the rights of the people of Canada, at least to see that there is an orderly development of resources in the best interests of the national economy. I am not going to take the time to read the particular sections in Hansard in which the minister made reference to the fact, but I would suggest that

International Rivers
the provincial governments, British Columbia or any other government, are best qualified to decide what procedures are best, what matters are best, in the interests of the people. They are working with the problems day by day, and they are seized with the responsibility. The responsibility has been committed to them by the people of the respective provinces and they are held accountable by those same people for the faithful discharge of those obligations. I would suggest, therefore, that this bill is predicated on the assumption that the provincial government is neither capable nor desirous of developing the resources in the best interests of the people of Canada.
As I have already said, I and the other members of this group are unalterably opposed to the principle of this particular bill. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the fact that over $2 million has been spent by the federal government in surveys in a particular area of British Columbia. I was waiting for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) to shout out "Two peanuts", but he did not do that. When there was a reference to the fact British Columbia was getting a million dollars, he said, "Peanuts". He is shaking his head. Nevertheless, I was waiting for him to say that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave that figure. He did not do so.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to the fact that the international joint commission and the federal Department of Public Works had been very solicitous of the interests and welfare of the people before any development had been carried out. He went to great lengths to outline that. He was spreading it on very thickly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Telling the truth.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Sometimes we resort to flattery.
I did not intend to deal with the Kaiser project, but coming back to that again I remind the hon. member that before a licence is granted, every individual, every interested group, every organization will have ample opportunity to present their case before the authorities. I believe the hon. member should have presented both sides of the case instead of trying to make it look as though the provincial government was going to railroad the thing through without giving anybody an opportunity to raise an objection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: How could they do anything when they have signed an agreement?


Alexander Bell Patterson: They have signed an exploratory agreement. That has been brought

out time and again, but apparently it has not sunk in yet. Now then, I have been referring to the fact that the provincial government should be in the position to make decisions in the best interests of the people. I know the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) stated that the provincial government in British Columbia was cockeyed, that they did not know what they were doing. That was the statement to which the minister lent his support. When it was read and placed on the record he said, "All true." I would suggest that that is not a very good way to maintain the minister's popularity in British Columbia.


Mr. Cannon:: You would be surprised.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It would be surprising, yes. However, as I have said, we are not challenging the right of the dominion government to legislate on matters clearly in their jurisdiction. There is a division of jurisdiction; that is desirable and necessary. But we are objecting to the passage of a measure meant, no doubt as an emergency clause, to take from the provinces authority which is rightfully theirs.
During this debate in the last few days this matter of dominion-provincial relations has come up quite often. It came up in connection with educational grants, in the debate on the bill of rights. This government agreed with the principle that there must be a recognition and acknowledgment of provincial rights and provincial autonomy. Now, why bring in this measure to expropriate rights that have been exercised by provincial governments in the past?
I think there is an inherent danger here, because we have not been told to what extent this will be carried out.
I would like to ask the question: What proposed development is next going to fall under the disapproving frown of this government? What provincial rights are going to be whittled away next? There has been some talk about the diversion of flood waters from the Columbia into the Fraser river. I shall not debate the merits or demerits of that suggestion; but, in the event of a provincial government objecting to that, what is the federal government going to do? Will they pass another measure and say, "Whether you like it or not, we are going to do it." I think it involves the very same principle and the same situation.
I would like now to refer to a statement made by General A. G. L. McNaughton when he appeared before the committee on external affairs last year. This is a rather general statement. I do not think there is any controversy about it, but I would like to place it

on the record. General McNaughton said this, as recorded at page 168 of the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs:
In dealing with British Columbia we feel we are dealing with views that are the consensus of views of all the people in that province, and I think when you have views with that sanction behind them, that they are views to which we must all pay the greatest attention: they have to be given every weight in the considerations that come forward in the international field.
Now, I have read that because I feel it is the basis of all successful dominion-provincial relations. They must be founded upon mutual respect for the rights of the respective jurisdictions, and a refusal to be led into the position of encroaching upon those respective jurisdictions, except by mutual consent and understanding. Bill No. 3 is far-reaching in its implications. As I have said, it will be looked upon as absolutely indefensible interference with provincial prerogatives.
Perhaps I now pass into the realm of the imaginary, if you wish to call it that-but let us suppose this bill is passed and any province refuses to recognize and acknowledge its validity. I think this matter was brought to our attention some few days ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) when he intervened in the debate and asked just how the penalties were going to be imposed, if the bill was passed. He asked how it was going to be enforced if a provincial government refused to recognize its validity. Well, we have the penalties outlined in the bill-and I understand at this stage I must not read them. But we do know there is a provision for fine and imprisonment.
Would it be possible to enforce those penalties in the event of a provincial government refusing to recognize the authority of the federal government in this respect? Would it be advisable to try it? Would it be wise to put this measure on the statute books, with that question in mind? Just how far could we go in the imposition of those particular penalties? The question has been asked as to who is going to arrest whom? It would be interesting to see just what would happen, if somehow or other a way was worked out whereby this could be enforced, to see the custodians of the law going into the province of British Columbia or any other province, enforcing the regulations, taking premiers and cabinet ministers and putting them in the pokey. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said the other day, no doubt it would precipitate something almost like a civil war right in Canada's front yard.
Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-son) will accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East and shed a little
International Rivers
light on the problem from that constitutional angle. I believe if this government goes ahead, against the considered judgment of the provincial government and the will of the people of British Columbia, then the Liberal party will be about as dead as a mackerel. In fact it will be about as dead as the Conservative party in that province at the present time. And the Minister of Fisheries will no doubt be right there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose he will be a fossil.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Of course, we remember certain ministers have had their knuckles rapped after some statements had been made. However, we do not believe that the government would consider seriously doing any of these foolish things. But apparently they are considering doing this foolish thing, by putting this measure on the statute books of Canada.
Permit me to say that provincial governments are elected by the people, in whatever province it may be, and the same people will insist upon a report of their stewardship. They are there to fulfil an obligation under constitutional authority, and it would be unwise for the federal government to usurp that power which ethically, morally and constitutionally belongs to the province.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has insisted that the reason for the introduction of this bill is purely to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people. There have been other suggestions. They have not been denied; and I hope when the time comes to close this debate-whenever it comes

the minister will reply to some of those charges and let us know whether there are some other reasons-perhaps some hidden reasons-why the government has sought to bring in this measure at the present time.


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


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I feel that at this time I should take a few minutes of the time of the house to say a few things about the matter that is before us and perhaps make more clear exactly what it is that we have been striving to do. Before I start on the few points that I want to make in connection with the bill itself, I would like to deal just briefly with one or two things that were said by other speakers this afternoon. One of the things that attracted my attention particularly was a long telegram which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources read into the record today that purported to be an answer to a question that was asked the other day by the hon. member for
1488	HOUSE OF
International Rivers
Kootenay West. One does not suggest collusion between the two members to get that on the record at all, but one could easily be excused tor doing so.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, when the hon. member for Kootenay West asked his question on Tuesday last I had no knowledge that he was going to ask it. I answered his question by saying that I was going to try to seek definite information, which I did, and I gave him my answer this afternoon.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. The interesting thing to me -and I am sure it must have occurred to many other hon. members-was that the minister would feel it necessary to go clear down to Washington to try to find out the answer to that question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Why not?


Solon Earl Low: Why not ask the government of the province of British Columbia for an answer to that question?


Jean Lesage: They would not know.


Solon Earl Low: This, and a good many other things that have gone on, or have failed to be done, indicate quite clearly to me the singular aversion on the part of this government, or of any minister of this government, to go to the authorities in British Columbia to try to get the truth on any one of these matters. That is perfectly correct. There has been no effort on their part to go to the authorities in British Columbia for information, or for the purpose of trying to work out the basis of co-operation to get this whole matter cleared away, not the slightest. If there has been, no one on the other side of the house has attempted to place the information before this house so that we would know it. And yet the minister rises in his place today and reads this long telegram in which he emphasizes the information which he got to the effect that no contract was signed between the Bonneville authority and Kaiser, and therefore he deduces, by inference, at any rate, that there is no possibility of the Kaiser deal being enforceable.
Well, now, Mr. Speaker, nobody here or anywhere else that I have known, except on the opposite side of the house, has said that there was a contract. I thought I made it abundantly clear when I spoke on February 11-and finally it was noted, at any rate, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because he mentioned it in his closing speech on the night of February 11-that I went to the province of British Columbia and obtained information which I put on the record.


I am just going to refresh the memory of the minister, for whom I have high regard. For us, at any rate, it is a matter of principle, and I think he is on the wrong end of the principle this time. I said, as reported at page 1092 of Hansard, in relation to this very question:
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.
Now, everybody who knows anything about this situation at all must realize that nobody has claimed that there is a firm contract signed. Nobody claimed there was a contract between Bonneville and Kaiser.


Harold Edward Winch: I did, on the word of the minister. Unfortunately, I took his word.


Solon Earl Low: I am going to come to that in just a moment. As a matter of fact, I might just as well deal with it now. I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East this afternoon. In his usual terms, which, by the way, have never been noted for their moderation under any circumstances, he proceeded to suggest that the minister of lands and forests in British Columbia had his political tail in the gate.


Harold Edward Winch: He sure has.


Solon Earl Low: But what I have already said, Mr.	Speaker,	indicates	that early in thiswhole dispute I was able to get the information	which I	put	on	record here. Thatinformation coincides exactly with the information which the minister of lands and forests in the British Columbia government gave in his letter to Mr. Winch. It suggests to me that there is a very strong possibility that the	hon. member	for	Vancouver East isindeed mistaken, or misunderstood what the minister told	him.	I	was not there, of
course, and I am not going to stand up and try to enter into a dispute between him and the minister. I am only saying that I was able to get the information straight, which completely coincides in every detail with

information we had today from Mr. Sommers. I feel quite certain that there is a good chance that when my hon. friend was in the office of the minister in Victoria he must have misunderstood what the minister referred to.
At no time since this thing began has it ever been communicated to me that there was a contract, but it was certainly communicated to me that before the final contract was signed there was expected to be a provisional water licence, and that provisional water licence would set out all of these things that amount to guarantees. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, when the provisional water licence was applied for individuals, firms, groups and local interests everywhere that might be affected would be given every chance for a fair and complete hearing of their case.


John Horne Blackmore: Including the federal government.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. That should set the picture as clear as I am able to set it. As I say, I am not going to enter into a dispute with the hon. member for Vancouver East because I was not there, and I would not call him a liar, or anyone else a liar, in connection with this matter.


An hon. Member:: To suggest is as strong.


Solon Earl Low: It is a lot different from what other people have done with little excuse. It must be perfectly clear to anyone who has done any thinking at all about the manner in which the government has dealt with the province of British Columbia and the whole waters problem in that province that it has been unjust and unfair and unwise, and in many respects politically despicable; that it has caused much disunity in our country at a time when unity is so essential to our preservation and development.
I think that I am safe in saying also that the way the government rushed Bill No. 3 before the house exposes the purpose that was behind it, that is to block a deal between Her Majesty in the right of the province of British Columbia and a private corporation. That has caused widespread fear about what this or some other reckless government in the future may be tempted to do if they do not like something that a province is trying to do toward developing its own resources.
This business of federal action directed against a province is what we have been fighting. Federal action in this parliament directed against a province and what it is doing is something which the Canadian people will not tolerate if they come to realize the facts about what is really going
International Rivers
on. It is because we were anxious to see that the people from one end of the country to the other had a chance to get the details of what was going on that we have conducted this debate. I will say that there has been no element whatsoever in it of a desire to hold up this bill simply for the satisfaction of holding it up; not for a moment. The people of Canada by and large are very fair and just in their judgment. I am ready to leave the matter of judgment to them. They are most jealous also of their local rights.
As the details of the present situation filtered through to them, I know from my own experience that the people felt angry about how this government was attempting to throw sand into the gears of provincial development machinery at this time and in this manner. Hon. members opposite deny that there was any attempt by the federal government to use this bill as a means of blocking a deal. I have heard that said, but the pertinent facts prove that such a denial is unfounded and support our contention that Bill No. 3 was rushed in-I stress the word "rushed"-as it was and when it was for, among other things, and this was very prominent among the other things, the purpose of blocking the Kaiser deal
wnat are the facts that indicate that clearly? The first is that this bill was mentioned in the speech from the throne and immediately afterward, far more quickly than on any other occasion that I have known of it was introduced into this house and a statement was made which indicated that there was a real rush and that the house should deal with it quickly.
The second point is that the government of British Columbia was not advised that the bill would be introduced and was not consulted in any way in connection with it. In fact no effort was made by this government or by any member of it to seek the cooperation of the provincial government for the purpose of arriving at some satisfactory procedure which would guarantee the orderly and full development of the great Columbia river basin.
There was the very pertinent and important fact that as early as last November, not so long after the preliminary agreement was reached between the British Columbia government and Kaiser,-


John Horne Blackmore: For exploration.


Solon Earl Low: -ministers of the government and members of this house supporting the government began making public statements to the effect that the government at Ottawa would block the Kaiser deal. How did they know that this government would block the

International Rivers
Kaiser deal? They had assurance of it; they spoke with assurance. For instance, I can mention my good friend the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Fairey) who, in delineating this matter at a public meeting for this Liberal government, stated that the government here would block the Kaiser deal. He must have had some information about it, otherwise he would not be saying that in anything but a speculative manner. He would have said, "I hope they will". He did not say that; he said, "They will".


An hon. Member:: That it was a good thing to do.


Solon Earl Low: Whether he thought it was a good thing to do, that is what he said was going to happen. I do not need to go over all these things, but I have them here, the words they said, and I can give the dates. It goes back to November; some of it happened in December, some in January and some in early February. So there is no question of that fact at all.
There is another thing. There is every evidence that this bill was rushed into this house because someone was piqued, someone was angry.- If one looks over the speeches that have been made from the other side of the house he will see that there is inference after inference to that effect. Someone was angry. I wonder who it was. In his short speech on February 11, two weeks ago tomorrow, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated that it might be General McNaughton. He said that General Mc-Naughton was very much concerned about it. I wonder why.
I have tried to picture in my mind just what happened. I wonder if General McNaughton came to the minister heatedly and asked him to bring in this bill. When I asked myself why he would do it I could not find any other reason than that he felt he had been slighted because the government of British Columbia had not consulted him. That is the inference that the Minister of Trade and Commerce left with us.


Mr. Dickey:: No.


Solon Earl Low: Yes it was, and I will refer to it. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) says, "no". He is quite-


John Horne Blackmore: Quite noisy.


Solon Earl Low: I quote from page 1106 of Hansard of February 11, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as follows:
Strangely enough, General McNaughton has not been consulted by the province of British Columbia about this transaction.
That is what I said he said.


John Horace Dickey: He was dealing with the question of co-operation.


Solon Earl Low: It does not matter what he was dealing with, I am quoting the exact words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Quote them all.


An hon. Member:: Why should he not have been consulted?


Solon Earl Low: That is an honest question; that is a good point. Someone asks why should he not have been consulted. I will deal with that. No reason has been divulged as to why General McNaughton should have been angry about the thing. Things have been said from the other side of the house to indicate that General McNaughton's anger arose because he was not consulted by the government of British Columbia before September 17 when the memorandum was completed between Kaiser and the province of British Columbia whereby certain preliminaries were to be undertaken with a view to a later contract for water storage in British Columbia.


Tom Goode: General McNaughton was in Victoria at that time.


Solon Earl Low: That may be true; I do not know about that. The objection to what British Columbia has done on the basis of their alleged failure to consult General McNaughton is ill-founded. This was not a matter for the international joint commission, not at all; this was a matter for consultation and negotiation between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. General McNaughton made his position abundantly clear in his evidence before the external affairs committee last year. I just take time to quote briefly what he said at page 174 of the evidence. He was being questioned by the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
Q. Then you mentioned Mica creek and various other potential developments. By what authority would those have to be built? Would they be the responsibility of the dominion, the provincial government or private enterprise, or just how would they be built?
Then General McNaughton's answer was as follows:
A. No sir, the commission's responsibility under the reference is an over-all plan to develop the particulars and details right down to and including the designs of the particular works needed. We are doing that. As regards Mica creek, we have had the additional survey information, that we so badly needed, made available to us, within the past few months.
And so on. Then he goes on to say this:
So from the commission point of view, that project could be cleared for construction at any time within a year. The people to build it, the responsibility of building that dam, lies with the provincial government. They must say whether they are going

to build it themselves through the B.C. Power Commission or whether they are going to bring in a group of private interests to build it. All these things are very definite possibilities, but the decision will lie with the provincial government.
General McNaughton realized only too well that the international joint commission's responsibility was, first, negotiation with the United States division of the international joint commission with a view to some international agreement within the scope of their authorities; second, to develop plans to the last detail for the development of any one of these powers and to make them available to the authority that was to build them. So this was not a question of reference to General McNaughton. It was not the responsibility of the province of British Columbia to consult with General McNaughton about it. If there was any consultation to go on at all, it was between the British Columbia government and the appropriate division of the government of Canada.
I think that General McNaughton had no reason to feel piqued at what British Columbia had done. He may have felt concerned and one could understand that perhaps if he had plans in his mind. But it would seem to me that, with those plans in his mind, what he should have suggested to the minister or ministers of the crown here is this:	Why do
you not get out there or have those people come down here, sit down and talk this thing over and arrive at some sort of agreement so that we can go ahead without having a lot of trouble? That could have been done. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker: Personal pique or anger is not a good reason for bringing in any bill with the tremendous implications contained in this bill, which invokes a clause in the constitution that should be used most sparingly and then only after the fullest consultation with the provinces that are now or might later be affected by that legislation. If the federal government or any official of it was angry about what British Columbia was trying to do, it was clearly a matter between them and Her Majesty in the right of the province of British Columbia. This government should have communicated any disapproval they may have had to the British Columbia government. Did they do that?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: No. The proof has not been orought before us yet; and I suggest that it be brought before us. If there is some culpability in that regard, let us establish where it is. But it has not been established yet. As far as I am able to understand, this government did not at any time communicate any disapproval of the proposal to build a dam
International Rivers
to store water in the Arrow lakes before this bill was conceived. It may have been after the bill was in the process of formation and plans had been made for legislation here.
Did the minister wish to say something?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: I would point out to the hon. member that I wrote a letter to Premier Bennett and also to the management of the Kaiser company last November, I think it was, stating that amendments were going to be made to the federal legislation, and just calling their attention to that fact. I did not receive a reply to either letter.


Solon Earl Low: I am going to ask the minister now, if possible, this question: Did he express disapproval at that time of what the British Columbia government was trying to do? That is what I am talking about. If there was any disapproval to be expressed, this government should have expressed that disapproval then, but they did not do so. That is what I am saying. I did not say they had not communicated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member not think that would be implied in a statement that we were changing our legislation?


Solon Earl Low: No; I certainly would not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: I am just going to leave it to the minister himself. Would you really believe that that was expressing disapproval?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I now understand a lot of these speeches from the hon. member's corner of the house.


Solon Earl Low: I know that the genial minister likes to try to laugh these things off but they are rather serious to many people; they are to us. They are extremely serious. I am going to tell you this, Mr. Speaker. No such peremptory thing as was done in this case was done with the province of Ontario when they were negotiating the co-operation for the seaway bill, nor with Quebec.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out that the federal government conducted all negotiations for the seaway.


Solon Earl Low: Surely; but you did it with the approval and the co-operation of the province of Ontario.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: But there was no peremptory action such as that which the minister has just pointed out he took. As far as I can ascertain-and I have not changed my mind one bit-this government did not at any time

International Rivers
indicate any disapproval of plans to build a dam to store water in the Arrow lakes. If they did, they have certainly kept it a deep dark secret.
I should like just to go back for one minute to this question of principle. A good deal has been said about the principle of the bill and what it is. I do not intend to go over all of it because there is another thing that has not been touched yet; no reference has been made to it. This to me is a matter of principle. One part of the bill-under the rules I am not permitted to say which part that is-declares that all international river improvements heretofore or hereafter constructed, and not excepted from the operation of this act are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. That is, of course, the exercise of the power of expropriation by one government from another. The only way that very great power-and I say it is a very great power- can be granted is by majority vote of the people's representatives in this parliament. If we pass Bill No. 3, then we give this parliament practical ownership-and I want this noted particularly-of all of the defined works on all the international rivers of Canada. But I wonder whether it has occurred to hon. members-whether it has not struck them as rather peculiar, as a matter of fact-that if this government has induced this parliament to grant it drastic powers of expropriation by invoking section 92 (10) of the British North America Act, they would ask parliament at the same time to give the governor in council the right to set aside the declaration made in clause 9 by the powers asked for in clause 3.
To me that is a mighty serious point of principle and is a mighty serious business. It is a principle which should never be countenanced by the parliament of a free country. That is one more right good reason why we are opposed to the principle of this bill.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra this afternoon said that this is a bill which is just perfect to be studied by a committee. Well, maybe it is, but why in the world rush to get it to the committee before we understand what the principle is? We are discussing the principle here today, and if the bill gets to the committee then that is an indication that the house has approved the principle. That is what will be thrown up to us. It will be said: Well, you agreed in principle by a majority vote. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that becomes more serious when the principle has not been fully explored as yet.


An hon. Member:: That is real democracy.


Solon Earl Low: Certainly, I am quite ready to concede it. I feel now that the purpose for which we started this discussion about two weeks ago has been fairly well served. I think perhaps our case has been put on the record pretty clearly and completely so that the people of British Columbia and of Canada generally may be able to judge for themselves as to the seriousness or otherwise of what the government proposes to do. The newspapers of Victoria and Vancouver, in fact, of the whole province, have not, with very few exceptions, carried the details of our objections to the bill. I have noticed that they strained themselves in the very early weeks to give headlines to the political utterances of Liberal spokesmen prior to the introduction of the bill into the house, but they have really suppressed the news in connection with the debate on Bill No. 3. One of the reasons why we felt that it was essential that we carry on this debate as we have was to try to see that the people of the country were informed, if not through the press, certainly through Hansard. We feel, however, that our purpose has been fairly well served and for that reason, although we cannot support the principle of the bill and will vote against it, as far as I am concerned and those in my group who will follow me we will not continue this debate further.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
Shall the main motion carry?	
Some hon.	Members: Carried.
Some hon.	Members: No.
International Rivers


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of
the main motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the main motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. Since we are all here would it be agreeable to hon. members to have the vote registered the same as we had it a moment ago, but reversed? This practice has been followed in the past, not recently, but it has been followed in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In this case, the house will divide again. Votes and Proceedings would read that on the same division the motion was-


Solon Earl Low: It may be, of course, that on the vote on the main motion some members in the house would vote differently than they did just now. I would suggest, so that there be no misunderstanding, there be another vote.


Mr. Speaker:: As I saw more than five members rise, I shall call in the members.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, 1
move:
That Bill No. 3 be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: So that there will be no surprise in connection with the course that I suggested a moment ago, I should like to refer hon. members to an entry in the Journals of November 4, 1919, at page 160 where we find the following:
And the question being put on the main motion; it was agreed to on the same division last recorded, reversed.
Then, in 1923, at page 4148 of Debates, volume V, we find that Mr. Speaker Lemieux asked whether the members should be called in and an hon. member said:
No. Lost on the same division.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I say .lost on the same
division?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr.   Beland@: The names will be recorded.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the sense of the house?
I declare the amendment lost on the same division, with the names to be recorded.
Therefore, the course that I suggested a moment ago is one that was followed quite often in the past, although I do not recall having seen it done since I have been a member of the house.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Jean Lesage: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act to increase the sessional indemnity of elected members of the Northwest Territories council.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, it is proposed to increase the indemnities of the elected members of the Northwest Territories council. The level of those indemnities was set in 1951 when the Northwest Territories Act was amended to provide for the first time for the election of members to the council from that part of Canada which now comprises the Northwest Territories. It has become apparent that the important responsibilities and work of the elected members of council warrant the payment of a higher scale of indemnities, and it is proposed to make the required amendment to provide for this.
With the present scale the members now receive $50 a day for each day they are in attendance and the maximum in a year is

$1,000. It is proposed to increase the daily indemnity to $100, with the maximum increase to $2,000 a year.
An additional minor amendment is proposed to clarify the powers of the commissioner in council of the Northwest Territories to appropriate moneys from the Northwest Territories revenue account which have been credited to the account from time to time by vote of parliament. It is to clarify the power of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to appropriate the moneys which have come not only from territorial revenues, but those which he has received under the tax rental agreement that exists between the federal government and the Northwest Territories government.


Mr. Harkness:: I am glad that the government has introduced this resolution and the legislation which will be consequent upon it. The number of people in the Northwest Territories is increasing and will continue to increase, and the responsibilities of the elected members will increase constantly also. Their constituencies are extremely large, and it seems only reasonable that they should have an increase in their indemnity, both in the amount of the daily indemnity for the sessions they attend and the maximum which they can secure.
If I understood the minister correctly, this same piece of legislation is going to provide for some change in the power of the commissioner, which is not mentioned in the resolution. Perhaps I misunderstood the minister in that regard, because I see him shaking his head. His remarks in regard to the power of the commissioner to allocate funds apply to a different piece of legislation?


Jean Lesage: I wish to assure my hon. friend that it is, as I said, only a clarification, because the commissioner in council of the Northwest Territories has already in the past appropriated funds which were received under the tax rental agreement. But because of the wording of the present act, we thought it would be better to clarify his position in that connection. I cannot refer to the bill at this time or its clauses, but I can assure the committee that this is only a clarification. There is no change in the powers of the commissioner in council.


Mr. Bryson:: This particular resolution has to do with an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act in respect to an increase in the salaries of the elected members of the council. The resolution immediately preceding this one on the order paper is an almost identical resolution and has to do with an amendment to the Yukon Act. It asks precisely the same thing in so far as the salaries 50433-951
Northwest Territories Act are concerned. I am sure that hon. members are always anxious to expedite the work of the house. Possibly for that reason some latitude might be given in discussing the resolution before us if a reference is made to the Yukon.


Jean Lesage: The next item of business announced by the leader of the house last night is the resolution which precedes a bill to amend the Yukon Act.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The only reason I mentioned it was that I thought we could avoid repetition.


Jean Lesage: It is the next order of business.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: If one is satisfied that the present type of administration seems to be the best in so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned, and that the present administration does carry out satisfactorily law, order and good government of the territories, one could not do anything but agree with the minister's proposal that an increase in the salaries of the elected members of council is in order. However, I do not hold that view entirely. I believe a better system of administration could be devised, and I should like to say something about that for a moment, because I believe it is relevant to the discussion.
In the light of the tremendous development that has taken place, and is taking place in the territories, I hope the government will give consideration to setting up in the north a type of government similar to what we have in the provinces. They should have provincial status.
It must be obvious that the present administration in that area has outlived its usefulness and to all intents and purposes has become obsolete. I believe it is time that the northland was given provincial status in order to facilitate the tremendous development that is going on there at the present time.
As I said a moment ago, the present administration is unable to cope with the rapid growth of that area. Certainly the present salaries paid to the elected members of the Northwest Territories council is not much of an incentive to them to accept and carry out their great responsibilities. It is obvious that they are acting only in a very minor advisory capacity to the commissioner, who in the case of the Northwest Territories is appointed by order in council and is the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources.
This observation seems to be borne out by the facts. Last year the Northwest Territories council met three times. They met
1496	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act once in Yellowknife for a five-day session when they passed 55 bills, 17 of which were substantial amendments to existing ordinances. The second session which was held at Ottawa lasted five days, at which 17 major pieces of legislation were dealt with. The third meeting was also held in Ottawa when the council sat for only one day and passed only one bill. It would seem obvious that these people became affected by the Ottawa atmosphere.
There may have been another reason in the fact that they are allowed only $1,000 a year.
I suppose after the first session, at which they felt they had given their best efforts when they passed 55 bills, the other sessions did not warrant as much effort. As I say, at the second session they passed 17 pieces of legislation, and at the last session which lasted for only one day they passed only one bill. Then again it may be that they used their powers of observation while in Ottawa. Possibly the house was sitting and they were able to see how bills were dealt with here.
The living allowance granted to members iof council is $15 a day with a maximum of :$200 in a year. I should like the minister to give some clarification of that and possibly comment upon why it is that the living allowance for the elected members of the Northwest Territories council is $15 per day while that for members of the Yukon council is only $10 per day. I wonder why there is that discrepancy.
No mention is made of the salary of the commissioner and possibly there could be some clarification there.


Jean Lesage: He is my deputy minister. He has his salary as deputy minister and is not paid as commissioner.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Another thing we should have clarified is why it is that under certain circumstances members of the council will be able to claim their indemnity even if they are not able to attend the sessions. There must be some reason for this and I should like to hear the minister's comment.
There is another aspect on which I should like some comment by the minister because I find it hard to understand. Why is it that when a fine is imposed under the act, following a conviction for the illicit manufacture of alcohol in the territories, whoever acts as informer is awarded the total amount of the fine. I wonder what is the thinking behind that.
In conclusion I should like to say that I hope the government gives immediate and serious consideration to giving provincial


status to this northern part of Canada, making it the eleventh province of Canada. At the present time there are 15 elected members of the two territories, including the two commissioners. While I do not suggest that that number should be reduced under provincial status, I think that that form of government would be better and would be able to cope with the development that is taking place there much better than can be done under the existing system.
Speaking to the Canadian Club in Toronto on November 22, 1954, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) traced the history of these northern areas in detail, pointing out the tremendous developments that have taken place and are now taking place, and also spoke of their future possibilities. He pointed to the early development of the western provinces as having a parallel in the north of today.
Surely the formation of provincial governments early in the history of western Canada gave a great impetus to its spectacular development. There is every reason to believe that a similar impetus would result from giving provincial status to our northland. By so doing we would once again be exhibiting that same kind of spirit, the same kind of vision and the same courage.


Mr. Hardie:: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this resolution as I was happy to accept it as it was. I was glad to note that there is to be an increase in the indemnity of council members. I thought that when the bill was before us and we knew its contents I would speak, but as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) has attempted to tell us what he knows about the Northwest Territories council I feel I should say a word.
The hon. member mentioned that last year there were three meetings of the Northwest Territories council. In 1954 there was one meeting of the council because that was an election year. That meeting was held in Yellowknife.
As a former member of the council I am glad that the indemnities are being increased. These elected representatives have to cover fair-sized constituencies; mine was in the neighbourhood of 200,000 square miles. I remember receiving a cheque for the year from the Northwest Territories council for $200. I still do not know how they expected us to cover our constituencies and attend meetings of the council on $200.
I would like to suggest to the minister that when he brings the bill in he have it provide a minimum of at least $1,000 a year.

That would enable the members of the council to visit their constituencies and I think it would be a fair minimum.
As far as the maximum is concerned, I think $3,000 would be adequate. I am not so much interested in the maximum, but some provision should be made in regard to the minimum. I just wanted to straighten out the hon. member across the way on the meetings held in 1954.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 179, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YUKON ACT


Jean Lesage: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to increase the indemnity and the living allowance to be paid to members of the Yukon council while in attendance at a session of the council and to provide that under certain conditions a member shall be deemed to be in attendance at a session.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the new Yukon Act provides for payment of indemnities for each day's attendance in council sessions and for an annual limitation on the total amount of indemnity that can be paid to each member on the same basis as that at present in effect in the Northwest Territories. The bill which has just been introduced to amend the Northwest Territories Act provides for an increase in the indemnity paid to the elected members of the Northwest Territories council. It is considered that the same new basis should apply to the members of the Yukon council who are all elected, as hon. members know.
It is also proposed to increase the daily living allowance to $25-and I should like to draw this to the attention of my friend the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson)-which will put the living allowance in the Yukon on the same basis as that in the Northwest Territories, and to provide for the payment of these allowances on days when council is in session but is adjourned for the day. We amended the Northwest Territories Act to that effect at the last session. This provision would bring the payment of living allowance to members of the Yukon council
Yukon Act
into line with that provided for members of the Northwest Territories council following the amendment that was passed in this house last year.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree that the increase in indemnities for members of the Yukon territorial council is long overdue. I am certainly pleased that the minister is bringing in this resolution, and I am happy to support it.
The present council consists of five members who understand the problems of our northland, having resided for many years in the Yukon where they brought up their families. These men have vision and possess high integrity and ability to deal with the various problems with which we have to contend in the north. We in the Yukon are extremely fortunate in having elected members of their calibre and understanding to represent us. I hope that the proposed bill, when introduced, will make provision for a substantial increase in the indemnities and bring them into line with those paid to members of the legislative assemblies of the various provinces.
One of the hon. members who spoke on the previous bill mentioned the fact that the Northwest Territories should have provincial status at this time. I think at the same time he was probably referring to the Yukon Territory. I have been thinking along those lines for quite some time. There is nothing that would please me better than to see both territories given provincial status. The time is coming-I believe within another ten years-in the Yukon when we will be in a position to accept provincial status; but right now, Mr. Chairman, we have not the population or the industry to support a provincial government. In other words, we are practically wards of the federal government and we must get along with them for a while, much as I should like to see the situation otherwise.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, just as there was a good case for increasing the indemnity for the elected members of the Northwest Territories council, similarly there is a good case as far as the Yukon is concerned. I am sure that everyone in this party is convinced that that action should be taken and thus is in agreement with the proposed legislation.
There is, however, one thing on which I should like to have a little bit of clarification from the minister. As I understand it, the present payments in the Yukon are in the amount of $1,000 as far as each session of the council is concerned at which a member is in attendance, and an amount of $10 a day for expenses. That is the provision under

Yukon Act
the revised statutes of 1952. But there is in existence a further act which was passed in 1952-53 and which provides for $50 a day up to a maximum of $1,000 and $15 a day expenses. Apparently this legislation will only come into effect on the 1st of April this year. I wanted to ask the minister if the same situation is going to prevail so far as this new legislation is concerned; that is, is it going to be some two years before it comes into effect? Or, from the practical point of view, is the legislation which was passed in the 1952-53 session and which would normally come into effect on April 1 of this year, the legislation under which these people are going to be compensated or is this new legislation going to come into effect immediately?


Jean Lesage: The amendment that I am now proposing is to the act which will come into effect on April 1. There is no point in amending the act which will be in force from this date until April 1 only, since there will not be any session of the council, according to my information. But the new act, which is chapter 53 of the statutes of 1952-53, will come into force on April 1. When it comes into force on April 1, it will come into force as amended by the bill which will be introduced. following the adoption of this resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the minister can tell why it has not been in effect before this time? Can he tell us why two years have elapsed since it was passed and it has not yet gone into effect?


Jean Lesage: Because with regard to the Yukon Act as well as the Northwest Territories Act which are presently in force there are certain provisions which do not appear in the new acts but are covered under the new Criminal Code. We could not have the new Yukon Act and the new Northwest Territories Act come into force before the new Criminal Code comes into force, which is on April 1.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: First of all, I should like to say that I was in error when I spoke about three sessions having to do with the Northwest Territories. Nevertheless that is a true statement in connection with the Yukon Act. I was glad to hear the comments made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons) with respect to provincial status. I think the fact that these men met for five days and passed 55 pieces of legislation is a fair indication that they are under the influence of the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources.


Jean Lesage: In the Yukon?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am sorry, the commissioner, who is appointed by order in council. I should like to ask the minister two questions. First of all, what is being done about travelling allowances? If these people are going to come to Ottawa it is going to take considerable money. I wonder whether allowance is being made for that. Second, have the minister and his department given any active study to the proposition of provincial status for these territories?


Jean Lesage: Members of the Yukon council have their travelling expenses paid to Whitehorse where all the meetings of the council are held. Meetings of the Yukon council are never held in Ottawa. They are always held in the capital of the Yukon which is Whitehorse. The travelling expenses of the members from their residences to Whitehorse are paid for each session.
As to the second question, I said last year in the house and I have said in public many times that our ultimate objective is to grant provincial status to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, but for the reasons that have been given by the hon. member for the Yukon we do not believe that the time has yet come. The population is too small and the revenues of these two territories are not sufficient to cover the expenditures that would have to be made for provincial services by the new provinces if they had provincial status at this time. There is only a population of 10,000 in the Yukon and 16,000 in the Northwest Territories. The population of the Northwest Territories is scattered not only in Mackenzie district, where the four elected members are elected, but also in Keewatin and Franklin districts. As a matter of fact, in the district of Mackenzie from which the elected representatives come, the non-Indian and non-Eskimo population is less than 5,000.


Mr. Thomas:: I do not want to enter into a general debate on this matter except to add a word to those of the hon. member for Mackenzie River a short time ago on the previous resolution when he asked the minister to consider inserting a provision in the bills for both territories for a minimum payment to the elected representatives. In order to get the best men for the job and to be assured that they will give proper consideration to their positions, it seems to me that a minimum payment would help a great deal. I think it is a good idea and I think it should be made applicable in the case of both bills.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 180, to amend the Yukon Act.	.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT


Jean Lesage: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to amplify the definition of "historic place", to change slightly the representation of the board, and to provide further for changes in the method and amount of payments to members appointed by the governor in council, of living and travelling expenses and to provide for the payment of stenographic allowances.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on this resolution?


Harold Edward Winch: Call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, if the resolution is allowed to go into committee I do not intend to say a word on it. I could not add anything to the wording of the resolution itself. It is very clear.
Historic Sites and Monuments Act
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there are several members who have remarks to make on this resolution, and as it is now ten o'clock I think we should suspend further consideration of it.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the motion standing in the name of the Secretary of State under government notices of motions for the consideration by the standing committee on privileges and elections of certain matters that may be brought before it by the chief electoral officer. We shall then take the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to the national harbours board; then the resolution that we have just discussed a little; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance with respect to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance with respect to the salary of the Auditor General; then second reading of Bill No. 4, to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 25, 1955