1955-02-04

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform the house of a declaration issued from the prime ministers' conference at two p.m. eastern standard time today, as follows:
The government of Pakistan have informed the other governments of the commonwealth of the intention of the Pakistan people that, under the new constitution which is about to be adopted, Pakistan shall become a sovereign, independent republic. The government of Pakistan have, however, declared and affirmed Pakistan's desire to continue her full membership of the commonwealth of nations and her acceptance of the Queen as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations, and as such the head of the commonwealth. The governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ceylon, the basis of whose membership is not hereby changed, accept and recognize Pakistan's continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration. The government of India, the basis of whose membership is also unaltered, similarly recognize Pakistan's continuing membership.
In notifying the other prime ministers of Pakistan's intention, Mr. Mohammed Ali reaffirmed his country's steadfast adherence to the commonwealth. The other prime ministers, in accepting this proposal, welcomed Pakistan's continued association and co-operation as a member of the commonwealth and assured Mr. Mohammed Ali that the friendship and good will of their countries towards Pakistan would remain unaffected by this constitutional change.
Accordingly, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare, as they did in 1949 when a similar decision was taken in respect of India, that they remain united as free and equal members of the commonwealth of nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members and all Canadians will rejoice in this new demonstration of the traditional capacity of the commonwealth to strengthen its unity of purpose while adapting its organization and procedures to changed circumstances. Everyone will rejoice in the fact that, notwithstanding the exercise by the people of Pakistan of their right to determine the form of their domestic government, it has been found possible to have Pakistan remain a member of the commonwealth and to continue for the peace of the world the association of those nations whose traditions give
them the same concept of a proper way of living and of democratic processes designed to further the welfare of the men and women of their respective nations.



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messrs:
Balcer
Bourque
Bryson
Cardin
Carter
Cavers
Churchill
Dechene
Dickey
Ellis
Fraser (Peterborough)
Hansell
Harrison
Hollingworth
Leboe
Lefrancois
MacDougall
MacKenzie
McWilliam
Meunier
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nowlan
Pallett
Pouliot
Richard (Ottawa East)
Viau
Vincent
White (Waterloo South)
Zaplitny-29
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Barnett
Batten
Bell
Bonnier
Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Boucher (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Buchanan Byrne Campbell Carrick Carter Cauchon Cavers Clark Decore Deschatelets Dupuis Ellis Follwell Fulton Gagnon Garland Gauthier Goode
Gourd (Chapleau)
Green Habel Hahn
Hamilton (Notre de Grace)
Hamilton (York West) Harrison Healy Herridge Hodgson Hosking
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
James
Johnston (Bow River) Kickham Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe)
Lavigne Leboe Low
McCulloch (Pictou) Mclvor Meunier Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West) Murphy (Westmorland) Nicholson Nickle
(Lake St. John) Purdy Ross Small Stanton Viau
Villeneuve Dame Vincent
Weselak-60 (Quorum-20)
842
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Anderson
Balcom
Batten
Bennett, Miss
Blair
Brooks
Brown (Brantford)
Cameron (High Park)
Carter
Decore
Dinsdale
Ellis
Enfield
Eyre
Fairey
Ferguson
Forgie
Garland
Girard
Hansell
Hees
Hosking
Houck
Hunter
Knight
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Messrs:
Leduc (Jacaues Cartier-Lasalle)
Lennard Lusby MacDougall Macnaughton Mang Matheson McCubbin McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McWilliam
Murphy (Westmorland)
Perron
Pommer
Proudfoot
Regier
Reinke
Roberge
Roy
Thomas
Weaver
White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East) White (Waterloo South)
Wylie-50
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Anderson Applewhaite Arsenault Ashbourne Balcom Benidickson Bennett (Grey North) Blackmore
Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Cannon Cardin Crestohl Croll Dufresne Dumas Fleming Follwell
Fraser (Peterborough)
Fraser (St. John's East) Fulton Gagnon Hanna Hellyer Henderson
Kickham	Nowlan
Kirk (Antigonish-	Pearkes
Guysbo rough)	Picard
Leduc (Jacques Cartier- Pommer
Lasalle)
Macdonnell Malta is McLeod McWilliam Mitchell (London)
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Monteith
Murphy (Lambton West) Weaver-50 Noseworthy
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Poulin
Power (St. John's West) Proudfoot Regier Schneider Thatcher Thomas Tucker
Messrs:
Huffman
Hunter
Johnson (Kindersley) Low
Macdonnell
MacEachen
Macnaughton
Matheson
Michener
Mitchell (London)
Monteith
Nickle
Noseworthy
Pallett
Philpott
Picard
Pouliot
Quelch
Richardson
Robichaud
Rouleau
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Tucker
Viau
Weaver-50
Anderson Argue Batten
Boucher (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Breton Bruneau Bryce Byrne Cardiff Castleden Charlton Clark Decore Demers Deslieres Diefenbaker Dinsdale Fontaine Forgie Gingras Goode
Gour (Russell)
Harkness Huffman
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones Jutras Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
(Quorum-20)
Leboe
Legare
Lusby
MacKenzie
MacLean
Mang
Masse
Matheson
McBain
McCubbin
Michaud
Montgomery
Murphy (Westmorland)
Perron
Pommer
Poulin
Proudfoot
Purdy
Quelch
Roberge
Robinson (Bruce)
Roy
Schneider
Stanton
Stick
Studer
Villeneuve
White (Middlesex East) White (Waterloo South) Wylie Yuill-60
Aitken, Miss
Buchanan
Carter
Denis
Fairey
Fontaine
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:
Hollingworth
Knowles
Michaud
Monette
Perron
Quelch
	(Quorum-15)		Forgie	Robinson (Bruce)
			Green	Rochefort
PUBLIC	Hanna	ViauACCOUNTS	Harrison	Winch-20Messrs:	(Quorum-8)Anderson	Cauchon	Applewhaite	Cavers	MARINE AND FISHERIES	Argue	Cloutier	Messrs:Ashbourne	Denis	Balcer	Goode	Anderson	BryceBalcom	Green	Applewhaite	Cameron (Nanaimo)Beaudry	Hanna	Arsenault	CannonBoisvert	Harkness	Ashbourne	FergusonBoucher (Restigouche-	Hees	Barnett	GoodeMadawaska)	Henderson	Bell	HardieBruneau	Hollingworth	Bennett (Grey North) Harrison	Cameron (High Park)	Holowach	Boivin	HendersonCannon	Houck	Brisson	Hodgson
[Stage Direction]
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Kirk (Shelburne-Y armouth-Clare) MacLean MacNaught Maltais Matheson McDonald Nowlan
Patterson
Pearkes
Robichaud
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte) Thibault Thomas Trainor Weselak-35
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Brisson Brooks Buchanan Byrne Carter Dickey Dumas Eyre Garland
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Hardie Harkness Herridge Hosking LaCroix Lafontaine Leboe
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
(Quorum-10)
Leduc (Gatineau)
Low
MacLean
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Pearkes
Ratelle
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robichaud
Rowe
Shipley, Mrs.
Studer Trainor Tustin Weselak Winch-35

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Bell
Brown (Essex West)
Brown (Brantford)
Byrne
Cauchon
Churchill
Cloutier
Croll
Deschatelet9 Dufresne Fairclough. Mrs.
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Gillis
Hahn
Hardie
Johnston (Bow River)
Knowles Leduc (Verdun)
Lusby
MacEachen
Maclnnis
Michener
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nixon
Richardson
Ross
Rouleau
Simmons
Small
Starr
Studer
Viau
Vincent-35
(Quorum-10)
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Balcer Enfield Hees Jutras McLeod Meunier
(Quorum-7)
Michaud
Nicholson
Power (St. John's West)
Purdy
Rowe
Simmons-12
Aitken, Miss
Balcer
Bell
Boisvert
Breton
Cannon
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs:
Cardin
Coldwell
Crestohl
Croll
Decore
Diefenbaker
Fleming Garland Gauthier Goode Henry James Jutras Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) Knowles Low Lusby
Maclnnis
MacKenzie
Macnaughton
McMillan
Patterson
Pearkes
Picard
Richard (Ottawa East)
Starr
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer-35
Joint Committees (Lake St. John)
(Quorum-10)
Mr. Weir moved: that the report be con curred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Clarence Decatur Howe: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely: Messrs. Ashbourne, Bertrand, Blair, Boivin, Bonnier, Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska). Brown (Brantford), Bryson, Campbell, Cardiff, Charlton, Dechene, Dickey, Fairclough, Mrs., Fairey, Fontaine, Gingras, Girard, Gour (Russell), Habel, Hansell, Healy, Hodgson, Houck, Howe (Wellington-Huron), Huffman, James, Johnson (Kindersley), Kickham, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere), Le-frangois, MacEachen, Maltais, Mang, McGregor, Mclvor, McWilliam, Patterson, Pommer, Regier, Robinson (Bruce), Rochefort, Schneider, Simmons, Small, Smith, Stanton, Stick, Thibault, Tustin, Valois, Weaver, Wylie and Zaplitny, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: Inquiries of the Ministry Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Miss Bennett, Messrs. Caron, Ferguson, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Gingues, Gour (Russell), Hardie, Harkness, Herridge, MacNaught, Mang, Masse, McCulloch (Pictou), McGregor, Michaud, Monette, Pommer, Richard (Ottawa East), Mrs. Shipley, Messrs. Simmons, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, White (Hastings-Frontenac) and Yuill, to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the parliamentary restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to increase the allowances and the permissible income; to further extend the benefits of the act; and also to provide for the salaries of the board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue what the government or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation propose to do about the threatened strike of technicians employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which seems likely to occur.
[Mr. Weir.J
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I cannot say offhand ju.;t how the corporation proposes to meet this situation but they have made plans to carry on on a temporary and part-time basis should a strike occur. I was speaking to the officials of the corporation just a short while ago and I can say to the house and to the public that they are prepared to carry on further negotiations with the employees if such request is made on behalf of the employees.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister in a position to indicate to what extent the corporation thinks it can carry on operations should a strike occur?


Mr. McCann:: No, I am not in a position to answer that. I can say that the majority report of the board of conciliation is such that the C.B.C. is prepared to accept it and act accordingly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Minister of Transport if he will comment on a report in today's Winnipeg Free Press, a copy of which I sent to him, which makes reference to statements made in Winnipeg last night by Mr. F. H. Keefe, general manager of Canadian National western lines. He is reported to have said, "We have been told that this year we must reduce our annual-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman
feel that he must quote the statement of the gentleman in question in order to ask his question? Our rules do not allow that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that, but I feel
that the statement, which is brief, is important to asking the question.


An hon. Member:: Against the rules.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Keep to the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has
sent a copy of the statement to the minister does he not think that that is sufficient?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister will read
the copy of the statement I will be satisfied not to do so. Will he comment on the statement, a copy of which I sent him, and indicate who are included in the management who will be replaced, as is announced in- the statement?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was
good enough to send me notice that he proposed to ask a question based on this news report which is said to be appearing in today's issue of the Winnipeg Free Press. I received this advice only shortly before I came into the house. The news item includes what purports to be a quotation from an address by Mr. F. H. Keefe, general manager of the Canadian National western region to Beaver lodge, local 691, brotherhood of railroad trainmen, and I am asked to comment on what is reported to have been said by Mr. Keefe on that occasion.
I am sure that the house and the hon. member will appreciate that I could not expect to be supplied with up-to-date information as to what may or may not be said by officers of the railway when fulfilling engagements to speak to audiences who have seen fit to invite them. In the circumstances it is necessary for me to refer the hon. member's remarks to the management so that they may make whatever inquiries are appropriate. I shall be glad to consider when those inquiries have been made whether I should make any further comment on this statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Keefe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. When the minister is seeking information from the management will he ascertain whether this report is correct and just what members of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the management carry out further lay-offs in order to prevent themselves from being replaced?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall make the appropriate
inquiries in order to give my hon. friend the appropriate answer.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if the Department of National Revenue has decided to open new income tax offices in the interior of British Columbia. If so, in what towns will the said offices be located and when will they be opened for service?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
was good enough to give me notice of his question. In reply to the first part, it will
Inquiries of the Ministry not be new offices, but the answer is yes, one office. As to the town in which said office will be located, that has not yet been decided as we want to give the public the best possible services in the best possible location.



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, notice of which I have sent him. In view of newspaper reports that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was requesting that the reduction in freight rate assistance on feed grain being shipped to British Columbia be carried out on a graduated basis, and in view of previous representations made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) with respect to this same question, would the minister state whether or not he is contemplating revising his previous statement regarding this matter.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me a copy of his question. I think of necessity my reply will have to be somewhat along the line of the reply given a few moments ago. I have not been in the habit of communicating with the Minister of Fisheries or any other minister of the government through the press. I have not seen the report and do not know if it reports the minister correctly. I have been in communication with the minister by telephone and wire and no change has taken place in the decision reached as a result. If any such changes are made I shall announce them to the house in due course.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that a considerable number of former owners of property in the Gagetown camp area have not agreed to settlement of their claims and consequently have not received payment for property taken over by the department, nor have arbitration proceedings or legal action been started? In consideration of the serious financial position in which these people are
846	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry placed as a result, will the department arrange for part payment of these claims pending future settlement?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I find that out of 1,630 claims involved in the Gagetown expropriation, over 92 per cent have been settled amicably, and without resort to litigation-which I think constitutes a very excellent record on the part of the departmental officers.
Of the claims where settlement is still uncompleted, some are delayed because the owners or heirs cannot be found, or because the owners or heirs of estates cannot agree as to their own idea of price, or for various other technical reasons.
I might say that expropriation proceedings are about to be initiated in a few cases. Cash advances have been made on a number of occasions to persons whose property has not yet been settled for, where need has been demonstrated, I was of the view that all such cases had been taken care of, but if the hon. member knows of any persons who are suffering hardship among the few that are left, and will give me their names, I shall be pleased to have such cases looked into.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister explain why no natural gas purchase contracts have, yet been signed between western Canadian gas producers and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited? Is this government prepared to take action to remove the reasons for unwillingness of producers to sign contracts with the pipe-line company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend evidently has much more information about the subject than I have. He evidently is in close touch with the people for whom he is asking the question and I suggest he seek information there.


Carl Olof Nickle: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister explain why eastern Canadian utilities have been and are hesitant to sign gas purchase contracts with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and why to date only one contract-amounting to


only about 15 per cent of the hoped for eastern market-has been signed?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Calgary South if, by his question, he is now seeking information?


Carl Olof Nickle: I am.


Mr. Speaker:: In it he is giving a great deal of information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is information, Mr. Speaker.


Carl Olof Nickle: If there is no answer, I would like to ask a further supplementary question -and this, I think, is one which the minister could see fit to answer. Is the minister aware that capture by western Canadian gas of a part of the Minneapolis region market in the United States mid-west is in jeopardy because Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is unable at the current federal power commission hearings to show proof of gas purchase contracts, or security of supply and price for American consumers, or to provide complete assurance that its project can be financed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course when these questions are being asked, the rules do not provide notice be sent to me. I am not aware of what the questions contain until I hear them.
The hon. member has asked the minister to explain three sets of situations, and he has outlined the situations he wants to have explained. That is not my conception of questions being asked for the purpose of seeking information. The hon. member, by way of supplementary questions, cannot and should not, in my view, question the minister further by supplying a whole list of information on which he wants to have an explanation.
There is a committee of supply in which various departmental policies and administrative measures are discussed, and where questions of the kind the hon. member has in mind can be asked. I feel there are a good many questions which could wait until the committee of supply is established. When the various departments are called there is an opportunity for discussion on the first item, at which time the minister can be asked what is to be done with respect to certain legislative measures. I imagine the hon. member might wait until the committee of supply to have these questions dealt with.
[Later:1


Carl Olof Nickle: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now or will

he be shortly in a position to give an explanation or at least a statement to this house concerning the critical matter with respect to natural gas pipe lines to which I have made previous allusion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do so at the moment. Whether I will be in the future, I cannot say. But if I make a statement in the future, he will know that I am then ready.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the minister to report to the house on the study of tariff rates by the tariff board on imports of ethylene glycol, requested by the former minister of finance last year. If so, when may the house expect such a report?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not received the report myself, but I shall make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In reply to a question on Tuesday last with regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the minister stated the act applied to all parts of Manitoba. Would he now state if that is the correct situation and, if not, what parts of Manitoba are not included under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer I gave a few days ago to the question was as follows:
But the Prairie Farm Assistance Act applies all over the settled portion of the province of Manitoba, and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act does not.
Now, it would be difficult for me to go over the province of Manitoba and give the sections of land upon which people may be settled and to which it does not apply. I would refer the hon. member to the act- particularly to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act section 2 (1) (k) and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act section 3 (3) (c), and to an amendment brought in in 1952-53, which is
Inquiries of the Ministry section 1 (1) (7). And by reading those and the remainder of the act, it will be apparent to him what parts are covered.


William Scottie Bryce: May I ask a supplementary question. Is there any possibility of amendments being brought in at this session to take care of cultivated land that is not being taken care of under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: All cultivated land, except that which was settled on and which had previously been provincial land prior to December 31, 1940, is covered in Manitoba. But as to just where those lands are, it is difficult for me to say in answer to this question.
[Later:1



REQUEST THAT PAYMENTS UNDER ACT BE DOUBLED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister or the government received a request from the interprovincial farm union council asking that the government double the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for 1954 as an emergency measure? If so, would the minister like to comment on this request at this time?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure whether I received such a request from the organization spoken of, but I have received such requests from different organizations. I am not in a position to comment further than that at the moment.



NATIONAL GALLERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which he may now take as notice. Is the minister in a position to give the house information with respect to whether or not the national gallery intends to make larger purchases than usual of works of art during the coming year?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I think I would prefer to take the hon. member's question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: This is one question directly on the point I mentioned a moment ago, when I pointed out that in committee of supply questions may be asked with respect to what
848	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hansell a department intends to do. Certainly there is no urgency in the hon. member's question. When the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is called in supply he will probably use whatever information he may now get to ask supplementary questions at that time.
I think we should exercise a certain amount of patience and wait until departments are before the committee of supply to ask these questions.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Mr. W. J. Bennett, president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, was stating government policy in his speech in Toronto a week ago concerning future purchases of uranium?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There again, I am not exactly sure what Mr. W. J. Bennett said. I shall be glad to look it up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been in all the newspapers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know; but I do not read the papers too carefully.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,
I must say that I regretted a little bit having to adjourn the debate last night for I recognized that it was the desire of some in the house to take the various motions, to dispose of them and to adopt the motion for an address to His Excellency in reply to his speech at the opening of the session. However, the remarks made by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) with respect to our amendment and also with respect to our party, I must say, provoked me a little bit and I do not believe they should be , allowed to stand without being answered.
Our amendment was designed not for any political purpose. It was designed because we felt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that the hon. member may not now refer to the amendment that was disposed of yesterday. That
[Mr. Speaker.)

amendment has been disposed of. He must now cover some other ground.


Ernest George Hansell: I recognize the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot debate that amendment. I was only referring to it in the light of the present amendment that we are now debating. I will not refer to it in any way. I will say, however, that the present amendment that we are debating could not possibly be put into effect without adjusting our monetary policy in this country. What the hon. member said is another thing.
The hon. member is extremely capable in the matter of throwing around a great deal of loose language and a great many loose sentences. While I have not been in this house as long as he has, it is true, nevertheless I have nearly 20 years behind me; and I have watched my hon. friend perform in this house. I decided a long time ago that he is too mouthy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Rowe:: The hon. member should be an excellent judge.


Ernest George Hansell: May I say this, Mr. Speaker. Last night was not the first time he has held this group up to ridicule.


Mr. Fulton:: And it will not be the last time either.


Ernest George Hansell: It is also not the first time he has attempted to ridicule me. There comes a time when our patience becomes a little bit exhausted.
I want to deal with his amendment, Mr. Speaker; but I want to deal with his party since he is so proud of it and since he has no confidence in ours. I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman was in my constituency not so long ago and I think the people of that constituency welcomed him. I think they gave him a hearing. I did not go to his meeting because I did not think he would do me any harm. As a matter of fact, I think he did me some good. Whether it was a result of his visit or not, when the ballots throughout the constituency were counted, it was found that I had one of the largest majorities I ever had. In fact, all my opponents lost their deposits. I should like to think that he is responsible for that outcome.
However, after his meeting, I walked downtown. By the way, may I say that he did not hold that meeting in my town but in my constituency. When these Conservatives go out and hold meetings in Alberta, they have to bring in every Conservative for hundreds of miles around in order to get an audience; so, of course, some

from my town went over to his meeting, a distance of 40 to 50 miles, to listen to what he had to say. I met a couple downtown the next day and this lady said to me, "You know, the other day we went over to High River to listen to that cabinet minister". I lifted my eyebrows and I said, "Cabinet minister? I did not know there was any cabinet minister there". She said, "Why, yes, he was-er-" and she began to hum and haw and poked her husband. Then I recalled, of course, that it was the Right Hon. Mr. Rowe.


An hon. Member:: Right Honourable? You are wrong.


Ernest George Hansell: I was wrong. I am told it is the wrong honourable Mr. Rowe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not left, anyway.


Ernest George Hansell: In any event I said to her, "What did this gentleman tell you?" "Oh", she said, "he told us a lot of things". I said, "I do not want to know how much he told you; I should like to know what he told you". She said, "He told us"-then she turned to her husband and she said, "What did he tell us?" Her husband said, "Oh, shucks, don't ask me". Anyway, I told them this; I will tell my hon. friend what I told them. I said, "I know Mr. Rowe. He is a very fine gentleman and all that. But as far as his work in the House of Commons is concerned, I am going to tell you something. Most of us think he is the biggest windbag in the House of Commons".


An hon. Member:: Next to you.


Mr. Lennard:: You are quite a windbag yourself.


Ernest George Hansell: I think we will all agree that my hon. friend has one virtue. He is rather quick on the draw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he has one virtue, then he has one more than you.


Ernest George Hansell: In order to make his speeches interesting at all, he must get a rise out of somebody. Then he is quick on the draw. But he uses a sort of blunderbuss. When he is quick on the draw and pulls the trigger, there is a great big boom. Then when the air is all cleared and you try to find what he has hit, there is nothing there. There may be a pinfeather but you find he has not even hit the moon.


Mr. Harkness:: When you pull the trigger there is just a click.


Ernest George Hansell: He does a lot of talking without saying anything. I am going to give our Conservative friends some advice in a
The Address-Mr. Hansell little while, and I am going to give it to them because I know they will not take it.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sing a song?


Ernest George Hansell: Take my hon. friend's speech the other day when he lambasted the government on their trade and tariff policies. It was free trade this and tariffs that and free trade that and tariffs this. Let me tell my hon. friends they can go through the country and talk about free trade and tariffs all they like and I do not believe the people of Canada are interested in it, not that much. There may be the odd businessman who is. So far as tariffs and free trade are concerned I know that over the years the position has been reached that when the Liberals are in power they are free traders and they boost the tariff and when the Conservatives are in power they are high tariff men and they take it down a little bit. The fluctuation of tariffs over the past number of years has not amounted to very much.
My hon. friend is a responsible gentleman in the Conservative party but I am going to say that he is behind the times. He is living in the past. He had better cast aside his knickerbockers and begin to wear something that is fitting to a new age. That goes for the entire party. I think they can learn a little bit from some of the rest of us even if we may not have had the experience that their acting leader has had. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) came to my constituency a few years ago. He is a fine and honourable gentleman and I have nothing against him. But he tried to put on a resounding campaign. He came there and talked about North Star engines and how the government had missed the boat with respect to these engines. I followed the hon. gentleman a few nights later in the campaign. May I say here that I can generally get a fair audience when I go around the country. I do not have to hire cars and get all my friends from a hundred miles around to come and hear me.
I had my audience and I said to them: "I understand the leader of the Conservative party has been here talking about North Star engines. I would like to know how many of you people are interested in North Star engines. Let me see your hands raised." I looked around and there was nary a hand. I said: "I would like to know how many of you people are anxious to get enough money to be able to buy a ticket to ride on a North Star airplane". Of course all their hands went up. Let me tell my hon. friends that they had better get pretty close to the people when they go out and want to flirt for their support.

i'he Address-Mr. Hansell


An hon. Member:: We do not flirt with them. We leave that to you.


Ernest George Hansell: I know my Conservative friends are not going to take my advice, and that is why I am giving it to them. Let me tell my hon. friends that unless they go across this country and present an alternative to what the people have today they will never get halfway to first base. The only thing they seem able to do-and I am not now speaking for the Liberal party-is to lambaste the government, kick them all over the lot and never say how they would solve the same problems-never, never, never. There is one thing about Social Crediters. When we go throughout the country, we take the odd crack at the government too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh, yes-and when we do we offer a solution. My friends may say the solution is all cockeyed. I am not concerned with what my friends say. I am concerned with what the people say and what they think. I say that when any party goes out and complains about the present administration they had better be ready to present an alternative. I have followed the work of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) who has, in the Conservative party, a position similar to that which I have in ours. I have followed his work with a good deal of interest. It pays me to do so, and I read the newspapers. This boy can go throughout the country and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, you can read every one of his speeches and they are all destructive so far as present government policy is concerned, but I have yet to find one instance where he has ever presented some idea as to how his party is going to deal with the same problems. Now, what did the Acting Leader of the Opposition say the other night?


Mr. Low:: Nothing.


Ernest George Hansell: I know I cannot discuss our amendment, Mr. Speaker. I know you will not let me.


Mr. Byrne:: Move another one.


Ernest George Hansell: In referring to our amendment, the hon. member used the words, "anaemic mockery". I do not know what to think of those words. I am not going to use such words with respect to the amendment of his party. I believe there are some things in the amendment that are good, and we are not going to play politics with it. We are going to be big enough to cast politics aside. I will tell you what we are going to do. We are going to vote for his amendment with the knowledge that what it envisages could not be accomplished without putting into


operation the various monetary proposals that we have placed before the house in years gone by.


An hon. Member:: Twenty dollars a month for everybody.


Ernest George Hansell: Let us examine what the amendment says. It reads:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have tailed to take or to recommend the necessary measures:	(a) to retain and expand Canada's
markets abroad for our production, particularly of wheat and other products;
We can agree with that. But let me ask my hon. friend how he is going to expand markets for our surplus grain and other surplus products? Never does he say. Throughout the last election campaign the Conservatives talked about the failure to find markets. I want to say right now that if in this complex world we were to adopt the monetary policies of the present government we would find it just as hard to get foreign markets as they are finding it. But my hon. friends go out and say, yes, we have got to have foreign markets. How are they going to get foreign markets? Let them tell us what program they would pursue in order to get foreign markets. It is all right to do a little clowning and call the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a travelling salesman.


Mr. Mclvor:: He is a good one.


Ernest George Hansell: But if you are going out to get foreign markets you may have to travel a ' little bit and you may have to sell Canada to some other nation. I do not mean sell it down the river, but you may have to create confidence in Canada. But let my hon. friends tell us what programs they have to recapture any markets that we may have lost.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: They are all silent over there now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have told you often but you could not understand it anyway.


Ernest George Hansell: I have not heard it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Their heads are up in the Social Credit clouds. They just could not understand it.


Ernest George Hansell: What is the next part of the amendment? It reads:
(b)	to solve the urgent problem of unemployment;
Let me ask my hon. friends how they would solve the unemployment problem?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have told you that, too, but you have not bothered to read it.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says they have told us. They must have told us in such startling language that it did not make any impression.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your head was just up in the Social Credit clouds, and you could not understand it.


Ernest George Hansell: What is next?
(c)	to relieve Canadian taxpayers from the burden of excessive taxation-
The hon. member for Kamloops had better wait a little while. I have something good to say about him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope I can change your mind
about that.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want him to disarm me. The paragraph continues:
-and thereby enable Canadian producers to lower their cost of production and to meet increasing competition:
We agree with that. Let me ask my friends again, how are they going to meet the necessary expenditures in this country and reduce taxation? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) reminds me that in a previous election campaign the Conservatives said they would make a reduction in taxation of $500 million. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) standing here and saying, "Now, I should like to know how we can do it, because we would be glad to do it if you can tell us how." He said that we could slice this off, and that would save so many millions. We could slice this off-he did not think it would be good, but we could-and it would save so many millions. However, he did not get very far. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was left out on a limb. He could not answer how taxation could be slashed to that extent and yet meet the expenditures required to run this country.
The next paragraph reads:
(d)	to eliminate waste and extravagance in government and improve its efficiency:
I think there is some waste. We would agree with that. We can vote for that. But let me ask again, Mr. Speaker, how would that be done? When the Leader of the Opposition insisted a few years ago on going into the expenditures in the public accounts committee, he chewed over his tongue and kept chewing it, and no matter how he probed into these public accounts he could not come up with very much of a suggestion as to where to cut expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: Believe me, if he could have, he would have blasted it from one end of this country to the other. I am not saying that
The Address-Mr. Hansell there are no wasteful expenditures. I am not an accountant. I am not too much concerned about that. I leave that for somebody else.
The next paragraph reads:
(e)	to facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada, and thereby increase opportunities and employment for Canadians;
Well, it sounds good. We are for it. But once again, let my hon. friends devise a program and state right on the dotted line exactly how they would accomplish this. That is the thing we want to know.
The last clause reads:
(f)	in co-operation with the provinces to develop an effective contributory plan which will assure that every Canadian will have adequate hospital and medical services.
I am not going to deal with that. We believe there should be some plan whereby everyone could get medical services. We believe we have a good one in Alberta. However, that does not matter for the moment. We could vote for that amendment, but when we do so we do so with firm knowledge that you could not put those things into operation without an adjustment of monetary policy.
What else did my hon. friend say? He said he had no confidence in this party. In the first place, I am glad he does not have any confidence in this party. Then, he said that he did not believe we would ever have a chance of putting our motion into effect. I am just going to deal with that for a little while. In dealing with this, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am not saying these things about every individual in that party. This is what I was going to say about the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who interrupted. I believe there are some very fine men in the Conservative party-and women, excuse me. I have the greatest admiration for the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and for the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: I had the hon. member for Kamloops mentioned in my notes, but perhaps I had better scratch that off.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear; please do.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know that I have too much confidence, but I have a high regard for some of their men, particularly some of these young men who have a bright political future and an opportunity such as perhaps very few men have. Might I say, however, that as a party they are more dead than the ancient mummies of Egypt.


Mr. Nowlan:: At least we survived and that is more than you did.

The Address-Mr. Hansell


Ernest George Hansell: If these young, aspiring members are sincere, they will not tag along with these stand-patters, such as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).
Now, what is happening to their party? I will give them advice, and I am giving my Liberal friends some advice too. I know that it takes effective leadership to lead a party. I recognize that well enough. I have seen leaders come and go. I was here when the late R. B. Bennett was here, and I had a very high regard for him. It might be of interest for you to know that I applied for a position as office boy in Mr. Bennett's law firm many years ago. I am ashamed that I did not get the job.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Bennett was too smart for that.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) should be quiet. I want to have something nice to say about him. I do not want him to cross me up. I have seen these leaders come and go. I was here in Mr. Bennett's time and I had a high regard for him, partly because he was from my own city. He was a very clever man when he was here leading the opposition. Mr. Bennett resigned, and Dr. Manion came on the scene. I was here when he was here. He was trying to lead a party that was struggling to get recognition and come back into power. Well, Dr. Manion was defeated, as we know, in the next election and then the Hon. Mr. Hanson took over as house leader. He did his best, but what did he have to work with?
Then, Mr. Hanson was replaced by our very good friend the late Mr. Graydon. He did his best. He was house leader for a while. While these men were house leaders, do you know what the party was doing? They were scouting all over the universe to find a leader. At last, they went to Winnipeg and thought they had found one. They called upon Mr. Bracken. Now, Mr. Bracken was a very fine gentleman. He did his best. He was a successful businessman-I say businessman because he was a successful administrator. Let me say this. It is all very well to talk about leadership, but when you place a man in the position of leadership, for goodness' sake give him something to lead. That is exactly what these men have not had.
Then, of course, they had a talk with Mr. Drew and they asked him to take the leadership. He took the leadership but he did not have anything to lead. He could present no alternative. Now, what are they talking


about? They are talking about lack of confidence in Mr. Drew. Let me say this. Mr. Drew is just as good a leader as any of them, but he has nothing to lead. I say this in all sincerity. When a man is put in as leader of the official opposition in that way he has two strikes against him to start with.
Let me say this to my Liberal friends. There are some provinces in this country where they will never come back into power again. They look around for a leader. We will take this man whose name might be Mr. Laing. Mr. Laing sat opposite us in the house. He is a very fine gentleman; I have nothing against him; but when you put him in a position where he has two strikes against him and he does not make good you complain. Here is another gentleman, Mr. Tucker. He is a fine gentleman; I have nothing against him. They tried to revive the old party in Saskatchewan and they called upon him. He is as good as anyone else for a leader with two strikes against him. He had nothing to lead, and so-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member. What strikes me at this moment- this may be the third strike-is that we are now discussing the history of political parties not only in this house but also in the various provinces. Certain gentlemen are involved, of course. Those who are not present might find some members who will come to their support in order to comment upon the remarks of the hon. gentleman. In the speech from the throne debate, especially after the national affairs of this country have been debated for so many days, we ought to find yet enough material concerning national affairs, the ones that come under our jurisdiction as a federal parliament, to debate. We should not at this moment start another debate of a few days perhaps with respect to the leadership contests that have taken place and an analysis of the various parties with respect to the success that they might have had at an election time or the number of strikes that they have against them or in their favour.
The hon. member of course is taking advantage of the fact that he is entitled to make a speech on everything in the debate on the speech from the throne; but I would point out that it must relate to the affairs which are under our jurisdiction. Of course he may say this parliament cannot exist unless we have the party system and that we should discuss party politics and so on. I would not find too much fault with that except I am worried about the consequences. I would ask him to put himself in my place if, after his speech is concluded, I have to

listen to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) giving his own account of his own interpretation of leadership and party success in Saskatchewan.
Someone from British Columbia may come to the support of Mr. Laing, who is the leader in British Columbia, and we may hear from the Conservative party with respect to the administration of their own internal affairs. I think we must make a distinction between the internal affairs of parties that are represented in this house or in the provinces ajid the national affairs which come under our jurisdiction and with which we as a parliament are called upon to deal. I would like the hon. gentleman to take into consideration what I have said.


Ernest George Hansell: I will do that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Bat out a few more of those foul balls.


Ernest George Hansell: I have no particular desire to go off at a tangent, but I would point out that the only reason the hon. member gave last night for his attitude was that we were presenting an amendment that we would never have the opportunity to put into practice. I will admit that I may have traversed a good deal over political ground, but I would point out that the Conservatives of this country are bidding for power to run the affairs of this nation, and that is a very important thing. They are going out and telling the people of this country that we are a lot of crackpots and do not know what we are talking about. They are also telling the people of this country what a terrible failure the Liberals are, without presenting an alternative.
I have not much time left. The hon. gentleman said that we would never get into power; we would never be able to put into practice the things we desire, the monetary reforms we desire. Let me tell my hon. friend that it is the Conservative party of this country that is on the skids. No other party is slipping so fast. I will say this in concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, if you wish. I do not know when the Liberal party will be displaced. It may not be in my lifetime, it might be in the next election; but I am going to tell my Conservative friends right now that when the Liberal party is displaced it will be the Social Creditors who will displace them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friends may laugh.


William Earl Rowe: That does not make it so.
The Address-Mr. Hansell


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friends may laugh but I am telling them that because it is a fact which nobody can deny. The Social Credit party is the only party in this country that is in the ascendancy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: How many candidates did you run in the by-elections?


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friends can say "oh, oh". It is just like whistling when you are going through the graveyard, their own political graveyard; that is what it is. We Social Crediters go out and we present an alternative.
I do not like to get back on this matter of leadership, but since some of them think they might be reviving themselves by changing leadership, let me say that there is no greater place where a man can be destroyed than to put him in as leader of the Conservative party. Let me tell the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), whose name has been prominently mentioned, as I tell it to all those young Conservatives over there, that if he ever toys with the leadership of that party, if he ever accepts the leadership of that party, he will sign his own political death warrant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: You can laugh at it if you like, but take my words as they stand on Hansard, and in a few years those words will come back to you like lightning striking you to the ground, because I am prophesying these things are true.
We are going to vote for this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because we do not have complete confidence in this government. We can present an alternative to this country that will solve its major problems, an alternative which we have expounded in this house for years. The alternative which we have expounded in this house for years-


An hon. Member:: Completely discredited.


Ernest George Hansell: Did my hon. friend say "completely discredited"? By whom?


An hon. Member:: By the people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You did not even dare run candidates in the by-elections.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says that we did not dare run a candidate in the election.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the by-election.


Ernest George Hansell: You do not suppose that we are in the position where we are compelled to take dares?
854	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought you said you were on the verge of power.


William Earl Rowe: They have gained only four seats in four years.


Ernest George Hansell: When a man is training for a bout-


Mr. Pearkes:: A rout.


An hon. Member:: A bout?


Ernest George Hansell: -he has his guards at the gate. Why? So that the opposition do not know the kind of punches he is going to land, so that the opposition do not know what form he is in. We are not so foolish as to contest every by-election and let people know what our punches and holds are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are afraid they might find out.


Ernest George Hansell: We are playing for higher stakes than by-elections. I was sorry I was interrupted by some hon. member back here -I do not know who it was-who interjected the remark "completely discredited". This movement has never been discredited. We are in two provinces now and all we need is one more. We will get it and then our Social Credit movement will roll through this country with such speed that these gentlemen will begin to wake up when it is all over. But it will be too late for them.
We will go through this country and present the only alternative that is possible in this country, the alternative that will work, the alternative that will capture the imagination and hearts of the people when once they see that it is financially possible to distribute the abundance of our production.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself caught in a rather odd geographical position just now between conflicting forces. The last thing I want to do is to get into any internecine warfare between the various branches of the Conservative party. That is entirely their business and none of mine. But I do admire the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) when he gets up and says that he is going to cast politics aside and then for 40 minutes simply refuses to take his own advice. Possibly he was just as wise, as I do not know how anyone in this house can cast politics aside.
But I shall take your advice, Mr. Speaker, and deal with national matters in a rather different sense. I am not concerned with warfare on this side. As far as I am concerned the enemy is in the other part of the house where I can see the whites of their eyes. I feel sufficiently inimical today to ask certain questions, especially of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), because the government owes these answers to parliament and


to the country. They are matters of common concern about which all of us are perturbed. We do not know what the facts are and we have no inkling yet of what government policy will be. We should like to know what the answers are.
In the first place it is time we knew exactly the status of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and the position of the government with regard to that company. Is it the government's intention to subsidize private enterprise, or is it the government's intention to insist that private enterprise stand on its own feet? Is the treasury of the people of Canada to be looted once again in order to help private enterprise, or is it not? These are questions which I should like to have answered.
It is of course a piece of outstanding impertinence for any believer in private enterprise to suggest means whereby the treasury of the people of Canada is used to support private enterprise. The government will have to make up its mind whether it is going to help this pipe-line company or whether it is going to take over this pipe line as we in the C.C.F. have advocated. If a subsidy is granted, if a guarantee is granted, if the government is going to take the risk then the government should take the profits.
We have long said that the national interest demands that this pipe line be owned by the people of this country. We say so for two reasons. The first and obvious one is that we want to protect the consumer. I am quite certain that were this pipe line nationally owned gas would be provided to the consumer at from 30 per cent to 40 per cent below what it will be by a commercial corporation.
Then we also have to protect the future. I fear that if this pipe line comes under private enterprise it will be pushed through by men without the vision or imagination to realize what Canada will be like ten or fifteen years hence. The pipe line will be completely inadequate for the needs of this country. We shall have a 30-inch pipe line in the next year or two perhaps, and in ten years we may require another 30-inch pipe line. That is surely a squandering of capital if ever I saw it. If the job is going to be done, let it be done properly now. If this company does not have the finances to do the job properly, let the government take it on as a matter of service to the people of Canada. As I said, to do otherwise would be to waste money.
Yet here we have private enterprise once again coming to the treasury of the people of Canada asking for a subsidy, asking for a handout. None of us knows what the cost

will be. It might be nothing; it might be $15 million; it might be many millions more. None of us at the present time know. All we do know is that the treasury of Canada is being asked to guarantee the profits of Texas tycoons who will do their very best during the coming years to take as much as they can out of the pockets of the people of Canada.
Maybe some will say that if this guarantee does not go through it will be against the national interest, that the pipe line ought to be started this year. If it is so much in the national interest, let the government do the job and let us not .subsidize foreigners. We have done that in the past to our cost.
As for the capitalization of the company, we still do not know what it is going to be. I have heard it said that there will be $50 million share capital out of an investment of $300 million, the rest of course being in the form of bonds. Forecasts have been made as to the possible financial position of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited within a few years. I saw one in the Financial Post that within five years this company would be showing a profit, after depreciation, after the payment of bond interest and before taxes, of $20 million a year. A return of $20 million a year on an investment capital outlay of $50 million or $60 million is a pretty handsome return. That is the sort of return which this group whom I call Texas tycoons are going after.
The best thing that could happen would be for the government to take over the whole proposition and do the job. This in other fields has been done already by one minister of the government whose political philosophy was born yesterday and will die tomorrow. I refer to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who nevertheless has done a first-class job with Trans-Canada Air Lines and Polymer Corporation. I only hope that he has the wisdom to see the necessity of the people of Canada owning this pipe line. We in the C.C.F. will never for one moment consent to its being subsidized by the treasury of Canada.
There is another matter in our minds which is perhaps of greater general interest. I refer to the whole question of foreign investment in Canada. Most of the foreign investment here is American, although quite a substantial part is European. And under certain conditions I welcome both. I welcome more European investment because I want to see greater diversity of investment in this country, rather than have us almost in thraldom to one country.
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
But the significant thing is that when one looks at the financial structure of Canada one is struck by the small, the almost insignificant part which Canadian capital itself has played in the opening up of this country. When I think of the Canadian capitalist 1 think about what Robert Burns said about the mouse- the "tim'rous beastie". Unquestionably, when it comes to investment in their own country, Canadian capitalists are frightened, cowardly creatures depending always upon outsiders to do the job which they should be doing themselves. They are men without vision, men without confidence, men without any courage whatsoever. I think of what the future of Canada has for all of us, and then I realize that Canadian capitalism has abdicated in favour of the foreigners. And that is a dangerous situation.


Carl Olof Nickle: May I ask the hon. member a question? Do you advocate following the policy followed by the Douglas government in Saskatchewan, so far as gas and oil are concerned-in other words, an open invitation for private capital to come into that socialist province to do the job that socialism could not do?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! It is being done there under conditions where the rights of the people are being safeguarded.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It is not.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: And the
oil firms of Canada knew that, and the oil firms of the United States knew that. At first they would have nothing to do with it; but their lust for profit is so great, they have gone in on the government's terms. And my hon. friend knows that as well as I do.


Carl Olof Nickle: Are not the terms better in Saskatchewan under private enterprise than-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I cannot hear you.


Carl Olof Nickle: Are not the terms of the Saskatchewan government, so far as gas and oil are concerned, a little more lenient toward private enterprise than are the terms covering the crown lands in the adjoining private-enterprise provinces?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I doubt that very much. And what is your objection to private enterprise? The only thing is that you don't believe in it. Your idea of private enterprise is to get the government to subsidize you. Why don't you stand on your own feet? When you talk about private enterprise, go and do your job on the pipe

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart line, but don't come to parliament asking for help. I hope you are not going to do that.
Now, let us get back to where I was, before this interruption took place. I was talking about the Canadian capitalist being afraid to invest in his own country, and depending upon the Americans to do the job for him.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This may be only speculation on my part, but I am almost certain the hon. member to whom he has been addressing his remarks is the one member in the house who would be objecting to what he is saying.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I cannot help that. But my point is this, in this particular context, that we have been depending upon foreign capital coming into Canada to develop this country, and to open it up.
One can have only admiration for the drive and energy the Americans have shown in exploring and developing this country. But my regard for them, my admiration for that drive and energy ceases when it appears that American capital is going to own Canada. We are getting into the position where, very definitely, in the economic sense we are becoming an American satellite. Where you have economic strength, there you have political strength; where you have economic ownership, there you ultimately have political ownership. And I object to Canada's being regarded as either an economic or a political annex of the United States.
I condemn the pattern; I oppose the trend; and my fear at the moment is that the government, by its inaction in this matter, is selling Canada into economic bondage. And all that we can do to oppose it will be done.
There are three kinds of investment in the country just now. There is that which is known as the sticks and stones investment- investment in buildings, investment in plants, investment in machinery, investment in these means of production by which employment is given and Canadian wealth is increased. That is good investment. That is the sort of investment that we-and quite rightly-ought to encourage, although I would like to see Canadians doing much more of it. I would like to see Canadians taking the risks which some of the Americans have been taking. And obviously, if Canadians themselves are not going to do it, then others are going to do it.
But this also has been very obvious during the last year. There has been a very definite switch in investments, which is now taking two other forms; and in a highly vulnerable economy such as ours they are dangerous.
(Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]

In this connection I shall quote a paragraph from the monthly review issued by the Bank of Nova Scotia, where it says:
Moreover, the apparent dependence of the current premium on capital movements not directly associated with Canadian economic growth is scarcely reassuring. So long as the bulk of the capital inflow took the form of direct investment by United States firms and direct borrowing in New York by Canadian provinces and municipalities, the inflow was actually financing the development of resources and industry and was predominantly of a long-term nature. Over the past year, however, there has been some slackening in the pace of Canadian development, and at the same time a sudden increase in the inflow of funds for investment in existing securities.
It is this sudden .inflow of funds which ought to be causing more alarm than apparently it is at the moment on the treasury benches. There is this great investment in Canadian companies, which will last just as long as the profit situation lasts. For money, in itself, knows no patriotism; money follows no flag; money only follows profits. And such investment can be very dangerous to the economy of one's country.
When we look at the Canadian scene we can see what is happening. There is the type of investment coming into this country which is buying stocks and shares for long-term investment, and buying them in such magnitude that Canadian industry is being taken over by the United States. One can think of oil, of foodstuffs, of automobiles, of the electrical industry; and there are others. And what must be the disturbing feature to the Canadian investor is this, that there are stocks and shares of Canadian corporations being bought at prices greater than a projection of company earnings justifies. And that, in itself, can be dangerous for Canadians, although it implies a faith in Canada which I think is well justified.
However, as I said earlier, where you have this economic control in a country, eventually you will get political domination. And again Canada may be in the position of being grateful to Quebec for once more saving this nation, as such.
There is a third type of investment, and this is really a dangerous type which we see before us today. I refer to investment by non-resident-owned investment corporations. They are posing a very serious threat to the Canadian economy.
First of all I think we ought to consider what is happening in the American market just now. It could be said fairly I think that in the American stock market we see people who are the victims of Coueism-who believe that they are going to be better off and better off every day in every way. They apparently believe in a chicken in every pot and a car in

every garage and a portfolio of investments in every safe. And they are not going to achieve their ambitions.
Perhaps this optimism is prompted by a statement made by the President of the United States last October, before the election, when he said that national production in the United States might reach $500 billion in ten years' time. Others have said the same thing during the last few months, although there are very responsible economists in the United States who take grave issue with this, and who warn the people in that country of the dangers which are almost obvious in their own economic situation.
One of the most alarming is the gap between stock prices and production indices. Unless that gap is met, is narrowed, there will be trouble. Perhaps one could call the present situation by a name other than Coueism; perhaps we should call it voodoo prosperity, prosperity by incantation. But the power of that voodooism extends now to Canada and is threatening our own investment.
The exchange situation between Canada and the United States is about as unhealthy as it could possibly be. The exchange rate in no way whatsoever reflects the balance of trade between the two nations. The exchange rate is something spurious and synthetic and ultimately dangerous to the Canadian economy.
Then within the last few months we have had this greatest danger of all, namely financial investment or finance investment- let me put it that way-which has been so greatly responsible for the rise of the Canadian dollar. For instance, in June of last year the United States dollar was at a discount of 1-7/8 points. In July it was at a discount of 2-9/16 points. Yet in those two months the Canadian government, through the exchange fund, bought $71 million of United States funds in an attempt to stop our dollar rising and they were completely and totally unsuccessful. The situation has become worse despite the fact that the exchange equalization fund has been buying United States dollars. It became so much worse in August that, despite the attempt of the Bank of Canada, the discount on the U.S. dollar went to 3 per cent and in December it rose to 3-7/32. That is an extremely serious thing for Canada in more ways than one.
I am not going to go into the implications to Canada from the point of view of exports or from the point of view of imports. At the moment I am dealing with the matter solely in the restricted sphere of finance. We have these non-resident investment corporations which, in the last few months, I am convinced, have poured $150 million into this
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart country and probably more; I think $150 million would be a conservative estimate. This inflow of money does not assist in any way the development of this country. In fact it will become a definite hindrance. These shares are sold only to United States investors. It is true that in Canada there is a 15 per cent withholding tax on the dividends of these corporations, on the money received; but then there are no dividends declared by those corporations because the Americans are in them for capital gain. They do not want to see any dividends declared. All income which comes in is used to buy still more Canadian securities on the market.
One of the reasons for this desire for capital gain is, of course, that Americans feel that they will be better off in the long run by paying a lesser capital gains tax than a larger income tax. They have funds which are known as open-end funds. There is no limit to them. As long as there is demand in the United States, these United States funds will be used to buy Canadian securities in unlimited quantities. Of course, if they can buy them, they can also sell them. That is one of the things which should perhaps give us pause because if, perchance, it should so happen that there were a break in confidence, one can imagine the sort of break which would occur on the stock markets of this country and one can well imagine how many Canadian investors would be wiped out.
The main problem is this: What is being done about it? The government may say, "We are using the exchange equalization fund". I do not think they are doing so to any substantial extent but I am not prepared to blame them for that. The exchange equalization fund has in the past shown itself to be inadequate and it is an extremely expensive way of working. I remember that in 1950 there was a determined move on the part of United States capital to come to this country. The exchange equalization fund spent $600 million in buying United States currency in order to try to stop that movement but they could not hope to dam the flood. That was a heavy outlay of money. I do not think for a moment that the exchange fund can have any great effect on the situation as it exists, although it should still be used.
One other reason for United States money coming into this country is the attraction of a long-term interest rate somewhat higher than that which exists in the United States. The obvious way to cure that situation is by means of open market operations by the Bank of Canada whereby our interest rate is brought down to such a level that it offers no attraction to the Americans and, as far

The Address-Mr. Patterson as Canadians are concerned, is an inducement to Canadians, if they are going to go into long-term borrowing, to do their borrowing on the Canadian market rather than on the United States market.
The exchange equalization fund must be used. Bank of Canada policy must be such that the interest rate is kept below that of the United States as far as possible. But neither of these two suggestions gets us away from the problem of what to do about these non-resident investment corporations which are creating so much havoc. I think there is only one answer. I should like to hear what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has to say because he must provide an answer. He must give an answer to Canada as to what government policy is going to be in this matter. I think the only answer is to impose on these corporations punitive, frankly discriminatory taxes which will discourage them from coming into Canada and operating in the way in which they operate. They are operating quite properly from their point of view or from anybody's point of view, but the net effect of their operations is to create an extremely serious economic problem within Canada. That problem must be faced and an answer must be found for it. I do not think at the moment there is any answer other than a punitive tax on these corporations; a tax on their income even although it is not distributed; a tax heavy enough to dissuade any others from coming into this market.
There are plans afoot whereby tens of millions of United States dollars are going to come into this country in the near future in the form of non-resident investment corporations and they are merely going to make our exchange situation so much worse. I maintain that the most serious problem today in finance which the minister has to solve is this one with respect to these corporations. He must find an answer. He must give an answer to this house so that we shall know what we are doing. If no answer is given and if this unhealthy situation continues between the Canadian and the American dollars, then, as I said earlier, it will be proof that the government is prepared to sell Canada into economic bondage.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intervene the second time in this particular debate. In explanation, may I say that sometimes events take place which make one change his mind. This is one occasion when I feel that I should again refer to one principal problem that is of vital concern to my own riding as well as to other ridings in the province of British Columbia.

On January 19, as recorded in Hansard, I referred to the situation that exists in British Columbia with respect to the price of feed grain. I drew to the attention of the house the fact that a certain price was paid on the prairies for the best grade of feed and then I referred to the extremely high price that had to be paid by the farmers who purchased it in the province of British Columbia. I suggested that possibly some investigation might be carried on in order to determine the fairness or otherwise of the price spread in this regard. I had not any idea then that even at that time, apparently, measures were under consideration to impose further hardship upon the farmers in British Columbia.
At page 667 of Hansard we find the regulations respecting freight assistance on western grains and millfeeds. Here it is brought to our attention that the assistance given in the transportation of feed grains to British Columbia was to be cut considerably. Since that time questions have been asked in this house. On February 1, I believe it was, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) with respect to the possibility of rescinding this particular measure and giving some assistance to the farmers of British Columbia. The reply given by the Minister of Agriculture was to the effect that full consideration had been given to the situation that would exist following the introduction of this measure; and he further stated that he could not see where any alteration could be made at the present time. The matter was referred to again on other occasions which I will not deal with now. I might say that I received several telegrams, and other members have also received telegrams, from interested groups in the province of British Columbia, protesting very strongly the action that has been taken in reducing the freight assistance on feed grains. In the Vancouver Province of Tuesday, February 1, an article appeared headed, "Grain Rate Subsidy Cut to be Appealed". I should like to read certain excerpts from the article. It reads in part as follows:
B.C. groups say more increases burden on producers. A meeting behind closed doors in Vancouver Monday planned an all-out appeal to the federal government against a cut in grain rate subsidies which takes effect today. Members of the feed manufacturers association, B.C. federation of agriculture and the poultry industries council met with W. M. Mott-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I continue:
-and George Cruickshank-


Mr. Blackmore:: Who is he?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I continue:
-who made their plea to the government through Hon. James Sinclair. Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Sinclair promised to telephone agriculture minister Gardiner and ask for the cut to be made on a graduated basis to give farmers a chance to prepare for the added cost. Local experts estimate that British Columbia farmers are going to pay more than $1 million of the $3,600,000 saving in feed grain freight assistance payments planned by the federal government.
I have further quotations but I am not going to read them at the moment. However, we do see that through particular organizations and particular individuals approaches have been made to the government and the Department of Agriculture with respect to this matter. In this debate we have been discussing the reduction in farm income. We have been talking about the difficulties that the farmers of Canada have been facing throughout past days and years. Yet it seems that now, after struggling against these great odds, the farmers of British Columbia are being subjected to further hardship by the drastic reduction in feed grain freight assistance. It seems to me that this is adding insult to injury. I do not propose to speak further on this matter. It has been called to the attention of the minister. I feel that his answers have not been satisfactory by any means and we are requesting that this matter be reconsidered; that the spread in prices be investigated and that the assistance be returned to its previous level until there is an improvement in the general conditions of the agricultural industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the following motion-


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question I should like to deal with one matter that arose while I was speaking last night. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) asked me two questions which I believe should be answered. Consequently I have a certain amount of unfinished business. The hon. member is entitled to the answers to questions that the people of Canada generally are asking. I therefore think it is quite worth while to give them a little attention before we take the vote. The questions are recorded at page 825 of Hansard of yesterday. The minister asked:
Why do you not tell them about Alberta defaulting?
Later he asked this question.
Why do you not tell them that Alberta was the only province that defaulted on its bonds?
The Address-Mr. Blackmore


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member? Throughout the debate on the address we at times allow remarks on the administration of provincial governments which, so far as I am concerned when I am in the chair, I feel sorry that I have allowed because as a result we have a debate on provincial affairs instead of a debate on national affairs. The hon. member made a speech yesterday in the course of which he was asked certain questions. Usually questions are dealt with while a speech is being made or immediately after it is finished. If the hon. member wishes to make further answer to the hon. member's questions of yesterday having to do with matters that deal only with provincial affairs, about which we can do nothing at all, I would imagine that since we have disposed of the amendment, in the debate on which the particular questions were asked, it might be quite just for the Chair to say at this moment that since we are debating the amendment of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe we should restrict ourselves to a debate on national affairs and not go into provincial matters.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Macleod for not having extended the scope of his remarks and perhaps being more out of order than he was on matters which do not concern national affairs. I would be reluctant at this moment to allow a further relaxation of the rules. I am sure the hon. member for Lethbridge will find another opportunity to deal with the particular matter that he would like to deal with at the moment, but I think he will agree that if he deals with whatever means were used by the Alberta provincial government to cope with its financial difficulties it would not be a matter which comes within the purview of federal administration. If he would like to co-operate in that respect, I will hear him on matters concerning national affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker. I do not desire to do anything that would be out of order at this time, but the answer to these two questions certainly does affect the whole management of the Canadian economy during these times. The way Alberta had to manage her affairs in order to get out of her difficulties is just a pattern of the kind of thing that could happen to any one of probably two-thirds of the provinces of Canada within four years from this day if we go into a depression. Consequently, I am inclined to think it would be quite in order to discuss the matter now.
There is another reason why I should like to discuss it, if you can see fit to permit it, and the house will support you in so doing,

The Address-Mr. Blackmore namely, that it is well to answer such questions right after they are asked. I could not answer them last night because the questions were raised when Mr. Speaker was rising in his chair to tell me that my time had expired. Therefore it was quite impossible to answer them then. If it is your desire and you so rule, I will simply answer the hon. member's two questions in one sentence, and I will promise that when we come to the budget debate I will go into much greater detail and explain the whole matter then.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be glad to allow one sentence.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I will simply say that the answer-


Walter Edward Harris: May I say one word, Mr. Speaker? I had come to the same conclusion as the hon. member for Lethbridge, that the answers he might make to the questions would concern fiscal matters almost entirely and that the remarks he would like to make would be more appropriate on the budget debate. I have been looking forward to his remarks in that particular debate. I should imagine he could combine it and we could perhaps be better informed on the subject at that time than we could now, when fiscal matters are not directly under discussion.


John Horne Blackmore: I am completely in agreement with what the minister has said. The reason I thought we should deal with the matter right now was, as I said, that the minister himself will be very deeply interested in what did occur under the ministers of finance in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, because if we come into a depression he will be dealing with similar matters. The provinces in this country simply cannot sustain the financial responsibilities which the British North America Act imposes upon them unless they have financial resources other than those now available to them. It is really a matter of deep concern to all of Canada.
Those things being understood, I will just answer the question of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) by saying that Alberta had no possible alternative to the course which she took. Alberta did not default on the bonds at all. She was declared1 in default by the bondholders because she asked them to refund her loan at a rate of interest which she could sustain. She had found it was impossible for her economy to sustain an interest rate of 5 per cent. She wanted that interest rate cut and it was when that request was made, as I said a minute ago, that the bondholders refused to even treat with her and they

declared the bonds in default. It was no
action of the province	of Alberta.
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	
Rowe) which was negatived on the following	
division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Argue	Leboe
Barnett	Lennard
Bell	Low
Blackmore	Macdonnell
Blair	Maclnnis
Brooks	MacLean
Bryce	McBain
Bryson	McLeod
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Michener
Campbell	Montgomery
Cardiff	Murphy (Lambton West)
Churchill	Nesbitt
Coldwell	Nicholson
Diefenbaker	Nickle
Dinsdale	Noseworthy
Dufresne	Nowlan
Ellis	Patterson
Fairclough, Mrs.	Pearkes
Fulton	Quelch
Gagnon	Regier
Green	Robinson (Bruce)
Hahn	Rowe
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Shaw
de Grace)	Stanton
Hamilton (York West)	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Hansell	Thatcher
Harkness	Trainor
Hees	Tustin
Herridge	White (Hastings-
Hodgson	Frontenac)
Holowach	White (Middlesex East)
Howe (Wellington-Huron) Winch	
Johnson (Kindersley)	Wylie
Johnston (Bow River)	Yuill
Jones	Zaplitny-69.
Knight	
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Anderson	Garson
Applewhaite	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Ashbourne	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Batten	Gingras
Bennett (Grey North)	Goode
Bertrand	Habel
Blanchette	Hardie
Brown (Brantford)	Harris
Brown (Essex West)	Harrison
Bruneau	Hellyer
Buchanan	Henderson
Byrne	Henry
Campney	Hosking
Cardin	Howe (Port Arthur)
Caron	James
Carrick	Jutras
Cloutier	Kickham
Dechene	Kirk (Antigonish-
Decore	Guysborough)
Demers	Kirk (Shelburne-
Deslieres	Yarmouth-Clare)
Dickey	Lafontaine
Dumas	Langlois (Gaspe)
Dupuis	Lavigne
Enfield	Leduc (Gatineau)
Eyre	Leduc (Jacques Cartier-
Fairey	Lasalle)
Follwell	Leduc (Verdun)
Fraser (St. John's East)	Lefrancois
Gardiner	Legare

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Lesage
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
MacNaught
McCann
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mclvor
McMillan
Mang
Matheson
Michaud
Nixon
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Pouliot
Power (Quebec South) Power (St. John's Wes
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East) Richardson
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rouleau
Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Stick
Studer
Thibault
Tucker
Valois
Viau
Villeneuve Weaver Weir Weselak Winters-99.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that we have arrived at the point when the main motion is to be discussed, there are a number of matters which I wish to bring up. We have been debating this motion since January 10, following the speeches made by the mover and the seconder on January 7, with the exception of four days or so during which we discussed matters of international importance.
In the years I have been in this house, having regard to the problems that face our country, I have never seen a ministry so silent in respect of those things about which the people of Canada are seeking information. What is to be done for the unemployed? With the exception of a qualified promise in the speech from the throne and a temporary expedient in the form of legislation already passed by parliament, there is no suggestion of what is to be done. There is nothing in regard to trade and the loss of markets abroad. A total of 55 or 56 supporters of the government have spoken, but not one minister has given answers to the major problems facing Canada; not a word regarding our loss of trade. Day after day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has sat and listened, but not a word from him. Nothing in regard to what took place at the conference in Washington; nothing in regard to the measures to be taken to secure trade in various parts of the world. Parliament has been treated in recent weeks by the cabinet with a cavalier disregard of the rights of the Canadian people, and almost with condescension.
The House of Commons is becoming nothing but a tape recorder for the cabinet, a constitutional nuisance to be tolerated by the cabinet. Some announcements are made outside the house while parliament is sitting, such as the announcement regarding the granting of a licence to Canadian Pacific Air Lines to operate a trans-polar route or the
announcement yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) regarding a matter that affects agriculture, not only in British Columbia but in Ontario and Quebec. I refer to the reduction in the subsidies on feed grains.	.
We ask questions, returns are passed, months go by. On several occasions recently hon. members of this house have tried to find out about Canadian National employees who stand in jeopardy of losing their positions, many in fact already having lost them. On January 26 I endeavoured to bring up this matter in the form of a question. I inquired about lay-offs of employees of the Canadian National Railways. These employees want to know what is the policy. They hear that on the western division some $3,500,000 is to be saved by the simple expedient of cutting off the heads of the lower employees, the labouring men, rather than giving consideration to reducing some of the extremely high salaries of officials at the top.
We are told nothing in regard to trade. There is no adequate answer by any minister of the crown regarding the position of agriculture in this country; no answer by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what is to be done about the situation revealed by the dominion bureau of statistics, which shows that trade is decreasing. We have tried to get information from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I understand that he has a speech on the subject of trade in cold storage; let him bring it out. On January 10, as reported on pages 19 and 20 of Hansard, I asked the following question to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he in a position to say anything regarding the visit of three ministers of the government to Washington recently, and whether or not the United States government has given any indication that it intends to discontinue its apparent policy of applying quotas and embargoes against Canadian agricultural products?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is completed I hope to make a statement on Canadian trade policy which I think will contain the information my hon. friend is seeking. The visit to the United States concerned a number of matters. It would be difficult to answer the hon. member's question categorically, but I think the information will be forthcoming in the next two or three weeks.
On February 1 the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) directed some questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with GATT, to which the minister replied as follows:
Owing to the length of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that I could contribute more to the expedition of the business of the house if I refrained from speaking. I have heard no great interest in trade matters displayed in this

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
debate, and perhaps in the circumstances the statement could be deferred until an appropriate bill is before the house or until later in the session.
Such diffidence, such consideration for the sensibilities of parliament, has not in the past been one of the characteristics of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to a report in the Canadian press dated January 7, when the minister returned from Washington he said:
Trade Minister Howe, on return from his Washington trip last night, said it may take a "few days" to find out what results his talks with United States cabinet ministers had.
Some "compromises" are likely, he said in an interview, but at the moment he could not say what impact they will have on international negotiations to strengthen the seven-year trade pact.
He said he would know in a few days. When I asked a question on January 10 he gave the house to understand that before this debate concluded he would speak to the house on this matter which affects the Canadian people more than any other problem. We have not had a word. Are we coming to the end of GATT? Are we in such a position that the minister cannot make one of his periodical optimistic statements?
Surely parliament has a right to know what is taking place. I note that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who could not answer certain questions asked in parliament last week, found it necessary to wait until he left for the old country before parliament was told what it could not find out when he was here. Are we to have to wait until the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in Australia or New Zealand several weeks hence before we are to find out about this policy? We ask the minister to bring out that speech which is in cold storage and let the people know what he has done, what took place at Washington and what he expects will be the situation in the days that lie ahead.
What of our trade? The optimism which was displayed by the minister in January and February of 1954 has been dissipated in the light of our experience since then. I am not going into many statistics; I am simply going to point out that the preliminary figures for the full year 1954 are now available, and that our total exports in 1954 amounted to $3,942 million whereas in the previous year they amounted to $4,173 million. So far as imports are concerned they too have been reduced during the year by approximately $280 million.
The total trade for 1954 including exports and imports was $8,037 million, while in 1953 it was $8,556 million. What is going to be done? Has GATT collapsed? Recent reports in

the Financial Post give some indication of what took place. And I am not going to restrict the request for a report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) could tell us whether the United States administration has a policy all its own, and whether it refused to consider objections raised or the alternatives offered on the part of Canadian representatives when they were in Washington. Why this silence? Over the years we used to get these reports regularly during the session, but for some reason or other in 1955 the optimistic reports of the past are unavailable.
The minister dare not speak and tell what actually took place in 1954. As a matter of fact one of the government's former officials, Gerald Godsoe, who during the period of the war occupied a high position in the government of this country, said while speaking before the Chautauqua Institution in July of last year:
One of our problems is the decided risk we run in having so many of our eggs, and such large ones, in the same basket-in our present dependency on your market. This makes it ever-important for us that ... we concentrate diligently on greatly improving our trade with Britain.
Then he went on to say:
The United States for a long time to come will be dependent on Canada for certain minerals and other natural resources and products. From the point of view of the Canadian economy it is desirable to have a larger proportion of these taken in the future in manufactures rather than in the raw or simply processed form.
Thereby he gives support to the policy of this party so often enunciated, and repeated so recently by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe).
During the period between January and November what happened to our farm income? What happened to our farm markets? Some days ago the minister indicated that there was nothing to worry about. There has been some increase in wheat marketing since November, but the wheat record for 1954 is a sorry commentary on the policies of this government. Here is the record, according to the bulletin issued January 13 by the dominion bureau of statistics. Excerpts from that report indicate that domestic exports of all products to the United States in the 11-month period declined to $2,097,-
705,000	from $2,199,713,000. Exports of all products to the United Kingdom in the same period of 1954 went down from $617,908,000 to $575,583,000. So far as commonwealth countries are concerned, the report says that in the 11-month period exports to all other commonwealth countries declined to $178,-
702,000	from $219,402,000, or by approximately $41 million. For the Latin-American countries, in the same 11 months as compared

with the 11 months in 1953, trade dropped from $183,242,000 to $168,009,000. Everywhere in the world our markets are disappearing.
The ministers travel. They make peregrinations and pilgrimages here, there and everywhere. I cannot use "pilgrimate" as a verb, but I think it could be said that while they "pilgrimate" trade stagnates.
What about wheat? Well, the record cannot be laughed off any longer. On a number of occasions in 1954 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) indicated in this house that we were losing our markets for wheat. The answer was that there was nothing to worry about but that wheat marketings were keeping up. So far as wheat is concerned, exports between January and November of 1953 amounted to $530,903,000, while during the same period in 1954 those exports were valued at $339,871,000, or a decrease of $190,000,000.
Surely those are not figures that support the optimistic attitude displayed by this government. I think they indicate and display the reason for the unaccustomed silence on trade matters by the ministers of this government, who in the past have boasted about increases in trade throughout the years. What about wheat flour? Exports of wheat flour between January and November 1954 were valued at $81,371,000, while in the same period of 1953 they were valued at $93,590,000, or a fall of approximately $12 million.
What about other grains, that is grains other than wheat? The record is even worse, proportionately. Between January and November, 1953, exports of other grains amounted to $196,263,000, while during the corresponding period of 1954 they were $115,915,000, or a fall of approximately $81 million.
Those records tell the story. They indict this government for its failure to look after trade, for its failure to act, and for its continued reliance upon optimistic statements rather than actual statistics. As to shipments of wheat the record is lamentable. I am not going to quote it unless someone wishes me to do so, but an article appearing early in February by the Canadian Press indicates that all major grain countries except Canada showed increased wheat exports in the first four months of the current crop year. Canada's shipments dropped in those four months by
6.100.000	bushels, the bureau of statistics reported. United States exports in the same period increased to 72,500,000 bushels from 70,000,000 bushels; Argentine exports increased by approximately 2,000,000 bushels to
45.200.000	bushels; Australia's exports increased by approximately 4,700,000 bushels to
26.700.000	bushels.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
It is all very well to say that shipments are falling behind demand and sales. The record indicates that we have lost in considerable degree not only our markets for wheat but also our competitive possibilities as against the other wheat producers. That is the picture, Mr. Speaker, upon which the Canadian people ask for information-encouragement, if you will-from the government, rather than the silence that has characterized this government in recent days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We believe in deeds, not words.


John George Diefenbaker: Imagine it, Mr. Speaker; with problems facing us such as unemployment, immigration, trade and all these ancillary problems, only three ministers have spoken and none has faced the issue. We have a right to ask that, before this debate concludes, the Minister of Trade and Commerce renounce this new spirit of a high regard for parliament and its sensibilities and give to the Canadian people the picture as it is, and also some of the plans of the government for the future.
I should like to ask the minister a question. Is the government at the present time giving consideration to having the Bank of Canada take steps that will do away with the premium on the Canadian dollar? Is that subject being considered today? Certainly that premium is in reality, as it now exists, a penalty upon commonwealth and foreign buyers of our export goods. In operation it has the effect of boosting general tariff rates. It means that, through the export tax which it actually creates, our producers in Canada find themselves with even greater difficulties in meeting the competition faced in the restored economies of various countries.
What is going to be done about it? A suggestion was recently made by the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, James Muir, in which he prescribed the use of open market operations by the Bank of Canada in order to affect the rate of exchange and remove this penalty on Canadian exporters, this obstacle in the way of Canadians in meeting competition in the world of today. Here is our position.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend wish me to answer that question?


John George Diefenbaker: I beg the minister's pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asked me a question. Does he wish me to answer it?


John George Diefenbaker: All right.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to say that if the people of this country believed my hon. friend, the dollar would not be at a premium today.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the first time we have obtained an answer from the minister with regard to any of these matters, and it is about as intelligent as the usual answer he gives when he has not an answer. You know, Mr. Speaker, we may smoke them out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The suggestion is made that we are going into bankruptcy with the dollar at a premium. That is something new.


John George Diefenbaker: The other day the minister said with great feeling that he did not want to waste the time of parliament by making a speech.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My speeches are brief, anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend has never been one of those to whom parliament has been an institution to be respected.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps on reflection the hon. member might want to modify that expression.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not make a reflection, as a matter of fact. I am sorry that Your Honour took it as a reflection. I made it as a statement of fact with regard to the attitude so often taken by the minister in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member not think that for one hon. member to say of another that he has never been one of those who have considered that parliament should be respected is to say something that might be somewhat unparliamentary?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to indulge in anything unparliamentary. If Your Honour says it is somewhat unparliamentary, then I certainly do not want to leave such an impression because I have respect for parliament, the absence of which is sometimes shown by my hon. friends opposite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I would not pay the slightest attention to my hon. friend. I do not think anyone in Canada pays any attention to him. If they do, I have never noticed it. I am sure I do not. Therefore anything he says is quite all right.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have that admission, Mr. Speaker, because it supports the view I have had of the attitude of the minister toward the members of this house, all of whom are equals.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should sincerely hope not.


John George Diefenbaker: I again ask the minister and the government to let the house and the country know the situation with regard to the trade position, and also the measures that are to be taken to meet this serious situation resulting from extraordinarily strong competition by other countries, and also resulting from the high price tags placed on Canadian products by reason, in considerable measure, of the unnecessarily high taxes which are imposed by this government and which have continued in existence for several years.
For almost a month, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the interlude of four days during which we discussed the international situation, parliament has been endeavouring to secure information, first, on the matter of unemployment and what is being done to meet it. That is something that affects every part of our country and every industry and every group of people within this country. I ask that information be given with regard to the railway employees who, because of the fact that they work for a government corporation, have not that freedom to speak which those who work for other than government corporations enjoy and have the right to expect.
Then we want to know what is being done with regard to the question of farm markets. A few days ago the matter of the importation of cheese was raised and the Minister of Trade and Commerce glibly said we had nothing to do with that, that the import permit legislation did not apply in the case of cheese being dumped into this country. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Hast-ings-Frontenac (Mr. White) showed conclusively that under the orders in council in effect under the Agricultural Prices Support Act power is conferred upon the government, whenever floor prices in our country are being interfered with in any way or when the floor policy is being in any way undermined, to utilize the authority contained in that act. Yet a few days ago, when asked in effect, "What are you going to do about it?" the minister said, in effect "There is nothing we can do. Anyway, they promised us that there would not be any more for a period of several months."
Surely, Mr. Speaker, having regard to agricultural conditions today, the falling income

of farmers throughout this country, the rise in the cost of the things the farmer has to buy, the farmer has a right to expect such action as the laws of the country permit to the end that agricultural prosperity shall not be unnecessarily undermined at a time when agriculture is facing a most difficult challenge. On the one hand the prices of the things he has to sell are going down and on the other hand the prices of the things he has to buy are rising. After all, one reason that we are here is to endeavour to bring about, through discussion, improvement in conditions when they are adverse.
The government have the information. It is another thing they keep in cold storage, along with a lot of other surpluses they have. We ask them, even at this late date, to open up that government refrigerator and reveal the situation with respect to trade, agriculture and the workers of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this debate concludes I should like to say a few words on a matter which is of considerable importance to a great many workers in this country. It is a matter concerning which I sought to ask a question this afternoon on the orders of the day, to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has agreed to get an answer as soon as possible. My request, as I shall develop it in a moment or two, is that that answer should be obtained and given to the house today.
Before I comment further on that subject, perhaps I might be permitted for a moment to express my regret that I had to be away from the house and away from the building at the time the vote was called on the amendment moved by the official opposition. It was only because of the sudden passing of a close personal friend that I had to leave the building and miss the vote, much to my regret. As hon. members are aware, that amendment included a plea for health insurance, which I cannot now discuss, but like my colleagues I would have voted for it gladly.
On the orders of the day this afternoon I asked the Minister of Transport if he was aware of a report in today's Winnipeg Free Press, part of which now appears as a Canadian Press dispatch in this afternoon's Ottawa Journal. I should like to give the house the main part of the story as it appears in the Free Press, for the Free Press gives the context in a way that is missing from the story that hon. members are reading at this moment on the front page of the Ottawa Journal. The Winnipeg Free Press story reads as follows:
F. H. Keefe, general manager of C.N.R. western lines, at a banquet of Beaver lodge, local 691,
The Address-Mr. Knowles brotherhood of railroad trainmen, Thursday night, said that because of dwindling traffic it had been necessary to make periodic lay-offs.
According to the Free Press report Mr. Keefe went on to say:
"We have been told", he said, "that this year we must reduce our annual maintenance budget by $5 million. And unless we can balance our budget the president has told us he is going to replace the present railway management."
Because that last paragraph is before hon. members in the evening edition of the Ottawa Journal they know the wording of that statement, but I point out that it was made in the context of a discussion by Mr. Keefe about the periodic lay-offs that have been necessary on the C.N.R. It is that aspect of it to which I ask the Minister of Transport to address himself in particular. As hon. members know, for the past year or more there has been hanging over the heads of C.N.R. employees across the country the fear of further unemployment. Hundreds of employees have been laid off in various parts of the system from coast to coast. In addition, there have been a number of instances of shops being transferred from one city to another, all of which has resulted in a terrible state of uncertainty and in serious damage to morale so far as the employees of Canadian National Railways are concerned.
This announcement that the president has told the management that they must reduce their annual maintenance budget by $5 million and balance the budget or be fired will certainly add to that uncertainty. It raises the question of whether the management will feel that in order to save their own jobs they have to lay off more employees and cut down their maintenance costs. I suggest that in view of the seriousness of the situation that arises from a statement such as this having been made by a responsible official of Canadian National Railways, the Minister of Transport should make a further statement about this matter in the house today.
I do not know how much longer this debate is going to continue. The minister might be able to make such a statement in the course of this debate; but if this debate should come to an end I am sure that at six o'clock or eight o'clock the house would gladly consent to a reversion to motions or orders of the day so the minister might make an announcement. He certainly should do so in order that the additional uncertainty created by this statement can be cleared up. I cannot help but wonder what is meant by the statement that unless the C.N.R.'s maintenance budget is balanced the president is going to replace the present railway management. I should

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell like to know how far up in the railway management this proposal of replacement is to be implemented.
If I may use a phrase that hon. members will recall from a couple of years ago, I ask the question, does it include those at or near the top? Does it include the president himself? These are questions that it might be well to have answered.
My main concern is with the effect of an announcement like this on the morale of the C.N.R. employees. Hon. members will recall that for a couple of years we have been asking questions about the lay-off of C.N.R. employees. Time and again the former minister of transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, would stand in his place and express the hope there would be no more lay-offs, and invariably that hope would be shattered.
Lay-offs have continued to take place. In addition there have been transfers such as the one I referred to the other day, that of the foundry from the Transcona shops at Winnipeg to the shops at Montreal. All this uncertainty is most unfair to the employees of this publicly-owned system. Then there are other questions. I have one on the order paper about the pension position of employees who are laid off just a few years before they would qualify for their pensions. I know of cases where the employees concerned feel they have been treated quite unfairly.
It would appear from Mr. Keefe's statement that now some sort of ultimatum has been handed down by the president of the railway which has put those just below him in the position where they feel that in order to save their own jobs they have to be tough with the employees of the system generally. An announcement like that is certainly a sample of bad public relations, if nothing else; and if it is a serious announcement, if it means what it says, it represents a policy which should be reversed.
My reason for rising at this time is to make a plea that the Minister of Transport not let this matter wait until Monday, when questions might be asked on orders of the day, but that he make a statement some time today clearing up the whole situation. Let us have it clear that employee relationships on the C.N.R. are not run by a series of ultimatums from the president. Let us have the C.N.R.'s employee relationships put on a decent and proper basis, one that will be fair to all concerned, in this great national system.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to take the time of the house for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to leave the record made by the hon. member


for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) this afternoon unchallenged. He said some very unnecessarily cutting and even contemptuous things about business enterprise in this country which I think are not borne out by the facts. I do not propose to take more than a moment just to review what we all know.
Take first the era of railway construction. Nobody could suggest there was not enough enterprise. It was sometimes suggested there might be too much. I think the courage of those who originally spanned this country with the Canadian Pacific, which now spans the world, was beyond praise. Take again the later railway development period. Whatever could be said of it, it was not characterized by cowardice. Then we know about the agricultural implement industry. It is a world-wide industry. We could go on to the mining industry, both gold and base metals.
We then come to the twenties, and we recall the development of the paper industry. Later we come to the oil and gas development, in which admittedly there is a great deal of United States capital. But why not? Decades ago on this continent the United States was being developed by money from Europe, and there is nothing to our discredit in the fact that United States money is flowing in here freely. But I am informed by responsible people that more than $500 million in Canadian money has gone into the recent oil and gas development.
Finally I wish to give this figure, which came to me as a surprise and which I think we might all bear in mind. Between 1945 and 1952 the increase in foreign investments in Canada was $3 [DOT] 2 billion. During that time the total capital expenditure in Canada was $24 [DOT] 4 billion. In other words, the percentage of foreign capital, comes to only between 12 and 13 per cent of the amount of capital invested. I put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I should not like the Hansard of this day to be left with that damaging and I think very unfair statement, at the expense of Canadian business enterprise.
(Translation):


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not meant to speak again during the debate on the address in reply. However, if I take a few minutes of the time of the house it is because I have received numerous requests and letters from all over my constituency, asking me to speak on behalf of the working people of Quebec city, and more particularly those of the

constituency I represent, and ask the federal government to undertake top priority projects, so as to help the working people of Quebec.
Statistics provided by the various offices of the unemployment insurance commission, regardless of what their compilers may think, do not accurately record the exact number of people who are unemployed at the present time. I refer more particularly to the city of Quebec, as I am conversant with the situation there and I know whereof I speak. I also know that the same situation prevails everywhere in Canada.
I should like to see the government undertake such works at once as would be of particular assistance to the workers of the city of Quebec. Some of the people in my region are in dire need. At this very moment many families cannot obtain unemployment insurance benefits and have to beg food from their neighbours,. to feed their wives and children.
In a country like ours, so rich in resources, a situation like this should not exist. Yet it does exist, particularly in Quebec. I cannot understand why the district of Quebec is always the first to suffer, and is hardest struck whenever there is an economic depression in Canada.
There is surely some lack of foresight somewhere and, in my opinion, in the circumstances the only one responsible is the government of Canada, which has taken upon itself to solve the unemployment problem in the country.


Mr. Leduc (Gatineau):: What about the provincial government?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Provincial governments do not have to take care of unemployment in their province.


Rodolphe Leduc: Since when?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Since the government stated, after taking over provincial revenues, that the central government would assume the responsibility for the problem of unemployment. Since the government has meddled with matters under provincial jurisdiction it should now do something.


Rodolphe Leduc: What about Quebec autonomy?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is precisely what we aim to preserve, back home. The hon. member who is interrupting is undoubtedly very glad to be living in the province of
50433-55J
The Address-Mr. Dufresne Quebec where, like his ancestors, he has been able to enjoy the rights which are so dear to us and were so dear to his Canadian ancestors. In spite of the interruptions that may come from the other side of the house-


Mr. Villeneuve:: That has nothing to do with unemployment.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If you had minded your own business, you would have been spared this remark.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker. I urge the federal government to undertake, as soon as possible, the necessary works in Quebec in order to help our people. In glancing at the estimates submitted to the house-


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The minister of finance for the province of Quebec said yesterday in his speech that the province is prosperous.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Quebec West, but I would like to point out that the house is not in committee, and also that hon. members should not interrupt him, as they have been doing just now.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I hope you have not intervened because you thought I was worried. I am not afraid of those interruptions; I can face them and handle them.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: What ignorant bravery!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Ignorance! That is all we find among government backbenchers. They have given good proof of their ignorance by their constant failure to speak in the house. They are satisfied with voting. Speaking of ignorance, we have noted the absence of several members from that side of the house-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: And what about your own side?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: There were 16 missing on this side.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have not spoken of the hon. member's ignorance. I said: "What ignorant bravery". There is a difference.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Both are true.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is not exactly a medical term.


Pierre Gauthier: In your case it would be psychism. That is a medical term.
868	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dufresne


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have requested such works; I have done so on numerous previous occasions.
It is all very well to see in the estimates submitted by the government that projects be undertaken in various parts of Quebec, allegedly to alleviate unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the projects to be undertaken in Quebec will not solve that problem. If the unemployment problem is widespread today, we need large scale works to remedy the situation.
The people of Quebec have been requesting for several years the deepening of the St. Charles river, the control of water pollution in the Lairet river and the removal of level crossings. In doing so, the government would make a humanitarian gesture that would bring happiness and welfare to the families of Quebec city and protect the health of our people. I believe we should start looking after the health of our human resources.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Health matters are under provincial jurisdiction.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the federal government was in as good health as the Quebec provincial government, I do not think we would have to blame it as we are now doing.
Coming back to the sanitation of the waters of the Lairet river, I think it is ridiculous that the authorities of a religious community, namely the Sisters of St. Frangois d'Assise hospital, were recently asked to spend an amount of $300,000 to protect their buildings, which were threatening to crumble at any moment into a river which is nothing but an open cesspool for the city of Quebec.
I am therefore asking once again that those works be undertaken for the people of Quebec. If the government ignores my requests, I hope that it will at least alleviate the distress of the people I have the honour of representing in the house, and take care of their needs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up a certain statement made the other night by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis). I did protest somewhat at the time, but he thought it advisable to make a correction the following day through the press. The hon. member stated that the federal government was contributing for hospital construction an amount equal to the contribution of the provinces.


Mr. Lesage:: He made a correction in the house the following day.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And, as the hon. member lives in the province of Quebec, he no doubt had in mind the government of that province. I must say that the government of my province contributes to hospital construction exactly five times the amount contributed by the central power.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It is also its responsibility.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is not complaining about it, but all I wanted to do was to correct an inaccurate statement made by a member sitting on the government side.


Jean Lesage: He put it right himself the next day.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He rectified it, but he maintained that I was not telling the truth in stating the contrary.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was challenged by the same member. I have not answered yet, but I am going to do it this afternoon. He said he was in favour of doubling the family allowances in this country, and that, for once, he agreed with me because in the course of a previous speech I had declared myself in favour of such a measure. In my view, it would be a wonderful thing for large families, because that would increase, in particular, their buying power and would ensure prosperity in our country.
I therefore favour an increase in family allowances by the federal government consistent with the economy. The hon. member dared me to go down to Quebec with him- travelling together-that would be something new. I think I must say today that I have no intention of accepting his invitation.
First, because I do not think that the hon. member would be very welcome-


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Why?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Why? Because I always
thought that you should not go and ask favours of those to whom you are not even grateful for a full stomach.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I would not want to shame the hon. member for St. Mary-


Mr. Dupuis:: May I ask a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly.


Hector Dupuis: Do you solve your problems with your stomach or with your heart?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In the case I am concerned with, as I have said, I am sorry to tell the

hon. member that he could not solve them either way, for he has shown that he has neither the stomach nor the heart for it.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would not consider modifying that phrase somewhat. We must not allow too many interruptions, otherwise the hon. member who has the floor cannot go on with his remarks, and the decorum is affected to a certain extent.
I realize that often, in answering a member who has interrupted, the words that come to mind are not always the right ones. That is why I would ask the hon. member to modify the phrase he has used, for I do not think that he meant it, especially where he said of an hon. member that he has no heart.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I bow to your wish, Mr. Speaker. I will modify my phrase. I will say that the hon. member's stomach is not as large as I thought, and that his heart is indeed much smaller than I thought.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You seem to be an authority on the subject.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the other day an hon. member told the house about a statement made by one of the C.C.F. members, as reported in a British Columbia paper. This socialist member felt that his rights had been encroached upon, and no later than the next day he made a correction of that statement which amounted to nothing less than a kind of statement. You will remember that the point at issue was the use of French in the parliament of Canada. Here is the verbatim report of the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
(Text):
I have said and said repeatedly that not only it is their God-given right to speak French but that it is also a legal right under confederation. I would do nothing to impede the use of the language. I admire my French-speaking colleagues personally, I admire their culture and I admire their language. But as I said before, when they are perfectly capable of speaking in English, and many of them as well as or better than myself, why use a language that the majority in the commons do not understand?
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, since you no doubt listened closely to those words, you will certainly have noticed how well they reveal the lack of logic displayed by British Columbia socialists. The hon. member admires the French language. He is apparently much taken with his French-speaking colleagues; he loves them very much; he has a large place in his heart for them. The hon. member admits that this right has been conferred on us by the Cana-
The Address-Mr. Dufresne dian constitution. On the other hand, he would like us to forgo that right. Such indeed is the attitude prevailing in British Columbia, and I am hardly surprised that my French-speaking compatriots, especially those of Maillardville, have to suffer from the bigotry of certain people. While on the subject of Maillardville, I wonder what these gentlemen would think if, having chosen to live in Quebec, their children were taught nothing but French or catechism.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the same situation in which my compatriots find themselves. They have the right to go anywhere and a section of the Canadian constitution allows anyone to speak either of the two official languages of the country. I cannot see why fanaticism should stop our compatriots from speaking the language of their ancestors.
Besides, great improvement in this regard has become noticeable in this country. In fact, I am pleased to point out that the province in which we find ourselves just now, the province of Ontario, shows considerable improvement. The government of this province gives grants to Catholic and French schools. Furthermore this province also has a French teaching service under a director, as well as a French school inspection service.
I note also with pleasure that, on both sides of this house, many of our English-speaking colleagues make special efforts to learn the other official language of the country, which shows that with good will and by eliminating fanaticism, something can be done. I could mention the example of a man of over fifty who courageously undertook to learn French and who can now speak it well enough to make himself understood anywhere in the province of Quebec, in the fine tongue of Racine. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Drew, leader of the Conservative party. There are others whom I might be permitted to mention, especially on this side of the house; we have for example the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener), who all speak excellent French.


Jean Lesage: There is even the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that, even as far as British Columbia, one may find a brilliant representative, the hon. member for Kamloops, who speaks excellent French, which is entirely to his credit. I therefore hope that other members will be encouraged to follow their example.
870	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dufresne
Before I resume my seat, I would like to speak in the name of all the credit unions of the city of Quebec, which sent me some resolutions and requested me to ask the government to honour the late founder of these credit unions, Commander Alphonse Desjardins, by issuing a commemorative stamp in this year 1955 which marks the hundredth anniversary of his birth. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this request will be transmitted by your good offices to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), and that, by putting on a stamp the likeness of the late Commander Desjardins, it will be possible to pay tribute to his devotion and spirit of enterprise as well as to all the good he was able to do, not only in French Canada, but everywhere in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only one more thing to ask. Our present position is rather serious. In the immediate vicinity of Formosa, a danger is simmering that may break out not only into a war between communist China and the United States, but into a world-wide conflict.
I think that, whenever we have to face moments as tragic as this, it is becoming more and more important, for us in Canada, to have a common symbol around which all Canadians, of whatever language and creed, may gather. You have already guessed, Mr. Speaker, that the question involved is nothing else than that of a truly Canadian flag. May God spare us such an eventuality-but, if ever we should have to tread the bloody path of a new war, let us hope that those who, for the defence of democracy and civilization, will give their lives on the battlefields, will have at least, before they pass away, the consolation of knowing that they will be buried draped in the folds of a truly Canadian flag.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to on division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Walter Edward Harris: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
{Mr. Dufresne.]

Walter Edward Harris: That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

["It is not quite ten o'clock; I have a couple of minutes yet. There is just one other item which does not deal with Mr. Bennett or any of the officials of the British Columbia government. The Minister of Fisheries said that the real head-on conflict is just coming to a boil. I have never heard of any conflict in British Columbia between the people of that province and the government of Canada. I am going to ask the government of Canada to get around the conference table and talk over this question. When they issue an invitation to the government at Victoria, as I hope they will, I am sure our premier will be quite willing to come here to discuss the matter with the government of Canada.\nOn motion of Mr. McLeod the debate was adjourned."]
Walter Edward Harris: That the message of His Excellency the Governor General, together with the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1956, presented on January 28, 1955, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['That the message of His Excellency the Governor General, together with the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1956, presented on January 28, 1955, be referred to the committee of supply.']
Walter Edward Harris: I think we have had a good day and we might now call it six o'clock. At eight o'clock we will go on with the order of business that I indicated last evening.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the Canadian government to ensure that the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements are carried out in an orderly manner and in the national interest. By international river improvements I mean any works which alter the natural flow of waters going from Canada to the United States, and which also

affect the actual or potential use of such water outside Canada. The provisions of this bill therefore relate to such international rivers as the Columbia and the Milk river, which cross the international boundary. They are not intended to apply to such boundary waters as the great lakes or the St. Lawrence river, or to rivers crossing provincial boundaries as, for example, the Ottawa or the Saskatchewan.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister if it applies to the Saint John river in New Brunswick?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I think not. The headwaters of the Saint John river are, I believe, in the state of Maine.


Mr. Green:: No, in Quebec.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps it is in Quebec. I believe it forms the boundary of the state of Maine. That would come under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission, as I shall show in a moment.
Problems associated with the use, flow and levels of international boundary waters can be resolved by reference to the international joint commission, which operates under the provisions of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. Similarly, problems associated with works in waters south of the international boundary, that cause flooding back across the boundary, are also under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission.
By article 2 of the boundary waters treaty, the government of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction and control of the use of all waters within Canada, which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary, and has the right to divert and use these waters within Canada. The United States has the same rights south of the boundary. Therefore these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the international joint commission. This international rivers bill is designed to deal with these matters, since no other legislation covers regulation in this field.
At the present time the development and utilization in Canada of waters that eventually pass beyond the boundaries and out of the control of this country is a matter of ever-increasing importance in the development of the Canadian economy. This is true of the Columbia river system and similar watersheds. The use of such waters has to be viewed not only in its present implications, and in the light of our relations with the United States, but also in the light of the future water and power requirements of Canada and of Canadians. Any short-run
International Rivers
advantage that might accrue from an immediate utilization of these resources should, of course, receive serious consideration.
However, it will be the duty of the government of Canada to make sure that the short-run advantage is consistent with long-term planning. The demand for hydroelectric power in Canada is insatiable; in fact, our industrial economy is largely built on low-cost electricity. In 1920, 5.6 billion kilowatt hours were produced. By 1928, this figure had nearly tripled to 16.3 billion. By 1941 the 1928 figure had more than doubled to 33.3 billion, and by the end of 1954 production had reached approximately 70 billion kilowatt hours. Within the year 1954 new installations both hydro and thermal generating electric power reached an all-time record -approximately 1,875,000 horsepower completed within that one year. The total installed capacity in Canada now stands at over 18 million horsepower, with another 4 million horsepower actually under construction as of January 1, 1955. Obviously it would be a shortsighted policy indeed that would jeopardize the power resources of Canada for a short-term advantage, or for an inadequate return.
We in Canada are apt to have the comfortable feeling that we still have an abundance of undeveloped hydroelectric power. However, much of our potential resources are in remote districts and do not warrant development at the present time. I think I can say that only two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, are in the happy position of having sufficient accessible undeveloped power to meet their requirements well into the future. Ontario is now developing the power resources of the St. Lawrence river, which is their last major source of low-cost hydroelectric power. With this in mind, our duty to future generations is obvious, and that is to conserve carefully our remaining hydroelectric potential, in order to permit the further development of Canadian industries, and the further advance in the Canadian standard of living.
It is the prime purpose of this international rivers bill to ensure that the long-term national interest is safeguarded and is not prejudiced by development planned to serve immediate local purposes that may be inconsistent with the longer view. This legislation when enacted will enable the government to control, by licensing, the construction, operation and maintenance of works in Canada that affect international rivers. The purpose will be to ensure the most advantageous development of a water system, taking into account alternative development opportunities that may exist now, or that may open

International Rivers
up in the future. Control will also be exercised over projects within Canada which have as a prime objective the creation of energy or other benefits outside of Canada. It is essential that the terms under which any such projects are authorized include appropriate safeguards to protect national interests.
As I have said before, in recent years we have begun to realize that water is not a limitless resource, nor is its development purely a local problem. There is fairly general agreement that we cannot afford to waste water and that every effort must be made to use our water resources efficiently. We have to take into account, when planning the use of our water resources, the various implications for industrial, regional, national and international development.
We used to think of development in terms of a single project. It is now necessary to think in much broader terms: to consider the effects which a number of projects may have on one watershed, and still further, to consider how the development of one watershed may affect the future use of water in an adjacent basin. Diversions, especially of flood waters, from one major drainage area to another, have become possible as a result of new developments in technology, thus making possible the co-ordinated use of our various sources of energy. Where adjoining watersheds exhibit different characteristics as to storage capacity and control, there is a strong argument for their physical inter-connection. Even when inter-basin transfers of water are out of the question, it still may be possible for one of its major by-products, hydroelectric power, to provide the means for co-ordination.
Economies in long distance transmission have made it possible to move electricity to load centres at least 500 miles away, and progress continues in extending these distances. In concerning ourselves with international river developments, we therefore need perspective. We must be prepared to look beyond the basins themselves to the ramifications in terms of energy, and the facilities for its effective use, before determining the effect that a specific project may have on the Canadian economy as a whole.
This means that careful consideration will have to be given to all proposals which involve the appropriation by outside interests, for the long term, or perhaps in perpetuity, of water resources of potential value to Canada. We must first find out whether we can make effective use of these water resources within Canada. If it is in our national interest to facilitate downriver utilization of water in another country, as a result of works undertaken in Canada, then we must make sure
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).!
that Canadians obtain benefits commensurate with the water resources thus being provided to our neighbours.
In working out appropriate arrangements with our friends to the south, we must behave as reasonable neighbours do, perhaps even acting as partners in some of these vast undertakings. We must be prepared to settle many an issue in an atmosphere of give and take. Americans and Canadians have acquired a good deal of experience in resolving certain international water problems through the operations of the international joint commission. Similarly, it should be possible to resolve any problems th.at may arise out of developments affecting international rivers in a friendly and co-operative spirit.
I do not propose to deal today with the technical and legal details of this bill. That can be done much better when this matter is dealt with in the standing committee on external affairs, to which the bill will be referred after it has received second reading. But perhaps I might deal with two questions: Are the policies which have led the government to introduce this bill in line with the principles of the boundary waters treaty, as they have evolved over the last close to half a century? Is what we are proposing similar to practice in the United States designed to ensure the effective development of their own water resources? The answer to both these questions is yes. Let me elaborate.
As I have already pointed out, article 2 of the boundary waters treaty states that each country shall have, and I quote,
. . . the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all waters on its own side of the line which, in their natural channels, would flow across the boundary.
Thus the treaty makes it quite explicit that Canada has complete authority over rivers flowing within her boundaries, leaving it to the government of Canada to control the use, flow, and levels of such rivers within our own territory, and to deal with any projects within Canada that might interfere with the natural flow of international rivers.
However, in exercising these rights Canada must bear in mind the rights of persons who may be affected by projects altering the natural flow of international rivers, or by the construction of storage dams and similar works which regulate the flow of waters. If such persons are injured, whether they are citizens of the United States or of Canada, they are entitled to compensation. They may come before the courts of the country that is interfering with the natural flow of international rivers, and claim compensation, whether or not they are citizens of that country.

This, we think, is a sound principle, for the rights of the individuals in both countries are thus protected. But it means that we in Canada must be very careful in granting any licenses that would create new vested interests outside our country. For, if at some future date there were promising opportunities to use Canadian water resources more effectively in our own country, vested interests in the United States might well have substantial claims on Canada.
The principle of compensation, as it has developed, covers all interests, including both private and public interests. An example of this is the case of the application for authority to build a dam on the Saint John river at Grand Falls, New Brunswick, which had the effect of raising the water levels in the international section of that river. The international joint commission granted its approval of the flooding at the boundary only after prolonged hearings, and on condition that the Canadian applicant carry out the terms of an agreement which the applicant had entered into with a United States company during the course of the hearings.
That agreement in effect conceded the validity of the arguments presented so forcibly to the international joint commission by counsel for the United States government. The counsel for the United States asserted that the "protection and indemnity" provision of the treaty did not relate exclusively to physical damage, but included also "compensation" and "a share in the benefits", which could be ordered by the international joint commission in any form desired by the United States, including the delivery of electric power. He asserted furthermore, that the compensation must take account of all interests, including the public interests of the United States and its states, as well as those of the private individuals whose property would be flooded. Finally, counsel claimed specifically on behalf of the United States a share of the power generated at the downstream site in Canada, proportional to the additional head made available by flooding in the United States and the share of the flow thus provided by the United States.
This point of view of the United States government was accepted by Canada. It is this type of thinking which the Canadian government intends to apply in administering the provisions of the international rivers bill when enacted.
Now there will be cases where the project involves the storage of water in Canada, and its release in a regulated flow. This may constitute a very valuable service to the downstream country. Not only may it reduce the damage from floods, but, through the 50433-56
International Rivers
conservation of flood waters, it may also make additional water available to the downstream country for power generation, or other purposes, during periods of low natural flow. Since the downstream country has no claim to this service, it is evident that Canada can reasonably require recompense in acceptable form if the downstream country requests us to provide the service.
Numerous formulae have been advanced to cover situations such as these. The resultant power might be divided equally, based on the thesis that, while the downstream country is providing the "head", the upstream country is providing the "flow". Head and flow together constitute power. One without the other is useless. The actual proportion of the power benefits received by the upstream and downstream countries will depend on the merits of each case; but there is little doubt that both countries will expect to get a reasonable share of the power developed as a result of joint efforts.
This important question of the great benefit conferred on downstream power plants by upstream storage is receiving increasing recognition in the proposals to govern downstream benefit settlements being worked out among the various states south of the border. The draft Columbia interstate compact, prepared by a commission which includes representatives of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming and the United States government, in providing for the allocation of power to be generated at downstream plants recognizes the contribution which will be made by storage and regulation of flow in the upstream states.
In guarding the national interest, we must be sure that any arrangements between Canadian and American interests are concluded at arm's length; that they are bound up in long-term contracts between responsible utilities; and that the recompense in power or cash for the resultant benefits in the downstream country bears a close relationship to a fair market price of the electricity so generated, as well as to the value to Canada of alternative water resource developments solely in this country. For example, unless the cost of electricity to the beneficiaries in the United States is comparable with that of the best alternative project within their own control, we would have good reason to be sceptical. As far as Canada is concerned, in order to be acceptable in the national interest, any private arrangement would have to ensure an optimum return in perpetuity and in real terms. By real terms I mean the going price of power from time to time, or better, compensation by an appropriate block of power delivered in Canada. Unless

International Rivers
its terms fully accord with these requirements, governmental approval of the arrangement may have to be denied.
The principle that adequate compensation is a condition attached to the right of each country to exercise full control over waters flowing across the boundary was incorporated in the boundary waters treaty at the insistence of the United States secretary of state, Elihu Root. It was accepted by Canada and thus it became a fundamental principle of the treaty, having general application for the future.
The United States government has since, through the federal power commission, exercised authority over the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements in that country. As and when the international rivers bill becomes law, Canada will be exercising similar control over our international waters. This bill asserts the accepted principle that Canadians have full control over waters within Canada, and first call on their use.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize again that the authority asked for in this bill will enable the Canadian government to ensure that development and utilization of Canadian water resources covered by this legislation will be carried out in an efficient manner, thus protecting the national interests of this and future generations.
Hon. members will have noticed that international law and international practice have had much to do with the drafting of this bill. It seems to me that hon. members should be given an opportunity to discuss the provisions of the bill in committee, where they will have the guidance of General McNaughton and other experts on the subject matter of the bill. Since external affairs are involved, the appropriate committee would seem to be the committee on external affairs. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that, after this bill receives second reading, it be referred to the committee on external affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have been very much interested in the speech just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in introducing this bill, and personally I am gratified that he has decided to have it sent to the standing committee on external affairs. When I spoke in the throne speech debate I asked that that be done, and I believe that committee can do an excellent job in considering this particular measure. In fact this is the type of bill which can best be handled by a committee of the house. Because we view the measure in this way we are not opposing second reading of the bill but we

would like to make it clear that although we agree to let it have second reading in order that it may go to a committee, we are reserving the right to make a decision as to what shall be done after the bill has been through the committee and has come back to the house.
In his remarks the minister did not explain that the bill arises largely by reason of a dispute between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia. The latter government have made an agreement with the Kaiser interests in the United States under the terms of which that firm is to erect a dam across the lower end of the Arrow lakes, these lakes being an enlargement of the Columbia river.
Apparently the provincial government believe they have made a good bargain. They are to get quite substantial payments from the company and in addition a certain percentage of the power that is produced in the United States by reason of the dam being erected in Canada. The government of Canada apparently object to this agreement, and arising out of this controversy we have the present bill. I believe that the bill is of great importance because of this controversy, and also for other reasons.
In looking at the map of Canada I find that there are several important rivers which flow from Canada into the United States and accordingly would be subject to the terms of the bill. Actually there are not as many of these rivers as one would think. First there is the Saint John fiver which apparently rises in Quebec, flows into the United States and then into New Brunswick, but the minister has said tonight that it would not be subject to the terms of the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend would not mind a correction. I do not think it flows into the United States. As I remember it, it rises in Quebec and becomes the boundary between the United States and the province of New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It flows through the state of Maine for quite a distance before it forms part of the boundary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, perhaps it does.


Howard Charles Green: That is one of the questions which will have to be worked out in the committee. There seem to be no other rivers of any size which flow from Canada into the United States until we come to the Milk river in Alberta. There are two small ones in Saskatchewan, the Souris river and Frenchman river. One of the members from

Saskatchewan tells me that he has never heard of Frenchman river, so I take it that one at least is not of great importance.
But once you get to the province of British Columbia there are several great rivers which will be affected by the bill. First of all there are the rivers in the Columbia river system including not only the Columbia itself but also the Kootenay, which is a tributary of the Columbia, and the Okanagan and Similkameen, all quite important rivers. In the Columbia river system there are also three great mountain lakes, Kootenay lake, the Arrow lakes, which as I said before are really a widening of the Columbia river for well over 100 miles, and Okanagan lake. All these lakes, therefore, will be subject to the terms of this bill.
Then there are the rivers which flow out of British Columbia into the panhandle of Alaska, notably the Stikine river and the Taku river. These are very large rivers, and it is of significance that on the Taku river the Frobisher interests plan to construct a great smelter which will be operated by power derived from the headwaters of the Yukon river. As I read the bill the Taku river will be subject to its terms. The Yukon river itself also will be subject to the terms of the bill because, as hon. members know, it flows from the Yukon Territory through the territory of Alaska. That may not seem important at the moment because the dominion government controls the Yukon Territory; but if the Yukon should become a province, which I am quite sure it will eventually, then it will be in the same position as the province of British Columbia is today with regard to the Columbia river system. The bill, therefore, affects some very important rivers in western Canada.
Presumably it will affect those rivers a long way from the boundary. In other words it does not affect them only at the boundary or within a few miles of the boundary; it affects them many miles back. For example, on the main Columbia river there is a wonderful power site several hundred miles north of the boundary at a place called Mica creek, which is up near the top of the big bend of the Columbia. Eventually at that point, and I hope at an early date, a dam will be erected and a project constructed which will cost, General McNaughton told the committee on external affairs last year, about $425 million and will produce a tremendous amount of power. I do not have the exact figure at hand at the moment, but that Mica creek project will be a very large power development.
The question arises in one's mind as to whether that Mica creek dam project also 50433-56J
International Rivers
is going to be subject to the control of the dominion government under the provisions of this bill. The importance of the bill is very far-reaching, much more far-reaching than one would think at first glance. What is done on the Columbia river system will affect the people living in the interior of British Columbia for the next 100 or 200 years. This is not a short-term problem. It is vital to the development of that whole part of western Canada. This is one of the reasons I heartily agree with the minister when he says that the bill should go to the committee for study.
Another reason is that this is a brand new type of legislation. Offhand I cannot think of any similar legislation on the Canadian statute books. Parliament is dealing with a new problem, and for that reason too it is important that the bill be studied by a committee.
I believe the whole foundation of the bill is contained in the words-I cannot refer to a section, Mr. Speaker, but these words are used-"developing the water resources in the national interest". That is what this bill aims to do, develop the water resources of Canada in the national interest. Mind you, it goes further than covering future developments. The bill provides for taking licensing control over the existing developments. If there is a dam or power plant already in existence, under the terms of this bill that plant is now subject to licence. There are several large power plants on the Kootenay river just before it flows into the Columbia, and as I read the bill those plants will have to obtain licences within a year, otherwise the dominion government can demolish them. I propose to say something about this power of demolition a little later.
Another reason the bill should be considered by the committee is that it involves very grave constitutional questions. The provinces of Canada have always been very jealous of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and that is one reason the government of British Columbia is so concerned about this measure. General McNaughton recognized that in his statement to the external affairs committee last year. I have here the proceedings of that committee, and I am quoting from General McNaughton's evidence at page 174. He said:
So from the commission point of view, that project-
He is referring to the Mica creek 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.
This is General McNaughton speaking.
They must say whether they are going to build it themselves through the B.C. power commission

International Rivers
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.
Then I asked him:
Q. The dominion government would take no part in the construction of these developments?
A. The federal government of Canada has the over-all responsibility of negotiations with the United States.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed that out tonight.
It is very essential that the negotiations in regard to the benefits that come from the regulated water and controlled flow, and so on, should be settled and will have to be settled before it would be wise for the provincial government to authorize someone to go ahead and build it.
General McNaughton's own evidence shows quite clearly that the provincial government is vitally interested in the Mica creek project, as well as any other projects on the Columbia river system.
Another reason the bill requires careful study was dealt with by the minister this evening when he mentioned downstream benefits. This doctrine of downstream benefits has only been worked out lately. General McNaughton told us that Canada was only able to make headway on that argument because the northwest states got into an argument between the upstream and downstream states, with the upstream states insisting that they should get benefits from the downstream states. Having established that principle in the fighting between themselves, Canada was able to come along and take advantage of their argument.
General McNaughton dealt with this question too, and at page 166 of the committee evidence he said:
As I mentioned before, power is the product of head and flow, the factors come in equally on it and it does seem and has seemed to those of us who are studying the matter, and a lot of other people as well, that when this additional power which is derived without any cost in the generating plant, because generating plants are idle unless the required flow is provided to them, that power which is produced in that way should be divided between the two countries. That has been the very forceful contention made to us by the government of British Columbia and it is the crux of the discussion which is going on with the United States.
The external affairs committee members were very much impressed by General McNaughton's evidence about downstream benefits, and in their report they inserted this paragraph:
Your committee also approves of the stand taken by the Canadian section of the international joint commission concerning recompense for downstream benefits on the Columbia river system.
Before I go on to deal with the Columbia system itself in some detail I should like to refer to the powers taken in this bill to seize works which have not been properly licensed.

As I say, they can be seized by the dominion government and can be removed, destroyed or otherwise disposed of. Now, it looks as though the province of British Columbia, if it cannot have the Kaiser people build a dam, may try to go ahead and build a dam itself with government funds. Under the seizure powers we can get into a position, Mr. Speaker, where the British Columbia government, having built a dam without getting a licence from the dominion government, may then have that dam removed by the dominion government.
Talk about Formosa. I can picture to myself Premier Bennett standing on this dam, and in the front line trenches will be the little corporal from Macleod with all the other Social Crediters who have come from the province of Alberta into British Columbia. Premier Bennett will have around him all the rest of his supporters who are not quite sure what Social Credit is, but anyway there they are.


Mr. Garson:: And he will have Conservative support.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, and some Liberals, too. Then coming down the Arrow lakes will be Admiral Howe of Port Arthur; the commander of his landing party will be Mr. Laing, the provincial Liberal leader in British Columbia, and the people of British Columbia will be running to take shelter behind a boulder or stump or anything to get out of the line of fire. And I can imagine the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well), will be running off to the United Nations with the other nine provinces to try to get a cease-fire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Ripple Rock?


George Clyde Nowlan: You can't hide behind that; it will be blown up.


Howard Charles Green: We are trying to settle the question of Formosa. If we do not look into this bill very carefully I am afraid we are going to have a civil war here in our own backyard. I would not call British Columbia the back yard; I mean the front yard.
I am really very much interested in this because 40 years ago the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who is an old friend of mine, sailed up these same Arrow lakes with me and the 54th Kootenay battalion on our way to a real war. Both of us are old-timers in the district. I was born there, and in fact my father was a pioneer right where this dam is supposed to be built. In any event, for the people of British Columbia this is a very serious question.
I come now to the Columbia river system itself. As I said in opening, that is the reason for the bill. There would not have been

any bill of this kind brought forward had it not been for this controversy over the Columbia river system. General McNaughton told the committee last year of the great importance of that system. I quote from page 164 of the evidence of the external affairs committee. He said:
This is probably one of the most important matters under discussion between Canada and the United States at the present time. It is an issue which is engaging the attention of the peoples of those parts, I was going to say, almost to the exclusion of everything else. It is without doubt the biggest issue in the west today and indeed, when it comes to be known about in the rest of Canada it will be regarded as a matter of first-class importance.
He told us that the Columbia river system is the third largest river system on the continent, the Mississippi being the first, the St. Lawrence the second. The Columbia river has practically the same power potential as the St. Lawrence river system.
The northwestern states of Washington and Oregon, through which the Columbia river flows, are short of power. On the other hand, the southern interior of British Columbia is not in that position. It has not been developed to anything like the same extent as the states of Washington and Oregon, and that is one reason for the problem. It has not been necessary for British Columbia to worry so much about power. Our industries in that area are not developed to the extent that they require as much power as is required by the industries of Washington and Oregon.
Eleven years ago the international joint commission was given instructions to investigate the Columbia river system. They have been a little dilatory in not having completed the examination earlier, although I realize that there have been reasons for the delay. General McNaughton told the external affairs committee last year that it would be some years yet before the Canadian survey of the system would be completed. I quote from page 169 of the evidence, where he said:
.. .if we are lucky we should have about two more years of field work, and after that we have to increase our office staffs for compilation of the report, and that may take from a year and a half to two years. It will be that long before we have a comprehensive report on the Canadian section of the basin which is comparable to what is known as the United States army engineers 308 revised report, which is a very comprehensive document. These reports are very voluminous; we have them in our office if anyone wishes to come in and see them. The Canadian report will be very comprehensive, and it must be so because we are dealing with investments that are literally astronomic; and if they are done properly they will have a benefit to our people down through the years. If mistakes are made they may well be impossible to correct, and even if you do correct them it will be very expensive and it may be disastrous. We must do these things properly.
International Rivers
The fact that these surveys have had to run on does not mean we are necessarily unable to proceed with individual developments. Once we are satisfied that these individual developments fit correctly into the general scheme of planning to get the best out of the basin as a whole, we will get on with it.
Last year in the committee General McNaughton emphasized the need for co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments. He put that so clearly, and surely it must be evident to every hon. member that in order to have the portion of the Columbia river system which is in Canada properly developed, there must be co-operation between the two governments. That is why I regret all this warfare that has been going on between the governments. General McNaughton said on page 168:
I want to say in that connection, when this reference comes to us from the two governments-
That is the governments of Canada and the United States.
-that the provincial authorities have full access to the commission to make their representations. I am happy to be able to say to you that ever since that reference was sent to us, there has in fact been the closest association between the commission's officers and our board of engineers with the provincial authorities, without regard to the administration in power.
There are no changes; the views put before us by British Columbia have been gone over by each succeeding government in detail and they have been reaffirmed in all their particulars. 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.
That of course was good sense. I believe there was co-operation at that time, which was less than a year ago. But here I must find fault with the provincial government. According to an answer given by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) on January 11, as reported at page 64 of Hansard, the British Columbia minister of lands and forests, Mr. Sommers, wired General McNaughton on September 17, 1954, about this proposed dam as follows:
Government of British Columbia proposes to enter into agreement with Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation allowing said company to erect dam on lower Arrow lakes to store three million acre feet of water. Payment for same to be 20 per cent of power generated on American side delivered free to British Columbia.
The next day General McNaughton answered that wire and suggested that no action should be taken before the British Columbia government received a copy of the report of the new topographical studies of the Columbia system which were being made under the direction of the dominion government. Yet on that very day, September 18,

International Rivers
Mr. Sommers wired back to General McNaughton that British Columbia had executed an agreement. Mr. Sommers stated in the British Columbia legislature just this week that the provincial government intended to go ahead with the Kaiser dam.


Jean Lesage: He said also that the agreement was signed on the 17th.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently he said also in the legislature this week that an agreement had been signed on September 17. Of course that could hardly be called co-operation. I stress again that the only way the Columbia river can be developed in a proper manner for the people of British Columbia, indeed for the people of Canada, is by co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments.
There is one other reason I believe this bill should be studied, and that is contained in the statement made tonight by the minister, when he made reference to the diverting of one river from its own system into another. I have seen press dispatches to the effect that part of the Columbia river might be diverted into the Fraser river. That has had its attraction for engineers, but on the coast we are much concerned about an 'cmdertaking of that kind. We had a terrible flood on the Fraser river just six years ago. This is also a most important fishing river. Millions of dollars worth of fish were caught last year in the Fraser river and off its mouth, and we will insist on a very close look being taken at any proposal to divert part of the Columbia river into the Fraser river system.
I do not think 1 need go any further to convince the house that the proper course is to have this bill sent to the committee for further study in order that we may get the whole story-not only that we may get it, but also that the provincial government and the people of British Columbia may get it. I was glad to hear the minister say that General McNaughton would be made available as a witness. I believe the government should also produce the officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources who have been making the survey. It should also produce the men who drafted this bill so we may find out the legal basis for the bill. From what the minister said tonight I assume they are relying largely on the boundary treaty, but in any event there should be a thorough examination of the law officers of the crown.
I hope an invitation will be extended to the provincial government to send their representatives. It may be that they are so annoyed about this matter that they will refuse to send anyone down. If they take

that stand I think it could well be considered a sign of weakness. The government of British Columbia should be prepared to send representatives here to tell the provincial side of the story. I see no reason why the Kaiser people should not be requested also to send their representatives. They made a deal with the province of British Columbia involving a good many millions of dollars. They do not think they have done anything wrong, and I think it would be helpful if they were asked to come here to give evidence.
That is all I have to say about the bill. In closing I should like to emphasize that it is a far-reaching measure, not only because of its effect upon the Columbia river system but because of its possible effect upon other great rivers of Canada. By this bill we are establishing a precedent for a new type of project. As far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned, we would like to see the bill go to the committee and we are willing to have it given second reading for that purpose. But, as I have said before, we reserve our right to deal with the bill on its merits when it comes back to the house from the committee on external affairs.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is of particular interest to my constituents as well as to many people in British Columbia and many other Canadians. I was pleased with the logical explanation of the purposes of the bill given by the minister. I understand that its first purpose is to protect our national interests, to provide for the long-term development of our rivers, and to make certain that our international rivers are developed efficiently.
Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) I was pleased to hear the minister say he was going to recommend that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs. This is a rather complicated question for people to deal with, particularly those who have not a firsthand knowledge of the situation. I think the committee should have an opportunity to hear General McNaughton and the officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as well as other technical experts. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the government of British Columbia should be invited to send representatives, as well as the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. I am quite sure that the more daylight we can shed on this bill, the more convinced the great majority of members in the house will be that it is to the general advantage of Canada and in the interests of the Canadian people.

Mr. Speaker, since the Columbia was discovered in 1811 by Thompson that area has been rich in history, rich in events, and also rich in unusual people. In view of the present interests in the development of the Columbia basin I think it was most appropriate that last year there was unveiled at Castlegar a monument to the memory and the service of David Thompson and what he did for Canada when he discovered the Columbia in 1811.
I have had the great privilege of living on the banks of the Columbia for nearly 50 years, and I have witnessed many interesting developments and many changes. Like all old-timers in that district I have always retained great confidence in the possibilities for development of the area. Fifty years ago it was sparsely settled land, almost unknown. You might say we lived almost in solitude, in small communities in the silence of the forest primeval, short on cash, generally speaking, but long on hope and ambition.
Now our ambitions and hopes are beginning to be realized. It was a very different country in those days from what it is today. To illustrate the distance between communities I will tell a story in connection with my father, who was a rather interesting and unusual character. When the first aeroplane went over our property, I think it was shortly after the first world war, my father called me out and said. "You see that thing, Bertie?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you know what it means?" I said, "No." "Well," he said, "it means there's no damned privacy anywhere nowadays."
I remember listening to the late Sir Richard McBride, former Conservative premier of British Columbia, addressing an audience in my district and telling us that we lived in paradise, a garden of Eden, and all that was required was ambition and hard work to become well off. I also remember listening to the father of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who at that time was a member of the government of British Columbia. He also bucked up our spirits by telling us of the possibilities for getting rich by growing apples and so on.
I remember another occasion when a very well known governor general came to our district. I was on the reception committee. I remember him telling us that we lived in a paradise. And I shall never forget one old gentleman who was presented to the governor general, and the comments of that old gentleman. He was a well known Methodist and a very strong prohibitionist. I said to him, "John, what did you think of the governor general?" "Well," he said, "he might convince me that we are living
International Rivers
in paradise; but from the look of that nose he could not convince me that we can bank on his vote for prohibition."
Now the situation is entirely changed. Our district has developed a great deal in the last 20 years particularly, and there are possibilities for greater development in the future. Whereas 25 years ago the Columbia river basin was almost unknown, today it is receiving attention across Canada and in the United States, and I have even had considerable correspondence from Great Britain. I think wherever there is a discussion of possibilities for the development of power, interest in that district is aroused.
In passing I believe it is of interest to note that there are four members in this House of Commons who spent their boyhood days in the Columbia and Kootenay districts. I am referring to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons), and the hon. member for Kootenay West.
While we went almost unknown for many years, today the possibilities of our district are being generally recognized. I noted in reading the report of a committee of the congress of the United States the statement was included that from the standpoint of resources the Columbia is the mightiest stream on the North American continent.
I believe the interest of the federal government in the development of the Columbia in Canada commenced after the building of the Grand Coulee dam, when the possibilities for the development of power on the Columbia were demonstrated. It was as a result of that, I presume, that a reference was made to the international joint commission in March, 1944, by the House of Commons and by the congress of the United States. So far as I can gather, the information that has been obtained to date is perhaps the most complete and comprehensive concerning any river basin in Canada. Very good work has been done as a result of co-operation among various federal departments and the cooperation of the provincial government as well. $3 million has been spent to date. It will take about two years to complete the surveys and two years to compile the report. Then we should have complete and definite information as to the possibilities for power development on the Columbia.
While I am dealing with this question I should like to draw the attention of the house to some mistakes that have been made in the past. That is why many of us are greatly concerned lest serious mistakes be made in the future in connection with the development of the potential of the Columbia.

International Rivers
First of all it is fair to say that for many years all governments in Canada failed to realize the possibilities for development of the natural resources of the Columbia river basin.
Second, I think a mistake was made when the government of Canada failed to secure compensation from the United States for violation of article II of the Oregon treaty. I have mentioned that before, but I continue mentioning it because I think it is something that should be taken into consideration when we reach the point of negotiating arrangements with the United States authorities. Article II is as follows:
From the point at which the 49th parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers; it being understood, that all the usual portages along the line thus described, shall in like manner be free and open.	.
In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always understood, that nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing, or intended to prevent, the government of the United States from making any regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers, not inconsistent with the present treaty.
Now it appears that when the Grand Coulee dam was built no representations were made by the Canadian government to the United States government. According to a letter I received from the Department of External Affairs the files were searched, and a review of the records disclosed this to be a fact. However, in the letter I received from Mr. H. H. Wright of the Department of External Affairs under date of April 14, 1949 he has this to say:
A review of the records has disclosed; (a) that a similar question was asked in the House of Commons and a reply given by Mr. Bennett in 1935. The record is contained in Hansard, page 3883, dated June 13, 1935. A copy of this extract is attached for your information; (b) that during consideration by the international joint commission in 1941 of the application of the United States government for approval of the construction of the Grand Coulee dam, the Canadian government did not present testimony. However, at a hearing in Spokane on February 21, 1941, the Canadian government reserved the right to submit later any claims for damage in Canada arising from flooding of Canadian property, and, at a further hearing in Trail, a spokesman for the government reserved the right for it to file a brief at a future date.
I mention that matter again because in talking even with United States officials I found they were surprised that the Canadian
[Mr. Herridge.l
government did not ask for some compensation for the violation of article II of the Oregon treaty. When we negotiate these big proposals for the development of the Columbia river with our friends in the United States I trust we shall not forget that we surrendered an extremely important right in article II of the Oregon treaty when the Grand Coulee dam was built, and that we are entitled to some substantial compensation.
Another mistake has been that up until recent years sufficient emphasis was never put on the recognition of the payment of downstream benefits in the nature of power. As I think the minister mentioned, the principle of recognition of downstream benefits is being adopted in the United States as a result of negotiations between one state and another in the development of power projects. But I want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the man responsible for the recognition of downstream benefits in the United States is General McNaughton, chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission. He has spoken on this question in the United States at meetings at Seattle, Spokane and other places.
When he first suggested the principle of downstream benefits it at least created a great deal of surprise among the people he was addressing. But as a result of his educational program, shall I say, with respect to the recognition of downstream benefits and Canada's rights in that respect, they are now recognized between state and state and it looks as though, in the near future, in our negotiations with the United States we shall have little difficulty in having the principle of downstream benefits recognized by the authority we are dealing with in connection with any negotiations for the development of power or storage on the Columbia river.
I am not going to deal with the constitutional position, Mr. Speaker. It was mentioned by the minister when speaking on the bill, and was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I think that is one subject into which the committee might make inquiry, that we may all be informed as to the details of the constitutional position of this bill. Personally I am convinced that the bill has a sound constitutional basis because of certain clauses of the British North America Act and as a result of certain practices and procedures that have become recognized as between the Canadian section of the international joint commission and certain provinces in Canada with respect to the development of certain rivers.
However, Mr. Speaker, I expect that another member of our group will deal more

particularly with that question as this debate proceeds. As I said before, to my mind there is no question as to the right of this parliament to pass this bill under the terms of the British North America Act. However, I think it is a subject that might well be discussed by the committee when it studies the bill.
I am now dealing with the purpose of the bill and its effect. One effect of this bill may be to discourage the building of the proposed Kaiser dam near Castlegar on the lower Arrow lakes. Because of that I want to deal with certain aspects of that proposal. I shall deal with it at some length because it is of great concern to many constituents whom I have the honour to represent.
The government of British Columbia has an agreement with the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation that provides for the building of a dam near Castlegar on the lower Arrow lakes that would return in power or taxes approximately $1 million per annum to the province of British Columbia; that is, if the company builds the dam. If, however, under the new plan the government financed the plan it would receive, according to the information I have obtained, an additional $600,000 per annum.
At this point I must say that in view of the constitutional position, in view of the federal government expenditures in the Columbia river basin totalling something over $3 million since 1945, and in view of the great interest of the international joint commission and the government of Canada in recent years in proposed developments on the Columbia river, it was most unfortunate that the government of British Columbia saw fit to conclude an agreement with the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation without consultation with the international joint commission and the government of Canada. I presume, Mr. Speaker, we must consider it an oversight due to lack of knowledge of the constitutional position, inexperience and possibly ignorance of the usual courtesies prevailing between governments or between governments and international commissions.
Extremely strong objections were voiced to the proposal to build this Kaiser dam on the lower Arrow lakes. Many of my constituents, supporters of all parties in this house, have informed me of their objections on varying grounds. Some are rather local in their grounds for objection, and some deal with the wider aspects of the problem according to the knowledge they have of the situation in general. Before I came to the house this session I was asked by certain business elements in Nakusp to call a public meeting
International Rivers
there. We called a meeting of representatives from all the points between Nakusp and the lower Arrow lakes, and a number of representatives from Slocan lake also attended. They discussed this question thoroughly. At that meeting over 300 people unanimously expressed their opposition to the building of the Kaiser dam.
Then on my way to this house I was asked by certain representative Revelstoke business people and others to address a meeting in Revelstoke. There were about 200 people at the meeting from Revelstoke and points between Revelstoke and Arrowhead. I was asked to address the meeting because I had been a resident of the district for many years, and I know what I am talking about when it comes to a question of flood levels and things of that sort and what certain elevations mean. That meeting unanimously voiced objection to proceeding with the Kaiser dam and urged the early construction of the Mica creek dam.
Then I have had resolutions and expressions of opinion from trade unions, farmers' institutes representing small communities, fruit growers' organizations, community organizations in Kootenay West and prominent industrialists all in opposition to the suggestion that this dam be built on the lower Arrow lakes. I have talked to several civil engineers in my district, and I have not discussed this question with a single engineer who favours the proposal at this time. In addition, the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, large dailies in British Columbia, have carried a succession of excellent editorials concerning this proposal.
There are those who are for this proposal, Mr. Speaker, and there are those who are against it. In a democracy I think it is all to the good that both sides of any question be thoroughly aired. I think in British Columbia this subject has been fairly generally aired to date. I may say that to my knowledge not a single organization of any type in Kootenay West has endorsed the proposal to build the Kaiser dam at the lower end of the Arrow lakes.
Our reasons for objecting to the building of this dam are several. First, we believe that the government of British Columbia should be dealing with United States public power authorities rather than a private corporation. In support of that argument I wish to quote from the minutes of the committee of congress which sat in 1933 and 1934 to consider the development of the United States portion of the Columbia river basin. We find the following in the committee's report:
We believe in private enterprise, in the expectancy of rewards for honest endeavour, labour.

International Rivers
initiative and daring, in the things that have made America great. But some things are too big for private enterprise, and the Columbia river is one of these.
We believe that power developments on the Columbia river in Canada should be undertaken by public authorities whether they be provincial or federal or a combination of both.
Our second reason for objecting to the building of this dam is that to grant the Kaiser corporation water rights on the Arrow lakes would upset the pattern of public power development of the Columbia in Canada and affect plans for the building of dams at Mica creek and between Castlegar and the United States border. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) dealt with some of these questions in an excellent letter which he sent to various organizations in British Columbia who were making inquiries concerning the government's attitude with respect to the proposal to build the Kaiser dam. I have a copy of the letter here, and the minister goes to considerable length to explain the government's position. I want to congratulate the minister on the very detailed and clear-cut explanation he gave of the government's objections to the building of the Kaiser dam. A number of people who received this letter are very grateful to have this detailed and exact information. I am not going to read the whole letter, but I do want to refer to some of the reasons given therein for objecting to the building of the dam. In brief the letter says that the principal objections are as follows:
1.	It would be unwise to proceed with this project at this time. The power potentialities of the Columbia river basin are still under investigation.
He gave very good reasons for that objection.
2.	According to what is presently known, the project does not provide for the maximum use of the storage potential at the Arrow lakes and of the power potential on the Columbia.
I want to refer to that reason because I presume the minister is giving the reason by way of criticism of the present proposal, but I am quite sure he knows as well as I do that we can obtain plenty of storage on the Columbia river behind Mica creek without going ahead at this time with any storage on the Arrow lakes at all.
3.	The carrying out of the Arrow lakes project at this stage might delay for quite a number of years the realization of other alternative projects more important to British Columbia and Canada.
	. 1. jjlj I
We agree with that reason. This is his fourth reason:
4.	The terms of the agreement proposed by the B.C. government will have an unfavourable effect on the Canadian aluminum industry, particularly in British Columbia.
This is his fifth reason:
5.	The terms of the agreement are bad for B.C. and Canada.
He then gives a long explanation of that and concludes with some interesting figures. We agree with the minister, Mr. Speaker, that to grant these water rights to a private company, the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, might have a serious effect on plans for the building of dams between Castlegar and the international boundary and at Mica creek.
Another reason for objecting to the proposal is that in the power-hungry United States there is a tremendous and immediate need for increased power production. There is tremendous pressure there for increased power production, and that need can only be met in full on the Columbia by storage in Canada. Canada is in the best bargaining position, as I see it, in Canadian history with respect to developments of this nature, and in our opinion the building of the Kaiser dam on the Arrow lakes would lessen our bargaining power for the building of a much greater development at Mica creek on the upper Columbia.
In support of that argument I want to quote briefly from the Trail Daily Times of December 28, 1954, which makes a brief reference to a speech by Governor Len Jordan of Idaho who is now chairman of the United States section of the international joint commission. The heading of the article is, 'Governor Pushes Plans for 'Columbia' Power". The dispatch is from Boise, Idaho, and this is what it has to say:
Governor Len Jordan was honoured at a dinner Monday night, a week before he leaves for Washington to become a key figure in water resource development negotiations between the United States and Canada. Jordan told reporters earlier he hoped to be able to speed up development of the Columbia river basin as chairman of the United States section of the international joint commission.
The Canadians are in the best bargaining position, he said, because they don't need power from the Columbia right away, while the Pacific northwest does. Their research as to power potential, he said, is at about the point the United States was in the late thirties when the army engineers compiled their comprehensive report on the basin.
We maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the granting of the right to build a dam on the lower Arrow lakes to provide power to certain United States companies would to some extent lessen the pressure and demand for power in the United States and to that extent

would weaken our bargaining position. We also believe that it is completely unnecessary at this time to consider building a dam on the Arrow lakes and cause any flooding there. The storage of 3 million feet of water on the Arrow lakes would certainly cause some flooding. Hon. R. E. Sommers, in a radio address over station CBU, Vancouver, on Monday, November 29, 1954, when dealing with the Kaiser dam proposal, had this to say:
Such a dam will not cause flooding of the Arrow lakes area as the water level will be held where it will not in any way damage existing communities, farm areas, or transportation facilities.
In view of statements made to the press by officials of the Kaiser corporation, who indicate that they intend to raise the Arrow lakes to the 1948 flood level; in view of the research that has been carried on by their employees with respect to the assessed values of properties that would be affected by flooding to the 1948 level; in view of the statements of their engineers when visiting various properties of constituents of mine that the company intended to flood to the 1948 level, it is hard to reconcile these statements, and as a result many of my constituents residing on the Arrow lakes are very concerned about this question.
If the level of the lakes is raised to the 1948 flood level it will mean, without any question, the flooding of many homesites. It will mean the flooding of considerable agricultural land between Renata and Nakusp. It will mean the flooding of industrial sites at Nakusp and Arrowhead and consequent loss of employment and investment in plants, homes, cleared land, etc. It will mean the covering of all beaches on the Arrow lakes for the greater part of the year. It will mean the destruction of all federal government investment in wharves and docking facilities.
My constituents, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned as to what will be the effect of raising the water in the Arrow lakes above normal. If it were raised to the 1948 flood level it would destroy a great amount of property, and would cause many people to lose their employment because of the closing down of several mills and things of that sort. As our people view it, they do not consider that the extent of this flooding and the ruin it could cause is justified by the return of a million dollars a year in power or taxes to the government of British Columbia.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the small mills and pole yards around the village of Nakusp on the Arrow lakes last year shipped out over a million dollars' worth of timber products. If the flooding were to the 1948 flood level it would mean that those industries
International Rivers
would have to go out of operation as industrial sites on the foreshore became unusable. That is another reason I am glad to know this bill is going before a committee. In that way we can get some exact information as to the water levels that are proposed as a result of the building of this dam.
On the one hand we have the minister saying there will be no flooding on the Arrow lakes. On the other hand we have the company officials making statements to the press and going to the Revelstoke assessment office to check up on the value of the property included in the 1948 flood level for compensation purposes. At the same time we have officials of the Kaiser corporation saying they are quite willing to compensate for any farm homes, industrial sites or other properties flooded. I cannot reconcile these statements. I believe careful examination of certain witnesses is required to get at the facts.
We are opposed to the building of this dam because this group believe that the power potential of Canadian rivers should be. first developed to increase industrial production in Canada and provide employment for Canadians. In that connection I should like to quote from the Vancouver Province of November 24, 1954. According to that newspaper the Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, when addressing the automotive retailers' association of British Columbia at the Hotel Vancouver, had this to say, and this statement is in quotation marks:
industry on this continent is looking for power '' he told the annual convention of the automotive retailers' association of B.C. at the Hotel Vancouver "So far, oniy 13-4 per cent of our hydroelectric potential has been developed. We must develop more, and the only profitable way to do this is to sell or export it to the United States " he said riefendmg the provincial government's stand on the Arrow lakes to supply the Kaiser interests mJhe,.iImted States wlth power, Mr. Gaglardi said, this move must be done before atomic energy becomes a reality."
We cannot agree with the minister of public works of British Columbia. While we may make some co-operative arrangement about the storage of water, we believe that power produced in Canada should be used to expand Canadian industry.
What is the experience in looking forward to power developments in the future in Canada and in the United States? I have read a good deal on this subject, and I find that when the Grand Coulee dam was built some people in the United States considered there would be a surplus of power for many years. In fact there was considerable criticism because of the surplus power available at that time. What is the situation today? There is a severe power famine in the very area served by the Grand Coulee dam.

International Rivers
Then again, on April 10, 1942, an order in council was passed by this government that actually provided tor the building of the Brilliant dam in the Kootenays for a public expenditure of approximately $10 million. At that time it was considered that the net return to the company on any investment in such additional plant would be negligible, and furthermore that after the war such a plant would probably be of little value to the company. Now, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate how careful we must be in looking to the future and, as the minister said, in thinking of future generations because things happen much more quickly now than they did a few years ago, I may say that in contrast to the opinion expressed by Consolidated Mining and Smelting at that time, the demand for power has increased to such an extent that the company has recently spent over $35 million in the building of another power plant at Waneta.
When addressing the Canadian-United States committee of the chambers of commerce at a meeting in Quebec last October, General McNaughton had this to say in part:
But, please, do not think that this means there is going to be power in Canada which will be surplus and to spare. This is certainly not the case, for the most carefully made predictions show that only a comparatively short time remains until we may expect that all our economically available hydro power will be in use.
In view of the experience of the past in the United States and Canada I prefer to listen to the opinion of General McNaughton rather than the short-term view expressed by the minister of public works of British Columbia. I repeat that we believe in power development in Canada to provide permanent employment for Canadians. For the reasons I have outlined, we are opposed to the building of the Kaiser dam on the Arrow lakes. We intend to support this bill because we believe its effect will be to promote the sound development of the power and water storage potentials of international rivers, such as the Columbia, in Canada.
Before concluding, I must draw to the government's attention the great support for the early commencement of the Mica dam north of Revelstoke, which investigations have proven to be a practical project. The average annual flow of the Columbia is about 50 million acre feet, rising to 90 million acre feet on certain occasions. This dam would permit the storage of between 10 and 15 million acre feet at Mica creek. The building of this dam would provide great power resources for British Columbia, employment for Canadians, ample storage for United States plants, and without flooding established agriculture and industry.
[Mr. Herridge.l
We are informed that United States interests have already offered to spend up to $250 million to construct a dam at Mica creek, which the people of British Columbia would own, and generators could be installed to meet the requirements of industrial development in British Columbia as necessary. This offer alone indicates our strong bargaining position, and should be a spur to co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in developing the vast water resources of the Columbia river in Canada. I believe this vast development demands the establishment of a Columbia basin authority in Canada as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, from my knowledge of the great developments ahead on the Columbia and their importance to the future of British Columbia and' Canada, that co-operation must be the watchword if we are to achieve success. There must be co-operation in this development between the federal and provincial governments, as well as co-operation with the public power authorities in the United States.
Nature has blessed us with a natural resource that can be developed to the mutual advantage of all concerned, Canadians and Americans. I plead again for the co-operation so necessary to bring the developments on this river to fruition.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speakers who have taken part in the debate thus far. Several comments made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are praiseworthy and should be taken note of at this time. One of the first that struck my ear was that we cannot afford to waste water. Since it has been established by the various speakers that this is more or less developing into a debate on the Kaiser dam, I think I am justified in taking a similar stand for at least part of my talk. When he says we cannot afford to waste water I would remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the Kaiser dam is proposed for the conservation and not for the wasting of water.
Another comment he made was that we should resolve any problem we have in a friendly and co-operative manner. I sincerely hope that in all the ramifications of this great bill and the many projects which are going to be entered into, that spirit will be remembered in deed as well as in word.
Another thing that struck me, Mr. Speaker, was that the rights of the individual are very important. I do not think there is anyone in this house who recognizes that any more than I do, but I should like to go a little

bit further. I maintain that the rights of the provincial governments should be equally respected. Right through the whole talk of the minister all I could sense was a centralization here in Ottawa of the authority that is going to control and give permission for any development that might arise in the minds of people anywhere in Canada in respect of waters that cross international boundaries. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) emphasized the fact that in British Columbia we have more of these problems facing us than in any other province, and therefore we are more vitally concerned. But I do not like the idea of this Canadian government setting itself up as an all-wise authority to say either yes or no to any project that might take form in the minds of people in any part of Canada, and that refers to other things besides the development of water power.
I also noted that at the present time we can transmit power a distance of up to 500 miles. I did not think we could transmit it that far. I am not at the moment disputing the minister in that regard; we will admit that is so. In what way is our power to go? There is only one way it can go for use, and that is to the south. It is admitted that British Columbia has the greatest source of power in Canada. In fact we are told that there are power sites surveyed in the province of British Columbia whose potential has been ascertained that could supply more power than is used by the entire Dominion of Canada today. Those surveyed sites, Mr. Speaker, are only a part of the great power potential. Let that suffice for what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say.
I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra cover the geography of this great question so well. He mentioned rivers that I did not know existed in the province of British Columbia. He covered the ground so well that he saved me the necessity of referring to these things. But he did emphasize a point that I want to emphasize also, namely that this is new and important legislation entering into a field of development that is going to concern our province more than all the rest of Canada combined, and therefore we demand that it be given serious consideration in the debate on second reading as well as when it goes to the committee on external affairs. I am glad to know that the bill is being sent to that committee.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra also mentioned the invasion of provincial rights. I shall have a little more to say about that. I kept a sheet for the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, but in his
International Rivers
40 minutes I found very little to write on it. The only thing I am going to do, for fear this house might think that everyone in this part of British Columbia is opposing the Kaiser dam, is to put on the record a short excerpt from a letter which I received dated January 20. This letter came from a reliable resident of a town not far from his, the little town of Burton. This is part of the letter:
Without opposition in the house I am afraid my friend Mr. Herridge could make it appear that the residents in general are all against this dam being built. This is not the case. Of course there is some opposition but that stems mainly from the C.C.F. party. A big meeting held in Nakusp on December 20 passed a resolution opposing the dam being built, but that was a C.C.F. meeting and, I understand, there was quite a lot of opposition at that meeting to the proposals of the C.C.F., so you can see it might be reported to the house as 100 per'; cent against the dam unless others like yourself know differently.
I believe it was so reported. I think the words used were "the decision was unanimous"; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I place this on the record.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the meeting the hon. member refers to was called at the request of several businessmen, and the chairman of the meeting was a gentleman who is not a member of the C.C.F.


George William McLeod: I should like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am reading only from a letter which I have accepted. I might also quote another paragraph:
As I stated in my letter,-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member and remind him of our rule that when a member quotes from a letter he must divulge the source. I do not think he has done that.


George William McLeod: Well, I vouch for the authenticity-that is a pretty big word.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member vouches for the authenticity he must not quote directly from the document. He must paraphrase it and make its words his own.


George William McLeod: Then I shall give you the name, because I have permission.


Mr. Speaker:: If he wants to quote directly from the document he must divulge the source.


George William McLeod: I shall, Mr. Speaker, because I have the permission of the writer to divulge the name. It is Mr. H. W. Stones of Burton. He is a general merchant and a notary public. He writes:
I am not a Social Crediter, but just try and prevent me from voting for them at the next election as this British Columbia government has

International Rivers
done more for our part of the country since they have been in office than the other governments have done in the last 30 years.
I am not going to enter into any argument as to the mechanics of the dam because when I get talking about electricity, kilowatts and all the rest of it I do not know where I am. However, I am going to refer to the political aspect of the bill. My great opposition to the bill is that I believe it is nothing more nor less than a political instrument used by the government of Canada to thwart the province of British Columbia in a development which the people have a right to expect. I should like to read from a statement in the Vancouver Province under headlines so large that I think even the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) can see them. The headline is as follows:
Sinclair opens fight for Ottawa against B.C. over Kaiser Dam Plan
I am not going to read the whole article, but I would like to quote one or two excerpts. One thing that struck me is that the reporter said the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) took off his gloves. I was wondering why in the world he would do that, but after reading the article I came to the conclusion that he took them off so he would not get them soiled by the mud-slinging he was going to engage in. The minister was speaking at a meeting in North Vancouver, and in referring to the dam the article states:
The proposal, he said: "is bad for Canada, bad for B.C. and Mr. Howe (Right Hon. C. D. Howe) has notified B.C. that he is going to amend the act which controls the export of energy".
We need to go only a little further to see the political implication. I do hate smeary and dirty politics, and it is seldom that I stoop so low as to even quote things like these. He referred to the premier of British Columbia in these words: "in that wide toothpasty smile of his". That particular phrase strikes me because perhaps I am a little bit jealous of our premier. I just wish I had teeth that were so worthy of display as his. Then a little later the article states:
Premier Bennett is premier of B.C. only because of a last-minute decision to get on the Social Credit bandwagon.
I have before me the last issue of Maclean's magazine and I should like to refer to an article there. This particular article pays Mr. Bennett credit, though I have read others which have opposed him. I quote:
This remarkable change in Bennett's political fortunes is no accident. It's the logical outcome of a lifetime of study, labour and ambition: an object lesson in how to become a political strong man.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not object to the words in the magazine article in question dealing
with the premier of British Columbia, but in quoting that article the hon. member is not quoting something relevant to the principle of this bill.


Solon Earl Low: It is just as relevant as Mr. Jimmy Sinclair's remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the remark of the hon. member for Peace River. Would he be kind enough to repeat it, because to my knowledge the Minister of Fisheries has not taken part in this debate.


Solon Earl Low: He has not inside the house, but he has tried to take the debate outside the house. What was said by the hon. member is just as relevant to the principle of this bill as was the statement outside the house by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member for Peace River that when a minister or an hon. member makes a speech outside the house he is not under my jurisdiction. It just so happens, and perhaps it is unfortunate, that the hon. member who now has the floor is under my jurisdiction. It is with that that I am concerned at the moment, and I know the hon. member will want to cooperate.


George William McLeod: I appreciate your ruling.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


George William McLeod: It is not quite ten o'clock; I have a couple of minutes yet. There is just one other item which does not deal with Mr. Bennett or any of the officials of the British Columbia government. The Minister of Fisheries said that the real head-on conflict is just coming to a boil. I have never heard of any conflict in British Columbia between the people of that province and the government of Canada. I am going to ask the government of Canada to get around the conference table and talk over this question. When they issue an invitation to the government at Victoria, as I hope they will, I am sure our premier will be quite willing to come here to discuss the matter with the government of Canada.
On motion of Mr. McLeod the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Maclnnis:: What will be the business on Monday?


Walter Edward Harris: Whatever any private member has in mind.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 7, 1955