1955-02-10

Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I know I speak on behalf of the official opposition and also, I am sure, on behalf of everyone else at this time when I welcome the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on their
safe return from their short visit overseas. I hope that today or some time in the near future the Prime Minister will give the house a statement as to the success of that important trip.



QUESTIONS


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	What has been the annual production of rye. by provinces, since 1940?
2.	What has been the annual production of flax, by provinces, since 1940?
3.	What has been the high and low price of rye and flax for each year since 1940?


Mr. Dickey:: Production of rye
1.	British
Year	Canada	Quebec	Ontario Thousands	Manitoba of bushels	Sask.	Alberta	Columbia1940 	
13,994	103	1,557	2,250	7,000	3,000	841941 	
11,703	231	1,382	2,818	5,311	1,860	1011942 	
24,742	196	1,501	3,600	15,000	4,400	451943 	
7,143	188	1,056	836	3,800	1,234	291944 	
8,526	151	1,242	612	4,800	1,697	241945 	
5,888	139	1,249	379	2,620	1,477	241946 	
8,811	126	1,378	346	4,005	2,927	291947 	
13,217	124	1,444	600	6,780	4,250	191948 	
25.340	220	2,751	1,950	10,500	9,900	191949 	
10,011	221	2,226	750	4,400	2,400	141950 	
13,333	261	1,856	1,300	6,200	3,700	161951	
17,647	102	1,505	835	9,800	5,345	601952 	
24,833	72	1,494	1,200	14,200	7,800	671953 	
28,775	55	1,710	2,750	14,400	9,700	1601954 	
14,172	39	1,854	1,479	6,700	4,000	100
Production of flaxseed
2.
Year	Canada Ontario
Thousands
1940	
3,049	1701941	
5,788	1131942	
14,992	2621943	
17,911	2351944	
9,668	2381945	
7,593	2301946	
6,403	1691947	
12,260	6741948	
17,721	8291949	
2,284	1961950	
4,686	3651951	
9,897	9601952	
12,261	8711953	
9,912	5371954	
11,238	188
British
Manitoba of bushels	Sask.	Alberta	Columbia800	1,650	425	41,145	3,718	778	342,000	10,500	2,200	302,800	11,500	3,300	761,762	6,400	1,243	252,800	3,800	738	252,979	2,594	635	265,200	4,200	2,150	369,040	4,740	3,050	621,100	650	300	382,900	1,000	400	215,000	2,300	1,570	674,800	4,300	2.200	903,800	3,500	2,000	754,000	4,800	2,150	100
Questions
3. Annual high and low prices No. 1 C.W. flaxseed and No. 2 C.W. rye according to closing quotations on the Winnipeg grain exchange except where otherwise indicated: (Prices basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur.)
Year	No. 1 C.W. flax	No. 2 C.W. rye	High	Low	High	Low$ per bushel	1940	2.374	1.164	.784	.3941941	1.87|	1.37|	[DOT]66|	.45J-1942	2.25(a)	1.564	.664	[DOT]5151943	2.50(a)	2.25(a)	1.225	.6441944	2.75(a)	2.50(a)	1.34|	.8911945	2.75(a)	2.75(a)	1.99	1.1311946	3.25(a)	2.75(a)	3.15	1.8941947	5.50(a, b)	3.25(a)	4.125	2.42J1948	5.50(a, b)	4.00(a)	4.83	1.3941949	4.00(a)	3.40J	1.58|	1.0341950	4.17|	3.52	1.75J	1.3511951	5.71	4.01|	2.41 J	1.68|1952	4.98|	3.26|	2.11|	1.6841953	3.274	2.57	1.681	[DOT]97|1954	3.241	2.534	1.47J	.85(a) Guaranteed price to producers.	
(b) Includes retroactive payment of 50 cents per bushel on 1947-48 crop-year marketings as authorized February 26, 1948.



TAXATION PROPOSALS


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Were any provincial governments or provincial premiers consulted prior to the announcement regarding the new taxation proposals for the province of Quebec? [DOT]
2.	If so, what governments and what premiers were consulted?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



MARGARINE

Mr. Pommer:: 1.	How many pounds of margarine were produced in Canada during the calendar year 1954?
2.	What quantities of raw materials used in the manufacture of margarine were imported, during the same period, such as (a) oils; (b) seeds; (c) other materials?
3.	How many pounds of margarine were in storage on the 31st of December last?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Production of margarine during the calendar year 1954 was 115,868,000 pounds.
2.	(a), (b), and (c). The kinds and quantities of oils and fats used in the manufacture of margarine in Canada during the calendar year 1954 are shown below. While no breakdown for "domestic" and "imported" is avail-

able, it is apparent that all of the coconut, cottonseed and palm oil is imported, whether as oil or as seeds which are crushed in Canada.
Consumption of Oils and Fats in Margarine Calendar Year 1954
Vegetable oils	Pounds
Coconut	 10,303,000
Cottonseed	 19,881,000
Palm (1)	  14,311,000
Soybean	 33,827,000
Sunflowerseed	 (2)
Other	 16,000
Total	 78,338,000
Marine and fish oils	 15,783,000
Animal oils	 30,000
Grand total	 94,151,000
(1) Includes palm kernel.
(2) Included with other vegetable oils.
3.	Stocks of margarine held by manufacturers, wholesalers and other warehouses on January 1, 1955, totalled 3,337,000 pounds.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How much was contributed to and for the Colombo plan by Canada in each of the years 1953 and 1954?
2.	Of such amounts how much was (a) expended in Canada; (b) outside of Canada, for (i) administration costs; (ii) salaries of technical experts; (iii) scientific and technical apparatus; (iv) agriculture machinery; (v) other kinds of machinery?
3.	How many technical and scientific persons were employed in each of the years 1953 and 1954, and what were total (a) salaries; (b) expenses or other allowances paid to such persons?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the novel and challenging suggestion made yesterday by the Soviet supreme council to the effect that in the interests of peace, members of representative institutions both inside and outside of the iron curtain might with value meet in order to discuss problems of peace. Does the Prime Minister consider that the suggestion is one of merit and worthy of consideration

and acceptance in order to indicate the attitude of Canada generally toward doing anything that will bring about better relationships?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members know that it would be both their desire and the desire of the members of the government to do anything and everything that would bring about better relations. The suggestion that has been reported will no doubt come to us in some more official manner than merely this report in the newspapers, and it will certainly be given careful consideration. I think the situation is such that we should all do our best to take advantage of any suggestion that might bring about an easing of the tension in the world.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Will the minister inform the house as to what methods the government is using to secure personnel for employment on the St. Lawrence seaway? Second, has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that a private organization, with headquarters in Cornwall, Ontario, is sending out circulars asking the unemployed to make application for employment on the seaway and to send $1 back to them with the application?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I am grateful to my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South for giving me notice of his question, and I am glad to have an opportunity to reply to it.
The officials of the unemployment insurance commission have reported to me information regarding two private organizations such as that to which my hon. friend has referred. One of them goes under the name of "Seaway Opportunities" which asks for a fee of $1 to accompany the application for a job, and that I know is the one to which my hon. friend refers. The second one goes under the name of "International Recruiting Agency" which asks for a fee of $3. Both of these organizations give Cornwall post office addresses.
I have answered the last part of my hon. friend's question first. As to the first part of his question, concerning the method the government is using in helping to secure personnel for employment on the projects associated with both Ontario hydro and the
Inquiries of the Ministry federal seaway on the St. Lawrence, may I say that ever since the beginning our labour and national employment service officials have participated in the planning with regard to all matters related to future employment on both these projects. I believe that good methods have been worked out both as as they apply to the recruitment of workers within Canada and also to simplifying the movement of workers to and fro across the international border to ensure the maximum employment for Canadians and to best serve the changing needs of these great developments.
The St. Lawrence seaway authority in a press release yesterday stated that no outside organization had been authorized to indicate that they were acting as an agent for the seaway, and I have been assured by Mr. Chevrier that at one of its recent meetings the authority had approved the recommendation that the national employment service undertake recruiting for the seaway project. The local offices of the national employment service have been asked to advise all applicants in their areas who apply for positions on the seaway to register at their local office, and not to leave for a project until they are sure that work is available. These registrations will be passed on to a control office in the seaway area, and as contractors require workers applicants who meet the requirements of a particular job will be so advised and will then proceed to the project. Preference will be given to local residents if they are otherwise qualified.
At the present time, with the co-operation of the Ontario hydro commission, a refresher course is being conducted at Cornwall to bring national employment officers up to date on the requirements of the heavy construction industry. This program of training will be extended as the need for workers and the field for recruitment grows.
A moment ago I referred to the co-operation provided by Mr. Chevrier and the seaway authority. Here I should like to pay warm tribute to the valuable co-operation given to my officials and myself by the late Bob Saunders in planning this employment program, and for the continuing help of the Ontario hydro officials.
Through the courtesy of the Post Office Department, the national employment service is arranging to have posted in post offices throughout the country notices advising job seekers to check with their local employment office before proceeding to points where projects are contemplated.
The unemployment insurance commission will release to the press, trade journals and

Inquiries of the Ministry other publications, information covering the arrangements they have made to serve the needs of the seaway and power projects. The commission will continue to urge workers to see their local offices before they leave their home areas for any project, in order that they may be assured that work is available when they arrive there. I should like to underline the fact that the facilities of the national employment service are available to both workers and employers at no charge to them. It is, of course, the policy of the national employment service to give equal attention to the applications of workers whether or not they are covered by unemployment insurance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to press releases and other publicity on this matter during recent weeks, our national employment service has sent very specific instructions through the five regional offices to all the approximately 200 local offices across the country. If I may, since it is not too long, I should like to quote the exact words of that directive dated January 20 last, entitled "Recruitment for St. Lawrence Seaway and Hydro Project". It is signed by the director of employment services in Ottawa. This is the text:
Arrangements have been completed for us to do the recruiting for the above-mentioned projects. Details of procedure, etc., have not yet been completed but they will be sent out to the field in due course.
It is intended that we will have a central control office at Cornwall where the needs of the employers will be registered and requests will be made to our local offices for help as the occasion arises.
In so far as the hydro project is concerned, they are committed to the hiring of Ontario residents and particularly local residents in the area of the project, if these workers are suitable.
The seaway authorities tell us that they will give preference to local residents if they are suitable.
In order to be sure that the towns and cities where the projects are located are not swamped with people coming to look for a job, we have agreed to do everything possible to stop this.
Will you please, therefore, advise all offices in your region to post notices to the effect that residents are warned not to proceed to the seaway or hydro projects on the St. Lawrence without first being advised by our local offices. Any local publicity that can be given in this regard in the meantime would be beneficial.
Applications at our local offices should be carefully taken on a 701, obtaining all the information possible regarding the applicant, and these 701's should be kept readily available in the local office and the applicant advised not to proceed to the area until told to do so.
We hope to get out early next week a national news release outlining this arrangement. In the meantime, it is important that our offices at least be advised of what is being considered.
That is the end of the directive. I have taken the time of the house to answer this question fully because I know all members


of the house are as anxious as the hon. member for Cape Breton South or the Minister of Labour about this matter. I express the hope that the answer I have made be given wide publicity so that unemployed people in any part of the country might not be misled on the one hand or miss any real opportunity for employment on the other.


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, of which I have given notice, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Has the Postmaster General received a brief from the Seven Islands chamber of commerce requesting improvement in both the summer and winter mail services to Seven Islands and that part of Saguenay between Baie Comeau and Blanc Sablon? If so, what measures will be taken to remedy the situation?


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: May I thank the hon. member for giving notice of his question. The answer is yes; a brief has been received, and the matter of conveying all classes of mail to these points will be reviewed at the conclusion of the winter season, as this service is performed under contract at the present time.


POULTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Will the Minister of Agriculture say whether the Department of Agriculture has given any consideration to the dumping of United States fowl and poultry meat on the Canadian markets? I understand one firm alone received a single order of over 100,000 pounds, because of the fact that feed and brooder costs are higher in Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not sure whether my hon. friend intends me to consider the term "dumping" as it is related to customs duties in general or if he simply means that-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is coming in.


James Garfield Gardiner: -it is coming in. I assume it is. I have had complaints from time to time that certain of our poultry products are being sent to the United States to be treated under a system they have over there, and then returned here. We have been asked to take action in regard to that, but I have

not heard of any undue shipping of turkey or anything like that into Canada that does not come within the law.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand there have been only about 8,000 pounds shipped to the United States but they have shipped over 360,000 pounds here.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: In the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant which he can take as notice. Telegrams received from veterans' organizations in British Columbia indicate they are concerned about amendments to the veterans' treatment regulations made by order in council 1955/102, passed on January 20. Would the minister make a statement that would indicate what change has been made from the previous order regarding the burial of persons who die while receiving treatment?


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As the
hon. member has suggested, I shall take his question as notice.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the metro chairman in Toronto has received no official answer to his letter regarding the availability of the Long Branch rifle range for metropolitan purposes, would the minister say what is the decision of his department in this matter?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of her question. When I made the statement in the house last week concerning the Long Branch rifle range I indicated that until we could find a suitable location to which we could transfer our activities we could not relinquish Long Branch. I also said that we are now considering the possibility of removal to Camp Borden. When we have canvassed that possibility, which we are doing actively now, and have come to a decision, it would be some months at least before suitable accommodation could be provided at Camp Borden if we should decide to go there.
Inquiries of the Ministry Meantime I have not been able to give a decision, and that is why the gentleman to whom the hon. member referred has not received it. And that is also why I cannot give a decision today.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) or, in his absence, his parliamentary assistant. Can the parliamentary assistant inform the house if it is a fact that the application of a German firm for a permit to operate a fish meal plant and affiliated industries at Louisburg, Nova Scotia, was refused by the Department of Fisheries? If so, what was the reason?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: The
Minister of Fisheries had intended to answer this question ' today, but unfortunately he cannot be here at this time. He will give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.



PAYMENT OF TAX WHEN SELLING TO ELEVATORS

[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. Will he tell the house if farmers growing grain for sale outside the P.F.A.A. districts are paying the 1 per cent tax when selling their grain to an elevator?


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. I find it a little ambiguous but, having said that, I shall answer it. I was advised about 33 years ago when I first went into a government never to give a legal opinion, but to advise the inquirer to consult a lawyer. Probably that would be a good thing to do on this occasion. However, I shall answer it as best I can.
The question is whether the minister will tell the house if farmers growing grain for sale outside the P.F.A.A. districts do certain things. Well, the ambiguous part of it is that I am not so sure whether it is the farmer who grows the grain outside the district, or the farmer growing it inside the district and selling it outside; both interpretations could be placed upon it.
Then the question continues by asking whether they are paying the 1 per cent

Inquiries of the Ministry tax when selling their grain to an elevator. I think it would be best if I were to read the section of the act which says:
"Spring wheat area" means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace river district of British Columbia.
That is the area covered by the act. Then the section which deals with the collection of the 1 per cent is section 11, which goes on to say that the elevators taking delivery of wheat-and I presume within the spring wheat area-must collect 1 per cent on the grain they take in.


William Scottie Bryce: Then they are paying for a service they do not get.



GRAIN COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as to when members may expect to receive the annual reports of the board of grain commissioners and of the Canadian wheat board, and whether these reports will be referred to the standing committee on agriculture.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The annual report of the board of grain commissioners is now in the hands of the queen's printer and will be distributed as soon as it is received from the printer. The report of the wheat board is also in the hands of a printer and will be tabled when it is received. I anticipate that the usual practice will be followed of referring these reports to the committee on agriculture.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinfon):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked on February 4, reported at page 848 of Hansard, as to whether Mr. W. J. Bennett, president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, was stating government policy in his speech in Toronto concerning the future purchases of uranium by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have now read the statement Mr. Bennett made, and it is government policy. In fact it is exactly as stated in the annual report of the Eldorado company tabled in the house a few days ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask, if it is government policy, why it was not enunciated by the minister rather than by an official.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the policy of the Eldorado company, approved by the government. The report of the Eldorado company contains the statement of its policy, and it was tabled in the house before the speech was made in Toronto. If my hon. friend does not read those documents, I cannot help it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if he will answer my question as to why, if this was a statement of government policy, it was not made by the minister and not by an official.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purchase of uranium is the function of the Eldorado company, and the minister saw no purpose in interfering with the statement of company policy coming from the authority which actually does the purchasing.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the defence research board is designing its own flag and, if so, for what purpose.
Ralph Osborne Campney: Not to my knowledge.



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) has suggested that I might wish to make a statement in reference to the commonwealth conference, and I have said that I shall do so on Monday. In the meantime communiques evidently have been published by the newspapers, and perhaps it would be convenient to have them available as a matter of record. If I may revert to the order for motions so I might table them at this time, I would be glad to do so.
William Earl Rowe: Would they be printed in today's Hansard?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: If it is desired that they should be, I think it would be wise to have them printed so they could be a matter of

record, and we would not have to look them up in the files of newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed to have these documents printed in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it is agreed that they will be printed in Hansard.
(.For text of communiques above referred to, see appendix A and appendix B, pages 1062-4.)


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that he is making his statement on Monday, he will allow us an opportunity to discuss the statement at a later date, dealing with foreign and external affairs in general?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will certainly be an opportunity for further discussion on external affairs; and if at that time hon. gentlemen wish to raise any questions with respect to the commonwealth conference I think certainly it would not be our desire to prevent its being done. I hope it can be arranged, in conformity with the rules of the house.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: The chief opposition to this bill respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements seems to revolve around a specific project, the Kaiser dam. In the words of the spokesman of the Social Credit party, their opposition has a political basis, together with the assertion that it is an infringement on the rights of the provinces. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) said, as reported at page 886 of Hansard:
I am going to refer to the political aspects of the bill. My great opposition to the bill is that I believe it is nothing more or 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.
Any act passed in this house, Mr. Speaker, naturally is a political act. I cannot see how it can be otherwise. It is an act of parliament and cannot be divorced from the question
International Rivers
of politics. It seems to me that the art of government can be defined as political.
The Social Credit party seems to be very sensitive when it comes to the question of political criticism. If any criticism is directed toward that party they immediately imply that it is a smear, or mud-slinging, and so on. It seems they can even change toothpaste into mud and imply that it has been thrown at some politician or other. I simply refer to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke and his statement at page 886. He took exception to the fact that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) mentioned the bright smile of the premier of British Columbia. I cannot see that there was any smearing done there. I warn the hon. member, who seems to feel injured and is jealous of the shiny, bright smile of the premier of British Columbia, that bright and shiny teeth are no facade for a virtuous personality. I need only refer him to the fable of Little Red Riding Hood.
It seems that the Conservative party, or at least the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), has in some way or other also developed the smear psychosis of the Social Credit party. In his inconsistent statement respecting this matter the hon. member said, on the one hand, that it was a political club to be used by the federal government to beat the provincial government of British Columbia, and on the other hand that he believed both parties were well-meaning and that their intentions were sincere. He cannot have it both ways. Therefore I think we can just disregard the official opposition and simply say that so far they are on the fence and are not taking any particular position at this time.
In his speech on Friday, which he concluded on Tuesday, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke spoke, I presume, on behalf of the Social Credit party. I am concerned, as a matter of fact, over the hon. member's appalling ignorance of the facts respecting the Columbia river basin and the geography of British Columbia in general. For him to have drawn the conclusion that this is a political bill introduced for the purpose of injuring another party, when he has so little knowledge of the facts, is just beyond my comprehension.
It would be well to review some of the facts with respect to international treaties. I refer specifically to the treaty that was signed in 1909 between Canada and the United States. It was a treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America, signed on January 11, 1909. Under article 9 of that treaty the international joint commission was

International Rivers
given specific authority to deal with major questions arising in boundary disputes between the two great countries. Subsequently, in June, 1944, I believe, the matter of the development of the Columbia basin was referred to this commission. In a statement to the house at that time the late Right. Hon. Mackenzie King had this to say with respect to the reference as reported in Hansard of March 9, 1944, at page 1292:
As questions concerning the Columbia river basin are of great interest to the province of British Columbia, the government of that province has been consulted at all stages in the drafting of this reference.
Of course, such reference was to determine the best method of employing the water resources of the Columbia basin. There has been close co-operation between the federal authorities and the provincial governments in all phases of the investigation, at least up to the present moment. One of the first projects on which there was sufficient information available to proceed with was the Libby dam in Montana. While the investigation was not completed, the international joint commission was prepared to recommend the construction of the Libby dam which would build up one million kilowatts of on-site power with about 6 million kilowatts of energy in the combined on-site and downstream benefits. There was no decision, however, as to the benefits which would be paid to Canada in compensation for flooding north of the boundary in the area known as the Newgate district. About 42 miles of Canadian soil would be flooded and a considerable dislocation of residents would ensue. The United States section of the joint commission agreed only to $7 million in compensation, without any power in return. That is, there was to be no block of power which the Canadian section of the international joint commission felt should be returnable to Canada in perpetuity.
All the information available was given to the provincial authorities, but no decision was arrived at. Of course that recommendation had to be turned down as improper compensation for the use of our resources and storage space. As a result of the investigation by the Canadian section of the international joint commission they became convinced that Canada should be paid on a 50-50 basis for all downstream benefits from water stored in Canada. As was pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he opened this debate, that 50-50 basis is considered fair in that there must be flow as well as head, Canada providing the flow. I believe he is perfectly correct. The international joint commission's recommendation, we suggest, could be followed advisedly by all Canadian authorities.


Mr. Hahn:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think it will take me 40 minutes to put the record straight, so to speak. If the house is then prepared to give unanimous consent I will answer any and all questions the hon. member may have.


Frederick George Hahn: I just wanted to know, in the discussion of the agreement as to the Libby dam, how much Canada requested in return for that storage?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am coming to that. If the hon. member will just be patient he will find that most of his questions will be answered. I am coming to the geographical questions that have arisen in the course of this debate. I have said that it has become a principle that we should expect a 50-50 return from all downstream benefits from water stored in Canada. I said earlier that the international joint commission have had absolute co-operation from the provincial authorities on all these matters up to the present time. The provincial government was not prepared to recommend the Libby dam project under the terms proposed, and the application was withdrawn.
I believe that the United States section of the international joint commission, or at least the United States authorities, still are not prepared to go along with our ideas on this matter and are inclined to the opinion that no matter how much water we store, at some time or other it must be released for power purposes, thereby giving them downstream benefits in any case and without compensation.
A full investigation of the Columbia basin has shown that it is a feasible and financial possibility, and indeed a good business proposition to divert the excess flow of the Columbia river to the Fraser river by a tunnel about 15 miles in length.


Mr. McLeod:: You need more water down there.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member's interjection indicates that he is just as confused as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in this respect. This would be flood water held under control and released only when the river was at its minimum flow. It would cause no damage whatsoever in the lower Fraser by way of flooding. It has been ascertained by the Department of Fisheries and the international commission on fisheries, or whatever it is called, that there would be no damage to the fishing industry, that as a matter of fact it would be helpful to the industry.
The Arrow lakes storage would provide a return to Canada of about 42,000 kilowatts

of power, with a value of $840,000. Of course there would be other compensating factors in the way of taxes and so on. It has been ascertained that the diversion to the Fraser river would provide between two and three million kilowatts of on-site power and downstream benefits, which at the rate of $20 per kilowatt would total some $50 million as an annual return.
This is not to say that at some time or other, in years of excessive run-off, there may not be sufficient water to fill the storage at Mica creek as well as the storage in the Arrow lakes. Engineering studies have shown that it would be doubtful that there would be sufficient water for both these storage areas. If the lower one on the Arrow lakes is built first it would naturally have priority and would endanger the economics of the Mica creek project. What is even more important, it seems to me, is that the Mica creek diversion to the Fraser has become of great interest to electrical companies in Canada. The very fact that United States interests realize that we may use this surplus water in Canada gives them a different outlook when we are negotiating for downstream benefits.
Only yesterday I received a copy of the agreement between the Kaiser Aluminum company and the government of British Columbia. I cannot say that it is absolutely wrong that such an agreement should be drawn. I am not making that assertion. But certainly any 80-20 split is not what has been anticipated by those studying the project, and therefore in that regard alone it does not seem to be a satisfactory agreement even for 3 million acre feet under storage.
In searching through the agreement I am unable to find any reference whatsoever to any firm commitment between the Bonneville Power Corporation, which is the wholesaler of the power, and the Kaiser Aluminum company which has made an agreement with the province of British Columbia. That may be an oversight. I am not a lawyer, but I have drawn up an occasional agreement, and if I were responsible for drawing up a wage agreement I would certainly want it set out fairly clearly who was going to pay the wages or who has the responsibility of seeing to it that this block of power be retained in perpetuity? A company might well go bankrupt, and it seems to me that the word or seal of the United States government or one of its corporations would be essential to such an agreement.
The entire undertaking seems to undermine the far greater interests of the people in the Columbia basin. I have already pointed
International Rivers
out that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke was not too clear in his understanding of the topography of British Columbia. The hon. member made special reference to the application of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, I believe in 1938, to the international joint commission for permission to store six feet of water in Kootenay lake. Perhaps I should quote the hon. member's own words, but before doing so I would remind him I endeavoured to question him and put the record straight so this would not appear in Hansard. However, here it is as reported at page 978 of Hansard for February 8:
In this case "downstream", of course, is in Idaho in the United States of America.
I happen to live in the area where the Kootenay river leaves Canada, flows into Montana, through Idaho, back into Canada, and into Kootenay lake, where it is stored, and where the West Kootenay Power company have framed a great amount of power. The water flows into the lower Kootenay, where it is gathered in a series of dams, one providing power for the city of Nelson and I believe owned by that city, and the others being utilized by the West Kootenay Power company. Oddly enough, this water flows into the Kootenay river just about the spot where the Kaiser Aluminum corporation proposes to build a dam on the Columbia. From there it flows into the United States through Washington and of course into Bonneville project, the Grand Coulee dam.
The hon. member stated that this was comparable to the Kaiser deal. But this application to which I have referred was made by the West Kootenay Power company during the days of the depression, when there was an abundance of power in the United States. At that time there was no thought of downstream benefits. Perhaps I should add, without reflecting on the earlier chairman, that we did not then have General McNaughton representing Canadian interests on the international joint commission.
However, during those depression years there was no demand for storage in Canada and, as a matter of fact, the West Kootenay Power and Light Company were required to pay damages to people living in the Bonners Ferry area in Idaho because the development slightly increased the danger of flooding in that district. In addition, it was not for the purpose of providing a head of water in the United States but to provide extra power for the city of Nelson and the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, a Canadian corporation paying Canadian taxes and developing Canadian industry.

International Rivers
The hon. member also referred to the Skagit development. I am not too familiar with that development because it is farther along and several mountain ranges intervene. However, in the Skagit development the dam was being built in the United States along lines similar to the Libby dam project. The Seattle Power Corporation, or whichever United States company was implicated, was sufficiently provident to come on the Canadian side and buy up all the property that would be flooded. There was no crown land involved and no individual objection. The water was framed up for this corporation but it had little land value, and as I understand it there was no possible storage in Canada.
To say therefore that these developments are comparable is to demonstrate that the hon. member has no appreciation of the existing facts. I find it difficult to understand how he could have arrived at the conclusion that this was a measure to be used for political advantage.
It has also been claimed that this is an infringement on provincial rights. But I would like to know since when the present provincial government became so touchy about provincial rights. I have in my hand a brief prepared by Mr. Carl Goldenberg, Q.C., special counsel, and entitled "A Brief Submitted to the Government of Canada by the Government of British Columbia on Federal-Provincial Co-operation in Economic Development." It is signed by Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, Hon. Einar M. Gunderson, and Hon. R. Bonner, and throughout that brief they request financial assistance and co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. They plead for economic growth and development; they want assistance for highways, which is a provincial matter; they want assistance in the conservation of forest resources, and they want assistance in the conservation of water, which apparently up to now is entirely a provincial matter.
I am not going to quote at length from this brief but I have underlined numerous instances in which they ask for general cooperation between the federal and provincial governments on a political and financial basis.


Frederick George Hahn: On a fair share basis.


Mr. Low:: What do you mean by "on a political basis"?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: When I say on a political basis, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to co-operation between the two governments to which I have referred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should not allow the hon. member to answer a question of that kind, because it seems to me we are departing from the principle of this bill.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: As I have said, this is a request in every respect for co-operation. I have said before, Mr. Speaker, that there has been the very best co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government. In the survey that has been made the federal government has spent some $4 million. They have been a partner. That is what this brief requests, a "partnership in the development". We have been a partner. The federal officials have been a partner with the provincial authorities in making a survey to discover just how the Columbia basin may be used to the advantage of British Columbia and Canada.


Mr. Hansell:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is hard to understand how they can expect co-operation in other fields if this is the type of co-operation we are to get. After we have proceeded with our investigations to the point where we are in a position to say to our friends on the other side of the line: "Now we are prepared to sit down and talk; we think we have a reasonable case; we are prepared to use this water in Canada or we are prepared to give it to you on a reciprocal basis", the one partner in this Canadian provincial-dominion co-operation goes out and makes a backdoor agreement which puts in jeopardy the whole Columbia basin survey and its development for Canadian use.
As to provincial rights, while water resources ^re provincial responsibilities I think it is correct to say that if power is to be exported out of Canada, a permit must be obtained from the federal government. With regard to natural gas a permit must be obtained. Why should there be so much misunderstanding or why should the provincial government object so strongly-if they do; and it appears that they do, from the words of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.


Mr. Wylie:: They certainly do.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Why should they feel so strongly about this one particular phase of our development and control of natural resources? I do not think provincial rights should be stressed to such a point that a private company may come in and make a deal that, from my observation of the agreement and the entire summary of the position, is nothing short of pillage.
When the Social Credit government was in its youth in British Columbia the minister

of lands and forests was reported to have said that he was in a great international poker game with the United States in dealing with natural gas and water resources. It seems to me that the minister must have won several good hands, but he has here lost an extremely important jackpot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What do you know about it?


Solon Earl Low: Are you suggesting that they are going to lose?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: From time to time we hear Canadians referred to as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Is the next stage of our development to mean that Canadians will be simply hewers of wood and storers of water? I think the passing of this bill will assure that such will not be the case.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question but that the house is discussing an extremely important bill which contains an extremely important principle. It is one which should be considered and discussed quietly on a rational basis. I greatly regret that the first speaker for the Social Credit group had to spend his 40 minutes mainly in trying to attack this government on the ground that they were motivated by political bias in the introduction of this bill. Although I may at times think they might be so motivated, I do not think that is the situation at the present time.


Mr. Sinclair:: Very rarely.


Harold Edward Winch: I think we must take as a basis the fact that both governments are sincere in what they are doing or in the position which they are taking. One of them must be wrong. It is our responsibility to find out which one is right.
Although the bill is of a general nature, as has already been pointed out there cannot be any question but that it has been introduced at this time because of a particular situation in British Columbia. For a period of about two months before this house met it was obvious from reading the press that a major fight was developing between the government of British Columbia and the government here at Ottawa on this matter of the damming of the Columbia river approximately six miles from the city of Castlegar.
It is unfortunate the way this conflict developed in the press war. I think it was a little bit stupid or even arrogant on the part of the government of British Columbia that they should sign an agreement with the Kaiser corporation on September 17, 1954, 50433-65
International Rivers
the same day on which they notified General McNaughton that they had this purpose in view. I also think there is a certain amount of condemnation due the federal government in that, when they disagreed and thought it was wrong, they started a verbal war, maintaining that the British Columbia government was cockeyed, that they did not know what they were talking about, that it was an improvident agreement and so on.


James Sinclair: All true.


Harold Edward Winch: Even if those things were correct, I think we could have got further if the federal government had said to the British Columbia government: We cannot see eye to eye with you; how about coming down, talking this thing over and seeing what we can arrive at?


James Sinclair: But the deal was signed.


Harold Edward Winch: I know the deal was signed. But instead of carrying on a war and saying that when the house meets in January we are going to bring in legislation and you are not going to get away with this, why not call them in, have talks and see if you cannot work out an understanding, an agreement, an arrangement? However, that was something that did not happen.
We all knew the government was going to introduce legislation at this session. I think the reason this matter has been raised now, because of the development in British Columbia, is that for the first time in the history of our dominion a province has challenged what the federal government apparently took to be a right. Therefore they have found out that even under their existing legislation they need either clarification or additional power. Knowing that this matter was to be raised; knowing that I would get the viewpoint, the facts and the reasoning of the federal government as to why they brought in this legislation, I felt it was my duty as a member of the House of Commons from the province of British Columbia to go over to Victoria and point out to the government that, as a British Columbia M.P., when I arrived down here and heard the story of the federal government I should also have the facts and the point of view of the provincial government, and that if I did not get that information I would be placed in a most invidious position.
I went to see the premier of British Columbia and explained the situation. He said he would make an appointment for me with the minister of lands and forests. I had a long interview with Mr. Sommers, the minister of lands and forests, and I now feel I have the picture. I should like to outline it very

International Rivers
briefly, because it is important and because it definitely emphasizes the viewpoint of the provincial government, a different party from my own, which gives rise to what may be a constitutional problem.
As I have already stated British Columbia, for reasons best known to that government, signed an agreement with the Kaiser corporation on September 17, 1954. Under the terms of this agreement the corporation had to post $125,000 as a guarantee that they would proceed with all the test borings and so on. They were committed to spending not less than $100,000 before March 1 of this year, only some two and one-half weeks away. If, as a result of those borings, it was found feasible to establish a dam approximately six miles from Castlegar, then the corporation agreed to establish a Canadian corporation which would apply for a conditional water licence. If they got the conditional licence they would post an additional bond of $125,000. They would start construction of the dam on or before August 1, 1956 and would complete it by August 1, 1959.
By following through on this agreement the province of British Columbia would have built a dam financed by the Kaiser corporation at a cost somewhere between $25 million and $30 million. The province would receive 20 per cent of the power output delivered anywhere on the international border that the British Columbia government requested. The provincial government would receive annual taxes on the dam in the amount of approximately $275,000.
Now, at this point I asked the minister a question. May I say that I am not divulging any confidences; I went there officially as an M.P. from British Columbia, and in all the discussion I was told only once that something was in confidence. What I was told in confidence I cannot and will not disclose. There were no limitations placed on me concerning anything else I was told. One of the first questions I asked was the matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) a few moments ago. What is the relationship in this matter with the Bonneville power authority? The minister told me they had seen the agreement signed between the Kaiser corporation and the Bonneville power interests. Although there is no mention of that in the contract, such an agreement is in existence.
Having been told that this was the purpose of the original' agreement, I then stated that the government at Ottawa said the province would not be allowed to carry out this agreement. What was the position of the province? I want to convey to you the information I received because I think it is of interest and

of concern. The answer was, "We have a plan B, and if we cannot proceed with plan A because of the action of the federal government we will proceed with plan B." What is plan B? Plan B is that instead of the Kaiser corporation building the dam it will be built by the British Columbia power commission, which will borrow money under its government guarantee.
I cannot give you the exact amount, because the minister of lands and forests has mentioned three different figures in the last two months. He told me they would borrow at 3-75 per cent, but I noticed last week in his speech in the British Columbia legislature he said they would borrow at 4-2 per cent. If they borrow at 4-2 per cent, I believe they have an agreement with the Kaiser people that they will be paid back at the rate of 6-275 per cent. In other words, according to the minister of lands and forests, under plan B the provincial government would be making an additional gain because they would get the difference between 4-2 per cent and 6-275 per cent, at which rate they would be repaid by the Kaiser corporation. In addition, they would still get their 20 per cent of the power; they would still get their $275,000 in taxes, even although the dam would not be owned by Kaiser. Kaiser would make the province an annual grant of $275,000 as though the corporation owned it. In addition, the Kaiser people would make the provincial government a grant of somewhere between $250,000 and $350,000 annually to take care of the maintenance and improvements required on the dam owned by the British Columbia power commission.
That was plan B, which I understand they still intend to put into effect. This gave rise, sir, to the next question: If Ottawa passes an act to the effect that you have not the constitutional power, what are you going to do about it? The answer I received, and the answer I have read in the newspapers, is that the provincial government will challenge the authority of the federal government and will proceed with the dam.
On what basis is it maintained that the British Columbia government cannot be stopped? They say on this basis: How can the crown, in the right of the dominion, get a judgment or issue an injunction against the crown in the right of the province? Constitutionally and legally, how can you do it?


Mr. Knowles:: "Howe"-it is all in how you spell "how".


Harold Edward Winch: There is no "e" on that how. I am not a lawyer nor a constitutional authority, although I am very interested in that subject. I have been trying to find out just

how-without the "e"-the crown in the right of the dominion can sue the crown in the right of the province. I am told it is most difficult. I have not been able to run it down, but I was told by a very eminent judge in this dominion that there is a precedent in Canada. Although it is most difficult for the federal authorities to sue the provincial authorities, I am told it is possible to sue a cabinet minister, as an individual, for doing something illegally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page the Minister of Justice.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand there is a precedent for that in Canada.
Then that raised the next question. Suppose some method is found for getting an injunction against the provincial government. The provincial government says it is going to go ahead no matter what the dominion parliament says. How are you going to serve such an injunction? It will have to toe served by the sheriff. What is he going to do with it? Is he going to say the dominion government takes this position and you have to stop? I am afraid it would not work. Are you going to put the minister of lands and forests in jail?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are worrying about someone else's trouble.


Harold Edward Winch: You are not going to stop the gravel trucks from dumping gravel at the Kaiser dam. There are some very interesting and intriguing angles, not only interesting and intriguing but of the utmost importance. I believe this is something we have to try to settle reasonably and rationally. I do not believe it will be in the best interests of Canada if we have one government versus the other government, or one threatening to take the other into court and the provincial government saying, "Go ahead, take me to court; I will not obey it anyway." I believe that would give rise to a situation in Canada that we would all deplore. So, sir, no matter who is right, I do feel that to a great extent this matter boils down to the constitutional issue.
I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), speaking on this matter the other day, said this phase could and would be discussed when the bill was referred to the committee on external affairs. We were all very glad to hear that; but because of the importance of the issue I do feel that members in the House of Commons have a right to expect that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would give us some insight into the constitutional angle, and as to why this government maintains it is within its rights.
International Rivers
My reason for thinking that important is this. I am convinced that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not have introduced this bill if he had not received advice from the Attorney General and his legal advisers to the effect that he had power to do this. But when I attended the meeting in Victoria I asked the Social Credit premier and his minister of lands and forests this question. "Have you received legal advice?" He said, "We have had the best legal advice we can get. We have consulted our own attorney general's department, and they say we have the power to go ahead and do what we are doing, irrespective of what is said by Ottawa and the House of Commons". So we have one attorney general's department saying, "You have the power to go ahead" and another attorney general's department saying, "You have not the power to go ahead." Quite obviously there has to be a meeting of minds on this issue, because it is a prime issue and has to be settled.


James Sinclair: How long since the attorney general in British Columbia left law school?


Harold Edward Winch: I have not the faintest idea; but this I do know, that you cannot always judge ability by age. Whether he is accepted as a brilliant lawyer, constitutionally, I do not know. But I do know that the minister always obtains the advice of those who are under him, of men who are in the civil service because of their ability and their brains.


James Sinclair: Do you think they take the advice?


Harold Edward Winch: All I know is that in Victoria they have received legal advice, and I am not questioning their statement, nor do I question their integrity or sincerity. Neither do I challenge the sincerity, the integrity nor the ability of those who have advised this government in a different way. But surely it must be obvious that, two governments and two departments being at opposite poles, there must be a constitutional issue in some way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There must be Rhodes
scholars on both sides.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not a constitutional lawyer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is why we have the supreme court.


Harold Edward Winch: I was coming to that. If I had time I could make a pretty good speech proving the constitutional powers of the dominion.


James Sinclair: It would be the first good speech you had made in the house, then.

International Rivers


Harold Edward Winch: And I could make a pretty good speech on the opposite side of the picture as well. I heard what the minister said. I was not going to comment upon it, but the only time he does not think I make a good speech is when he does not like what I am saying but does not know how to disagree with it.
If we look at section 92 of the British North America Act we can have no doubt whatsoever that matters such as we are now discussing come within the jurisdiction of the dominion government. We find that subsection 10(c) is as follows:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are ot the following classes:
(a) Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
That is pretty clear. It states that the province does not have jurisdiction if the federal parliament declares a work inside a province to be for the general good of Canada or of two or more of the provinces. But, sir, I was most interested to note that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke the other day he made reference to the treaty of 1909, which has been quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). Although the hon. member quoted article 9 the Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted article 2. I may have misunderstood the minister, but I cannot interpret article 2 as giving exclusive power to the dominion government on international waters.


Solon Earl Low: That is what he said.


Harold Edward Winch: That was the way I heard it, but if I am wrong I stand to be corrected. The minister made specific reference to article 2 which states this, very definitely:
Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself, or to the several state governments on the one side and the dominion or provincial governments on the other-
And so on. I am not going to read all of it, but article 2 in the treaty of 1909, which is found in the statutes of 1911, does make reference to the provinces as well as to the dominion.
Now, British Columbia has been exercising powers in respect of international rivers for a good many years, under the authority of an act of the legislature. That authority is the water act of British Columbia, which has been on the statute books of the province since 1897. It was never yet been challenged, nor has there been any challenge of the authority exercised under it. To the best of

my knowledge British Columbia is now exercising a right it has always had, or that it has had since 1897.
But, sir, until now the federal government has never obstructed or objected to the use of that power. We are now discussing a general bill which, actually, has only one specific application at the moment, and that is to the Kaiser dam. It must be kept in mind, however, that the Columbia river takes in not only the Columbia river proper but takes in also all its tributaries and the lakes which go to make up the Columbia river basin. This takes in the Okanagan lakes, the Arrow lakes and the Kootenay lakes as well as numerous rivers and hundreds of creeks. And, sir, the Columbia river basin already has numerous dams, used not only for the purpose of generating power but for water storage and the water is stored not only for the benefit of British Columbia but for that of the United States. Objection has not been raised in the past; therefore I think it is understandable why confusion has now developed with the introduction of this bill, at a time when one more dam is going in.
I am trying only to give an outline of the picture as I see it. I believe a major constitutional issue is involved, or at least that the matter is in need of clarification. I am convinced we are not going to be able to settle the problem here or in Victoria. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has in mind, I do believe that it will have to be referred to the supreme court. It might be a good idea if that announcement were made now so we could have a finding and an authoritative decision as to the constitutional rights, the position of the province and the dominion, and the distribution of authority between those two legislative bodies. It is necessary, because there does need to be clarification of the terminology of the constitution itself.
Under the British North America Act the province has control of its own natural resources. It is thought by many-I think I can say by most-that water is a natural resource of the province, and as long as the province deals only with that water inside its own borders it is a matter for provincial jurisdiction. The water actually does not come up for export until it leaves the province. The water eventually has to leave the province. Is the province therefore interfering with the export of water because it is on a controlled basis?
Until now the government has not taken the position that it now desires to take. Until now, as I understand it, the federal

government has taken the position that where the export comes in is not on the natural resource of water but on the export of power produced by the water inside the provincial boundary. That is quite obvious if you recall that not so long ago the government at Ottawa raised no objection-at least it must have agreed-to the West Kootenay Power and Light installation at Waneta; but when after completion it was found that in southeastern British Columbia there was a 75,000 kilowatt surplus of power, the government stepped in and refused the right to export that power to the United States.
Is there a line of demarcation between the resource of water and the resource of electrical energy, or are they one and the same because water is the raw material of hydroelectric energy? Sir, I sincerely hope that I have not made confusion worse confounded. I have tried to raise some of the problems as I see them, and to give my honest interpretation of what is in the mind of the provincial government after my talk with the premier and the minister of lands and forests of that province.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am 100 per cent in support of the principle of the bill we are now discussing. I believe it is high time there was a greater understanding on the part of the federal government and a greater interest in the development of local resources for the national good; that there was a greater interest not only in the protection of our resources but also a greater interest in the development of our resources in the various provinces of Canada. It is because I am so much in support of what I am convinced is the purpose behind this bill that I would hate to see it bog down and the issue become even more confused. Because these present difficulties, problems and misunderstandings, perhaps, have not been cleared away I sincerely hope that we shall hear from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) before this bill leaves this house on second reading, so he can clarify a number of the problems and points I have brought up.
In conclusion may I say I feel that both governments have been wrong in carrying on a press warfare. I hope, and I think we will all agree, that in the future, instead of going after each other hammer and tongs we shall make an effort to get together and talk things over and see if provincially and nationally we cannot get together in the interests not only of our province, its industries and its resources, but the general good of the Dominion of Canada.
International Rivers


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to commend the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and also the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) on the approach which they have adopted in this dangerous situation. The remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East must have impressed even the most hotheaded among the bureaucrats in Ottawa that it is a good thing to be just a little cautious, and that you cannot override the provinces. Of course the Dominion of Canada, with all its might, could override the provinces, but in so doing it would destroy the Dominion of Canada, which is a very serious matter and should give pause for a great deal of thought.
I will just say this in leaving the hon. member for Vancouver East. He spoke just as I would expect him to speak, as a socialist, in favour of this bill. I, as a Social Crediter, will oppose the bill and the principle of the bill, because I believe that the hon. member for Vancouver East had just as much sense about how to govern British Columbia when he was in the British Columbia legislature as he has now when he is in the House of Commons at Ottawa. Consequently, he could have governed in British Columbia just as well as he can possibly do in Ottawa.
Why then take the power and authority away from the province, which will do the job well, and put it in the hands of the dominion which may or may not do the job well? That is the great point that has to be dealt with. I referred to that last night to some extent in my little discursions into Rhodes scholarships and the like.
The cause of Bill No. 3, which is before the house at the present time, would strongly appear to be the Castlegar dam project proposed by British Columbia. I desire to get away entirely from political considerations and try to shed light and not heat on the situation. It will be my endeavour in this speech to present to the house and to Canadians all across our country a readily understandable picture of the Castlegar dam, sometimes called the Kaiser dam project. What is the nature of it? What is the purpose of it? What are the motives behind the proposal of it?
Details in my remarks will be based upon the plan as outlined by Mr. R. E. Sommers, British Columbia minister of lands and forests and minister of mines in his radio address over radio station CBU Vancouver on November 29, 1954. By doing that, I shall be able to keep away from all these extraneous

International Rivers
things which the hon. member for Vancouver East injected into the discussion, thereby causing confusion. My object is to keep the issues clear.
The proposed Castlegar dam is to be located at the outlet of Arrow lakes, British Columbia. The general idea behind the project may be briefly stated thus: The British Columbia government, through the use of this dam, proposes to store 3 million acre feet of high water in the Columbia river and let that water down the Columbia into the United States in times of low water to help maintain production in certain United States hydroelectric plants, and to receive, as compensation, power to the value of some $840,000 per year for 50 years. In effect it means the saving of the 3 million acre feet of water normally running to waste, and selling that water to the United States people for at least $840,000 to help pay off British Columbia's heavy provincial debt.
The Arrow lakes constitute a hundred mile long enlargement of the gigantic Columbia river in the interior of British Columbia. At the outlet of the Arrow lakes is the town of Castlegar, located on the banks of the Columbia river near what are known as the Castlegar narrows. Past Castlegar there flows each year through these narrows down to the United States border, a distance of some 25 to 30 miles, a huge volume of Canadian water which is running to waste as far as Canada is concerned, a waste of water to Canada, a waste of hydroelectric power, too. If that water comes down in times of high water the United States cannot use it, and it is then a waste to the United States and to the whole North American continent. I hope that matter will be borne strictly in mind by all people dealing with this matter.
What can the British Columbia government do? What could any group of people in the house do? What could you do? What would you do? What can the British Columbia government do to salvage some of this waste water? Could that government build a dam at Castlegar or further down, generate electric power and use it in those parts of the province? The facts available to the British Columbia government seem to prove that the terrain at Castlegar is not stable enough to support a high crest dam. This seems to be a fact that most people who talk about this project too hastily do not know.
Can nothing be done about this waste? The British Columbia government think that something might be done. If a low-level dam could safely be built at Castlegar and it was high enough and strong enough, then the water in the Arrow lakes could be backed
up and the level raised high enough to store an estimated 3 million acre feet of water to be held there to be let run downriver in times of low water. If this can be done then perhaps that stored-up water which is running to waste now could be backed up to supply hydroelectric generating plants downriver in the United States at periods when they need that water in order to keep those plants running at the most profitable rate. The return to British Columbia for that water under this proposal is that the United States shall grant British Columbia payment in terms of power and not money.
The British Columbia government believes, and has believed, that the evidence available justifies them in exploring the possibility. I hope it is not unconstitutional to explore possibilities! In order to find the most satisfactory and economical way in which to get the necessary exploring done, they studied the matter for some time. Finally a United States company offered to undertake the job of exploring on what looked like rather attractive terms. This company is the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation.
This United States corporation, after lengthy negotiations with the British Columbia government-as all negotiations in connection with this project have been lengthy and careful; as careful as would have been the case with any dominion government group, notwithstanding the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) with all his wisdom- this Kaiser company after lengthy negotiations finally arrived at an agreement with the British Columbia provincial government.
The company finally agreed, first, to explore the physical and economic feasibility of building such a low-level dam at Castlegar narrows at the outlet of the Arrow lakes and second, in case the exploration satisfied both the province and the company as to the feasibility of the project, to construct at Castlegar a low-level dam. There are two distinct phases to the contract, two distinct kinds of jobs to be done: First, exploring, and second, constructing.
The corporation agreed to explore on the following terms-may I draw attention to the great care which the British Columbia government has exercised in that agreement. They got an agreement just as good as the Minister of Fisheries could get: First, the corporation would post a bond of $125,000. Second, they would proceed immediately with test borings, geological surveys, field engineering and other engineering work for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the project.

Third, they would spend not less than $100,000 before March 1, 1955-I understand there has been a change in that date because of circumstances over which no one had any control-or a proportionate amount of the $100,000 if the project were deemed unfeasible before March 1. Fourth, they would furnish to the province a certified statement containing a complete record of all expenditures. Fifth, they would forfeit the corporation's $125,000 bond if they failed to comply with all the provisions of the agreement. Even a Rhodes scholar could not do any better than that!
The agreement to explore was signed on September 17, 1954. Note that it is an agreement only to explore. All the silly outbursts that have been heard from various members of this government occurred after this agreement to explore, not construct, had been signed. I do not recall in the history of Canada such recklessness in pronouncements by ministers of the crown. The British Columbia government did not go so far as has been contended in signing that agreement on September 17.
The corporation, if it were judged feasible by both principals, agreed to construct the Castlegar dam on the following terms: First, the corporation would incorporate a Canadian company under the laws of British Columbia. Second, it would obligate its Canadian company to make application for a licence under the provisions of the water act, to which reference has already been made today, it being recognized that such licence if granted would permit construction of the works. Third, it would at the time of the application recognize entitlement to be heard to all those whose rights would be affected and to anyone representing public interests. Fourth, in case the licence is granted to and accepted by the Canadian company, then the Canadian company or the corporation will be committed to deposit forthwith a further sum of $125,000 as a performance bond. There is caution. There is nothing there to get awfully excited about, to call it cockeyed and that kind of thing. Fifth, it would commence the construction of the Castlegar dam on or before August 1, 1956; sixth, complete the dam on or before August 1, 1959. An orderly development all the way through! No minister of fisheries nor any other person in this parliament could do any better.
The province of British Columbia agreed that when the storage dam is completed, under the provisions of the water act they will issue a final licence to the company covering a term of 50 years. See how carefully everything has been done. There is provision for renewal of such term for such
International Rivers
period and subject to such conditions as the province and the company may agree upon. A person would think that the government out there had bartered away half of British Columbia to hear some of these reckless people talk.
These conditions would also be included in any conditional licence issued. You will notice that there is no loophole anywhere. In return for these rights the company agrees: First, to deliver to the province energy to the amount of 20 per cent of the kilowatt hours which could be generated at downstream plants of the federal government of the United States from the net storage waters created by the storage dam. That is specific, is it not? This 20 per cent is calculated to be some 42,000 kilowatt hours annually.
Second, the company agrees to deliver to the province of British Columbia 20 per cent of all energy that might from the net storage of water rendered possible by the dam be generated in such additional dams with generating facilities as may be constructed downstream, the marketing agency for the energy generated by which is the Bonneville power administration. As has been brought out this afternoon that agreement is absolutely ironclad. The figure of 20 per cent is not final, but it demonstrates how carefully everything was planned in British Columbia. The government is free to negotiate further before agreeing to a final figure. Everything has been done to protect the interests of the people of British Columbia.
There are indications that further benefits might accrue to British Columbia beyond the
42,000	kilowatts. There is a strong possibility that British Columbia might obtain a 60 to 70 per cent load factor on the 42,000 kilowatts delivered, in any agreed period. Based upon the 70 per cent load factor this would give British Columbia an additional 18,000 kilowatts.
What are the financial advantages to British Columbia? First there is the value of the kilowatts. We have 42,000 kilowatts at $20 per kilowatt-which is a conservative figure-which would amount to $840,000. Second, there are the taxes on the dam which are estimated to amount to $275,000 a year. That would provide a clear profit annually of at least $1 million for the province of British Columbia.
This is the kind of management that enables a Social Credit government to get out of debt! It is reported that the federal government-and I emphasize this is a report -has advanced a proposal known as a 50-50 agreement between the province and the Kaiser corporation. The minister is here and he can correct me if I make any mistakes.

International Rivers
I am not sure I have all the facts here, but I have made some progress since I started a week ago. To return to this reported arrangement, I believe any such 50-50 arrangement with the province of British Columbia would mean that the province or the storer would have to build and maintain the dam, a fact which not so very many people recognize. The Kaiser corporation would pay the province compensation for the stored water, and that compensation would amount to 50 per cent of the power generated with that water.


Mr. Lesage:: What if the Kaiser corporation obtains no power at all?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it is just like a farmer planting his crop. He may not get a crop this year. There have been such things as crop failures.


Jean Lesage: That is not an answer.


John Horne Blackmore: There must be give and take. If nothing is done with this water it will continue to pour down there for the next 100 years as far as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) is concerned, and without any advantage to the people. But I would rather people would ask me questions when I have completed my remarks. I wish to put all these facts where they can be readily available, and if there is anything wrong I am quite prepared to answer questions afterward.
Now, what would the federal government's proposal result in? In this case the British Columbia government would first of all have to build the dam. That would cost $30 million at an interest of 5J per cent, which would amount to $1,650,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no wish to interrupt the hon. member, but he is suggesting I said that power should be divided 50-50 between the province of British Columbia and the Kaiser corporation. I wish to assure him that I said nothing of the kind. I cannot think of a more improvident arrangement. The hon. member is therefore dealing with a suggestion which certainly did not come from me.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate the minister's intervention, and I am anxious to obtain all the information I can get. This is a very serious question, and I have no desire to make any mistakes. I do not want to have the same ghastly record as that built up by some members of the cabinet over the past three months. However, I have already pointed out that it had been reported that the federal government has advanced this proposition, and I am dealing with this proposition. If there is no such proposal then my remarks are naturally cancelled out.

Now, I will just repeat what I have said so everyone will get it straight. In the case of the 50-50 proposition, as I understand it, British Columbia would pay $30 million for building the dam. That money at interest of 5J per cent would cost $1,650,000 a year. Operation and maintenance of the dam would cost $350,000 a year. The annual cost to the province at that rate would be $2 million a year, going on and on. This would be a demonstration of how governments, other than Social Credit governments, get into debt.
On the basis that 20 per cent of the power generated would be 42,000 kilowatts, the province receiving 50 per cent of the power generated would get 105,000 kilowatts per year. At $20 per kilowatt this would give
105,000	x $20 or $2,100,000 annually; but the annual cost to the province would be $2 million. Thus the net financial return to the province would be only $100,000. But if the Kaiser corporation built the dam the province would have collected $275,000 as taxes. Such taxes would be lost if the province owned the dam. Thus by using the 50-50 device reported proposed by Ottawa the province would sustain a net loss of $175,000 per year, and at the end of 50 years would still be in debt for the $30 million estimated capital cost of the dam.
It will therefore be seen that there is no need to bring in control from Ottawa in order to have good management of the province's affairs.
Some important questions have arisen out of the controversy which has taken place on this question. The first is, will this Castlegar or Kaiser low-level dam upset the present economy of Arrow lakes? British Columbia's official answer to this is:
Water will be stored only at such heights as will not damage existing communities, farm areas, and land transportation.
This argument has been advanced by many people, though I am not going to refer to any individual in particular. I am trying to keep names out of this except, of course, for that of the Minister of Fisheries and I am quite happy to mention him because I understand he is a Rhodes scholar.
The second question is, will the application of the principle involved in this Kaiser dam project tend to establish a vested interest in the United States? It is recognized that the dominion government always has to be careful to see to it that a vested interest is not established in the United States because of possible complications in the future. But is there that danger of establishing a vested interest with regard to water or power in this instance? The answer is no. The water

concerned is already running into the United States and going to waste. How can we establish a vested interest when the U.S. already are getting all the water?
Power is not going to be exported. The hon. member for Vancouver East, although he displayed a fine knowledge of the matter, still seemed to have the idea that power was going to be generated in British Columbia and exported to the United States. Such is not the case. The water is to be allowed to go downriver and the power is to be generated in the United States and probably sold there, because there is little likelihood of it being sold in British Columbia for the simple reason that British Columbia could not at the present time absorb that power in that particular area. There is no chance of establishing a vested interest with respect to water and power which could be of any real danger.
Furthermore the entire agreement will be terminated at the end of 50 years, at which time the province will be completely free to renegotiate; and that again obviates the possibility of there being any vested interest. I hope that at the end of this period the province of British Columbia will be still running its own affairs and will be guided by men just as wise as those who are guiding its policies today.
The third problem is, should British Columbia develop the Kaiser corporation project of storing water in the Arrow lakes before certain other projects for producing power in that particular area of British Columbia? For example, such projects as Waneta dam No. 1 and Waneta dam No. 2, Murphy creek, and Mica creek. There is much talk about the advisability of developing one or other of those projects. Let us examine them. The answer is no in each case. Waneta No. 1, capable of greatly increased power production, has not been further developed because there is not in that area enough market for power to justify the expansion of the plant or of its production. That just punctures some balloons of imagination quite thoroughly.
Waneta No. 2 cannot possibly be developed until after Waneta No. 1 attains full development. That spoils the fun again for a lot of the boys, does it not? As to Murphy creek: from the hydro engineers' standpoint, Murphy creek should be developed only after Waneta 1 and Waneta 2 have been developed to full realization of their potential, and their resultant power shall have been purchased in British Columbia. It cannot be purchased outside because the dominion government prohibits the export of electricity. Just look at the corner that puts a lot of the wise boys at Ottawa in!
International Rivers
At the present time there is already in that area of British Columbia-as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said-a surplus of 75,000 kilowatts that cannot as yet be marketed. Then how could you conceivably develop Waneta No. 2 or Waneta No. 1 with that surplus of power already in the general district? The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) points out that the wise boys here are allowing that 75,000 kilowatts to go to waste.


Mr. Martin:: The hon. member for Peace River seems to be a little bit doubtful as the hon. member speaks.


Solon Earl Low: No, not at all.


John Horne Blackmore: No. The hon. member for Peace River was a member of that cleareyed, bright brained group of young men that put Alberta on a paying basis.


Mr. Herridge:: Will the hon. member for Lethbridge permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; if it is not too long.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will he tell the house where Waneta No. 1 is located and Waneta No. 2?


John Horne Blackmore: That is not a question at all. The power that would come from them would probably be sold in the central area of British Columbia, as I understand it. I would prefer not to have questions asked now. May I ask that at the end of my talk questions be asked and I will deal with them then. If I cannot do so, there are some British Columbia men here who can.
Other reasons for deferring the development of the Murphy creek dam are as follows. First, a high crest dam which would be required to generate the electricity at Murphy creek would create a reservoir that would reduce the generating capacity of the present dam at Brilliant.


Mr. Fulton:: This is out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: No; it is not out of order. Do not let Rhodes scholars try to stop me in that way. These are matters that are pertinent to this thing. Very well. As I was saying, a high crest dam at Murphy creek would create a reservoir that would reduce the generating capacity of the present dam at Brilliant. That is an important matter. Second, such a Murphy creek dam would adversely affect existing settlements at the junction of the Columbia and Kootenay rivers. Third, such a Murphy creek dam would disrupt present transportation and communication in that section of the Kootenays which links Trail with Nelson.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member tell us which paths of communication it would obstruct?

International Rivers


John Horne Blackmore: Ask me questions at the end of my speech.
Fourth, such a Murphy creek dam would create a reservoir that would distress the presently expanding settlements and industries in the vicinity of Castlegar. Those are enough considerations to make a person a little bit hesitant about advocating the Murphy creek dam too energetically.
It is agreed by British Columbia authorities that the Murphy creek project is one that ought to be constructed when market conditions in British Columbia warrant it and not until then, but that at present Murphy creek dam should be deferred. When and if the Murphy creek dam is built it is suggested that a low crest Murphy creek dam be used with upstream storage in Arrow lakes and at other points on the Columbia to provide regular flow. Such a low crest or perhaps medium crest elevation dam would avoid flooding out a portion of the head at Brilliant, and would avoid, in considerable measure, adversely affecting existing settlements at the junction of the Kootenay and the Columbia; it would avoid disrupting transportation, etc., between Trail and Nelson; and it would avoid distressing areas in the vicinity of Castlegar. So it sounds a little bit more attractive perhaps as a practical proposition to be deferred and probably built at a later time.
As to the gigantic Mica creek hydro power development, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) the other day said the brilliant men who were at that meeting-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They know more about it than you do.


John Horne Blackmore: We will see how much they know. If they do not know more than the C.C.F. do, I am not much concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Tell us what communications between Trail and Castlegar will be interrupted.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: The British Columbia official statement says this. I presume it was prepared by the very best engineers that can be obtained out in that country. The statement says:
It appears that it will take several years yet until the problems associated with Mica creek and other upstream regulations have been analysed thoroughly.
It sounds just exactly reasonable. Meanwhile if we wait until the Mica creek dam is built or until the time comes to develop it, that 3 million acre feet of water is running away and going down the drain with the complete approval of many of the wise men in the country.

Will the development of the Castlegar dam project mar the feasibility of other projects presently in operation, presently under construction or presently being contemplated? Will it tend in any way to interfere with the ultimate over-all maximum potentiality of the development of the Columbia river system in its entirety relative to, first, power production and employment and, second, water conservation and use?
Hon. Robert Sommers said in his radio broadcast on November 29, 1954:
There are those who say the Castlegar proposal will endanger the over-all power plan for the development of the Columbia river. Nothing could be further from the truth.
No doubt he had behind him the very best engineering skill in British Columbia, and that is fairly good.
In an official statement given out on the matter of the proposed low dam by the British Columbia government appear these words:
Storage on lower Arrow lake, on the other hand, guarantees a high and steady revenue for the next fifty years, without prejudice to major development that lies ahead for that part of the Columbia river upstream in Canadian territory.
Has the British Columbia government proceeded with appropriate care in connection with this Castlegar project? Yes. General A. G. L. McNaughton some time ago made a suggestion. This is something that some of the people will want to know. It will be good for their souls to hear it. General A. G. L. McNaughton some time ago suggested that the British Columbia Social Credit government set up a Columbia river basin development advisory committee to review the Castlegar dam project in relation to the development of the Columbia river in its other hydro power development phases. The present British Columbia government accepted that suggestion. General McNaughton made definite recommendations as to personnel. Again his recommendations were accepted. That shows that these Social Crediters out there are quite ready to listen to reason as long as it is reason.
The committee was set up in 1953. Its members are: Hon. R. E. Sommers; Hon. W. K. Kieman; Hon. W. D. Black; Hon. T. H. Crosby-all members of the British Columbia cabinet-Mr. R. G. Anderson, vice-president, West Kootenay Power and Light Company- and he ought to know something about it-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He is against the project.


John Horne Blackmore: Just a minute. I would ask the hon. member to control himself. I think I have talked just about as fast as I can. If you just give me a little bit more time I will cover the whole thing. The other members were Mr. T. Ingledow, vice-president

of the British Columbia Electric Company Limited, and Mr. Gordon J. A. Kidd, project engineer, department of lands, secretary. That sounds like a fairly sensible selection, does it not? It is also General McNaughton's suggestion.
Was the Castlegar dam approved by the committee? That is the next thing. Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With Mr. Anderson objecting.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. I will give that if the hon. member will control himself. If he will just hold on to himself for a minute I will come to it. I cannot say everything at once. I am sure that if the hon. member allows me to say it, the situation will be clearer than the way it is now. Was it approved by the committee? Yes; on November 26, 1954. The only member voting against the motion to endorse the agreement was Mr. R. G. Anderson, vice-president of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With the majority present cabinet ministers.


John Horne Blackmore: All those details can be ironed out. But the information I am giving here is information which was given in the throne speech made by Hon. Robert Sommers. I take it to be absolutely accurate. Until it is proved to be inaccurate, I will accept his word ahead of that of any man in this house.
Is there any particular urgency about proceeding with the Castlegar project as soon as practicable? Yes. First, the states just across the border greatly need power right now, not when the Mica creek dam or the Murphy creek dam or any other dam can be constructed. Secondly, if they do not get such power from British Columbia now they will take steps to obtain power elsewhere. If British Columbia refuses to help them when such help can be so easily afforded, that fact will be considered by them as somewhat less than a good neighbourly gesture. Fourth, British Columbia greatly needs the $1 million a year to reduce further her public debt.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Peanuts.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a socialist talking again.
How can Bill No. 3 be justified? First, British Columbia, as a sovereign province of Canada,' owns her natural resources and must continue to own them, otherwise she cannot possibly carry on as a province. Only 3 per cent of the land in British Columbia is arable.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is why we should not flood it.
International Rivers


John Horne Blackmore: It is not easy to run a province under such conditions as those. Provincial expenses are heavy. Think of the heavy costs British Columbia has incurred in building her roads. She particularly needs the resources she does have, and one of these is water. The present government of British Columbia has made good progress in administering the affairs of the province, paying off $50 million of the over $191 million of debt which existed on February 14, 1952.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Left in the pot by a Liberal government.


John Horne Blackmore: British Columbia has
always been keenly alert to the need for the wisest possible development of her water resources, and I presume she will continue to be if she is left to go on and do the work the way she wants to do it.
The federal government has introduced Bill No. 3 on the plea that it wants to see the Columbia river developed in an orderly manner.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right.


John Horne Blackmore: The implication is that the province could not do it. How foolish some of these centralizers can be! The federal government says that under article 2 of the boundary waters treaty of 1909, the federal government has complete control over the Columbia river, since it is a river that rises in Canada and flows across the border into the United States. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) just exploded that theory by reading into the record a statement from the international boundary waters treaty.
The introductory speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) misinterprets article 2 of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. It misrepresents that article, it misapplies that article. That is more than serious for a man in the position this man occupies.
For the introduction of Bill No. 3, the federal government can find no possible justification constitutionally, legally, economically, morally or ethically. I suggest that the only genuinely becoming thing for the minister to do is to withdraw Bill No. 3, and to apologize to British Columbia and the other provinces. Then, he should arrange to meet the British Columbia government in some city in British Columbia and enter into a most thoroughgoing negotiation to determine in what ways the federal government can most acceptably and efficiently co-operate with British Columbia in working for the most advantageous development of the Columbia river. We are not asking for anything more than was accorded Mr. Duplessis within the last six months.

International Rivers


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is not what the people of Kootenay think.


John Horne Blackmore: I am making this speech, and the least the hon. member can do is to listen to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We believe in democracy.


John Horne Blackmore: You do not sound like it. Any group of people that stands up here and says that the control of the resources of British Columbia should reside in Ottawa does not believe in democracy for British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We did not claim that.


John Horne Blackmore: Everything that has been said thus far indicates that rather strongly.


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


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Lesage: I had not
intended, Mr. Speaker, to deal at length with the contentious discussion that has been going on about the building of the proposed dam near Castlegar in British Columbia. However, I might mention that I have already given the reasons why I am of the opinion that the building of that dam at this time would not be good business for British Columbia or for Canada as a whole.
On January 4 last I addressed a letter to Mr. Crowder, the secretary-treasury of the Trail chamber of commerce, in which I detailed the reasons for my opinion. I do not have to repeat those reasons this afternoon because, on Friday night last, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) mentioned them in this house. The reasons I gave at that time were based on the radio speech made by the minister of lands and forests of British Columbia, just as the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was based o'" that radio talk. I agree that the letter to Mr. Crowder contains a few things that are not exactly accurate because, as I say, at that time I did not have the opportunity to take cognizance of the agreement between the Kaiser company and the British Columbia government signed on September 17, 1954, a copy of which I have with me now.
Apart from a very few minor amendments which do not affect the substance of that letter, I may say that the letter stands as it is and that the reasons given in that letter for my opposition stand today. I am not going back to them. The only thing I want to say

on that subject now is that I was rather surprised that a man of vision like the hon. member for Lethbridge-


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker; would the minister care to table the letter so we can have a copy of it?


Jean Lesage: I have no objection to tabling a copy of the letter. If there is unanimous consent I shall table it tomorrow. I am in the hands of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not understand the request of the hon. member.


Frederick George Hahn: I referred to the letter mentioned by the minister with respect to the Kaiser people; the Crowder letter.


Jean Lesage: I shall send the hon. member a copy.
As I was saying, I had always thought of the hon. member for Lethbridge as a man of vision, but this afternoon it seemed to me when he was speaking about huge surpluses of power in British Columbia at this time he was forgetting what had happened in other provinces of Canada. Not so many years ago some people in authority in Ontario were claiming the right to export power to the United States. They based their demand on the fact that there was a huge surplus of power in their province, a surplus which would exist for generations. The hon. member' for Lethbridge was making the same plea this afternoon. Only 20 years later-


John Horne Blackmore: On a question of privilege, I would like to mention that I said 75,000 which, I understand, is not a very large amount; and yet it is enough to spoil the market.


Jean Lesage: Seventy-five thousand what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Kilowatts.


Jean Lesage: Well, I believe it is exactly the same situation. Today Ontario is in a position where her last source of power is the St. Lawrence seaway development; and after that there is nothing else. And when we think how young our country is it will be realized that I am using the right expression when I say that a deal like the Kaiser one is equivalent to selling down the river or giving down the river the possibilities of power development in this country at this time. Future generations, or even ourselves, would regret it-and in a very few years' time.
There is no doubt that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) advocates the export of our natural resources because when he gave the reasons for the building

of the Castlegar dam at this time, the first reason he mentioned was that it would provide electricity which is badly needed-badly needed not in Canada but in the United States. That was the first reason he gave.
I do not believe that the needs of the United States should be our criterion when we decide what we are going to do with our natural resources. Of course the hon. member for Lethbridge said in his speech that he was basing his talk on the radio speech of Mr. Sommers to the effect that British Columbia would get 20 per cent of the additional power that would be generated downstream in the United States by the storage of the water, and also 20 per cent of the additional power which would be generated by any future installations.
Well, I have now in my hand the text of the agreement entered into by the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and the government of British Columbia on September 17, 1954.


Mr. Pearkes:: Would the minister table that document, please? All of us do not have it.


Jean Lesage: I have no objection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is historic.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile): Is
the hon. member asking that the document be tabled, or that it be printed as an appendix to the minister's speech?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tabled.


George Randolph Pearkes: It would be better as an appendix to Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think we would be warranted in publishing it as an appendix to Hansard, but I do not see any reason why it could not be tabled. Perhaps at the proper time it could be laid on the table.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the objection to having it as an appendix?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: The
document will be tabled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister could read it all, and then it would be on Hansard.


Jean Lesage: I might say that I am also going to table the second agreement dated January 14, 1955, amending the first one, and between the same parties. I shall table both documents after I have finished speaking this afternoon.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is another one since then.


Jean Lesage: I have the original agreement of September 17, with its annexes, and the amendment of January 14, 1955. That is all
International Rivers
I have in hand at the moment. I understand these documents were tabled in the provincial legislature by Mr. Sommers two weeks ago tomorrow.
The sections I want to quote, and which I believe are the important ones, are as follows:
8.	Her Majesty in the right of the province of British Columbia agrees that upon completion by the Canadian company-[DOT]
And the Canadian company is the Canadian company to be formed by the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation.
-of the storage dam hereinbefore referred to, Her Majesty will cause to be issued to the Canadian company a final licence under the provisions of the Water Act upon terms conforming to this agreement for a term of 50 years with provision for renewal of such term for such period and subject to such conditions as Her Majesty and the Canadian company may agree upon.
9.	The licence issued pursuant to paragraph 8-
Which I have just read.
-shall provide that, commencing September 1, following completion of the project to operating condition as determined under sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 7, and in lieu of any other fees, rental or charges under the Water Act the Canadian company will cause to be delivered, without charge to Her Majesty or to Her Majesty's nominee, at a point or points on the system of the Bonneville Power Administration at the boundary between Canada and the United States of America electrical energy equal to 20 per cent of the kilowatt hours which could be generated at downstream plants of the federal government of the United States from the net storage created by the dam; the amount of net storage and the quantity of firm power to be delivered shall be determined as set forth in the schedule attached as schedule 2.
Which I shall also table.
In the event additional dams with generating facilities for which the Bonneville Power Administration is the marketing agent are constructed downstream, electrical energy equal to 20 per cent of the kilowatt hours which could be generated by such additional facilities from the net storage created by the dam will be delivered on the conditions stated above, but not more than an amount equal to 50 per cent of such portion of the kilowatt hours which could be generated by additional facilities from the net storage created by the dam as Bonneville agrees-
I repeat "as Bonneville agrees."
-to make available for the combined use of the company and Her Majesty.
And, Mr. Speaker, the Bonneville authority, which is a United States federal agency, is not even a party to this agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is the point.


Jean Lesage: It is not even a party to this deal. Here the Kaiser company guarantees to the British Columbia government that the British Columbia government will get 20 per cent of the additional power generated by storage, but it will get it from the Bonneville power authority, which is a federal agency, and that federal agency is not a

International Rivers
party to the deal. And moreover there is no agreement referred to here between Bonneville and Kaiser.
What is the guarantee? Where is the guarantee? Where do we go? The whole thing is up in the air. I never saw anything so childish; there is no guarantee at all. And, moreover, supposing Bonneville decides to provide 10 per cent of the power to Kaiser, the only amount Kaiser is obligated to supply is 50 per cent of that 10 per cent, which is 5 per cent.
Moreover this 20 per cent, which is supposed to come from Bonneville, would be an export of power from the United States to Canada. What would happen if the federal power commission refused a licence to export that 20 per cent from the United States to Canada? Where does the British Columbia government stand on that deal? Nowhere. The only guarantee it has is a guarantee of moneys. It is selling down the river, for peanuts, the most valuable resource of British Columbia, which is water power. And, Mr. Speaker, the "peanuts" are not even guaranteed. Now I will quote the rest of article 9:
In the event that the Canadian company is unable by reason of any law or by reason of any order or decree of any administrative body or official having jurisdiction in the premises, to deliver the power to Her Majesty, then during such period the Canadian company shall pay to Her Majesty monthly in lieu of the delivery of such power an amount equal to the value of the power not delivered in such month; the value of such power shall be determined at the current rate then charged by Bonneville Power Administration for similar service.
Therefore, really it is a case where the return of power is far from being guaranteed, and what we might expect is a small payment in money.
And, Mr. Speaker, as for additional energy that may be created by additional generating facilities which would be built by other companies or agencies than Bonneville, or any other federal agency, here is the wording:
Let me quote article 10:
In the event that additional dams or generating facilities are built by the federal government of the United States for which the Bonneville Power Administration is not the marketing agent, or in the event other dams or generating facilities are constructed by non-federal government agencies downstream, the Canadian company will endeavour to obtain as nearly the same conditions as obtained from the Bonneville Power Administration as possible.
That is all the guarantee: the Kaiser company will do its best. There is no guarantee at all for the British Columbia government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How do you like my definition?


Jean Lesage: I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I did not intend to go into the

details of this deal, which is not a deal but is a "fire sale", as we say in French.


James Sinclair: A robbery.


Jean Lesage: A steal, or a selling-out. After listening to the hon. member for Lethbridge this afternoon, who read a statement by the government of British Columbia, or the party who is at the head of the government of British Columbia, I could not help but say what I had in mind. I still believe, however, that this whole question, as was suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, could be more properly and easily dealt with in the committee, where we shall have all the experts to explain all the reasons why this is a bad deal.
Other questions have been raised. The constitutional question with respect to this bill has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke and this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry to interrupt. I wonder whether the minister would read the final sentence of article 10 which he has been quoting. I think it has some bearing on what he has already read.


Jean Lesage: Yes.
The amount of power to be supplied to Her Majesty in such cases will be worked out on a basis consistent with paragraph 9.
As much as possible.


George Randolph Pearkes: It does not say "as much as possible".


Jean Lesage: "Will endeavour to obtain", and it would be on the same basis as paragraph 9, so certainly it would not go any farther, but it might be very much less or even nothing, if the endeavours are not successful.


Mr. Green:: May I ask a question? Are the contracts to which the minister just referred made between the British Columbia government and the Kaiser corporation in the United States, or merely a Canadian subsidiary of the Kaiser corporation?


Jean Lesage: It is between the British Columbia government and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. They state later that whenever they refer to the Canadian company it is the Canadian company that the Kaiser Aluminum undertakes to incorporate in Canada.
I should like to say a few words about the constitutional angle. I will not deal with it exhaustively but I might, in the few moments that are left to me, say a few words about it.

Again I think that the detailed exposition of the legal and constitutional questions could be more satisfactorily dealt with when specific clauses of the bill are studied in committee. But I believe it is desirable to deal with a few general points, since a number of remarks relating to the constitutional position have been made this afternoon. The hon. member for Vancouver East dealt with the question to a certain extent, and I shall come back to what he said.
Last Friday night the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke referred to the bill as an "invasion of provincial rights" and this afternoon the hon. member for Lethbridge spoke in the same terms. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said, at page 875 of Hansard:
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.
I agree entirely that consideration in committee will help clarify the position, but this is an important aspect of the question and it might be useful if I made a few remarks about the constitutional question at this time.
I believe it is generally recognized, sir, that water and all its uses are of tremendous importance in a country. One of its important uses is for the production of hydroelectric power. That is the most obvious use. I might mention the shortage of good and cheap sources of waterpower in Canada. I might mention its enormous value in industrial growth wherever it is available. I might mention also, in spite of what the hon. member for Lethbridge said this afternoon, the constantly increasing requirements, both in Canada and in the United States, for water power. Because of such importance, it is obvious that any water in a river that crosses an international boundary may be of great interest to countries on both sides of the boundary. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night when he spoke on the question.
The boundary waters treaty of 1909 dealt with certain aspects of waters of an international character. It dealt mainly, though, with boundary water. It also dealt with anything that could affect the level of a river where it crosses a boundary. That is article 4 of the treaty. It also deals with the possibilities of damage to downstream interests in another country. That is article 2. In short, I believe the fact that water crossing a boundary may be of interest on both sides of the boundary has been recognized for over 40 years under that treaty.
International Rivers
The boundary waters treaty did not deal with matters relating to the division of jurisdiction in Canada as between provincial and federal governments. I hope this will satisfy the hon. member for Lethbridge. The fact that it was based on the recognition of the broad national and international importance, not only of boundary waters but of waters crossing a boundary, seems to me to be relevant in considering any argument that the waters in such rivers are purely a matter of provincial concern.
It is perfectly clear that an action that affects the flow of water downstream in another country cannot possibly be a matter of purely provincial jurisdiction. When it affects the waters on the other side of the boundary, how can it be solely a matter of provincial jurisdiction? It is surely a matter of international importance and it is clearly a matter of national concern since it has consequences, as I said, not only inside the country, but outside the country.
I come now to the bill itself, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to draw the attention of the house to an important point that could cause misunderstanding and which has caused misunderstanding. I realize it is really a case of misunderstanding after listening to the hon. member for Lethbridge. I believe that misunderstanding may have been created by the short title of the bill which is "International Rivers Act". It might give the implication that the legislation applies to all aspects of international rivers. That might be the reason why the hon. member for Lethbridge asked this afternoon if the federal government was going to have jurisdiction over all our international rivers. That is not what this bill is for. Perhaps I had better read the bill slowly so that hon. members may understand it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You would be out of order.


Jean Lesage: Then I will not do it. The hon. member for Lethbridge said that this bill asserts general jurisdiction with regard to rivers as such and covers all works on any international river. An examination of the bill-I shall not read it-will make clear that that is not the case. The bill does not confer jurisdiction with regard to any and all works on any and all international rivers. It covers only a certain limited type of work on such rivers.
It covers works that do both of two things; first, that increase, decrease or alter the natural flow of an international river, and- note that the word is "and" not "or"-second, interfere with, alter or affect the actual or potential use of the international rivers outside Canada. In short, the bill does not deal

International Rivers
with international rivers as such; it does not deal with all works, it deals only with works that alter the flow of the river and also affect the use of the river outside of Canada. Those are two conditions which have to be in existence in order that we have jurisdiction under Bill No. 3.
If a work does not have consequences outside of Canada it is not covered by the bill. The Saint John river was mentioned the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). Let us suppose that a dam were to be built at Beechwood, New Brunswick, to produce power: that dam would not be covered by the bill because it would not affect the use of the river outside of Canada. Consequences of the works outside of Canada are essential before any work becomes subject to the bill.
It seems to me that works of a character referred to in the bill are obviously of national importance and interest. The British North America Act recognizes that there can be works of such character and it makes specific provision for them. I should like to refer to section 92 which was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
Section 92 (10) assigns local works and undertakings to provincial jurisdiction. It reads:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
c. Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
What has been done in this present bill has been to apply the provisions of section 92 (10) (c) to the category of works which are clearly for the general advantage of Canada. Such declaration is contained in the legislation, I think it is clear that there can be no doubt as to the constitutional validity of the bill. What it does is to apply the specific provisions of the British North America Act to the category of work that by definition must have consequences that are of national concern.
While the constitutional position is thus unassailable, to my mind it can be argued that the works involved have important effects outside of Canada and thus they cannot be said to be of a local character.
To my mind it can be argued that the works involved in the legislation and the purpose toward which the legislation is directed are by their very nature outside of provincial jurisdiction. Not only are they under federal jurisdiction because section
[Mr. Lesage.l
92 (10) (c) is applied to this bill, I will go as far as to say that because of their character and purpose the works provided for under the bill are not of a provincial character. The works involved in the legislation and the purposes toward which the legislation is directed are by their very nature outside of provincial jurisdiction and within federal jurisdiction.
As to the works, I have pointed out already that they must have consequences outside of Canada; not just outside the province, but outside of Canada. As I said, such works cannot by definition be local works and undertakings. They cannot possibly be deemed to fall within the limits of property and civil rights in a province, because they affect property and civil rights, not only outside a province but outside of Canada. In short, I believe that the works covered by the bill are not things that are local or provincial in character.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister goes on to his next point may I ask him whether it is considered that the dam at Mica creek, a work upon the Columbia river, would come under the terms of this bill? As the minister knows, that dam will be a main source of power on the Columbia river in British Columbia. It is the most important work in the whole development of the river in Canada.


Jean Lesage: That work will have an effect on the level and use of the Columbia river outside of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The minister and his officials must have considered that point. Is it the intention that the Mica creek dam will be subject to the terms of this bill?


Jean Lesage: It certainly would by the definition I have just given. The water might however be diverted into the Fraser.


Howard Charles Green: I would like to hear something about that too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Over my dead body.


Jean Lesage: I believe I have exhausted my time. General McNaughton, my officials and I will be available before the committee and the question that has just been asked can be discussed.


Frederick George Hahn: Would not the damming of any small creek or stream flowing into the Columbia river affect that river downstream and be subject to the act? I cannot quite understand how you can cut off a stream that runs into the Columbia and say that that does not affect the level of the Columbia river.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Before the minister replies, may I presume to suggest to the house that we are in grave danger of anticipating the committee stage of the bill. I think any questions which go to the principle of the bill or are properly the result of interpretation of the bill by the minister would be fair, but I ask hon. members not to interrupt any hon. member who has the floor just to ask questions which perhaps would be more properly put in the committee.


Jean Lesage: Looking beyond the works themselves, the purposes toward which the legislation is directed are obviously national in character. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra referred to this last Friday, and I should like to quote from page 875 of Hansard as follows:
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.
The hon. member was entirely correct. That is the purpose of the bill, namely, to develop and utilize the resources of Canada in the national interest. That purpose will be the test of the measures taken under this legislation. That purpose is obviously a national purpose and is not a local or provincial one.
In short, sir, the works covered by the legislation are works that are national in interest and character and the purposes behind the legislation are purposes in the national interest. I do not wish to go into the legal aspects of the matter more fully at this time but I think it is clear beyond doubt that the character, scope and purpose of this legislation come entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. That legislation does not in any way infringe upon or invade any area that is properly of provincial jurisdiction.
The introduction of this bill marks to my mind a forward step in recognition of our water resources and the necessity for safeguarding them in the same manner as was envisioned by the United States, first, in the appointment of its federal power commission which, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has already mentioned, holds authority over the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements in that country; and secondly, in the formation of the Columbia interstate compact commission by which the individual states in the basin have united to gain the greatest over-all benefit from the water resources of this river system.
In order that no sacrifice of our allimportant water resources may be made
International Rivers
through too much emphasis being given to a short-range view, such as advocated by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) this afternoon, rather than the farsighted appraisal submitted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I cannot emphasize too strongly the immediate need for this house to give its favourable consideration to Bill No. 3, which is designed to afford to the water resources of Canada a measure of protection similar to that now given the water resources of the United States.
I would now ask permission, Mr. Speaker, to revert to motions in order to table certain documents the nature of which I indicated during the course of my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the minister unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would first like to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as to the purpose of this bill and which is reported at page 870 of Hansard for February 4 as follows:
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.
But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that is the aim of all provincial governments in Canada. I submit also that the people of Canada under provincial governments are quite willing and able to develop their natural resources in the best interests not only of their own provinces but of Canada as a whole.
I would not for one moment suggest that wisdom and ability are concentrated in the federal cabinet or government. There is no evidence whatsoever of any unwillingness on the part of any provincial government to carry out the avowed purpose of this measure as outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
That leads me to the conclusion that I must look beyond the remarks of the minister to find out the exact purpose behind this measure. It has already been stated here that there is a certain political flavour to this measure due to the difference in political thought between the provincial and federal governments. In this regard I would refer to the remarks of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). The minister referred to the "party of the province of British Columbia" when he corrected himself, having said, "the government of British Columbia". That would indicate to me that he himself believes this is more

International Rivers
a political battle and has less to do with the protection of our resources throughout Canada so that they be developed "in an orderly manner and in the national interest."
I agree the minister has some reason for his statement, and justification may be found in some of the press reports which have been quoted in this house. But in regard to the willingness or lack thereof of the provincial government to develop natural resources in the best interests of all Canadians, I think it is worth bringing to the attention of this house again the fact that General McNaugh-ton himself suggested that a committee should be set up to investigate the Columbia river basin and its power potential. The provincial government agreed to do so and also agreed to put on that committee the men recommended by General McNaughton.
It might also be worth recalling that the provincial government carried out the recommendation for a joint project by provincial and federal authorities to investigate the Columbia river basin. It seems to me that the province of British Columbia has cooperated to the fullest extent with regard to this matter.
I understand the Mica creek proposition is possibly 10 or 15 years away. What is the Mica creek dam going to do to rivers across the border? By looking at the map and obtaining some figures on the rate of flow that reaches Columbia river below the Mica creek dam it is evident that the Mica creek dam is going to do exactly what the proposed Kaiser dam will do, and that is regulate the flow.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Without flooding people out.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We have no farms in that part of the country which are in danger of flooding. I do not know how many people there are but I understand the lake will not be raised above the previous known flood levels. Realizing that it is the desire of the provinces to carry on and to develop their natural resources in the national interest, I think it becomes apparent that we must look further afield than we have looked so far for the reasons for bringing in this bill. On the matter of provincial rights, I think we can agree that the province of Quebec put the federal government into a neutral corner, and the federal government is not going to come out of that neutral corner until they have a dominion-provincial conference. I sincerely believe that that is the place to which this whole question should have been brought. I cannot see any reason for rushing into this thing. We have a memorandum of agreement which was tabled by the minister in this house. That is all it is. It is a memorandum of agreement with a great many

"ifs" and "buts" in it. It is not watertight in that respect. It is just a memorandum of agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Your minister has told the people that construction will start next spring.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: So what? That is business.


Bert Raymond Leboe: When these fellows get through talking, Mr. Speaker, I will commence again.


Solon Earl Low: That is right. Wait till they stop interrupting.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I know I am not alone in this opinion. There are many people throughout the whole of the Dominion of Canada who, if they were asked today whether this thing should be brought before a dominion-provincial conference and ironed out around a conference table, would say yes. People all across the country know-and this government should know it as well-that the place to iron these things out is around the conference table. One should not start a shooting war, as it were, with respect to these things. This thing means a great deal to the people of British Columbia. If they get around the conference table they will find out whether or not they are wrong. We have the committee of the house investigating this matter, it is true; but that is a long way from having a dominion-provincial conference which brings all the provinces into the picture; because actually, this is a matter of national interest.
In looking further afield, I should like to quote from Western Business magazine for October, 1954, at pages 42 and 44, where I read as follows:
One feature of the present expansion program which is cause for conjecture is the tremendous increase of electrical power now available to the company from Waneta.
Total rated capacity of the four hydro plants on the Kootenay river is 329,000 h.p. Waneta can now produce 240,000 h.p.-a 73 per cent increase over former installation. A further increase of another 240,000 h.p. is readily available from Waneta.
But what does the company plan to do with all this power? Surely, present installations and recent expansions could not absorb more than a small fraction of this new power plant which, combined with the rest of Cominco power, is greater than that used in the whole of the lower mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver island combined. The past gradual growth pattern of the Kootenay country provides no answer to this industrial detective mystery.
If that is true, we have 75,000 surplus horsepower in that area now. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) pointed out that we are bound at the moment to 500 miles maximum. I am not saying we shall not be able to find different ways and means of transmitting power over longer distances but he said we were bound at the moment to 500

miles. This statement says that the past gradual growth pattern of the Kootenay country provides no answer to this industrial detective mystery.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is quoting. I should like to know whether it is an editorial he is quoting from or whether it is the writing of someone who has contributed an article to Western Business. I think I am within my rights in wanting to know whom he is quoting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: think the hon. member who has the floor has indicated from what he is reading. I think he has satisfied the rules of the house in that respect.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find that if the Kaiser dam were built, it would produce another 45,000 horsepower of electricity in that area. That would give a surplus of 360,000 horsepower in that area. It is agreed that we cannot just export electricity out of box cars or from aeroplanes or some such way. We have to run it out through wires and we have been limited as to how far we can get it out over those wires. It therefore means that the Kootenay country is destined to become one of the great industrial empires, perhaps, in Canada. We feel that is bound to come but I do not think it is going to come in the immediate future. We have to build for it. We have to build towards it. We have to find ways and means of using the power that is at present available to the people in that district. If there is a surplus of power in that area and if the Mica creek dam is going to control the water within a few years up above and will provide further horsepower, I do not know why we are worrying about electrical horsepower at this moment in that area.
From the proposal I understand that the British Columbia government has the possibility of getting a cash reward for the power that we have developed below the boundary. If we have more power than we will use for perhaps the next 30 or 40 years I cannot see any reason why we should not be getting a cash reward for that power. I would say that that 360,000 horsepower is 25 per cent of Canada's share of the initial development of the St. Lawrence seaway about which we hear so much. If any of the members want to speak about flooding, let us look at the St. Lawrence seaway and see what they are going to do down there.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In Canadian interests; not in United States interest.
International Rivers


Mr. Thomas:: You had better read that St. Lawrence seaway contract.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We should look into this proposition to find out exactly what effect this Kaiser dam is going to have on the existing power supply of that district. I find that the West Kootenay Power and Light Company is part of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada and I find that 51 per cent of the common stock of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada is controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I can see where this bill could protect a monopoly in that area in electrical power from any competition whatsoever by the British Columbia government in supplying power in that district. I may be wrong but in this I can see a possibility that we have here a third answer, and maybe the most important one, as to why this bill is being brought in. If we have a surplus of 360,000 horsepower available to us there from existing installations and the construction of the Kaiser dam, that represents a great deal of power. As was pointed out in the article that I just read, it is far more than they have in the lower mainland and Vancouver island combined as of the present date.
I do not want to dwell too much longer on this question but I should like to say again that it is of significance-and I should like to emphasize this-that General McNaughton recommended certain things to the British Columbia government and they accepted or followed out his recommendation. We now find that this bill is being brought in to block the Kaiser dam proposal. There is no question about that in my mind. I should like to say again and to emphasize that this thing should be brought before a dominion-provincial conference and should be settled around a conference table. It is something which will have far-reaching effects into the future for many generations. I can see no reason for holding a club over the head of anybody who is doing the job that he is supposed to do.
If British Columbia or any other province is developing their natural resources in the best interests of the Canadian people, why do we have to stand over them with a club and embarrass provincial governments that are performing these functions? Quite sincerely, I would say this. In looking over the recommendations of the men who are on that committee I find that Mr. Anderson, of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, was the only one who voted against the proposed dam. Why would he not vote against it?

International Rivers


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The union of workingmen is also opposed to it.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I just want to point out that this man is vice-president of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company. Why should not a man in that position vote against it? I am using only reason. Why should he not vote against it? This extra electrical power that is supposed to be developed for British Columbia is going to be in competition with power developed by the company of which he is vice-president.
I think we have to look at all sides of these questions when we are bringing them before the people of this country. I can see no better way of doing it than through the dominion-provincial conference which is going to be called anyway. We might as well extend it a little bit and have these things ironed out in the interests of all the provinces, and not just one or two. I think this procedure would serve us better than firing brickbats at one another.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Sure, I can answer any question you ask, and if not the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) can help me.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am asking the hon. member if the Columbia basin advisory board set up by the provincial government gave their consent and their wholehearted agreement to this arrangement before the agreement was signed?


Bert Raymond Leboe: General McNaughton was on that, was he not?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No, he was not a member.


Bert Raymond Leboe: To which board are you referring?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The board set up by the provincial government; did they sanction this agreement before it was signed by the Kaiser Aluminum company and the Hon. Mr. Sommers?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I think possibly, as Mr. Speaker pointed out, some of these questions can be best answered in the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Bow River has just said that my election expenses were paid by the president of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said no such thing. Since you have brought it up, how much did he contribute?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want that withdrawn at once.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not make such a statement. I might just ask him now, since he brought it up, how much did he contribute?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want the inference withdrawn.


Charles Edward Johnston: You created an inference.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Bow River has just said he did not make that suggestion. The hon. member for Kootenay West will have to accept the explanation offered by the hon. member for Bow River. I must confess that at this distance I heard nothing at all from the hon. member for Bow River. I, therefore, must also accept his denial that he made such a statement.
Has the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) completed the answer to that question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I believe the agreement was signed on November 17.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No, September 17.


Ernest George Hansell: It does not make any difference.


Bert Raymond Leboe: As I pointed out in my speech, there was a memorandum of agreement between the people and the recommendation was carried, not unanimously, but with only one dissenting.


John Horace Dickey: May I ask the hon. member a question? What does he understand by a memorandum of agreement?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Pardon?


John Horace Dickey: What does the hon. member understand a memorandum of agreement to be?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I think I can answer that question because I have been mixed up in more than one of them. That is a preparation for a final draft, and you work on that basis; is that not right?


John Horace Dickey: No, a memorandum of agreement is the final agreement.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I know it is not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order; the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Other members who have already spoken in this debate, Mr. Speaker, have emphasized the

far-reaching implications of the particular bill that is before us. I might say that I am in full agreement with those statements concerning the wide implications of this measure. We are all aware, I think, of the importance of water resources to the economy of our nation. I believe we are all desirous that those resources be developed in the best interests of the people of Canada as a whole. When we consider this bill before us, therefore, I feel we can at least credit ourselves with sincerity of purpose and consider the matter as it is presented to us.
I believe the importance of this measure is emphasized by the fact that the government has seen fit to place it in a top priority position on the agenda of the house. We could possibly feign innocence and ask why the measure was placed there, but I do not believe anyone is under any illusion as to the purpose in introducing it now. The hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) have presented the situation to us. There has been no attempt on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to prove that the purpose of the measure was not to block construction of the Kaiser dam.
I believe there is one phase of the problem that is now before us that is of special interest, and I want to deal with it now. I refer to the hydroelectric potential of the province of British Columbia. We have had a great many submissions in regard to the development of power, but reading from "Water Powers of British Columbia", which is published by the department of lands and forests, I find the following on page 9:
With the establishment and growth of industries in British Columbia came concurrent need and demand for development of power. From 1910 to 1920 the amount of developed horse power rose from 65,000 to 310,000. During the next 10 years, by 1930, the figure had more than doubled to
630.000	hor- e power, and, despite the depression years, had risen to 789,000 in 1941.
I continue to quote:
The 5 years since 1947 have resulted in the most spectacular growth in the province's history, with an increase from 864,000 horse power to 1,390,000 horse power. Developments already under construction will provide an additional 2 million horse power, emphasizing the important part being played by water power on the economy of the province.
I understand that at the present time the production of power stands at approximately
2.173.000	horsepower. And so, as we consider this, and as we think of the developments in British Columbia, we can understand how important and how significant this bill is in our particular situation. We think of the tremendous possibilities of the Columbia system. We find that figures are given to us
International Rivers
indicating that the Waneta No. 1 dam can be brought up to its full capacity of 500,000 horsepower, that Waneta No. 2 can be developed giving an additional 500,000 horsepower, that the potential Mica at-site power is
800,000	horsepower, that the Downie creek at-site potential is 500,000 horsepower, and so on. There are several other developments all of which greatly increase the power development in that particular area.
And, in connection with development, I have here an article from the Montreal Gazette of January 12, 1954, which states:
British Columbia's undeveloped hydro potential is about as large as the total hydro power now developed in Canada, Dr. Albert E. Grauer, president of the British Columbia Power Corporation Ltd., said here yesterday.
Of course this was said about a year ago. It continues:
Dr. Grauer told the Canadian Club of Montreal that the Columbia river in the southeastern part of the province and in the United States "permits perhaps the world's outstanding hydro development."
This project, he said, has "an eventual installed capacity of close to 50,000,000 horsepower."
And then again, in the Ottawa Journal of March 1 of last year we have reference to the construction of the proposed Mica creek development, where it says:
The British Columbia scheme envisions a dam on the upper Kootenay river to back part of its water across a narrow gap into the Columbia river watershed. This would increase the flow on the Columbia river, where the main dam would be constructed. The estimated power development is 40,000,000,000 kilowatt hours annually, compared with the estimated 12,600,000,000 kilowatt hours annually to be secured from the St. Lawrence power project at Barnhart island.
And it goes on to say:
General A. G. L. McNaughton, chairman of the international joint commission Canadian section, supports the Canadian development as desirable for this country, and believes that the federal and provincial governments could work out arrangements for financing.
This was in connection with the Mica creek development. As we continue to consider the potential of British Columbia in the matter of hydroelectric development we think of the potential of the Fraser river. We have not heard much about it up to the present time, but there is a tremendous power potential on that river.
I have here an article headed "The Fraser River Project" from the Fraser Valley Record of December 9, 1953-which is a little outdated, perhaps. However, it says:
"As a source of energy the Fraser river must be considered the mainspring of British Columbia. Its wise exploitation represents one of the greatest and most thrilling hazards that lie ahead." These are the words of Dr. Harry V. Warren, professor of mineralogy and petrology, U.B.C., as reported by R. A. Francis writing in "Canadian Business" for October.

International Rivers
Three main dams would be the basis of the project, at Lillooet (130 feet), Moran (750 feet) and Cottonwood (250 feet). It is estimated that the Moran dam alone could develop up to 25 per cent of the total hydro power now developed in Canada. The site at Moran, according to Dr. Warren, could develop one-quarter of the capacity of all hydro plants installed in the United States between 1930 and 1950. The installed capacity of the Moran plant would be of the order of 3 million horsepower compared with 2-2 million horsepower estimated for the St. Lawrence seaway.
I should like also to call attention to a very interesting publication called A Plan for Tomorrow, issued by the dominion-provincial board of the Fraser river basin. The article is headed "Flood Control and Water Power" and states:
The Fraser is a Canadian river. Although a small portion (177 square miles) of its drainage area of 89,487 square miles lies in the United States, the Fraser river itself is contained entirely within British Columbia and, with its tributaries, comprises the greatest potential source of power in the province. Estimates of the total hydroelectric potential of the Fraser have been steadily revised upward as more and more specific information is gathered. At the present stage of investigations it appears not unreasonable to expect the total potential to approach 10,000,000 horsepower.
It goes on to designate the various areas where that power can be generated. This shows something of the potential of the Fraser river in British Columbia.
Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, during this debate we have been hearing a great deal about the facts in connection with the Columbia river development. Of course, as we know, that is the project that comes into this particular debate in a very real sense. Just prior to the dinner hour I was bragging a little bit about the power potential of the Fraser river. I referred to the fact that the potential had been estimated at 10 million horsepower. We have referred to these two, and then we think of other tremendous developments in the province of British Columbia. We have all heard of the Kitimat development. I understand that the power output there at the present time is around
450,000	horsepower, but the potential is 2,240,000 horsepower. There is also the Frobisher possible development in the northern section. We find that in the first stage of that development they expect the power production to be around 880,000 horsepower and by the time they reach the third stage in that project it will be 2,800,000 horsepower. Right on the coast there is
(Mr. Patterson.]
another project that is being contemplated. Then there are the Waddington plans. If the Waddington Mining Corporation is granted a permit they will proceed with a great power development by the construction of dams at the Chilko lake, and the development will produce 500,000 horsepower. These are just illustrations of the great power potential of the province of British Columbia.
In a table prepared by the bureau of economics and statistics of the department of trade and industry of the province of British Columbia we find that the province is divided into ten regions, giving the developed horsepower and also the undeveloped possibilities. In the East Kootenay the developed power at the present time is 27,700 and the undeveloped 295,700.


Harold Edward Winch: Of what?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Horsepower. These are the developments and also the undeveloped capacity of those areas. All of these figures represent horsepower. On the West Kootenay, which takes in the Columbia, 678,370 horsepower is developed at the present time and the undeveloped is around 10 million horsepower.


Harold Edward Winch: Kilowatts or horsepower?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Horsepower.


Harold Edward Winch: It makes a big difference.


Alexander Bell Patterson: These figures are all horsepower. On the Okanagan 7,800 developed and 2,000 plus, undeveloped; on the lower mainland, 445,450 developed, and 543,500 undeveloped. I will leave out Vancouver island. On Kamloops-Lillooet, developed 248,000; undeveloped, 2,178,370.


Harold Edward Winch: Still horsepower?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes. In the central mainland coast area, 88,100 developed, 1,276,000 undeveloped; central British Columbia, undeveloped, 1,102,400; northwest British Columbia, in which we find the Kitimat project, 427,650 developed; undeveloped, 5,312,520. Data have not been prepared for the Peace river but I understand there are tremendous possibilities on the Peace for the development of hydroelectric energy. Therefore, we find that the developed horsepower totals 2,173,620 and the undeveloped 22,759,600, plus the capacity of some of those that have already been developed to bring them up to capacity, which would increase it by 2,450,400, making a total of 4,624,020 developed. By adding these two figures together we see the possibilities of hydroelectric development in British Columbia. I might say that there are vast possibilities that have not even been surveyed up to the present time.

International Rivers
When we think of the relative position of this Kaiser project and when we think of the potential of British Columbia, it seems to me that it is just a comparatively small link in the development of the tremendous power potential of the province that will assist rather than defeat the goal of optimum development of our natural resources.
What the Kaiser corporation gains under the proposed deal would eventually, as we have been told this afternoon, be obtained by the construction of the Mica creek dam; but they are prepared to make this investment for speedier attainment under controlled flow. In the meantime, British Columbia is going to reap the benefits of over $1 million in financial and power returns. We are also reminded of the fact that the whole plan can be renegotiated at the end of 50 years and other arrangements made, if desired.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), as reported in the Province of November 8, is supposed to have said that the Social Credit party was a new government and Ottawa let them feel their way, but he said that the time has come to answer Mr. Bennett. That is, shall I say, a very paternal attitude for the minister to take in regard to the province of British Columbia. But may I suggest that in the two and a half years or so that the British Columbia government has been in office it has felt its way farther along the path of progressive, sane and sensible government than the previous government did in 22J years.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a matter of opinion.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I feel that the provincial government is better qualified to handle this proposition and handle its own affairs than any aggregation of politicians 3,000 miles away.
This afternoon the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources generated a lot of heat but no power or light. Referring to the fact that this bill was going to be handed over to the committee, he said we would be able to get a lot of answers. If I took his words down correctly-I do not write shorthand; sometimes I wish I did-he said something like this: there the experts will describe why this is a bad deal, in my opinion. Apparently he is going to have the experts present his opinion. Anyway, that is the way it looks.


Charles Edward Johnston: That will be some help.


Alexander Bell Patterson: When the hon. member for Lethbridge referred to the possibility of the United States receiving some benefits from
this particular project, again the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources spoke out and said, "That is it; that is it." I did not know just how to take that. I was not sure how I should take it at that time, but it seems to me that he was implying that we should not do it because it was going to help out somebody else.
We have heard a lot about developing natural resources in the best interests of Canada. We have heard about our international obligations, how we have to get along with our friends to the south; and I do not think we should take, shall I say, a dog in the manger attitude and say, "We won't need this power just now, we do not need it ourselves, but we are certainly not going to let other fellows benefit".
I am sorry the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Fairey) is not in his place tonight. He was in my riding some time ago, late in November, because I have here a report which appeared in the Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News of December 1. This is the report:
Liberal government in Ottawa will block the Kaiser dam deal proposed by British Columbia's Social Credit administration, because Liberal policy will always oppose "giving away any natural resources that are needed for development in Canada, in order that our youth may benefit from that resource."
I would like to ask the hon. member, Who is giving away what? Without jeopardizing future developments British Columbia is allowing the Kaiser corporation to erect a low-level dam to regulate the flow of water that goes over the border anyway. Without the investment of a dollar they will receive in return power and payments amounting to over $1 million. So I say, who is giving away what in that deal?
The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., referred to the fact that our youth might benefit from that resource. I should like to ask what the youth of Canada have reaped from 20 years of Liberal rule-unemployment, lost markets and taxation. I think our national debt now requires an annual payment of $500 million in interest. I was reading somewhere the other day that across the border someone said that if they passed along their national debt to the oncoming generation it would mean the end of ancestor worship as we know it. That is true, not only across the border but here in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Patierson@: I hear some strange sounds from over there. Some hon. member is mumbling in his beard. I believe that this bill is intended to wrest from the province of British Columbia powers which rightly

International Rivers
belong to it. This bill is designed to discredit the Social Credit government of British Columbia by blocking plans for progress and development which it is proposing. This bill is the fulfilment of threats made by federal cabinet ministers and others that the federal government would introduce legislation to block this particular deal.
I feel that this bill is an insult to the government of British Columbia and an insult to the people who elected them by charging them with incompetence, lack of concern for the national and provincial interests and with submitting proposals to sell out the resources of the province to others.
I feel that this matter should be considered most carefully. I believe the government ought to give further consideration to this and withdraw the bill. I know that it is going to make them more unpopular across the country than they are at the present time, and in the province of British Columbia they are not very popular. So I would suggest that the whole matter be reconsidered and the bill withdrawn.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I think I must be getting soft in my old age, or perhaps it is the fact that there arrived today at my daughter's house in Vancouver our first grandson. Then again it may be the double peacemaking effect of the return of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I am going to try my very best tonight to do a little bit of peacemaking. I think the vein which this debate has taken is a bad thing for Canada, is a bad thing for British Columbia, and is a bad thing for this house.
I believe that we are dealing with very serious issues. I cannot refrain from saying that perhaps I am slipping a bit when I see the smiling face of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I have been waiting around for two whole years to make a speech on Social Credit, but I have not yet found one Social Crediter who is willing to make a speech on Social Credit. They are all ready to speak on anything under the sun but Social Credit. And so my speech is there waiting for that time when they dust it off and bring it out.
I am beginning to believe that there is only one real Social Crediter in the whole Social Credit group in this house and that is the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), for whom I have found a soft spot in my heart although I am a bit confused. A couple of years ago he used to be talking . about the international bankers, then a year
(Mr. Patterson.]
later it was the Turko-Mongolians, and now it is the Rhodes scholars. I have a bit of trouble keeping up.
When I hear my hon. friends of the Social Credit party waxing so deeply and religiously indignant about the iniquitous Liberal party trying to play politics over this Kaiser dam, my thoughts go back to my boyhood days. I was raised in a family of 13 children, eight boys and five girls, which made it about equal. I always found that when it came to an argument with a sister I never could win. I am reminded very much of Social Credit. When a fight would start my sister would run upon me like a little hell cat; she would raise her arm like this and bring the point of her elbow down on my cranium with a resounding crack, and the minute I drew my fist back to do something about it she would raise her hand and say, "Don't you dare hit a girl, you coward," and she would make her getaway.
What we are dealing with here is not the Kaiser dam but a very important national responsibility. I have heard hon. members of the group in the extreme right of the house say that what we should have is the dominion government sitting down with the government of British Columbia. I would have you remember, and I am sure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) remembers it very well, because he sat ini on three meetings of the committee, that the committee on external affairs met last year on May 12 and 13.
We had before us to give evidence that great business statesman General McNaugh-ton. Whatever our opinions on party politics may be, every Canadian of every age and political persuasion should be glad that we have such a competent man representing us in the deliberations of the international joint commission. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was asking the general about this business of the province perhaps going ahead and doing something which the international joint commission might not want them to do. Here is the general's answer as reported on page 174 of the evidence:
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. 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.
I would ask any hon. gentleman opposite whether that is a fair statement, and whether that was the framework on which we should have proceeded. That fitted in with federal

and provincial views in the over-all plan which was being conducted by our representatives at the international joint commission.
Here is an extract I would particularly draw to the attention of hon. members.
By Mr. Green:
Q. I have seen a newspaper report to the effect that the Kaiser company of the United States is planning to dam the Arrow lakes at some point. What are the actual facts about that proposal?
A. I cannot give you a great deal of information on that subject. A report came out in the newspaper under date of February 22, 1954. I had been the previous day in British Columbia for consultation with the British Columbia committee on the Columbia. I had a very bad cold and I went up north to try to shake it. I did not know about these conversations until I got back to Ottawa. Whatever announcement has been made, has been made by authority of the British Columbia government.
I would simply point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members that within one day of the time General McNaughton specifically went to British Columbia for the exact purpose of concluding these plans- and there was none of the conflict which some hon. members now say exists-an announcement was made through newspapers in British Columbia that this deal was under way.
I would further draw your attention to page 188 of that same evidence where General McNaughton made it very clear that the representatives of Canada on that international joint commission were and still are engaged in the most delicate kind of negotiation with their opposite numbers in the United States. This is his evidence as reported at page 188:
That is a contention which neither the Canadian members of the commission, the government of Alberta nor the government of Canada, speaking through their counsel, are prepared to accept. The result of that was that when this matter for the third time was put before the commission at our meeting in April (1954) in Washington, and after a very heated discussion, we indicated that we were prepared to close the reference . . .
I have read that, Mr. Speaker, simply to remind hon. members that this parliament of Canada and this government of Canada, which is the servant of parliament, has for close to 50 years had a treaty governing boundary waters, and that we have set up as our servant a Canadian section of the international joint commission.
In addition, for over ten years-I believe from 1943-that international joint commission has been studying the entire question of waterpower development on the upper Columbia and Kootenay river, and these negotiations at this very moment are at a most delicate stage, and a stage at which the slightest upset can destroy the work Canada has been doing for many years.
International Rivers
I cannot stretch my imagination to the extent displayed by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) the other day when he foresaw a second string Conservative party coming in to substitute for the older Conservative party. I frankly confess I cannot foresee the day when a Social Credit government will take power in Canada, though I frankly confess I did not foresee it taking power in British Columbia.
However, I would simply point out to Social Credit members that if the day ever came when they would take power in Canada they themselves would require the very legislation we are asking this house to pass tonight, because we are dealing with a very serious issue indeed and we require the protection this bill is designed to provide.
The issue is quite simple and it is that when we set up a Canadian section of the international joint commission to represent Canada we sought to represent not the British Columbia government, certainly not the Social Credit party; not the government of Canada as it happens to exist at the moment, but the Canada of today, the Canada of tomorrow, and the Canada for all time to come. The preservation and protection of the natural resources of Canada is our most sacred obligation and should be the primary concern of this house.
I am a little disappointed in most of my hon. friends opposite with the exception of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), who is a congenital optimist. As regards the others, I was disappointed because of the deep strain of blue-ruin pessimism which seemed to pervade their thinking.
What is the truth about British Columbia? The truth is that in British Columbia-that last best west-we have the greatest unharnessed horsepower in the entire world. Far be it from me to get into the statistical tangle indulged in by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), because I confess that after hearing him I thought he was talking about the A plus B theorem of Social Credit or something equally complicated or abstruse. I will simply content myself with the assertion that in British Columbia we have the greatest block of unharnessed horsepower in the entire world.
Any student of economics who studies the plain development of the past half century, or even reads the speeches of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), will readily see that in 1920 we had developed only 5 * 6 billion kilowatt hours, and that this has now gone up to 70 billion. Despite this massive power many hon. members, including the hon. member for Lethbridge, adopt a defeatist attitude and decline to recognize

International Rivers
the facts. They ask, "What can we do with all this power?" And reply, "Let us sell it at bargain basement rates to Mr. Henry Kaiser in the United States, or anyone else who will take it off our hands."
This attitude is beyond comprehension. Any student of economics who has studied the history of this century knows that industry goes to power. You do not take power to industry. My hon. friends then say that we cannot develop power in Canada for the benefit of Canada until we have a market in Canada for all that power.
But is it or is it not a fact that we did not have a single market in Canada large enough to absorb the enormous Kitimat development? What we did was to take industry to the power. I will make a prediction for my hon. friends and it is that, regardless of what party is in power in Ottawa, and regardless of what party stays in power in British Columbia, the time will come when we will require every kilowatt hour, every single horsepower, and all of our energy, and we will require it in Canada and in British Columbia for the benefit of British Columbia and for the benefit of Canada.
I can recall-and this makes me remember how old I am now getting-doing my little bit to bring the Liberal government into power in Ontario 22 or 23 years ago. That Liberal government of Ontario made a tremendous mistake because it thought it had too much power on hand and it took steps to get rid of the power they had on hand. Before many years were out it would have paid a king's ransom to get back that power which the provincial government so foolishly sacrificed. I therefore make the prediction that the time will come when we shall want all of our power. The best economic thinkers say that you can develop $100 worth of value and one hundred times the jobs for every one of your harnessed horsepower. The time will come when we shall need this great block of undeveloped power on the upper reaches of the mighty river Columbia which starts in Canada, then flows north in the form of a huge question mark and finally goes down into the United States. The time will come when we shall be glad to have every horsepower of that power, and every horsepower will be giving jobs in industry in this great Dominion of Canada.
To the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke (Mr. McLeod) I would say that I am astonished to hear him say that all we can do is to ship it 50 miles away across the border into the United States. He should think of that beautiful little city of Revel-stoke and those beautiful cities of his in the
upper Okanagan valley. Every one of them should have secondary industries in them with cheap power. Cheap power is the greatest factor in getting your secondary industries located. When it comes to the matter of power, I believe in Canada for Canadians. I believe that this bill makes it absolutely certain that the rug is not pulled from under General McNaughton and the international joint commission. When we send General McNaughton and the other Canadian members to the international joint commission I believe we should see that they have the tools to do a proper job for Canada and that nobody cuts the ground from under their feet or undoes their work behind their backs.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this subject tonight but in view of the fact that the Columbia basin covers the Okanagan valley, of which I am the representative, I think I should say a few words although already all the speeches that have been made have disclosed to the house the vital necessity of the development of the Columbia river basin. I think the members who have spoken have done an excellent job of showing the house what the scheme means to Canada and also what it means to British Columbia. But to my mind there are several questions which are still unanswered.
One of them is the constitutional question posed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I think that probably is the most serious one. Do we or do we not have the power to impose this bill on the province of British Columbia? I feel that the matter should either be referred to the supreme court for judgment or that the attorneys general of the various provinces should be called before the committee to disclose their point of view and the government should have their attorney general there at the same time. I think that is the only fair way to deal with the subject. Obviously there is a conflict of view or a doubt as to the legality of this bill in the minds of many members of this house.
The other question that I feel is still left unanswered is this. Why produce the bill at all at this present time, at this particular moment when British Columbia is starting to carry on its own development? I should also like to know what is the status of those projects already completed and operating in British Columbia. I would refer to irrigation projects and power projects. This bill is retroactive and can deal with them, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) pointed out. What is to be their status in the future when this bill is

passed? That is something that I should like to know. I hope the committee will be told exactly of any dangers that may face them or any proposed changes in the operation of those projects, or what control is going to be exercised over these projects that up until now have lacked that control and have, to my mind, done a fairly good job. I refer especially to the irrigation projects. I feel that this bill should have been introduced a long time ago. If there was something lacking in the laws of Canada, then somebody has been slack on the job in not finding it out before now.
I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) the other night bringing in politics. As reported at page 886 of Hansard he said: My great opposition to the bill is that I believe it is nothing more or less than a political instrument used by the government to thwart the province of British Columbia in a development which the people have a right to expect.
Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think that assumption is correct. It is true that the production of the bill now gives ground for that assumption and possibly the present government is to blame for it. It is something that should have been settled, as I pointed out, years ago. Then this assumption would not be made at the present time because it coincides with the efforts of the British Columbia government to develop this particular project.
To my mind it is too vital and important a subject to play politics with. I do not feel that the Social Credit government should take umbrage at the action of this government because they are not the first government of British Columbia that have been turned down on an application for a similar project. There was an instance some years ago and it was not a Social Credit government.
We in the Okanagan valley are greatly interested in this matter. We know the value of water. As a matter of fact, we live in an area that would be a wilderness but for the control of water for irrigation and we know what more water and more conservation could still do for us. We could easily double the acreage that we now have under fruit and vegetables. We are anxious to know what is going to happen to the water reserves of our province because with double the water used in the Okanagan we would have little surplus left for export-that is from the Okanagan river and the Similkameen river- to any state in the union.
I would point out to the house-and I should like to compliment the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) for it-the letter he sent explaining the government point of view. It is
International Rivers
completely opposed to the view placed before the house by our Social Credit friends. I think it is only fair to place it on the record. He explains the matter in five points. The first one is this:
Construction should not be planned until completion of the current survey of the Columbia river.
I think that is a fairly reasonable suggestion, Mr. Speaker, because for the last ten years the government have been making an excellent and laborious survey of the whole area and it takes in thousands of square miles; and it will probably be two more years before that work will be completed. It seems to me that if the twelve years' work carried out by this group of engineers is to be discarded entirely, we are at fault and we have been wasting money. The other point he made is this:
The so-called Kaiser dam will be only a minimum project and will preclude a more extensive development of the most natural storage reservoir in the whole Columbia basin.
That point is a most excellent one. I should like to know from our Social Credit friends whether this particular individual project fits in with the over-all plan envisioned by the joint commission or is it going to be a thorn in the flesh for all time to come with respect to the greater development envisioned by the joint commission?


John Horne Blackmore: It fits in all right.


Owen Lewis Jones: I am glad to hear the hon.
member say that.


John Horne Blackmore: It does no harm.


Owen Lewis Jones: The next point is:
It will endanger the much larger Mica creek development on the Big Bend because the two dams will compete against each other to meet the same demands for power.


John Horne Blackmore: He cannot prove that. He does not prove it.


Owen Lewis Jones: I cannot. He goes on as follows:
It will have an unfavourable effect upon the Canadian aluminium industry, including Kitimat, because it will make power available from Canadian storage for use by industry in another country at a price little more than half what it costs a Canadian producer.
If that is correct, and I presume the minister has studied the subject, then it seems to me that someone is breaking faith with the company now operating at Kitimat and making it possible for a competitor to get cheaper power, thus cutting the price in a market which will eventually be served by both companies.
I continue the quotation:
Instead of the proposed 20 per cent B.C. should receive about 50 per cent of power generated

International Rivers
through water stored in Canada according to the precedent set in negotiations between individual states south of the border.
The minister explained that this afternoon, so I have nothing to add to what he said. I thought he made a logical case. If we supply the water, we are entitled to more than 20 per cent. There may be difficulty in getting that 20 per cent exported in the form of power to Canada without a licence from the United States.
I should like to point out that the Columbia river is the fourth largest river in North America. In its basin lies possibly the greatest undeveloped potential for power in either North or South America. The Columbia river discharges 180 million acre feet annually into the Pacific. For comparison, the St. Lawrence river empties 220 million acre feet into the Atlantic. Now, I am going to quote General McNaughton on this comparison:
Head and flow combined give power, and on this aspect of comparison it is now estimated that the Columbia in Canada and the United States may eventually have an installed capacity in excess of 34 million kilowatts not including pumping power for irrigation, as compared to the St. Lawrence eventually at Sault Ste. Marie, Niagara, Barnhart, Beauharnois and Lachine, all taken together, of about 71 million.
We are just awakening in British Columbia and possibly in Canada to the fact we have a vast storage of undeveloped power in the Columbia basin. I am glad that efforts are being made to develop that power. I had hoped that there would be greater co-operation between our province and the federal government to get the most satisfactory development possible. It is for that reason I am glad this bill is to be referred to a committee where we shall have the views of expert engineers, and I hope legal experts on the legality of the proposed measure. I believe we should hear too from representatives of provincial governments, including British Columbia. In discussion we are apt to overlook the fact that other provinces are involved. I feel that British Columbia in particular should be invited to attend to give evidence, and possibly have the attorney general state their case.
It seems this dispute between British Columbia and Ottawa arose possibly through the failure of the British Columbia government to co-operate with the international joint commission. Whether it was done deliberately or thoughtlessly I do not know, but apparently that was the start of the dispute. I believe the international joint commission is operating in the best interests of the federal and provincial governments of Canada, possibly in the best interests of all Canadians. If the proposal of British Columbia to develop
TMr. Jones.]
this dam at Castlegar fits into the over-all planning, there is no reason to block the arrangement for the development by the Kaiser interests. If, on the other hand, these plans are not in the best interests of Canada as a whole or are a breach of the over-all scheme to develop the Columbia river area, then the joint commission or the government should step in.
I feel the commission is operated on that basis, to assist the provincial governments and not thwart them. I would hate to regard the commission as a political instrument. In support of the objective of the joint commission, I should like to quote from a speech made recently by the chairman, General McNaughton, in Montreal:
Meanwhile, it will be well to remember the vastness ol the issues which are being determined in the Columbia basin and the vital consequences which the decisions will have on the future of industrial development and its placement, whether in Canada or the United States. It will be well also not to forget article 2 of the treaty of 1909 and the physical fact that natural topographical advantages for the storage of water are assets just as real as are the minerals from the mines and the products of the fields and forests. Actually storage for water is far more precious than the most precious of mines, for the reason that the flow of water will go on for ever whereas minerals are a wasting asset, used up in being put to use.
Another quotation from the same speech, again bearing out the plans this body has in the interests of the whole dominion, is as follows:
In the course of my remarks-
General McNaughton says-
-I have mentioned some rather large figures of power to be generated and made available, and there is much more also at sites along the boundary at places which I have not had time to describe to you today. 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.
As I have indicated, much of the hydroelectric power of North America is on rivers which constitute the boundary or flow across the boundary, and so the development of this power is the concern of the international joint commission. I assure you that it is the purpose of the commission to effect arrangements between the two countries which are not only equitable but which we hope will be recognized as such by the peoples of the two countries.
Finally, he says this:
Even more important, this treaty-
Referring to the boundary waters treaty of 1909.
-seeks also for the future to dispel trouble and prevent disputes. This it does by providing, in the international joint commission, a continuing mechanism with a comprehensive set of agreed principles of general application through which any problem along the boundary, of whatever sort, not only of water, can be brought under

review at its inception and, we hope, before danger might arise that the problem might magnify and enlarge through controversy to an extent which would create issues and disputes to alarm and embitter public opinion in either country, thus making eventual solution increasingly difficult.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the role of the international joint commission at the moment. They should take this problem under their wing, study it carefully as to the legal and other implications, and advise what is in the best interests of the people. I would ask our friends to the left for the co-operation of the British Columbia government with the federal government in developing their joint interests. These interests are joint. Both governments are responsible for taking care of our vast inheritance of natural resources. They are both equally responsible to the future generations of this country for seeing that these resources are not wasted in any way. This calls for national planning, not localized planning or the hit and run method we have known in the past years in connection with our natural resources, chiefly pulp and paper and, I am afraid, some waterways as well.
In conclusion, I hope the bill will be given the respect it deserves in committee by inviting all the people from every province who might be concerned, and by getting the best possible legal advice to serve the committee. It should also have the benefit of the presence of General McNaughton himself, to answer some of the very interesting questions that remain unanswered.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take very long in this debate, because I do not want to become involved in any dispute between parties sitting to my left and the government. I am not particularly concerned whether or not a dam is built on the Columbia river-although thus far the debate has been directed to that one province.
There is something however that is causing me some concern. When outlining the objects of the bill the minister said it did not apply to the Saint John river in New Brunswick, and he implied further that it did not apply to any other rivers, except, I believe, the Milk river. I cannot say whether that is in British Columbia or not.


An hon. Member:: In Alberta.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, may I correct the hon. member. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) never said that it would apply only to the Columbia river and the Milk river. As a matter of fact there are in Canada about 20 rivers which would be affected by the bill, under the
International Rivers
conditions set out therein. But as I said this afternoon, the Saint John river could not be affected.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I was attending the sitting of a committee, and was unable to be in the house this afternoon, so that if this was pointed out I did not hear it.
But even if that was said, I am still uneasy. I do not accept the interpretation offered us when the bill was introduced, and I wish to put my objections on record in the hope that when the bill goes to the committee it will be framed in more specific language. I want it plainly understood that I am not objecting to the principle involved. However, I think it will be found by anyone who reads Hansard that when the minister outlined the objects of the bill he said that so far as he knew it did not apply to the Saint John river.
Anyone reading the measure will see that it refers to water running from a point in Canada to a point outside Canada. Part of the headwaters of the Saint John river rises in Quebec, and flows into the state of Maine, thence northward joining waters that form the international boundary. Is it considered that when water forms part of an international boundary it is not water flowing out of Canada?
The minister may not intend that this measure should apply, and no doubt it would not be made to apply; but if the measure reaches the statute books in its present form I am afraid that it could be so interpreted. Therefore when the bill is in the committee stage I suggest that it should be made more specific, and the interpretation of what constitutes an international river should be set out more clearly, so that there could be no doubt about it. It would be preferable to have rivers like the Saint John and the St. Croix listed as exceptions.
This is the point I wished to bring to the attention of those hon. members who will serve on the committee. If it is not the intention to have the measure apply to the Saint John or the St. Croix rivers, then action should be taken to ensure that it shall not apply.
The St. Croix is a small river forming the international boundary between New Brunswick and Maine, but most of the water forming the river rises in Canada and flows into the Chiputneticook lakes. At the mouth of the river is the St. Croix Paper Company operating a large plant in the state of Maine. They depend upon this river for their water power. The cotton mill located nearby in Canada is in the same position. There are five dams on the river, and I point out that under this measure there would be power to destroy those dams.

International Rivers
As I say, the uncertainty should be taken out; people are uneasy about it. The St. Croix Paper Company have tour dams located at Woodlawn, Sprague Falls, Vanceboro, and Forest City. They have paid large sums of money to residents on the Canadian side for flowage rights. I do not think the minister had any intention to destroy the dams. Nevertheless we are about to pass a measure which may have unfortunate results in years to come because of these weaknesses I have drawn to the attention of the house. Provision should be made in committee whereby there would be no possibility of destroying those dams on rivers such as the St. Croix which, I presume, under the treaty of 1909 were permitted by the international joint commission and with the approval of the provincial and the federal governments.
I think it is only fair that this matter receive careful perusal, so that these industries would have some assurance. I see the minister nodding his head; does he wish to ask a question or make a statement?


Jean Lesage: I was just about to point out that the bill provides that it operates only when works in Canada have effect on the use of water outside of Canada, and that the dams the hon. member has mentioned have no effect on the use of the water outside of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should say that the St. Croix river is in exactly the same position as the St. Lawrence river. I said that this bill does not apply to the St. Lawrence. The St. Croix is a boundary water between two countries. As such it comes under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission, and not under this bill.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I have had the opinion of a very good international lawyer who feels that it could come under this bill. All I am asking is that the bill be made to state that it does not. Apparently it is not the minister's intention to have it apply, and I would like to see that made certain in committee. That is my reason for speaking at this time. I have not a word to say as to the legality of the measure. I am not saying that I support the bill as it is, but I do support the principle. I think it is only proper that the Dominion of Canada should have the right to control her resources, and it is our duty in the House of Commons to protect those resources. However, in cases where there is any doubt I should like to have the language of the bill clarified.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Perhaps I am the last person who should speak in this house on the legality of this measure. I speak only because I realize that

sometimes out of the mouths of babes and sucklings cometh wisdom. As I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other night I was convinced of the soundness of his argument. I have checked, double-checked and rechecked because for some 24 hours I had some hesitancy with regard to the complete correctness of his statement. During the intervening days, like the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who, in his famous statement spoke of toil, sweat and tears, I experienced toil and perspiration but not tears. In addition, I have received some extremely sound legal advice on the basis of article 2 of the waterways treaty.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was signed in 1909, and was a treaty between Great Britain and the United States. It has been revised on several occasions since, the last revision taking place in 1952, but article 2 has not been revised.
Under the British North America Act the dominion has jurisdiction to implement by statute all treaties made by the imperial parliament with any foreign country. In entering this debate I should like to state specifically that I am not going to deal with the multitudinous aspects that have been dealt with by speakers from the government and opposition benches with reference to power and the utilization of power. Where you have power establishments you eventually have primary and secondary industries. I am not pinpointing in any manner or form the question of the Kaiser dam. There is no doubt in the minds of many people, and particularly those of us from British Columbia, that this is the nearest thing to our hearts so far as this bill is concerned. We are concerned about the future disposition of water power in the province of British Columbia.
In the United States a treaty may be ratified by the Senate, and then it becomes a part of the law of the land; but in Canada treaties do not become law until they are ratified by statute.
We are concerned, and I particularly, as I said, with the legality of this measure. Perhaps I am simplifying this more than I should, but to me it is a problem identical with the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. They are absolutely identical. To my knowledge we have never had a protest from the province of Alberta when the question of the export of fluids and electricity has been discussed in this house. If I am right in assuming that the problems are identical, then I think it is fair to say that since the dominion government has jurisdiction with respect to the export of fluids and electricity,

it also has jurisdiction with respect to the export of the commodity which we are now discussing.
Chapter 28 of the statutes of 1911 was passed on the basis of the British North America Act. Since it is an act of the federal parliament, it may be repealed by the same authority, namely, this parliament, of which we are members. I might point out that such repeal could create difficulties-I say "could" not "would"-with the nation to the south. However, if it did, according to the information I have received, it could terminate the treaty under article 4 by giving 12 months' written notice. Although it is an imperial treaty, it is the treaty under which article 2 operates.
I presume that, since the Statute of Westminster, Canada could declare itself not bound by the treaty by giving 12 months' written notice. It therefore seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the real point that we have to deal with arises out of article 2. That is the point that the Acting Prime Minister emphasized during his speech the other evening.
Under the provision of article 2 the imperial parliament reserved to Canada and to the provinces jurisdiction and control over all territorial waters on their own side of the border. This provision does not create jurisdiction in the provinces; it reserves existing jurisdictions and rights.
As I have already stated, there have been no objections to the authority of the federal parliament to issue permits for the export of fluids and electricity. If I am right in saying that they are practically Siamese twins, then under no circumstances should there be any objection whatsoever from any province in Canada to the passage of this bill that the Acting Prime Minister introduced when he spoke last to the house. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the jurisdiction over the control of international rivers is definitely vested within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament.
I hope that when this question comes before the committee on external affairs the best legal minds will be available to that committee. Neither the province of British Columbia nor the dominion parliament wants to have come out of this debate the wrong kind of legislation. Although the province of British Columbia has a different political idea of administration from what I have, I think it is fair to state that they are primarily interested in the development of the country. They may be wrong in their attitude and approach, and certainly as far as I am concerned they are wrong, in this matter.
International Rivers
As I understand it now the agreement would give 80 per cent of the benefit to the external country with only 20 per cent to the ownership country. I think all hon. members of this house will agree that that is not a sound type of agreement. It does not conform to the usual type of enactment under the international joint commission.
I do not want to rehash any of the many statements that have been made. When this act was passed in 1909, we were then more or less a colony. That continued so until 1931 when the Statute of Westminster was passed under which we assumed co-authority with the United Kingdom parliament, equal in all things, subordinate in none.
As far as this legislation is concerned I submit that we are on sane, sound legal ground. Probably the advice the British Columbia government is receiving has not been legally sound and I am sure that they will be sufficiently good Canadians to recognize the supremacy of the dominion parliament. In fact a hint has already been given that that will be the case. Not so many days ago the provincial minister of public works stated that regardless of what the outcome might be with respect to this so-called fight between the province and the dominion-in my opinion it is not a fight, it is just a disagreement-as a good Canadian he would have to go along with the act as set down by the dominion parliament.
I think that is a tip-off we can all take with a great deal of sincerity. I think our sole purpose individually and collectively in this house is to do the best we humanly can for the Dominion of Canada. With this situation being focused as it is, we will be good Canadians first and good British Columbians second.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) indicate that there is some doubt even in the illustrious Liberal party as to the legality of this particular bill. However, study will have to be made of this constitutional question to decide whether or not he is right and who has jurisdiction. I was also interested in what the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton (Mr. Montgomery) had to say with respect to the effect that this bill might have upon New Brunswick. The reason I say I was interested is that he indicated that he lost all interest the moment he found that New Brunswick was not to be affected. I wonder what point of view he would have taken as a citizen of that province if he had discovered that one of their rivers was to be affected and they were to lose certain authority in a provincial way because of this bill.

International Rivers
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) has said that British Columbia has just now discovered the value of its water power. It is only natural that we are discovering things every day, now that we have good government in British Columbia, and this is no exception to the rule. The hon. member also spoke about co-operation by his friends to his left. We are only too willing to co-operate, but co-operation is a two-way street.
I have heard a lot about what British Columbia was going to do after they had the dam built with the revenue they would receive, but I have yet to hear what the Dominion of Canada is going to give British Columbia if this bill becomes law. I think that the people of British Columbia have every right to know that.
The hon. and respected member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) is always most interesting to listen to. He said that British Columbia has the greatest block of unharnessed horsepower in the world. I agree with that statement and I feel sure that every Social Crediter in this house and every British Columbian will also. I believe he said that we had adopted a defeatist policy. He said that you do not take power to industry, you usually take industry to the power. If that is so, why are we bringing gas from Alberta all the way to Toronto and Montreal? Being the type of orator he is, he speaks in superlatives. He says the Liberal party has the greatest and the mostest of everything.
Cheap power is a great factor in bringing industry into an area. The hon. member should not forget that there are two other factors required as well; one happens to be markets and the other transportation.


An hon. Member:: And raw materials.


Frederick George Hahn: Of course, raw material is most essential; but if you have transportation you can bring it to the power.


An hon. Member:: If it is not too far.


Frederick George Hahn: This afternoon the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) spoke for a while and I began to think that we would not need any of this power in British Columbia. He almost blew a fuse. We could probably light all the bulbs in this chamber and keep them going for the next few days if we could only harness the human horsepower we have here that is going to waste from time to time. I am sure we could use it to advantage.
I take issue with this bill for a number of reasons. The first is that the bill is directed at one province only. We can talk all we want to about the Milk river in southern

Alberta, but that river practically does not run in Alberta. If it had not been for the grace of God and a couple of hills in the way it would have run down through the United States. Even that river will not come under this bill.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said that there were 20 rivers that would be affected. I am satisfied that every hon. member in this house has the right to know the names of the rivers that are to be affected.
I take issue with the bill because it is an infringement of provincial rights set forth in the constitution. Of course that is a matter of opinion, as some individuals in the house seem to think that it comes under federal jurisdiction while others think it is a matter of provincial rights.	.
The third reason is that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in the course of the debate, proposed what I would call a "cockeyed" scheme which might well result in unlimited damage to both the internal and the external relations of this country, and might particularly affect the province of British Columbia. I will deal with that at greater length later on.
I believe it was the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) who raised the question as to the status of this project over the other projects which have already been built. It is important that this should be outlined very clearly.
I detest legislation born of expediency, and this I believe is that type of legislation. But I do not intend to develop each of these issues with respect to this bill. There are, however, one or two observations I would like to draw to the attention of the house.
The merit of this Castlegar scheme has already been outlined and I am not going to subject the house to a further discourse in that regard. Several hon. members have already devoted much time to explaining in great detail exactly what was involved, and what British Columbia could expect if she were given the authority to go ahead with the development of this project. I must confess I have as yet heard no other alternative except that suggested by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who said that he had written to the board of trade in Trail some time ago. I cannot of course criticize any such proposal until I have seen it.
However, I do not believe we should be asked to agree to a second reading of this bill until we discover what protection is offered to the people of British Columbia. That is a vitally important question. Up

until this time the British Columbia government has apparently had the authority to carry on such development and a couple of projects have already been undertaken without any governmental interference. Now it becomes expedient to stop a particular project and that is going to cost the people of British Columbia between $1 and $2 million per year unless this government comes out with a specific proposal to reimburse the British Columbia government in some particular manner.
We have heard a great deal about orderly development in the national interest. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has already admitted that the main part of the Columbia river would be affected. 1 am quite satisfied that it will be affected, but how about the little streams that run into this particular river? This is an important question for the people who live along those little streams.
For example, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked whether it would affect tbe Mica creek dam and apparently the answer is in the affirmative. The particular location of that dam up around the top of the Big Bend is certainly some distance from the boundary itself, and the water is not running across the boundary as does the main stream of the Columbia. There are other rivers running into the dam which will naturally have some effect upon the flow of the water at the international boundary, and it is important that we discover whether they are to be affected.
We would also like to know when we are going to develop this Mica creek power plant. Are we going to wait until the federal government comes to an agreement with the United States on a 50-50 basis, as has been suggested? A 50-50 basis, as in the case of the St. Lawrence seaway project, apparently means that we get 50 per cent and the United States gets 50 per cent, but we spend $6 for every one dollar spent by the United States. To my mind this is a different type of project and it should be dealt with differently.
I would like to know who is going to issue licences and who will receive the resulting revenue. The people of Canada have a right to know. If this government is to issue licences then I imagine the fees would go to the federal authorities. But that would not make British Columbia very happy.
I am quite satisfied the people of British Columbia will feel they are being gypped out of well over $1 million if this bill comes into effect unless they get something back in return. I would ask the minister to indicate clearly at this time, before we pass this bill, 50433-67
International Rivers
whether the people of British Columbia are going to be guaranteed an amount equal to the 20 per cent plus the $275,000 in taxes and other financial returns they could normally expect if the dam were built. That province and hon. members in this house have a right to be told before a vote is taken upon this measure. I will go as far as to say that I am determined not to support this bill unless I have an answer to a few of these questions, and I would like this one answered in particular before I am called upon to vote.
There are even more important aspects of the bill than this particular economic issue, and the most significant of these, to my mind, is the question of economic nationalism as opposed to economic internationalism. In deciding whether we are going to adopt a measure of this type, which is in opposition to an agreement already drawn between a provincial authority and a company in the United States, we must bear in mind that we might possibly disrupt an economic deal between the two parties involved.
The president of the Royal Bank of Canada at a NATO meeting today had this to say: "A return to economic nationalism is a real danger." In this instance it is possibly more dangerous than most of us realize.
I know there are many hon. members inside this house and out who are not too interested in this bill because it does not affect their particular regions, but I believe this measure is vitally important to all of us and I would urge upon them the importance of studying it closely. This is not a matter of provincialism. It is a matter of internationalism and it can well affect the relations between the two countries. The late Mackenzie King had this to say. The hon. -member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) earlier today quoted from Hansard of March 9, 1944. I believe he said he was reading what Mr. Mackenzie King had to say in respect of the setting up of the international joint commission. He also had this to say which the hon. member did not read:
The Columbia is a truly international river. Any development, and particularly any power development, of the resources of the river on one side of the boundary is certain to have an effect in the other country. For this reason it is necessary that the plans for development of the river basin in one country should be adapted to those in the other.
Mr. Speaker, the Columbia river primarily affects the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, and the province of British Columbia. In the Pacific northwest, however, there is an economic block made up of British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and northern California. You will notice how closely those two are in-

International Rivers
tegrated; that is, the very fact that this Columbia river so materially affects the states and the provinces involved and the fact that the natural terrain in that area is of such a nature that it would be a natural form of development to develop the whole area as an economic unit, should play a most important part in our decision as to whether or not we should go ahead and adopt this measure at this time. As yet we have no assurance that this government, if the bill is passed, will go ahead and permit that development on an international basis. We hear other stories. We have certain clippings from newspaper articles. Unfortunately the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did not earlier today have the information tabled so that we could discover for ourselves what he told the people of Trail. But I think we can take some of that from the newspaper and deal with it at a later time. One of the things I believe he mentioned was this matter of diversion. On the matter of diversion the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had this to say when he spoke on February 4 as reported at page 871 of Hansard:
. . . 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.
That is a most important statement that the minister made, when he said that the United States has the same authority south of the boundary as we happen to have north of it. Diversion is like co-operation. It is a two-way street. I have certain maps here. Unfortunately some of these things cannot be put on Hansard, but on checking the map of that particular area I find that there are two most important dams to which we have heard considerable reference in today's debate. One is Waneta No. 1 and the other is Waneta No. 2. Both of these, as the map would indicate, are on the Pend d'Qreille river just north of the boundary. There is a drop in that river of some 700 feet from the point at which the dams are constructed down to the main stream.
I wonder-I do not know-whether we have examined closely into the possibility that the Americans may, because they are so short of power, decide to dig a tunnel from that river into the main stream just south of the border. It is only a matter of 14 miles or 15 miles. We have a million horsepower in that particular area. I do not know whether it is possible from an engineering point of view. We have not been told. The
EMr. Hahn.]
only place we can probably get that information is in the committee to which I understand this bill is going later. However, that is one of the questions that should be dealt with because that would automatically mean that my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) would be most unhappy because he would not have power in the Waneta dam for his use up at Trail. We have an excess of 75,000 horsepower there now, we were told earlier. Of course we have no market for it but we are told that we should not accept a sale of a commodity down south of the border even though we could well use the finances that might come from such a sale.
I maintain that from the viewpoint of public relations it is more important that we should have good international relations as far as keeping this a sound economic block is concerned, than just to go ahead and stop the building of a reserve lake as would happen here, for instance, either, for purposes of political expediency as has been charged or for other reasons. The whole thing should be examined by engineers most closely with the view of considering not just ourselves but the whole power situation on the American side as well.
With regard to that matter, I have here from the New York Times of February 5-and I find it to be a fairly reliable newspaper- an article in which Henry C. Alexander, president of J. P. Morgan and Company, addressed the annual dinner of the Canadian Society in New York. This is quite recent. It was February 5. I read from this article the following:
Mr. Alexander said Canada-United States relations were good. But, he added, the emerging position of both countries as world leaders make it vital that they work harder than ever at thq job of being good neighbours.
But I heard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources say, "I am going to divert the Columbia river into the Fraser river". I wonder just how much of good public relations that means between the people of the United States and Canada.


Jean Lesage: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I never said that the waters of the Columbia river were going to be diverted to the Fraser river. The only thing that was announced was that a survey would be made about the possibility of a diversion.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why would you make a survey if you did not intend to do it?


An hon. Member:: Your intentions are good, anyway.


Charles Edward Johnston: Liberal policy.


Frederick George Hahn: 'The policy apparently is to survey with no ulterior motive in mind. I do not want to read anything into the minister's mind or into his words. I just view it as a matter of fact that when you take a survey or when you perhaps suggest something, there must be a reason for the suggestion.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Divert the flood waters; not the normal flow.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is an afterthought.


Frederick George Hahn: I am pleased to hear that because I want to know-and maybe the minister can tell us later-what they are going to do with the water that has been flowing over this same area for thousands and thousands of years. Because if they are just taking that little bit of flood water-it is not a little bit-


Jean Lesage: It is approximately 12 million acre feet; that is what you call a little bit of water.


Frederick George Hahn: That is a tremendous amount of water. I am pleased that the minister has quoted the figure. Now we know. There are 12 million acre feet of this flood water that is being diverted for power purposes, I believe. Now, coming back to this quotation:
Differences do exist, he said. It would be unfortunate-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) would be well advised to listen. This man, Mr. Alexander, who happens to be the president of J. P. Morgan and Company in the United States, is well worth listening to. He is even as important as some of the august members across the way. I shall reread this phrase, Mr. Speaker.
Differences do exist, he said. It would be unfortunate, he added, if a "velvet curtain" were to be woven out of a wishful pretence that there were no conflicts of interest. He named as "sources of tension" the tariff problem, commercial rivalry differences in matters of global policy and disagreement over how to deal with subversion.
He did not name the Castlegar scheme, Mr. Speaker, because it had not become such a national problem in Canada as it has today, otherwise he would have included it. Perhaps I should refer to it as the proposed diversion of the Columbia river into the Fraser. The article continues:
The head of the Morgan bank said there was need for co-ordination between the two countries along "rational rather than narrowly national" lines. He expressed that view in connection with the development of water power, oil and gas and other sources of energy.
"It so happens," he said, "that the providence which so generously blessed our two countries with these gifts of nature located many of them in 50433-67J
International Rivers
such a way that, if each of us is to get the maximum benefit from them, they will have to be developed by our people either jointly or in close co-ordination."
Our good friends across the way need to realize that it is important to develop these things jointly and co-operatively.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Hahn: Now, you had your chance, and while what you said possibly satisfied you, I cannot say it was completely satisfactory to me.


An hon. Member:: You are very charitable, George.


Frederick George Hahn: I can afford to be charitable. They changed me from a Liberal to a good Social Crediter.
The next question is, where will the federal government sell this excess power? We are told by the government, and by the authorities in command in British Columbia, that there is no sale for the surplus 75,000 kilowatts produced by Waneta No. 1. The point is, if we get this additional power that the United States interests are going to give us-we should remember that this is not power the people of British Columbia are making available, it is power that is going to be made in the United States and British Columbia is to get 20 per cent of it. We cannot find a market for the 75,000 kilowatts we have at Waneta No. 1; we have another half million kilowatts available in Waneta No. 2; we have another 250,000 kilowatts in Waneta No. 1 if we want to develop it. We have no place to sell it today. Will this government, that has said we must keep the power for our national interests because we might want to put an industry in that area, announce to the government of British Columbia today that they have an industry they are going to put in that area? Then, we could say to the people of British Columbia, there is the reason for keeping it. That is the vital factor in this whole question. The people of British Columbia are being asked today to give up rights which they normally enjoyed under a former Liberal administration and coalition administration in that province. They are being asked to do this without even any assurance in return that there will be an industry put into that area.
Our premier in British Columbia has done an excellent job in getting industry into that province, but he can only do a certain amount. We cannot expect him to undo everything that this government is trying to do now.
The next question is, is it in the national interest to let the water go to waste? I would say, Mr. Speaker, that is what has happened

International Rivers
for centuries. If this bill becomes law, unless this government does as the British Columbia government has proposed to do, then we will not do any more than continue wasting that water for the next century or so if we happen to be, I was almost going to say, blessed with a further Liberal administration, but it would not be a blessing.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) mentioned that we must look to the ramifications in terms of energy. On page 872 of Hansard for February 4, 1955, he said:
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.
We have millions and millions of horsepower available in British Columbia if we want to develop it. This particular project is not going to make one iota of difference to the availability of horsepower in the province. The project is concerned merely with the creation of a storage lake. In return, we are going to receive some power from the United States. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what he is going to suggest we do with our electrical power if and when atomic energy is used instead of electrical energy. This is an important factor, especially when we read that the United States has floated the atomic-powered submarine Nautilus. This source of power must be kept in mind.
I am fully aware that the minister will say we use electrical power in the development of atomic energy, but it is true, Mr. Speaker, that besides using electrical power developed from water power we have other means and we have millions of additional horsepower available. We have these resources which this so-called fine administration has not developed. Now that we have an opportunity of doing so, and of helping the province out of debt, this government wants to block us. This government is not going to be responsible for anything that Premier Bennett or his cabinet happens to do in making a deal with anyone. They need not be too concerned about it.
Apparently this is a change in policy. We have the Libby and later the Kootenay projects which this government decided they would not allow to be carried through. In respect of that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an article from the Vancouver Sun dated November 12, 1954. It is interesting to

note in this respect that the date is November 12, 1954, not a few years ago but just last year. The article reads:
British Columbia cabinet ministers can see nothing but politics in Ottawa's move to kill the proposed Kaiser aluminum dam on Arrow lakes in southeastern B.C.
Their suspicions were bolstered today when it was reported from Ottawa that federal officials have rejected Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company's application to export surplus power to the U.S., a deal that has had federal approval up to now.
B.C. officials see it as a tidying up-
I like that phrase.
-process by Ottawa to build solid ground for the move against the Kaiser's dam plan.
And this is very important, Mr. Speaker, because it says here:
This policy won federal approval in 1949.
B.C. cabinet ministers consider Ottawa's rejection of the plan now is aimed solely at killing the Kaiser deal.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, and cannot discuss the constitutional aspect of the matter to the same degree as some hon. members have. However, I have been interested in what has been said about this part of the problem. I am satisfied it will have further consideration from other members in this group who will discuss the matter from the standpoint of its constitutionality.
I notice my time has almost expired, and that I shall not have time to discuss the other points I had in mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time will expire at 9.57.


Frederick George Hahn: Very well. At page 873 of Hansard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said this, when introducing the measure:
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.
What share will British Columbia get? I ask that question because the minister has said that the two contracting parties, namely the governments of Canada and of the United States, will receive their shares. I want to know what the British Columbia share will be because, after all, that is the only province affected by this bill. The minister has said that 20 rivers are affected, but I am satisfied there are more than that in British Columbia alone.

To quote further from the minister in the same address:
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.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is, I am sure, Canada's greatest merchant.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Frederick George Hahn: Well, he deals in all of our goods, and is giving some of them away.


Charles Edward Johnston: He is giving British Columbia's away.


Hazen Robert Argue: What's a million dollars?


Frederick George Hahn: The point is this: I want to know how much electricity is worth at the border today, when there are 75,000 kilowatts
International Rivers
nobody wants to buy. How much will we get for the balance of what he proposes to sell?
And then he says:
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.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him his time has expired.
On motion of Mr. Holowach the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: What is the business for tomorrow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume it will be a continuation of this debate.


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

[Stage Direction]
MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS Communique
The governments of the member nations of the commonwealth are resolved to do their utmost to ease international strain. It is their aim, not only to bring any open hostilities to an end, but to promote conditions in which real peace can grow and thrive so that freedom and plenty may be enjoyed by all peoples.
Since the last meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in 1953, agreements have been reached in various parts of the world which have had the effect of removing differences and widening the area of understanding among governments and peoples. The prime ministers welcomed the settlement of the Trieste dispute. They recorded their satisfaction that, in the Middle East, the United Kingdom's differences with Egypt and Iran had been resolved. They looked forward to closer collaboration between all the countries of that area so that its economic development and the welfare of its peoples could be advanced. They welcomed, in southeast Asia, the end of hostilities in Indo-China and stressed the need for strict adherence to the conditions of the Geneva agreement and for increased welfare and stability in that area.
The prime ministers were informed that the commonwealth countries associated with the North Atlantic treaty were convinced that the early ratification of the agreements reached in London and Paris and the acceptance of federal Germany into the community of the western nations would mark an important advance towards the security and cohesion of western Europe.
The prime ministers met at a time of tension in the Far East. In view of developments which occurred during their meeting, their discussions of this problem assumed a special significance. They were united in their conviction that it was necessary that incidents should be avoided while means were sought for a peaceful outcome. They were confident that the intimate and personal discussions which they had held at this meeting would be a valuable foundation for future consultations, with one another and with other countries directly concerned, and for the development of their policies on this question.
The prime ministers noted the improvement in the outlook for world trade and prosperity which had taken place since the commonwealth finance ministers met at Sydney in January, 1954. They recognized that commonwealth countries had made a substantial contribution to this by maintaining the stability of their currencies, by continuing their development programs, in which the Colombo plan had played its part, and by expanding their production. They had also continued their progressive approach towards the widest practicable system of trade and payments, which best serves the interest of the sterling area and Canada.
The prime ministers affirmed their determination to continue these policies of economic progress. They agreed, in particular, that all commonwealth countries should strive to develop further their resources and their earning power. By these means they could best consolidate their strength and make an increased contribution to economic stability throughout the world.
The prime ministers gave anxious thought to the problems of nucleur energy. The latest discoveries confront humanity with a force which is almost beyond the capacity of man's brain to comprehend or measure. They present a choice and a challenge. Is this vast power to be developed for the benefit of man, or is it to be used to bring ruin upon the human race?
The prime ministers once again declare that their countries will never embark upon aggression. Indeed, it is their hope that, when the peoples of the world understand the magnitude of the disaster which world war would bring, all nations will shrink from violence and follow peaceful means of settling their differences. The annihilating power of the new weapons renders it imperative that sanity should prevail and that war should be prevented.
It is the aim of the commonwealth countries to work for a disarmament agreement which includes forces and weapons of all kinds and is both comprehensive and effective. Commonwealth governments have already devoted much time and thought to producing

and furthering practical plans to achieve this purpose, and two of the commonwealth countries are members of the subcommittee of the United Nations disarmament commission.
With international accord on disarmament, it would become possible to turn the vast resources of atomic energy increasingly into channels which benefit mankind. The prime ministers were informed of the progress made by the United Kingdom government in the use of atomic energy for industrial and other peaceful purposes. They looked forward to the prospects of continued close co-operation between the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries in the development of the civil uses of atomic energy.
In the course of the meeting, the Prime Minister of Pakistan informed the other prime ministers that Pakistan was about to adopt a republican form of constitution but desired to remain a member of the commonwealth. They were assured that the people of Pakistan were resolved to maintain, despite this constitutional change, their steadfast adherence to the commonwealth and their recognition of the crown as the symbol of the free association of its sovereign members. In
Commonwealth Conference a declaration issued on February 4 they signified their agreement that Pakistan should continue on this basis to be a full member of the commonwealth after becoming a republic. All the prime ministers reaffirmed that their countries would remain united as free and equal members of the commonwealth, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress.
The commonwealth is a unique association. Its countries contain a fourth of the world's population, embracing people of many races and religions. Among its members are countries of importance in all quarters of the globe. Its strength and influence in the world today are derived from this and from a common outlook which, in spite of differences of geography, religion and race, evokes a broadly similar response to most international problems of the day.
The commonwealth countries do not pursue any selfish purpose. They seek no aggrandisement and will always oppose aggression. In concert with all who share their ideals, they are resolved to do their utmost to further the cause of peace throughout the world.


[Stage Direction]
While the commonwealth prime ministers were in London the opportunity was taken to hold a series of additional meetings on regional defence problems. These meetings covered the main areas in which the forces of commonwealth countries may have to be deployed in the event of war. Each was attended by representatives of those commonwealth countries whose forces might in war be operating in the particular area under discussion. Their purpose was to enable the representatives of those countries to join together in reviewing the plans for the defence of each area.
The representatives of the commonwealth countries concerned with these regional defence plans recognized that the advent of thermonuclear weapons involves fundamental changes in the strategic approach to defence problems. They agreed that the overwhelming superiority of the western powers in nuclear weapons offers at the present time the most effective and practical
assurance that world peace will not be disturbed by any deliberate act of aggression. They agreed that their defence policies should be founded on the principle that world war can be prevented if the free democracies are resolved to maintain in readiness forces sufficiently strong to deter any potential aggressor.
In Europe great progress has already been made in building up the defensive shield provided by the forces of the North Atlantic treaty powers; and the commonwealth representatives who took part in these discussions welcomed the steps which are being taken to increase the strength of those forces by a military contribution from western Germany. The defence problems of the Middle East were reviewed in the light of recent developments and agreement was reached on the basis for a new approach to defence planning in this area. Discussion of the defence problems of southeast Asia covered plans to help the countries in that
[Stage Direction]
Commonwealth Conference area, not only to resist aggression, but also to strengthen their internal security. The four commonwealth countries which are signatories of the Manila treaty took this opportunity of reviewing, in preparation for the forthcoming conference at Bangkok, progress in making that treaty an effective instrument for these purposes.
The opportunity was taken to discuss, as one element in the defence of the Manila treaty area, the security of Malaya, which is regarded by the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand as of vital importance. The strategic position of the area was clarified by these discussions and it was considered
that, in future, joint planning among the three governments and discussions with other participants in the Manila treaty would go forward effectively.
Throughout these regional defence discussions it was accepted that military plans must be concerted with other countries involved in the defence of these areas. The commonwealth countries concerned also recognized the need for the closest association with the United States in all defence measures. They agreed that on this basis regional defence planning can afford a solid foundation for the preservation of peace.
*
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 11, 1955