1961-01-18

VACANCY

Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Kings in the province of Prince Edward Island by reason of the death of John A. Macdonald, the member therefor.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, as the house knows the Columbia river treaty was signed in Washington yesterday. The President and Secretary of State and the under secretary of the interior signed for the United States of America. The treaty was signed for Canada by myself together with the Minister of Justice and the Canadian ambassador at Washington.
I indicated the other day that I would table at the earliest possible date copies of the treaty and also the statement I made outlining some of the features and particulars of that treaty. In view of the widespread interest in these documents I propose that with the consent of the house they be printed as an appendix to Hansard.
May I say that in the signing of this tremendous treaty the course followed was one that gave emphasis to the importance of the occasion. The fact is that it was the last major official discharge of responsibility on the part of the President of the United States. That fact gives it emphasis. During the course of our stay there the Minister of Justice, myself and several representatives from the two countries were entertained at luncheon at the White House, the last function of the kind that will take place during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
I agree with the remarks that were made at the conclusion of this treaty, that it represents a major advance in co-operation by the two nations without the sacrifice of the rights, the sovereignty or otherwise of either
country, and is indeed a landmark in responsible joint action by nations for their economic betterment.
With the leave of the house, as I indicated earlier, I therefore wish to table the treaty in both English and French, and the summary in both languages.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the house concur in the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the documents tabled by him be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents above referred, see appendix A.]


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when this matter came up the other day we on this side expressed our satisfaction at the conclusion- we hope the mutually satisfactory conclusion -of negotiations which have extended over many years. It was a happy circumstance, Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, that almost the last act of President Eisenhower and his administration should have been such a fine demonstration of good and constructive neighbourhood between our two countries.
If I am in order, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is contemplated that this parliament will proceed with consideration of this treaty before the conclusion of negotiations with the province of British Columbia and the acceptance of the treaty by that province?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us in the house listened with great interest to the extremely important statement just made by the Prime Minister with respect to the development of the Columbia. From the point of view of this group, Mr. Speaker, this has its bright and dark sides. I was very pleased indeed when the Prime Minister suggested that the treaty and the other documents be made an appendix to the record, because it is so important that every member here, and as many Canadians as possible, thoroughly understand the treaty and the circumstances surrounding it.
I am going to be quite brief, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say that we in this group are quite happy over the proposed construction of the Mica dam but have objected to

Proposed Legislation
the building of the high Arrow dam, and we are still strongly opposed to it. However-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the hon. member might agree with me that the merits of the treaty are not brought in issue by the statement made. The report was simply on the signing of the documents and their tabling. There will be opportunity to discuss and debate the documents before they are ratified. Therefore I should think comment would be appropriate only with respect to the actual formality of signing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with the due respect I think your ruling makes it impossible for me to do otherwise than sing a Sunday school hymn. Anyway, I do say that we are very pleased that the various organizations and persons in British Columbia will have an opportunity to present their views before the external affairs committee. I am sure they will receive a civilized, courteous and sympathetic hearing. Would I be in order now, Mr. Speaker, in quoting briefly from a United States newspaper in concluding my remarks? This is what the Milwaukee Journal has to say about the treaty:
The vast amount of additional, cheap hydroelectric power will be shared equally with Canada. Canada will also be paid in cash for flood control at the rate of one half of estimated annual savings. If this seems to be extreme liberality on our part, it should be remembered that Canada could have chosen an all-Canadian project which would have meant more and cheaper power for that country.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this bill becomes more interesting as the election comes closer. It is designed to set up a commission to

handle redistribution which, under the British North America Act, is due in 1962.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Clermont: 1.	Has the board of broadcast governors recommended the issue of a licence to establish a satellite station in Mont Laurier? If so, on what date?
2.	Has the government issued such licence? If so, on what date?
3.	Have tenders been called for the construction of the said station?
4.	If so, (a) on what date is such work to begin; (b) how long will such work last?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	Yes, December 8, 1960.
2.	No.
3.	No.
No. 4, of course, is answered by No. 3. I should say in further explanation that this Mont Laurier station will be an off-air satellite of the proposed station at Mont Trem-blant, the application for which has also been recommended by the board of broadcast governors but subject to the arrangement of channels in virtue and because of the international air agreement which has not yet been finally completed. Therefore the Mont Tremblant application cannot be approved until this international agreement has been completed.


Mr. Denis:: May I ask a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member defer his supplementary until the orders of the day. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue referring to the starred question about the establishment of a satellite station in Mont Laurier. In view of his answer can the minister now give us the approximate date of the beginning of the construction of that station?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Speaker, because it depends on negotiations with the United States with respect to the international agreement. Mont Laurier being an offshoot of Mont Tremblant, the latter must first be commenced. It is the Mont Tremblant problem which is holding us up at the moment.
It is our hope that the matter will be cleared up in the near future so construction

can be started and the station will be in operation before the end of the year, but that is a hope and not to be taken as a guarantee.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether that date appears more remote now than it was before October 31?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.



&quot;UPLANDS TIMES&quot;


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Are public funds spent, either directly or indirectly, in the preparation or distribution of a Royal Canadian Air Force newspaper, The Uplands Times?
2.	Were Royal Canadian Air Force police employed in seeking out copies of a recent issue of The Uplands Times for the purpose of having them withdrawn from circulation?
3.	If so, what was the reason for this action?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions are as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Personnel at the station were requested through their sections to return issues of the newspaper which had been distributed on November 24, 1960. Station personnel including members of the R.C.A.F. police were asked to call at the various sections to pick up the returned issues of the newspaper.
3.	The reason for this action was given in an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Fort William on November 29 last and is reported on page 295 of Hansard of that day.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount remaining in the unemployment insurance fund on the last day of November, 1960, as compared with similar dates for the years 1958 and 1959?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
November	30,	1958	
$641,880,241.89November	30,	1959	
$475,178,655.52November	30,	1960	
$331,703,558.88



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS

Mr. Robichaud: What was the total number of claimants for unemployment insurance benefits on the following dates: December 1, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: The answer is as follows: 1955, 219, 786; 1956, 215, 378; 1957, 403, 273; 1958, 419, 233; 1959, 417, 541; 1960, 485, 177.
Starred Questions



POST OFFICE BUILDING, RESERVE MINES, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 53
Mr. Argue:: 1.	Has the government been considering the building of a new post office on Sydney road, Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, has land been purchased for this purpose, from whom, on what date, for what amount, and where is it located?
3.	Was any member of the local municipal government, or anyone else, consulted as to the suitability of the proposed building site?
4.	If so, who were they, what was the nature of the consultation with each, and what advice was received?
5.	Was a petition received by the government expressing dissatisfaction with the site chosen by the government?
6. If so, from whom, what date did it bear, when was it received, what were its contents, and what consideration has the government given to its request?
7.	Why was the site on Sydney road favoured by the government as opposed to the present site?
8.	Has the government agreed to the building of the post office an another location, and if so where?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: May I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the hon. member for Assiniboia if, because of the complicated and detailed answers involved, he would agree that this should be made an order for return.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think it is as complicated as it is controversial, but I quite agree with the minister's request that it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



INCOME TAX ASSESSORS

Mr.. Badanai: 1.	What qualifications do assessors for income tax department require for employment with the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Are these assessors hired by the director, or chief assessor? If not, by whom?
3.	What training do they receive in the department before assessing in the field?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer to No. 1 is
that the qualifications required of assessors for employment with the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue depend on the grade level at which they are hired. For further information regarding these qualifications, please refer to copies of civil service commission advertising posters which deal with the requirements for each specific appointment.
The answer to No. 2 is that assessors, as well as any other employees of the income tax division, are hired through the civil service commission.
The answer to No. 3 is that at the present time the training program for new assessors

Starred Questions
before they commence to assess in the field or shortly thereafter is as follows:
(a)	An indoctrination course describing the organization and operation of the division.
(b)	A reading course of 24 lessons on the Income Tax Act.
(c)	On the job training in office procedure and desk audit work, under supervision.
(d)	On the job training in field audit work plus a classroom course on basic field audit procedures, again under supervision until a certain amount of experience has been acquired.



SALE BY RUSSIA OF WATCH MECHANISMS

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has the Soviet union made a deal to sell
Canadians watch mechanisms, without cases for about $3 each?
2.	If so. what does the U.S.S.R. buy from Canada in exchange?
3.	Has a trade agreement been made for specific mechandise?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The
answer to Nos. 1 and 2 is that Canadian businessmen are free to import Soviet merchandise, subject to Canadian law. They are not required to report such import transactions to the Department of Trade and Commerce; therefore we have no knowledge of the suggested transaction in question No. 1.
The answer to question No. 3 is that the recently renewed Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement provides that the U.S.S.R. will purchase twice the value of their sales to Canada to an annual limit of $25 million. At least half the Soviet purchases are to be in wheat.



CITIZENSHIP COURTS

Mr. Badanai: 1.	How many courts of Canadian, citizenship are there in Canada?
2.	What number of people are employed in these courts, at Toronto, Hamilton and London, Ontario?
3.	What salaries are paid to the judges of these citizenship courts?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer to the first part of this question is that there are seven courts of Canadian citizenship situated in the following places: Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, London, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.
The answer to the second part is that the personnel of the courts of citizenship are as follows: Toronto, a staff of 13, one judge and one assistant; Hamilton, a staff of four and one judge; London, a staff of four and one judge.

The answer to the third part of the question is that judges of the courts of Canadian citizenship throughout Canada receive an annual remuneration of $11,000.



FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO SASKATCHEWAN, 1960

Mr. McMillan: 1.	What was the total amount paid from the federal treasury to the provincial treasury of Saskatchewan in the calendar year, 1960?
2.	What were the purposes of such payments and how much was each such payment?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: would ask that this question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



C.B.C.-PROTESTS ON COAL AND LABOUR PROGRAMS

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive any pre-showing protests regarding its television programs on either the Cape Breton coal situation or the four-part series on labour?
2.	If so, from what persons, or organization, to what effect and what affect?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did receive two complaints with respect to the program concerning the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. They have received no complaints with respect to the labour program. It is not the policy of the C.B.C. to divulge the names of people writing to the corporation as private individuals because that might discourage them from writing in the future.
In this particular case there were only two complaints received, and both these complainants gave their complaints to the press. Under the circumstances, therefore, I can say one complaint was received from Mr. Duche-min and the other was received from Mr. Nathanson, one owning a newspaper and one owning a radio station at Sydney.



LAKEHEAD TERMINAL PROJECT


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works give consideration to a special arrangement with Raymond International on the lakehead terminal project which would have kept a work force on the job during January, February, and March, 1960?
2.	If so, how much extra was involved in terms of money, and how many men would have been kept on work during this period?
3.	What disposal was made of this suggested arrangement, and for what reasons?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Had this proposal been accepted, an extra in addition to the regular cost would have

been approximately $41,000. From 40 to 60 men might have been employed for a ten week period.
3.	The proposal was not accepted partly because of the extra cost and chiefly by the fact that the pouring of concrete in adverse weather conditions gave us no assurance that it would carry the heavy loads which were involved. Even with extra precautions during January, February and March it would be extremely difficult to ensure proper heating of the aggregate and the protection and satisfactory curing of the concrete to provide proper strength in this exposed location.
It was decided it was better to press ahead with other major contracts at the lakehead to provide employment. Work has now started on one of these, a $3,953,185 contract which includes the construction of two large transit sheds, a number of other buildings, access roads, water and sewer and other services. Within a matter of weeks the number of men employed on this work will exceed those who would have been employed under the proposed arrangement. In addition a new contract will be awarded shortly for the Main street access bridge in the same development. Work is expected to start within a month and this will provide further employment.



CANADA GROCERS LTD., ERANDON  NATIONAL PARKS TENDERS

Mr. Hardie: 1.	Did Canada Grocers Limited of Brandon, Manitoba, tender on supplies for the Riding Mountain national park in November or December, 1960?
2.	If so, was it the successful bidder?
3.	If not, what was the amount of its bid and the amount of the bid made by the successful tenderer?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Canada Grocers Limited, Brandon, Manitoba, $8,610,61; G. McLean Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, $8,046.38.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the government been considering the building of a new post office on Sydney road, Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, has land been purchased for this purpose, from whom, on what date, for what amount, and where is it located?
3.	Was any member of the local municipal government, or anyone else, consulted as to the suitability of the proposed building site?
4.	If so, who were they, what was the nature of the consultation with each, and what advice was received?
Motions for Papers
5.	Was a petition received by the government expressing dissatisfaction with the site chosen by the government?
6.	If so, from whom, what date did it bear, when was it received, what were its contents, and what consideration has the government given to its request?
7.	Why was the site on Sydney road favoured by the government as opposed to the present site?
8.	Has the government agreed to the building of the post office on another location, and if so, where?


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO SASKATCHEWAN, 1960
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What was the total amount paid from the federal treasury to the provincial treasury of Saskatchewan in the calendar year 1960?
2.	What were the purposes of such payments and how much was each such payment?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of each of the reports made by the economists and engineers of the Department of Transport, in connection with the possible dredging of the Richelieu river between the St. Lawrence river and lake Champlain.
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the minister I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that this motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION, PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Cardin:
For a copy of the plans prepared in the Department of Public Works for the construction of a tunnel linking the main parliament building and the west block, and the estimated cost of the project.
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this motion is accepted on the understanding that it cannot be complied with until after February 1, at which date tenders close.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of a communication addressed to the Prime Minister by the board of trade of;
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
metropolitan Toronto with regard to the federal-provincial fiscal problems on December 8, 1960, together with the reply thereto and any subsequent correspondence.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all telegrams, reports, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or any officials of his department and any officials of the government of British Columbia, the officials of any corporation or other persons, regarding the development of the hydro resources of the Columbia river in Canada, since January 1, 1957.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This motion is similar to a motion submitted by the hon. member last July. It was explained at that time by the Minister of Justice that it would not be in the public interest to produce correspondence between this government and the government of British Columbia. The hon. member then stated that this explanation was quite satisfactory and that he did not consider the government of British Columbia an organization composed of individuals in that sense in his motion.
The situation today is the same. I can only say to the hon. member now that it would not be in the public interest to table the documents requested by this motion before the negotiations have been concluded; that is, until the agreement has been considered by parliament and by the United States congress and ratifications exchanged by both countries to make the agreement binding and no longer subject to negotiation. In view of this, I wonder if the hon. member would withdraw his motion.
I can give my hon. friends in this house an assurance that the government is anxious to keep them as fully informed as possible with regard to the essentials of this matter, while respecting the need to keep the actual negotiations with the province and the United States confidential until agreement is ratified. This desire to keep the house informed has been clearly indicated by tabling last December the letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. minister is perhaps going beyond explanation and entering upon debate. The motion is not debatable. I take it that the substance of the hon. gentleman's remarks is that the motion is objectionable on grounds of public policy, and that he is requesting the hon. member for Kootenay West to consider withdrawing it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am delighted to know that a minister is out of order once in a while. Would the minister consider the motion as
[Mr. Pickersgill.I
being in order if I withdrew the reference to officials of the government of British Columbia?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On that point, negotiations with the United States government are not complete until the agreement has been ratified by this house and by congress, so the same restrictions would apply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I accept the explanation given by the minister. I wished to be quite clear about it.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of that explanation, is the mover of the motion willing to have it withdrawn?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it will be in order for me to declare it withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all representations to the government in any printed form which complained about or criticized the performance of the royal commission on publications or any of its members in the performance of his task.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the announcement this morning by the government of the latest unemployment figures, indicating a regrettable increase in unemployment by some 99,000 over the previous month, will the Minister of Labour make available to the house, in addition to the figure of 528,000 unemployed, the number of unplaced applicants for jobs and the number in receipt of unemployment benefits on the last available date?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: If the hon. member for Essex East wishes to have this information I suggest that he place the question on the order paper, and the requirements of his request will be fulfilled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Minister of Labour not recognize that because of the debate now in progress, and because of the urgency of this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me now that the hon. member is making an argument rather than asking a supplementary question.

Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO EMERGENCY	UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
MEASURES	SOLICITOR GENERAL
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the figures on employment and unemployment released this morning by the dominion bureau of statistics, showing that there are now 528,000 unemployed in Canada, an increase over a year ago; and that in British Columbia, in particular, unemployment now amounts to 10.9 per cent of the labour force, namely 63,000, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform this house whether any emergency policies or actions are going to be adopted in view of the present situation of increased unemployment?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Various measures have, of course, been before the house and were discussed, considered and passed prior to the Christmas recess. Other measures will naturally be introduced as events arise.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman this fact. Yesterday while I was in Washington I read of the increase in unemployment in the United States, too, the major increase being during the months of November and December. I also read a report of the committee set up by Mr. Kennedy, the incoming president, in which suggestions were made as to what might be done to meet the situation. On examination of this report I was pleased to see that most, if not all, of the recommendations have already been implemented by this government in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in the light of what he has said about his visit to Washington yesterday. Is the right hon. gentleman not aware, as is pointed out on page 3 of this morning's release, that the percentage of unemployment in Canada in relation to the labour force is 8.2, whereas in the United States it is 6.5?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman is also aware that the same basis of measuring unemployment is not used in the United States in every particular.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not correct that the right hon. gentleman's concern as Prime Minister is with the situation in Canada and not with the situation in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking what seems to be only a rhetorical question.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Solicitor General speaking on behalf of the government when he said in St. John's last week, as reported in the Cape Breton Post of January 13:
-less federal spending "as the government tried to balance the budget" was a principal cause of unemployment in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which reference is made, but I must say I am sure such a statement was not made by the hon. gentleman in question.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I hope this question is in order. I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), occasioned by remarks credited to him last week in Laval to the effect that if unemployment existed it was provoked and caused by Liberal leaders. I wonder whether he could be more specific, or pass the information on to the Minister of Labour, because we all do want to get to the cause of unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure what kind of debate the hon. member for Port Arthur would like to initiate. I suggest that he find a more appropriate time for it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his reported intention to visit Ireland, reports of which have inspired speculation that the right hon. gentleman may take advantage of this visit to attempt to reunite Ireland and bring Ireland back into the commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: I read those speculative articles, and I can only say there has been no agenda yet arranged. As to what matters will be discussed, any questions which might arise will naturally be considered and discussed. The hon. gentleman has had experience in this direction and will realize that one can never fully anticipate the questions which may be discussed in these circumstances.

Inquiries of the Ministry POWER


COLUMBIA RIVER-CONCLUSION OF AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to repeat a question which I think I heard the leader of the official opposition ask the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to conclude an agreement with the government of British Columbia before bringing the Columbia treaty before this house for ratification?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked that question a little earlier, and of course I had no opportunity to refer to it. It will be necessary for the government of Canada to enter into an agreement with the government of the province of British Columbia. We are prepared to proceed with such agreement at once. As far as we are concerned there will be no delay in proceeding with, negotiating and completing such an agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government proposes to submit this treaty to the committee on external affairs of this house before the agreement has been concluded with the province of British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go any further at the moment than to say to the Leader of the Opposition, as I already stated, that it is the intention to have this question placed before the committee on external affairs. When that will be, I cannot say at this time.


PIPE LINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The president of Home Oil Company has indicated in a special report to its shareholders that construction of the $430' million pipe line from the oil fields of Alberta to Montreal is essential to the Canadian economy. Can the minister inform the house whether the government is giving the construction of this pipe line favourable consideration?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Of course any company is quite at liberty to express any opinion it wants to its shareholders, and most of them do. The government is giving


this whole matter very serious and constructive consideration, along with all matters pertaining to the oil industry at this time.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister say when the December and year end figures for housing starts will be made available?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to look into that matter and give an answer at the earliest possible date.


John Richard Garland: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say if there is any justification for withholding these figures at the present time?


David James Walker: We are very anxious to bring them to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, because they indicate a substantial improvement over those of a year ago, and I know the hon. member will be glad to hear that.


John Richard Garland: In view of what the minister just said perhaps he would permit a further supplementary question. Since the 1960 housing starts are unfortunately the lowest since 1953-


David James Walker: What is the hon. member's question?


John Richard Garland: -as a result, in part, of the policy of the government in slashing in half direct lending in 1960 as compared to 1959-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member a supplementary question? It seems to me he is giving information rather than asking for it at the moment.


John Richard Garland: I am merely laying the groundwork, Mr. Speaker. To return to my question, will the minister tell the house how much money will be made available in the direct lending field in 1961?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, all these matters are questions of government policy and in due course they will be brought to the attention of the house.	.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Nipissing may I say I just received some figures. The over-all figures for the year 1960 are not available yet because of the lack of returns from municipalities of 5,000 or less; but for those municipalities above 5,000 there have been

approximately 100,000 starts and we expect the number of starts will be 9,000 or 10,000 for the municipalities under 5,000.
I am also very happy to be able to say that I have just received the first two weeks' returns for approved lenders' loans for 1961. In the year 1960, for the first two weeks, there were 32 loans; this year, 904.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that I precisely recall the question, but it seems to me the minister is giving information which goes beyond the question; it would be in the nature of a statement.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, it should be added that the direct loans last year were 34 and this year 1,316.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister has just said, perhaps he will admit that it is not hard to improve on nothing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask whether it is the intention of the government to implement the unanimous recommendation of the Indian affairs committee contained in its report last year with respect to the compulsory franchise for Indians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had contained his soul in patience he would have heard me make that announcement when resolutions are called.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to move for the setting up of the special committee on defence expenditures at the current session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a matter of policy and, as the hon. gentleman knows, when and if a decision is made in that regard it will be brought to the attention of the house at once.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister give it his urgent consideration and report to the
Inquiries of the Ministry house at an early date, in view of the considerable importance and urgency of this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government will give the suggestion the attention it deserves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister now consider the setting up of parliamentary committees to be a matter of government policy rather than procedure in the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, certainly not; but a question as to whether a committee should be set up for a definite purpose is a matter for government policy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR EARLY DEBATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the early allocation of a day for discussion in this house of the serious international problems and affairs that abound and, if so, would he do everything possible at this time to win the acceptance of the Leader of the Opposition for the holding of such a debate?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very close relationship existing between the two groups opposite I suggest that the hon. gentleman direct his question privately to the Leader of the Opposition. We tried to secure a date for this purpose but it was opposed by the official opposition. Apparently there has been no change in that regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, the Prime Minister must realize that he has made a statement which he should not make, because it is entirely inaccurate.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a press report to the effect that the report of the royal commission on transportation may be delayed beyond the schedule set by the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether an interim report is likely to be made if the main report is delayed beyond that date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not have too much to tell the house in response to that

Inquiries of the Ministry question. I saw the press report, but nothing concerning the commission's report has been brought to my attention.



JAPAN-INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I wish to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary based on a statement made in Vancouver by Japanese consul Muneo Tanabe, to the effect that his government might consider imposing restrictions on Canadian goods if Canada placed too many restrictions on commodities from Japan.
My question is this. Has the Canadian government made any representations to the Japanese government with a view to having it refrain from imposing restrictions on the importation of Canadian goods into Japan?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the particular press quotation to which the hon. gentleman refers, but I shall examine it and the Minister of Finance who will be back in the house tomorrow will then have an answer for the hon. gentleman.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on January 16 the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked me a question on the orders of the day with respect to some discussion or representations apparently made by one Mr. Eldon Wilcox, of the C.B.C., concerning the attendance of C.B.C. employees at certain seminars.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from time to time does send certain of its management and supervisory staff to various seminars and short courses in management procedures sponsored by a number of Canadian and American organizations, including the American management association. The corporation feels that, for the proper conduct of its affairs, it must provide senior people with opportunities to learn from the experience of leading business and industrial concerns about new developments and techniques in the field of management.
The corporation has no knowledge or experience of the anti-union activities attributed to the American management association.



REQUEST THAT FEED MILLS BE RETURNED TO WHEAT BOARD JURISDICTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement attributed to him in a Canadian Press dispatch from Saskatoon dated December 22, to the effect that further action on the exemption of feed mills from grain delivery quota and price regulations would be taken when the government receives evidence that prices for feed grain are breaking down. Since the national farmers' union submitted a document in which they said feed grain prices have in fact broken down, and at one station were 45 cents lower-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -in price, is the government going to restore feed grains sold to mills under the wheat board both as to price and quota?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not admit, nor does the government, that there have been the results which the hon. member suggests.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is denying this statement by the national farmers' union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is starting to argue with the answer rather than to ask for information.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask this supplementary question, which I believe is very much in order. Has the Prime Minister or the government received this document, and has it indeed given a reply to the national farmers' union?


An hon. Member:: What is the date of it?


Hazen Robert Argue: January 13, 1961.


John George Diefenbaker: The document in question has not yet been brought to my attention.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER GREATER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS

John George Diefenbaker: That a select committee, to be designated, be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.

He said: Mr. Speaker, on January 18 last, on my suggestion, a committee of the house was set up under your chairmanship and direction which dealt with the rules, and changes were duly recommended in the report made on July 25, 1960. In that report the committee recommended that certain temporary orders of procedure be adopted on a trial basis effective only for the next session of parliament, the fourth session of the twenty fourth parliament. Those proposals are set out in detail in the report.
I think the experience of the last few weeks has been that the recommendations have been most beneficial. I think members in all parts of the house will agree that the recommendations were of such a nature and have proved to be so simple that they ought to receive consideration toward making them applicable not only to this session but to succeeding sessions. This, of course, is a matter for members in all parts of the house to determine.
There are various other matters which should be considered. Last year, on May 9, a motion to set up the committee was introduced by the Minister of Finance. At page 3687 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the light of the length of time which was devoted to the study of the rules by the previous committee, I do not think the house will expect the committee to come forward with a final report at this session. If that should be the case, I am sure the house will be pleased to set up the committee again at the next following session to continue its work. The appointment at the present session, however, will at least launch the committee and enable it to carry forward its work. If the committee should see fit to make recommendations about changing the rules at this session, that matter will have to be considered however the report is received.
I believe-and I hope the house will agree -that this committee should be set up to carry on from where the committee of the last house concluded, to the end that the rules which are so necessary for the maintenance of efficient and expeditious debate should be viewed in greater detail than was possible at the last session. After all, rules are not like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. They should be reviewed regularly to the end that their effectiveness shall be tested and, if unsatisfactory in any way, be altered in the light of experience and circumstances.
I want to say a word to the members of the committee. I think the manner in which they came to agreement on recommendations at the last session, as in 1951, speaks highly of all members of the committee. No one wants to put parliament in a strait-jacket. No one wants to interfere with the fullest
Appointment of Committee on House Rules discussion. No one wants to bring about a denial of the rights of members to express themselves fully with the authority of the people they represent.
I think the experience has been, however, that the reduction in the length of speeches from 40 minutes to 30 minutes has improved the quality of speeches. After all, it is so much easier to make a speech of great length than a short and effective one. On one occasion Woodrow Wilson, I believe, was asked by Princeton University, of which he had been president for many years, whether he would accept an invitation to speak and how much notice he would require. I do not have before me the exact answer he gave and I am speaking from memory, but as I recall, his answer was that if he was to make a speech an hour long three or four days' notice would be ample, but if the speech was to be 10 or 15 minutes long he would require two or three months' notice.
While it is necessary on occasion, in order to elucidate a problem, to go beyond 30 or 40 minutes, in the normal range of debate nothing is more effective than a short, well reasoned and lucid argument. Quite an advance was made by the committee in that direction by reducing the period from 40 to 30 minutes, and I am sure that in consequence of that reduction no thought that the house should have had, no suggestion that would be beneficial, has been denied expression.
I therefore place this motion before the house hoping that it will receive unanimous approval.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are happy to support the motion for the setting up without delay of a committee to continue the work of a similar committee last session, which I think was effective and produced some constructive proposals under your own wise guidance. Anything that a committee of the house can do to recommend to the house procedures and proposals that will make our proceedings more businesslike should receive the support of all of us subject, of course, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, to the necessity of the fullest discussion of every measure before the house, something which is of particular concern to the opposition.
The Prime Minister mentioned one recommendation of the last committee reducing the length of speeches. In his view it has worked out very well. Perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that until the time comes when this process of improvement, if that is what it is, can be continued by putting the Prime Minister and myself under a similar time limit, which might make our speeches more effective also.
1170	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Appointment of Committee on House Rules
We support the motion and it is unnecessary for me to say anything more, as it would only delay the setting up of the committee. Therefore I merely express on behalf of our party our strong approval of the setting up of the committee. We hope it will continue its good work of last session in this field.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being a member of the committee on procedure during the last session of the house and I feel, as other members do, that the committee was able to do effective work and made a report whose recommendations, up until this point during the present session, seem to be working well and in my opinion have made a contribution toward dealing with the business of the house during this session in a more effective way.
The members of the committee were generally agreed that any change in the rales should be first of all a temporary change on a trial basis and, second, should be agreed to unanimously by the members of the committee. So, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the government using its majority to force the adoption of certain procedures did not arise. All the changes in the rules that are in effect during the present session were agreed to unanimously.
I think the changes have been good. There has been a reduction of two days in the time taken for the debate on the speech from the throne, and a reduction of two days also in the budget debate. There has been a general reduction in the length of speeches from 40 minutes to 30 minutes, with some particular exemptions. Authority has been given to the government to bring forward government measures in lieu of or by interrupting private members' days so that the government can get its legislative program before parliament and committees of the house can be set up. I think this has been a good move and one that has helped in dealing with legislation during this session in a more orderly fashion.
When I spoke on this subject at the time it came before the house last session I recall saying that in the planning of the business of a session the government itself had a good deal to do with the length of the session, and that good management and a program well arranged would invariably lead to a shortening of the session whereas ineffective management of the legislative program by those in charge would lead to delay. I pointed out that all the government needed to do to delay the proceedings of the house was to bring four or five controversial measures before parliament and then deal with each only one day at a time in a kind of round

robin process, and that under such a procedure the session could last indefinitely. However, when the government brings forward a measure, initiates a debate and allows the debate to continue until the subject has been dealt with, I think the government then contributes to an orderly expedition of the business of the session.
The change in the rules as to time, referred to by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition applies to members other than these two hon. gentlemen. Unlimited time, of course, is also the right of a person moving a government measure and of the first speaker from the opposition replying to a government motion. I think some progress could be made in setting a time limit in this regard. I would not say that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should agree never to speak longer than one hour. The Prime Minister may feel that would	increase	the	effectiveness	of	thespeeches of the Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of the Opposition might think it would	increase	the	effectiveness	of	the
speeches of the Prime Minister. However, when it comes to people who are replying for the opposition I believe there might be a limit of one hour, shall we say, or perhaps a limit of 40 minutes might be applied, without reducing the rights and without reducing the effectiveness of the opposition.
There has been a feeling in some quarters from time to time that we might remove the committee stage preceding money bills. This is a proposal with which I would be unable to agree. I feel that is a very valuable stage of any debate. I think it is a stage, wisely used and seriously considered by the government, which could lead to important changes in the legislation that would follow. I feel this stage enables the members, in a free sense, to deal with the particular principles of the question under discussion.
I would think the committee, Mr. Speaker, should give some serious consideration to the procedures of the committees of this house. I do not believe the committees of this house perform as useful a service as they might, since they seem so often to be the captives of the government majority. I believe individual members should have the right to call for persons and papers and should have a good deal to do with the agenda of the committee. Consideration should be given also to the reports that are made by committees. I do not like to see the practice being followed which seems to have grown up, not under this administration only but under previous administrations as well, namely that a committee of this house that is dealing with a piece of controversial legislation will make a recommendation and, since it is a hot

Appointment of Committee on House Rules
potato, since the government does not want to deal with it, the recommendation is brought to the house but concurrence in the report of the committee is not moved.
I think if a committee brings a report to the house, then the house should have an opportunity to debate the recommendations contained therein. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the country can be very easily misled into thinking that far greater weight has been given to the recommendations of the committee than is in fact the case. I would refer to a particular instance that I have in mind, namely the report of the agriculture committee dealing with the feed grain and feed mill situation. On June 27 the committee made certain recommendations which were reported to the house. However, the report was never moved in the house. The country has been led to believe that the report of this committee had a very wide measure of approval. The fact of the matter is that it was such a hot, controversial issue, I suggest, and the government felt so uncertain, that no step was taken by any member of the party opposite to move this report of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but he is going rather far afield. It seems to me he is threshing old straw in dealing with the merits of the report of the agriculture committee at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not dealing with the merits. I was just dealing with the fact that it was a controversial issue and, being a controversial issue, when a report was made to the house no one on the opposite side of the house cared to move the report. I think this makes something of a farce of the so-called recommendations coming from the committee, and it certainly leaves a situation that could be misinterpreted in the country. I suggest that in order to give greater weight to the recommendations of committees, the procedure committee should consider whether or not, when particular recommendations are made, the report should be considered and either approved or rejected by the house itself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this committee on procedure made another reference of great interest and great importance but not quite so precise as certain other recommendations. It is found at the bottom of page 827 of Votes and Proceedings for July 25, 1960, and reads as follows:
In addition, the committee has given preliminary consideration to a number of other procedural problems and has initiated studies which will assist in a more comprehensive review of the matters referred to it.
It is therefore recommended that a similar committee be appointed early in the next session to
carry on these studies including the procedure on private bills of divorce which the committee has been asked and is willing to consider in so far as the problem is capable of procedural solution.
We are in a very difficult position, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this question at this moment, in that we are not certain whether the members of another place are going to approve a bill that was approved by this house. Parliament itself, therefore, may have given its stamp of approval to a procedure for the handling of private bills of divorce different from the cumbersome, awkward and exasperating system that has been in vogue for many years. The constitutionality of this procedure has been raised. I am not a constitutional authority. Since I am a farmer, perhaps my attitude on this question is just too simple. My attitude is that if a thing works, let us approve it. Of course I know the constitutional authorities will look at the matter exceedingly carefully to see if parliament has gone beyond its right in dealing with the matter, and I agree that such a look is important.
If it should, and I hope this is not the case, be necessary for the committee to deal with this question in the light of the old procedure, I hope it will be able to make some recommendations that will result in removing consideration of divorce bills from this House of Commons, while granting to the people who are involved the rights and protection that come from established legal procedures.
The Leader of the Opposition said he did not wish to speak too long. He was in favour of the motion, and he wanted action on this subject. Well, there is good reason to pass this motion on its own merits. There are other good reasons, namely the statistics on the continuing unemployment situation, which suggest to all members of parliament in January, as they did in November, that the House of Commons, parliament and the government have not yet effectively dealt with this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may initiate a debate, if he pursues that line, which would not be relevant to the subject matter under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: If we took a long time on this procedural debate it would be suggested, I am sure, that we were delaying other far-reaching measures deaiing with the emergency which might be presented to the house. Since this is not our attitude, and since we think this resolution is a good one and that the former committee made real progress, we are happy once again to support this motion. I hope that I may have the good fortune to be a member of Your Honour's committee again during the present session.

Joint Committee to Study Indian Act Mr. Speaker: Is the house ready for the question?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to continue the examination and consideration, begun by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution of the House on April 29, 1959, and continued by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution on March 9, 1960, of the Indian Act, chapter 149, R.S.C. 1952, and amendments thereto, and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians;
That twenty four members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the records, exhibits and evidence received and taken by the joint committees appointed at the last two sessions to examine and consider the foregoing matters be made available to the said committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses under oath; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution proposes to reconstitute the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs which was first established in 1959 and was reconstituted last year to pursue the examination and consideration of the Indian Act and the Indian Act administration in general. I do not think I need to dwell upon the details of the resolution itself, which is presented in essentially the same form as that which was approved by the house a year ago. When the joint committee reported on July 5 last year it made the following recommendation, which I quote from the final report of the committee:
Your committee unanimously recommends further that immediately after parliament reassembles next session, a similar committee be reconstituted to continue and complete the hearing of representatives of Indian and other organizations, departmental officials and also review the Indian Act.
Those members of the house who have followed the work of this committee during

1959 and 1960 are well aware of the substantial amount of work which remains before the committee can be ready to formulate its final recommendations. The committee will first of all, I presume, wish to complete the hearing of Indian organizations and other interested non-governmental groups. It will then proceed to examine and hear from the appropriate departmental officials whom it may wish to call. I would assume this would be their procedure, and that probably only then would it be able to turn its attention to the detailed examination of the Indian Act itself and the formulation of those legislative changes which it may wish to recommend for consideration by the government and by parliament.
It is the government's hope that the committee, by getting an early start this session, will be able to complete its monumental task and present its final report with recommendations by the end of the present session.
I should perhaps make reference in conclusion to the recommendation contained in the committee's final report of July 5, 1960, which was referred to by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) earlier this day with respect to section 112 of the Indian Act. I gave an assurance to the committee last year and also in 1959 that I was in agreement with the committee's view that section 112 should be amended at the earliest possible opportunity by removing the much criticized provision for the compulsory enfranchisement of Indians.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have never made any secret of the fact that I thought this particular provision in section 112 should never have been in there in the first place. It has not been used either by this government or by the preceding administration. Consequently I felt there was no point in keeping it in the act. I would have brought in an amendment to the act last year had it not been for the fact that I had anticipated that the committee might have finished its work last year and that all the amendments could be made at one time. However, I am glad to announce that the government has accepted this recommendation of the committee and that it intends to introduce at the present session of parliament legislation to amend section 112 in the sense recommended by the committee. In that way those persons who will appear before the committee this year will be assured of this action, and whether or not the committee is in a position to make its final report we will at least have cleared up this one section of the act which has caused considerable controversy.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, during the past two sessions of parliament I have had the privilege of serving on the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs which was established by a resolution, as intimated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in April, 1959. This committee continued to operate during last session and heard a great number of submissions and briefs from nearly every Indian tribe and reservation, supported by various competent speakers.
The sum total of all these meetings was "the conclusion drawn by several members that our Indians were more than justified in asking for a revision of the act which would give them the same rights as those enjoyed by all Canadians.
The mere change or amendment of the act will not bring immediate integration of the Indian population. Before we can obtain Ihe desired result it will require patience, guidance and financial assistance by both federal and provincial governments. The ultimate objective, however, should be a full integration of Indians and whites, which can be seen bearing fruit in several parts of [DOT]Canada.
As an example I will refer you to what has taken place in the Kenora district of northwestern Ontario. There a public school which had 75 pupils accepted 50 Indian students, and it was found that there is no intellectual difference between them and the white pupils. The principal of that school made an observation to the effect that while a slow Indian student may be slightly slower than a slow white student, a bright Indian child is every bit the equal of a bright white child. The principal of this school-and I wish that we had more principals like him -made the statement that the younger Indian children integrated with the white children immediately, and that the older ones took longer only because they were shy. However, he is certain that if this policy of integration continues, even the slightest variations of racial behaviour will in time disappear.
A special effort should be made to ensure that no Indian pupil will be deprived of the benefit of secondary education. A definite policy should be established by the Indian affairs branch, in co-operation with the provincial departments of education and school boards, in order to make sure that every Indian boy and girl be encouraged to attend high school, vocational and technical school. Where necessary assistance should be provided for transportation and in some cases also for noon meals during the school period. I also strongly urge the government to set
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act up scholarships to be given to pupils qualifying for higher education. This is a most important feature and it should receive the hearty approval of the minister, who has shown a sympathetic understanding of the serious need to improve the educational standard of our first citizens.
I am told that while the doors of immigration are partially closed to most classifications of trades and labour they are wide open for trained domestics. I offer no criticism of this. I do, however, suggest that we are passing up an excellent opportunity by not making an effort to make use of a great number of girls living on reserves. Why not set up special classes in our elementary or vocational schools? Why not institute a training program for young Indian girls to train them in household duties, child care and a general idea of what to expect in domestic service? This would be assistance of inestimable value.
While the Indian on the reserve retains many of the traditions of his forefathers, some of the traditions have been dropped. The heredity principle, if not altogether scrapped, has been greatly modified as can be seen through the present method of choosing chiefs. Chiefs are now elected in very much the same way as our own communities elect their mayors. These elections are the cornerstones of a new era of democracy on the reserves which might well pave the way to self-determination among the first Canadians.
Last year Indian chiefs and counsellors from reserves scattered throughout northwestern Ontario met at a conference in the Quetico training centre. They went through a course of training under the direction of officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Indian affairs branch, and I am sure the minister has a full report of this meeting. This course was designed to bring better understanding of the responsibility of leadership that rests with the chiefs and counsellors in the reserve.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I call his attention to the fact that the question before the house is the setting up of a joint committee and not the subject matter and details of Indian affairs which will come before that committee. All members of the house, if we accept this resolution, will have opportunities to present to the proposed committee such ideas as the hon. member for Fort William is now presenting here and it would seem to me inappropriate on this resolution, which is confined to the simple question of whether or not we are to establish this committee, to go into the matters which would naturally
1174	HOUSE OF
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act come before that committee, at any rate at length. I hope the hon. member will govern himself accordingly.


Hubert Badanai: I am endeavouring to point out the need for a committee to deal with these matters, and I believe I should bring to the attention of the house some of the questions which I think it will be desirable for the committee to take up. I am pointing out some of the ways by which this committee might function more effectively on behalf of our Indian population.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the hon. member's view to that extent. He would not be out of order in enumerating the matters that this committee might deal with but it seems to me it would be out of place to elaborate on them, because it is asking the house to do the work which the committee itself is being set up to do.


Hubert Badanai: I will modify my remarks to conform with your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I would say that the Canadian Indian, to whom I shall refer during my remarks as the first Canadian, by virtue of legislation passed at the last session, is now a full-fledged voting citizen with representation in the Senate, and here I should like to record the facts that in 1940 a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons recommended to the government of the day that the federal franchise be extended to all Indians. Unfortunately opposition developed among some of the Indians themselves, as a result of which the parliament of that day decided not to put the committee recommendation into effect. As indicated by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) it appears there is still some opposition today to this worth-while recommendation, but I point out that these objections will in time wear out. It has taken 20 years for opposition to the voting privilege to wear down to the point where this privilege is being accepted as a right.
May I say for the information of the house that on September 26, 1959, at my invitation, Senator James Gladstone visited the reserve at Fort William. The city council tendered a luncheon in his honour, and in the evening a large meeting of several hundred Indians and others was held at Chippewa park. The reception was held under the auspices of the board of parks management who supplied the refreshments.
Chief Frank Pelletier of Fort William acted as chairman and arranged a pow-wow to celebrate the visit. All in all, it was a great day for these people.
I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express the grateful thanks of my constituents to the senator who represents all the


Indians of Canada for his keen interest in their welfare, an interest which he has demonstrated by making personal contacts and visiting Indian communities across the country.
Notwithstanding the recognition that Indians should enjoy equal rights with all. Canadians the truth of the matter is that they do not by any means possess those equal, rights. Take, for example, the case of an Indian ex-serviceman in my own constituency, who on the field of battle won no less than six medals. Yet this man was denied the-privilege of having a bottle of beer in his home. His name is David Kimball of the Fort William Indian reserve. He was charged for having beer in his home. He was fined $70 and costs, or 50 days in jail. When he appeared before the magistrate-and I quote his remarks as reported in the press-he said: "I fought for this country. They gave me six medals. They advertise beer on T.V., but I can't bring it home. I plead guilty." The magistrate told him that he had to obey the law as it was presently constituted, and that until a change was made Indians could not have alcohol on the reserve.
Of course, this is no indictment of the magistrate. It is the law which should be changed. Here I should like to point out that there is a clear responsibility on the part of the Indian affairs branch to inaugurate an adult education program by means of films, lectures and reading material to make the Indians realize the dangers of alcoholism and its effect on their homes and social life.
Unless substantial changes are made in the Indian Act, changes or amendments which will give these people opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed by all citizens, the bill of rights which was so ceremoniously introduced during the last session of parliament will remain only a limited declaration of intentions.
The question of rights and privileges for Indians is so confused that there is little wonder that so many petitions and briefs were presented to the committee during the last two sessions of parliament. The bill of rights in its present form does not protect the Indians. To be effective it requires that a number of changes be made in the Indian Act. I dare say that a considerable number of Indian leaders are demanding that necessary changes be made in order that whatever privileges may exist under the bill of rights be extended to them. One of them has to do-with the title of reserve lands and the right of Indians to own lands, the lands comprising' the reserves used by their ancestors for centuries and the homes which have been built on them.

Owning property is one of the principal rights which is recognized in the bill of rights as one of the freedoms but as the title to the reserves is in the name of the crown the Indians are barred from owning their own land. Therefore, under the present act, the Indian can obtain a certificate indicating possession but he cannot sell or transfer the title to anyone not a member of the band, the whole purpose being to prevent a break-up of the reservation. That is the reason why some groups made representations to the committee urging the abolition of the certificate system in order that all lands be held in one parcel.
The restriction imposed on the sale of land only to another member of the band will militate against his being able to obtain a fair price for his property, a practice which of course is not in keeping with the fundamental freedoms enunciated in the bill of rights.
Another flagrant violation of human rights is suffered by an Indian girl if she happens to marry a non-Indian. In that event under the provisions of the present Indian Act she ceases to be an Indian and is disqualified to inherit her father's property or home.
Mr. Stewart Udall, a member of the United States house of representatives, who was recently appointed secretary of the interior by president-elect John F. Kennedy, immediately after his appointment made this statement:
We have not done enough for our Indian citizens -we can do and intend to do a better job.
That is precisely the spirit in which this resolution should be accepted by all members of the house irrespective of where we sit. No lesser objective and determination should be shown by the government in dealing with amendments to the present Indian Act which should be expected to be brought into this house at the earliest possible moment.
The department should consider the establishment of modern fish processing plants which would encourage many Indians to enter into the commercial fishing field. As an example, Armstrong Fisheries was organized by a group of commercial fishermen in northwestern Ontario which will operate a processing plant at Pickle lake, capable of handling one million pounds of fish a year. This plant will provide good cash returns to the Indian population of the district of Patricia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know that the hon. member wants to observe the rules of the house. The matter he is now embarking upon is one that should perhaps come before the committee. Although he is at liberty to put
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act the suggestion at this time the hon. member might well reserve the details for the committee.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out the great advantages that could accrue as the result of the government encouraging the establishment of such plants and I hope the committee will approve such a recommendation in order that it may later be implemented by parliament.
I now pass on the subject of education which I feel is paramount. Indeed, in my opinion it is the key to a successful contribution toward a higher standard of living for our first citizens who have for far too long suffered economic inequalities in relation to the white man, inequalities in opportunities for education, inequalities in opportunities for employment in various occupations, inequalities in cases of public welfare apart from the treaty pittance which is doled out annually on the reserves. What is needed, in short, is a recognition of the right of the Indians to equality with all Canadians.
These people feel, and not without some justification, that they have been neglected. They point out the difference between the white communities and the slums on their reserves. They feel deprived of the opportunity to make a reasonable living on the reserve and sometimes despair as to what should be done about it.
In the brief presented by the Blackfoot Indians to the joint parliamentary committee during the last session they suggested changes which called for a reform of the entire structure of Indian policy and a program of assistance. I wish to quote from an article written by William Morris which appeared in the magazine section of the Globe and Mail of December 3, 1960:
Answers will not be found until the government takes a new look at its entire treatment of the Canadian Indian. Radical changes will have to be made in its legislative program and the administration of the Indian affairs branch-both long overdue. At a recent meeting of the joint parliamentary committee on Indian affairs, the Black-foot Indians pressed for such a sweeping change. But they believe that the government, which while in opposition appeared to be their champion, is not capable of giving them the leadership they badly need.
They have good reason for their belief. In its 3 j years of power, the government of John Diefenbaker has failed to introduce any policy which would come to grips with a major question affecting Indians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. gentleman in his interest in the Indians but the article he is now reading is a most controversial one which in parts bears little resemblance to the truth. If this is to be
1176	HOUSE OF
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act introduced in this debate then we are going to open this up into a full debate on Indian affairs policy having very little to do with the actual setting up of this committee. In that event I shall certainly feel called upon to refute the arguments described and put forward by the author of the article which the hon. member is now quoting. I personally feel that this would be much more appropriately discussed on the estimates of the department or at such time as the act is before us for amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to say anything in support of his right to read the article I will hear him, but I must consider the position which has been taken.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the minister I am quoting an opinion reported in the Globe and Mail. I appreciate both the minister's sympathy and her concern about opening up too wide a field of debate. I am merely quoting what this author says about the lack of government legislation. I am sure the minister is considering, and I know she will introduce, legislation which will be beneficial to all the Indian people of Canada. I am merely pointing out the defects to show that up to now the Indians have been neglected. That is the only reason why I am pointing it out and attempting to read this particular observation.


Mr. Speaker:: May I just say for the guidance of the hon. member that it seems to me he is going too far when he attempts to introduce a controversial matter which discusses the merits of the issues which the house now seeks to refer to the committee.
The only question before the house is whether the former joint committee will be continued for the purpose of considering the affairs of Indians and the administration of the Indian Act. That is the point before the house, whether or not it is expedient to continue this committee. The various matters which the committee will have to consider are not in debate. If the hon. member introduces too many of them-I have been patient with him up to this point-then the only result will be to encourage other hon. members to extend the debate beyond its proper scope, and I hope he will not put me and the house in that position.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall forgo the reading of the rest of the quotation, which, in my view, is important in relation to the question we are discussing, namely the purpose of the establishment of the committee. In my view its purpose is to


rectify any injustices which have been perpetrated upon the Indian people up to now. That is the only purpose. In any event I shall forgo the reading of this particular article which is very good indeed. I commend it to every member of the committee.
It has been established, of course, that more and more of our first Canadians are becoming integrated into city life and are leaving the reserves. Some have made a success as farmers, tourist camp and gas filling station operators, and in dozens of other trades and professions. Therefore, there is no valid reason to believe that they cannot succeed in fields which up to now have been considered as the white man's preserves. All they need is education and training.
In answer to one of my questions, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) assured the house that the vocational training provided under Bill No. C-49 would apply to Indians on the reserves. I express the hope that the Indians on the Fort William reserve, as on all the reserves in Canada, will avail themselves of this opportunity, because it is the kind of assistance that I have been advocating ever since my election to parliament.
I also wish to point out to the minister that the method by which men are selected for training under this scheme should be such that it will not discriminate against applicants from the reserves, and that adequate assistance be given to them while they are in training to the same extent as it is given to others. The minister said that the selection would be the responsibility of the provinces. While I do not think that the provincial authorities will discriminate in any way against Indians, nevertheless I should like to suggest that a special recommendation on behalf of the Indians be made by the minister to those who will have charge of approving the applicants for vocational training as outlined in the legislation.
The Glenbow foundation, which is a charitable institution organized in Calgary, has recently submitted a recommendation urging the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to give consideration to the enactment of legislation to protect archaeological remains or sites on Indian reserves, especially in areas which are threatened with destruction by excavation for power projects and other developments. I commend this suggestion to the minister as being worthy of serious consideration, with the added recommendation that in this work of preservation of historical sites preference for employment be given to local Indians.

I cannot think of anything more appropriate to conclude my remarks on this important and challenging subject than to quote a few sentences from a report of the Indian-Eskimo association of Canada:
We see that there has to be a continuing effort to create among the Indians, material well-being, civic sense, and social cohesions. We do not see how present safeguarding of the peculiar Indian rights and present enforcement of their disabilities can be combined harmoniously with their journeying to the good life.
I submit that while there may not be easy solutions of the various questions which I have endeavoured to bring to the attention of this house, I do believe however that if we approach the problem with good will and determination, satisfactory results will be produced to the end that our first Canadians will eventually share with all other Canadians the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments on the motion before us I too, like the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and also the minister, of course, look with great expectations upon the establishment of this committee and the results which we hope will flow from it.
As the minister indicated, the committee last session made a unanimous recommendation with respect to the compulsory enfranchisement section of the act, recommending that it be removed. I do not think there is anyone in the country who would disagree with that recommendation. Had the government moved with alacrity and undertaken to accept the bill that I introduced last session and again this session they could have accomplished that object, namely the deletion of section 112 from the Indian Act. This course is still open to the minister. In fact, it would mean less work for her if the government adopted the bill I now have on the order paper for the elimination of section 112, and that could be done without any difficulty.
During last session and the session before it was my privilege to be a member of the committee and I hope I shall have the opportunity to be a member during this session. There are, of course, others of my colleagues in the C.C.F. party who have an intense interest in Indian affairs. Owing to our democratic process of electing members to the committee I may have some difficulty in overcoming their desires but I hope I shall be successful.
I for one expect that the committee will have sufficient opportunity and length of time at its disposal not only to conclude its hearings during the present session but also
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act to conclude its work with respect to all details, the most important of which, of course, is the making of recommendations to parliament for amendments to the act and changes in administration and other Indian affairs.
I think these recommendations must be couched in the most definite terms. I do not think they should be to any degree wishy-washy or hopeful that certain circumstances will develop. As I have said, they should be strong and definite and as all-inclusive as possible, covering all facets of the problems confronting our native Indian people. There should, of course, be a striving toward unanimity of the committee with respect to whatever recommendations it produces. In my opinion, the stronger, the more definite and conclusive these recommendations are, the better the chance will be of their becoming a reality in statute form and in policy and administrative procedures on the part of the government in office.
Our attitude in the past toward our native Indian people is something of which we should not be too proud. I have mentioned a number of times in the house and elsewhere that the history of our treatment of our native Indian people leaves a great deal to be desired. We-when I say "we" I mean the non-Indian population because in this relationship I do not think the term "white man" is correct-in effect have ruined their economic structure without attempting to replace it with something else with which they can cope. To a great extent we have disregarded their historical background, their arts and their culture without bending too much effort even to understand or appreciate them and have attempted to force them to accept our way of life.
We have discriminated against them in employment, in educational opportunities and in other ways too. To a great extent we have disregarded their rights as individuals and as a group of people. A recent case in point is the action of the government of British Columbia in its almost callous invasion of the Kitwanga reserve in my constituency for the purpose of building a highway. When I say "callous invasion" that is just what I mean. Officials invaded the reserve without even the initial courtesy of writing a letter to anybody saying that this was going to be done, and subsequently they were forced to sit down and negotiate with respect to the value of the land taken and the timber destroyed. That is just one recent example of attitudes that have been displayed in the past.
I hope that this committee after its extensive hearings and consideration of the matters before it will be able to make a start on reversing past actions and attitudes so that our native Indian population can have all the
1178	HOUSE OF
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act opportunities available to other citizens of this nation, so that they can develop their individual potentials, so that they can live a fuller life, so that their culture and history can be absorbed by us to help to enrich our culture and history.
One of the most important things leading toward this end which should be considered by the committee and by everyone concerned is the question of education. I refer not only to the type of formal education we have in mind when we think of children going to school but also to adult education because a great many elderly native Indian people are still illiterate so far as our language is concerned, never having had the opportunity to attend school. They have never had a chance to absorb our ideas or to impart to us their own ideas. Education should be extended to include adults also but with more importance being placed on the children because the native Indian children of our nation in the same way as other children are the ones who hold the future of their race and of our society in their hands. They are the ones who will be making the greatest strides toward assimilation, integration or whatever term you wish to use in dealing with the relationship between Indian people and nonIndian people.
I think the committee should consider that education should not be confined solely to the teaching of traditional school subjects such as reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. I envisage an amalgamated school system and, hoping that the committee may consider it favourably also, I hope that the committee will take into account teaching native Indian people about their way of life in the past, their history and their background and also teaching our children the same thing so that all of us can benefit by the process of education.
I think the committee should look carefully into the experience gained in past years through the use of the so-called amalgamated schools. Under this system the Indian affairs branch enters into an agreement with a local school board for the teaching of Indian children in schools under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The Indian affairs branch pays a certain per capita amount and in some cases contributes toward the capital cost of construction of schools or additions thereto. This is an important thing. It is a new development in the last 10 or 12 years and to quite an etxent it is still considered by some to be an experiment.
This matter should be carefully considered by the committee, for it is my hope that the eventual result will be that all our native Indian children will be taught in schools


under provincial jurisdiction where non-Indian children are taught. As quickly as possible and as much as possible the Indian affairs branch should get out of the picture so far as education is concerned so that it will all be under provincial jurisdiction.
The basis for this argument, of course, is a simple one, equality of treatment. This is one thing which I think the members of the committee should always keep in their minds, that we should look toward the placing of our native Indian children in such schools on an equal basis and there should be equal rights and responsibilities resting upon all of us in this regard.
There is another question of general importance but of more importance in some parts of the nation than others and of more importance to some individual native Indians than others. I refer to the question of liquor rights. As I say, some people have more interest in this than others.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member whether that is not entirely a matter of provincial administration? I noticed that the hon. member for Fort William referred to the question and I am not sure whether the Indian Act deals with that subject.


Frank Howard: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, there is what one would call divided jurisdiction in this field. The Indian Act deals with the question of liquor as it relates to Indians and provincial statutes also apply in this field. A most discriminatory situation results from this twofold jurisdiction. The Indian Act provides that they cannot have liquor and then it says that they can have liquor under certain circumstances and in certain parts of the province, depending on what the province says. This is discriminatory. In so far as liquor is concerned, in British Columbia we treat our native Indian people not even as second class citizens but perhaps as third or fourth class citizens, more as children than as adults.
We have had a Social Credit government in that province for some eight years. They have continued this discrimination by refusing to act. In fact, I would say they have done nothing in the field of Indian affairs in all the years they have been in office. However, this is a provincial matter. There are references in the Indian Act itself, which this committee will be considering, to liquor and its relationship to the native Indian people. The committee might very well consider, therefore, the question of removing the federal government entirely from jurisdiction in so far as liquor is concerned, removing all the sections in the Indian Act that relate to liquor. The basis for this argument is equality of

treatment, equality of rights and responsibility. The provincial governments might be left to legislate in the field of liquor as they see fit. I believe this procedure would remove one of the most unfair parts of the statute as it relates to this particular social matter. The basic point from which to start is consideration of equality of rights, equality of responsibility. If the other citizens of this nation desire to have a drink of liquor of some sort, they do not have to resort to a bootlegger and pay $10, $15 or even $25 for a bottle of cheap, rotgut whisky. The only reason the Indians have to do this is the fact that they are Indians.
I was just reading a newspaper article which recites some of the results from this state of affairs. The Vancouver Sun of January 17-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; if the hon. member is pursuing the question of the law with respect to the use of liquor by Indians, I think he is going beyond the scope of the debate. He has indicated, very properly, that the committee might well consider that matter, but the other submission would be better deferred and made to the committee if this question is to be properly debated.


Frank Howard: I do not wish to contravene your ruling in any way, Mr. Speaker. I was simply going to make reference to an occurrence that would point up the necessity of the committee giving this matter intense consideration because the lives of people are involved. The Vancouver Sun of yesterday points out that 14 people became seriously ill on a reserve at Kamloops, one of them is still blinded and two others died as a result of a drinking party. They made the error of drinking methyl hydrate, which is rather poisonous. This occurrence just illustrates the results of these unfair and discriminatory liquor laws. I think the committee should take this into account because it is more than just a social problem when people's lives are involved.
The committee should give intense consideration to the field of health and welfare, A number of submissions have been made to the committee on these subjects in past sessions. In this field again we are, in effect, saying there is twofold jurisdiction because in so far as the Indian people are concerned the federal parliament can legislate and in so far as the various provinces are concerned they, too, can legislate with regard to matters of health and welfare which affect the residents of those provinces. It would seem to me the committee should give adequate consideration to whether the federal government should take the step of transferring jurisdiction over Indians in the field of health and 90205-6-75
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act welfare to the provincial governments who now have extensive health and welfare departments established. Perhaps this step would eliminate such cases as the 90 school children who received some public attention recently when they had to have teeth extracted. This caused some furore and resentment amongst the Indian people against the department of health and welfare, the Indian affairs branch and everybody else.
The committee should consider another matter of extreme importance, namely the economic development and the economic opportunities available to native Indian people, especially on our reserves. Their employment opportunities are restricted now even more than by the collapse of our economy generally occasioned by this government. Their employment opportunities are restricted primarily because of the fact they are native Indians and have not had the educational background necessary to enable them to fit in to our type of economy, even when it was running properly. This is a matter to which the committee, I believe, should give intense consideration.
I believe the Indian affairs branch itself realizes this is a problem, and has realized it for some time. In fact, the annual report of the department for the year ending March 31, 1960 refers to the problem of employment opportunities and the economic difficulties that native Indian people encounter when they try to compete in the various areas outside of their reserves. Many of these people, because of a lack of education or because they were channelled into particular types of employment, now find their economic life rests on one form of employment and they have not the ability to move to another type of employment. I know that on the coast of British Columbia, for instance, almost the entire economic life of the native Indian population rests upon the fishing industry. Their chances of expanding into other fields of employment are rather restricted. This is something the committee must take into consideration and I think must correlate with its consideration of the educational question.
Another matter to which the committee should give some attention is one which is often referred to in my province as the B.C. land question. Unless a solution is found to this particular land question the chance of advancing very far in other fields is somewhat limited. I know the Indians of British Columbia, for instance, claim that, apart from a couple of small sections, they have never extinguished or relinquished their title to the land in that province. There are no treaties in British Columbia except those connected with the one or two small areas to which I referred. The Indians say, in fact, that the
1180	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act land upon which the provincial legislature building is situated is properly owned by them. This is a problem that has rankled them for many years and to which they have tried to find a solution. I feel the committee could help to find that solution by recommending negotiations by the government for the purchase of the land. Perhaps a court decision will be necessary to determine whether the Indians in fact have title to the land. I think they do.
The government, as we know, has already established a policy of re-negotiating treaties with the Indians. If they are willing to renegotiate certain treaties then we can assume the government would negotiate a treaty where none now exists. This is a question of property rights and equality of treatment of the people. If I own land or if you own land, Mr. Speaker, you have title to it and you have the opportunity of relinquishing that title. Unless a solution is found to this most important problem in British Columbia it will continue to remain a barrier between the native Indian people and the non-Indian people in these other fields I have mentioned such as education, housing, welfare and liquor rights.
I think my remarks should be drawn to a close now. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely wide, broad and important field, and one in which I myself have an intense interest. I have a deep desire to see justice obtained for these people. This committee can start a reversal of the process that has taken place in the last 100 years or so in Canada. They can start us back on the road toward equality of treatment for our native Indian people. They can start us back on the road to the extension of justice to these people in all of their problems. They can start us back on the road of making provision for them to have an honourable existence; a full, secure and peaceful life; and equal opportunities for themselves and for their children in the same way as they are available to others of us in this nation.
The native Indian people I know, and with whom I have communicated and have spoken, are looking toward this committee with great expectations. Many of them have written letters to the committee itself. Many have appeared and presented briefs. Some of them were short, others were extensive and well documented. They are looking to this committee for a solution to their many problems. The committee has a great responsibility resting upon its shoulders with regard to the treatment of our native Indian peoples in Canada. I certainly hope that this committee does not disappoint these native people.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now she will close the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour did not see my friend the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Michaud) rising as the minister was rising.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I did not see the hon. member for Kent, I am sorry to say. I recognize the hon. member for Kent.


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent. N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for not rising perhaps as quickly as I should have risen was that I expected another hon. member behind me to do so. I just wanted to say briefly that I welcome the motion which is now before the house to establish this committee. The motion reads in part as follows:
-and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians.
I think this is a valid purpose indeed in the establishment of this committee. My only suggestion at this time stems from a conversation I had during the Christmas recess with one of the chaplains on an Indian reserve in my own riding. I refer to the Big Cove reservation. These are the two suggestions that were expressed to me by this chaplain and I should like to impart them to the minister at this time.
In the course of this discussion it was suggested that it would be to the great advantage of this particular reservation if a chaplain were established in permanence on a reservation. It was recognized that in certain respects this procedure might present certain difficulties but it was thought that possibly this result could be arrived at in the following manner.
I perhaps should say that this reservation is now possessed of adequate school facilities but that one of the handicaps is that no vocational training is being given in these schools. It would seem that vocational training is essential if we wish to improve the economic status of the people living upon this reservation. The suggestion advanced by this chaplain was this. Of course I should perhaps say that all the people living on this reservation are of the same faith. The suggestion advanced was that it would be to their advantage, both in the material sense as well as in the moral sense if, as I have just mentioned, this chaplain had permanent residence upon the reservation in order to give to these people the social leadership and moral guidance which is required.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member was here when I intervened previously. In essence, he is pleading a particular cause or grievance of the Indians. The proposal is to set up a committee to hear all these matters. To my way of viewing the matter that would be the proper time at which to pursue problems such as this one. I have perhaps allowed hon. members to go further than they should strictly be allowed to go on this motion.


Hervé J. Michaud: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have already achieved what I had intended to achieve when I rose. My purpose was just to impart to the minister the suggestion to which I have already referred.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Before the minister replies, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a matter that has been brought to my attention by some of those who are dealing with the Indians in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. It is true that I should like to be on the Indian affairs committee but I do not represent any Indians of a reservation nature. There are no reservations in my riding. However, I have some interest in the problems in the adjoining areas that have reservations.
In talking to a gentleman who has an influence on and is closely connected with a number of mission schools in the Hudson bay area I was interested in some of the comments he was making. A year or two ago I had discussed the problem of enfranchising the Indians, some of the problems that might be expected to result from that franchise, and the fears that the Indians themselves were expressing. I was pleased to hear from him the other day that these fears had in the main been allayed.
He was telling me that they have a problem that the Indian affairs officials in the mission are in no way able to deal with, namely the problem of taking the children of Indians, particularly of those who go into the bush in the winter, and asking them to reside in schools with other Indian families or in boarding schools for short periods of time. He pointed out to me that seldom do the children ever get more than four years in school on this basis. It has been the practice in the last two or three years to get children in these schools from the age of 12 years to 16 years. They are beyond the normal school age when they get them. They have been with their families who travel into the bush in the winter time. When the family goes out in the fall they may be persuaded to leave one or two of these children with the mission or with one of the schools.
Those members of the family who do go into the bush learn in an Indian way the
90205-6-'75J
Joint Committee to Study Indian Act abilities of their forefathers. They learn in the bush itself to pursue the family tradition and to successfully follow the pursuits in which the family has been engaged for generations. The children who attend school, and who may receive four years of formal education, do so at a time when they would normally be learning to carry on in the footsteps of their forefathers. By the time they are 16 they are satisfied with schooling but are no longer able to return to the particular occupations available to Indians who have not had the opportunity of attending schools. Thus it means they have been deprived of part of their normal education, an education which they would have received if they had followed their families.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member was absent from the chamber and did not hear the view which I expressed several times during the course of this debate. This is a problem which could quite properly be presented to the committee if the house decides to set it up, but it is not in my view relevant to the question now before us and it is not in order to discuss it at the length at which the hon. member is discussing it.


William Arnold Peters: 
Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is no particular desire on my part to prevent my colleagues displaying their knowledge of Indian affairs and their sympathy for the Indians, because I know it is very real. However, I do think some of the remarks made would leave the house with a false impression of the circumstances that exist today, particularly in the field of education where we

Broadcasting
recognize there is a great deal left to be done. Possibly I could transgress the rules long enough to say that today 90 per cent of all Indians of school age attend school. This, I think, is a great improvement. Moreover, the situation continues to improve almost from day to day.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) was insistent on scholarships. We already have scholarships. In fact, there are 44 scholarships of various types available for which Indian children can compete, and I say, further, that any Indian student who demonstrates a capacity to absorb knowledge can acquire just as much education as he is able to absorb. This is the result of a progressive policy which has grown over the years. The whole problem of education will only be solved in a matter of time as these people become more and more convinced of the necessity of encouraging their children to acquire as much education as they possibly can.
Once more, I do not want to try to answer all the various pleas that have been made, because you, Mr. Speaker, have already told us that this type of debate is out of order, and I think it is. However, I did not want to let all the comments which have been made on this educational question remain on the record without throwing some light on the situation as it is at the present time.
I should like to thank hon. members for their participation in this discussion, and I trust that when the committee meets they will throw their efforts wholeheartedly into the work of this committee and give us and the Indians every assistance in the direction of clarifying the requirements of the Indians today in an effort to produce for them an act more in keeping with the present day circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Clyde Nowlan: That a special committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider radio and television broadcasting with power to examine and inquire into the matters herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon and to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee shall consist of 35 members;
That standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if before the minister rises I could raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member, but I have not yet put the motion before the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose before Your Honour put the motion because it seemed to me on reading the motion, which I read just before the Clerk did so, that there seems to be some defect in it. It asks that a special committee be appointed to examine and inquire into matters herein referred to, but I have scrutinized the motion and find that in fact there are no matters referred to therein. I am wondering if at some stage a paragraph has not been left out of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member reminded me the other day, no motion is void because of its vagueness. He may have an opportunity to move an amendment later.


George Clyde Nowlan: I noticed the line to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has drawn attention. This motion was drafted by the law officers and I assume that a line has been left out, perhaps in the printing. I will check on it. At the moment we will take it for granted that we have a resolution before us.
The resolution was drawn in wide terms in order to permit of a full and complete investigation of all matters respecting broadcasting and telecasting, private and public. I do not intend to take the time of the house, because I know there are several hon. members who wish to speak on the subject and time is somewhat limited. In addition, I am, of course, always an optimist, and hope I can get this motion approved before six o'clock. All I can say is that this committee is being set up early in the session so as to permit a full study of all matters respecting the broadcast industry of Canada, public and private. This is one of the most important public media of information we have, and one which, I know, deserves the careful scrutiny of the house. I am sure the committee will give it the study which it deserves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Your Honour has drawn attention to the vagueness of the motion and that it has been underlined by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) because I think it will be very difficult for the minister, the Chair or anyone else to rule out of order anything that I may choose to say about this motion so long as it has any vague reference to broadcasting.
I have complained, sir, and I complain again at the outset, about this motion. We in the opposition do not want a vague and general reference. We have asked over and over again for a specific and particular reference to which

we feel we have been entitled as a result of an understanding which we believed was reached with the government at the time the present Broadcasting Act was enacted in 1958.
At that time we forewent the right to have this bill sent to a special committee at the request of the government in order to enable the bill to get through in that session in a reasonable time. We understood that when a committee was set up the first task entrusted to that committee-and that the terms of reference of the committee would so indicate -would be to examine the operation of the Broadcasting Act clause by clause so that we could see how it was really operating, because we in the opposition took as strong exception to certain sections of that act at that time as we have taken to any legislation which has been introduced in this house by the present government and we believe the experience with that act has shown that the exceptions we took to that legislation were soundly based.
We realize that because of our conventions in this house the opposition will be in a minority in the committee as it is in the house. I am not complaining about that fact. We also realize that unless the terms of reference are specific it will be possible for the majority, as has happened previously when committees on this subject have been set up, to introduce other matters and vote down our efforts to carry out what we believed was the inquiry pledged to us by the government.
I hope that before this motion is passed the minister will see fit to have one of his colleagues propose an amendment to indicate that in the investigation to be conducted by the committee priority should be given to a clause by clause examination of the act. Otherwise, the opposition-of this I feel quite confident-will once again be denied the opportunity to carry out that investigation because the majority of that committee, which was not very respectful of the minister two years ago as the hon. gentleman will recall, will pay no attention and will proceed to ride their own horses.
I am not complaining about that, either. If the motion is left vague and indefinite they have, of course, every right to do that. The undertaking which we understood was given to us by the government should, I feel, be carried out in good faith by the government and I am once more asking that this be done.
Unlike the Minister of National Revenue, I am not a lawyer and I have ceased even the formal study of law. In order to remove some misapprehension in the house I thought this a suitable occasion to make a public declaration to that effect. On a careful appraisal
Broadcasting
of the matter I have come to the conclusion that there are other fields of endeavour which perhaps may be more immediately rewarding and in which, perhaps, the fictions do not necessarily need to be legal. However, I am afraid I am, even on the vague terms of this resolution, somewhat out of order at this moment and so I come back to the resolution itself.
As I say, if I read this language correctly, there is no matter herein referred to that is going to be before this committee on a strict reading of this motion unless "radio and television broadcasting" can be described as matters, and "broadcasting" is a singular noun and therefore it seems to me it would be hard for it to be "matters". It does not seem, therefore, that the motion in its present form makes any sense at all. I intend to suggest that there should be certain priorities given and the highest priority, I repeat again, should be the carrying out of what we understood to be the undertaking given by the government in 1958.
The second matter that I believe the committee ought to discuss is that of the granting of private television licences in those communities where the C.B.C. has up till now had the exclusive licence. This has been a matter of great public controversy particularly in the city of Toronto where notwithstanding the fact that the board of broadcast governors said they had the greatest difficulty discriminating between the nine applicants, they chose to give the licence to one of those which was also a newspaper. I would not have cared which newspaper it was, I would have objected, because I think that when the applicants are equally good a licence should not be given to the proprietors of a newspaper. If they are not equally good, that is another matter, and there are some places where that is the case. I must say, speaking for my personal preference, that the newspaper chosen would be the last newspaper to which I would have granted a licence in Toronto, or practically anywhere else, but that is a matter of bias, sir.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Toronto Star would be slightly ahead of it, I suppose?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or even the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker, even the Globe and Mail. I just do not happen to like the Toronto Telegram and I have the impression that they reciprocate my feeling, but that again is a little beyond the vague terms of this motion.
As I say, the second matter for discussion should be the principles on which these exclusive licences-because that is what they are, licences of bits of the public domain; that is what the privy council said this was

Broadcasting
-are given to one person rather than another person, and I use the word "person" in the legal sense. This is a matter of the greatest possible moment and one about which I think parliament properly should be concerned.
The third matter to which I feel the committee should direct its attention is the problem of the financing of the C.B.C. My views on this subject and the views of my friends in the house are well known. We take the position that the Fowler commission and all preceding royal commissions on this matter were right when they said that the financing of public broadcasting should not be dependent upon the whim of the government or based upon annual votes by parliament for the reason I have stated many times before in this house but which cannot be stated too often, that the moment an agency has to come to the treasury board and argue its case it becomes a creature not of parliament but of the government no matter how many safeguards of theoretical independence are put into the legislation.
In those circumstances human nature being what it is there will be an inevitable tendency-it may be repressed by persons of very high character but it should not be necessary to have it repressed-to lick the boots of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and of other members of the government in the hope of getting a little more largesse.
My view is that public broadcasting, like the courts, should be guaranteed its income by parliament in such a fashion that there is no incentive whatsoever to this kind of action. As the Fowler commission said, there should be some formula-and there are many formulae that might be used-for a period of years, at least sufficient to be slightly longer than the life of any one parliament, during which the revenues are fixed.


Mr. Speaker:: The subject which the hon. member is now debating is really not the issue of the motion, and if he pursues it, of course, then other members will be entitled to debate the whole issue of how the C.B.C. should be financed. I take the view, rightly or wrongly, that the motion is to set up the committee and is not a review of the whole of the matters to be referred to the committee. It is simply a request to the house, and it is for the house to decide whether a committee is or is not desirable at this time, and that is a relatively narrow field of debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that with a restraint which I do not often exercise, I listened in silence to rulings this afternoon which I must say startled me very much.

sir, if I may say so with the greatest possible respect, because I have been observing the proceedings of this house since the year 1937, and I have seen debates on the setting up of committees go on for days and days, and I have never before heard it suggested that all we should consider is whether or not is is expedient to have a committee at all.
I know that one can go back into the rules, particularly the rules at Westminster, as was the case, of course, in another similar matter in another debate to which I cannot refer as a precedent. But a wholly different practice, I think, has been consecrated in this house, perhaps wrongly. It may be one of those wrongs that is consecrated, surely, by so much modern usage and by so many accretions of custom that I think it would be quite restrictive of what are deemed, and what have come to be regarded as the rights of parliament, to suggest that the matters which are going to come before the committee should not have, I do not say extended debate, but some consideration on such motions.
And I might add, sir, in this particular case there seems to be the additional circumstance that there is no specification of what the matters are that are to come before this committee, and I am appealing to the minister to put a list of those matters in. I was seeking to justify the importance of putting this particular question in and also seeking to establish certain priorities in the order of these matters. However, I think I have sufficiently made my point with respect to this matter of financing. To me, the financing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes on may I say I appreciate the force of what he says. I have taken the position I have taken with full cognizance of precedents to the contrary. I know that a motion to set up a committee has been used deliberately by the house as a vehicle for debate on external affairs for example but that, of course, is by consent. I think many times the house has debated the substance of a matter to be referred to a committee more by consent than because of its relevance. Having taken that view and realizing the difficulties, I would not feel at all embarrassed, in fact, it might settle the practice if an issue were made of it and the house made its own decision. However, I do not think we have reached that point.


George Clyde Nowlan: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I can agree with both points of view which have been advanced. I think you are perfectly right in your interpretation of the

rule. I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate can give sanctions of usage which have gone a long way to deprecate the importance of the rule. I would say with deference that I think the hon. member is within your interpretation of the rule up to the moment because as I understand it this is a motion to set up a committee, and he has been simply specifying and urging on Your Honour various matters which he thinks the committee should deal with without debating them. Perhaps he was starting to debate the relative matter of financing.
So long as the hon. member confines himself to specifying matters which he hopes, believes or thinks the committee should deal with I would suggest that within that limit he is within the rule. Certainly, if he goes further and starts to debate the matter of whether one should get a television licence or a broadcasting licence in this area, or some other area, which has been done before, I think he would be going beyond the rule. I would suggest the hon. member has been within the rules so far.


Mr. Speaker:: I would agree with that. I take the opportunity of rising again because I think this is a matter of some consequence. It does arise from time to time. I do not want to be running counter to the wishes of the house or to be unduly restrictive. The point of view I took would permit reference to the various matters. It seems to me to be unreasonable for the house to spell out in detail all the issues which are to be referred to the committee for the purpose of saving the time of the house. We might just as well have the debate at the beginning and dispense with the committee altogether.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say so with deference, I cannot agree with the last view because we cannot deal with witnesses here and that is one of the most important functions of a committee. But I would not like to see the sense of the house taken without more debate and discussion. This is a very important point. If I may advert to something which came up earlier this afternoon. We had a motion to set up a committee to consider with Your Honour the rules of the house, and I would suggest that this might very usefully be considered by that committee; but that, in the meantime, we should be jealous not merely of the rules that are in the rule book at Westminster, or even the ancient precedents of this house, but that we should respect some of the modern precedents as well.
I remember on one occasion, sir, if I may just add this reminiscence, one of the best debates that ever took place in the house
Broadcasting
in which Mr. Drew, then leader of the opposition, and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who was then minister of transport, participated and in which the whole broadcasting policy of the government was debated, if my recollection is right, for nearly two days, on a motion similar to this, without any question of consent having arisen. I do not offer this as a menace, sir, or even as an incentive; I merely recall it.
As I was saying, I do believe that this whole problem of financing does need consideration for the reason I have given and also for another reason which I intend to give without elaborating. I think that the cost of broadcasting-I know you can work it out at so many cents per head per day and it does not sound very much-to the treasury is a matter which must give even the reckless Minister of Finance we have at present some concern from time to time. This is another reason why I think this committee should give the most careful consideration to this matter.
There is another matter to which I think very careful consideration should be given. I refer to the question of the commercial policy of the public broadcasting system. In that regard, one of the reasons why the Aird commission recommended public broadcasting in the first place, and why every committee of the house and every commission that has ever considered the matter has recommended its continuation, was for the maintenance of a Canadian identity. I may say that I fully subscribe to that view and I have, I think, in my private life and in my public life, always been a supporter of public broadcasting for that reason and for that reason only because I do recognize the dangers of public broadcasting as they were manifest in some parts of Europe 25 years ago when some of us were rather younger than we are now and as they still exist today in many totalitarian countries. This is potentially a very dangerous instrument in the hands of an unscrupulous government and it needs to be safeguarded in every possible way against control by the government, as opposed to control by parliament itself in which people are freely elected whether or not the people who elect them like the government.
I say, sir, that this commercial policy is something which I think should be considered very carefully for this reason. Every morning I turn on station CBO just before I get up because I want to find out what the temperature is and some other things of that sort and then listen to the news. One thing that has been dinned into my mind in the last few weeks is that the most important message CBO has for us every morning is

Broadcasting
that we should buy the Saturday Evening Post and McCall's magazines. I do not see how you could be more ridiculous than that.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is at 7.30. At five minutes to eight you find out where you should have your shirts laundered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here is this public agency spending millions of public money to preserve our Canadian identity while this same agency, which is supposed to be doing that, is doing business with people, among all the thousands of potential advertisers, who are trying to sell magazines not produced in this country, this at a time when the government is trying to undo an error it made a year or two ago by setting up a commission under a very distinguished and loquacious journalist to inquire into means of keeping Canadian magazine and periodicals alive. It does seem to me that as a mere matter of good taste and good judgment the management of the C.B.C. has erred very sadly in this particular case.
I know, and nobody has said it oftener than I, that we in this parliament should not substitute ourselves for the management of the C.B.C. and I do not intend to do so. But I have also said, when on the treasury benches, and I say now that I see no reason why because we are members of parliament we should not feel free to criticize the C.B.C. I say that applies to those who sit on the treasury benches. I do not take the narrow view that was taken by the hon. member for Eglinton and one or two gentlemen when they sat on this side of the house that a minister must never speak to anybody connected with the management of the C.B.C. I think that is utter nonsense. I do not think being a minister deprives one of one's rights as a citizen.
For a minister to bring pressure to bear on them is one thing but a minister should be just as free as anyone else to express an opinion and to criticize and the C.B.C. should be so independent that the minister's freedom will not in any way influence them in any improper sense. That is the ideal and I admit it is a very difficult ideal to achieve. It is an ideal toward which all of us in this house should strive, and it seems to me that is a vital and important thing.
As I have said so often, it is almost more important in the modern world but certainly just as important today to preserve the independence of public broadcasting from pressure by the executive as it is to preserve the independence of the judiciary from pressure by the executive. They should be on the same basis. We should be sure that this pervasive influence, broadcasting, much more pervasive than the press though less

lasting, will not become an engine of potential tyranny, however brief and however transitory that might be. Therefore I think it is most important that at all these points where this potential danger arises we should, as a committee, try to put partisanship aside and consider this matter from the point of view of the preservation of our free institutions. Quite frankly, if we lived a thousand miles from any other country, if Canada were an island with 18 million people on it, I am not so sure, taking everything into account, that I would feel that public broadcasting was necessary at all.
I do think, considering the situation we have in Canada, that we have achieved a pretty good compromise between public and private broadcasting, but it is a compromise and the boundary line is and always will be,
I think, a somewhat fluctuating one. I do not think it can be a hard and fast line. In that context I think it is desirable that the committee should give consideration to the continuing place of private broadcasting in the whole national structure of broadcasting. In this context I should simply like to affirm again the view that, after three years' experience and notwithstanding the many criticisms I would make of the board of broadcast governors as at present constituted, I do think that the Fowler proposal that there should be a board of broadcast governors was a sound proposal that should be continued.
But, and here again this is another matter that I think the committee should consider, I think the committee should give very careful consideration, which of course would be done if my first suggestion that the act should be the first matter to be considered by the committee were carried out, to carrying out the Fowler recommendations in their entirety in this respect and bringing the C.B.C. as well as the private stations under the jurisdiction of the board of broadcast governors, thus removing that direct nexus which now exists between the management of the C.B.C. and the government, which did not exist under the old regime and which to my mind is entirely undesirable even if everybody behaves in the most proper manner possible. It seems to me that the insulation provided by the old board of the C.B.C. or the insulation of a board of broadcast governors between the government and the management of the C.B.C. was in the past a sound principle and should be restored. However, again I am expressing a view upon a matter which I think deserves further scrutiny by this committee.
Notwithstanding the fact that I feel I should perhaps go on speaking merely to

assert my right to debate these matters, I really feel I have said all that in principle I wanted to say. I shall now conclude by reiterating my appeal to the minister to have one of his colleagues move an amendment to this motion to define the matters herein referred to and, in particular, to give priority to a clause by clause examination of the act which is now in its third year of operation. It seems to me this would be the most appropriate function of that committee even if there had been no undertaking in that regard, but in view of the undertaking I believe it should be carried out.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I want to seize this opportunity of commending the government for proposing to set up a special committee on broadcasting, and I should like also to offer some suggestions to the committee which will be entrusted with the study of business of the C.B.C.
I wonder whether it would not be a good thing for all crown corporations, including the C.B.C., to be under a single department.
Nobody is shocked by the fact that immigration employees are placed under the authority of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or postal employees under the Postmaster General. Why should they be shocked at a single minister being responsible for the C.B.C., the national film board, and other crown corporations? The question may well be asked. It is too easily avoided on the ground that crown corporations should be free from political interference.
We are living under a democratic system of responsible government and it seems to me that the representatives of the people are entitled to know down to the last detail what is happening within the crown corporations. Indeed, all crown agencies should always be directly responsible to parliament.
To imply, as some have done, that doing so would put the C.B.C. under political control is simply ridiculous. To my mind, it is a question of knowing whether parliament or the C.B.C. will have the last word with regard to the way part of the taxpayers' money is to be spent so that the corporation might avoid bankruptcy.
Moreover, there would be, to my mind, some urgency in this committee considering a recommendation with regard to a committee of experts. Such a body might consist of parents, educators and members of the clergy, who would act as moderators of the C.B.C. programs.
Broadcasting
A great number of complaints have been made with regard to the field of ethics. On January 16 last, La Presse published an open letter over the signature of Rev. Father Ubald Villeneuve, O.M.I. and addressed to Mrs. Nicole Germain, of the C.B.C., in which he upbraided her about a television program having to do with liquor.
I also point out to the future committee and remind the house that in 1959, as reported in La Presse of September 28, 1959, his Eminence Cardinal Leger stated:
Broadcasting facilities must serve the cause of truth, good and beauty.
The Church considers broadcasting techniques as precious gifts from God but points out that they have a mission to accomplish: namely to serve the cause of truth, good and beauty.
I also ask the C.B.C. authorities to purge their programs a little and to be extremely cautious in their selection of films and programs shown on television in order that they do not tend to destroy the family but rather to bring its members closer together.
Among the resolutions passed in July 1959 during the radio and television fans congress held at the University of Montreal under the auspices of the Federation of Holy Name societies, there is one that should be singled out. It reads as follows:
T.V. station operators should take great care to avoid broadcasting programs that might be harmful to children during hours when children have not yet gone to bed.
I have here also a resolution adopted by the Quebec council of the Knights of Columbus, requesting that the C.B.C.'s attention be called to certain T.Y. programs that take no heed of moral law.
Furthermore, I ask the committee that will be established to consider whether it is true, as was asserted by the authors and artists, according to Le Devoir for Saturday, December 10, 1960, that:
The C.B.C. is unilingual at top level and does not care two hoots about its French speaking employees.
It would be worth while, I think, to go carefully into this matter.
I am also speaking on behalf of the Society St. Jean Baptiste which takes a firm stand against certain T.V. programs that do not respect the French language, programs which are broadcast mostly on the French network. Let me mention four of them: "Un homme et son peche", "En haut de la pente douce", "Jamboree" and "Cent farces".
In addition, the Societe St. Jean Baptiste of the diocese of Sherbrooke protests on the

Broadcasting
ground that the language used by the writers is not only disrespectful but offends the French language.
I also urge the committee that will be established to ask the C.B.C. to consider the possibility of extending its broadcasts to countries of the French community in Africa. A headline in the newspaper La Presse said: "C.B.C. reaches out to Africa". Therefore, it is important that broadcasts be relayed not only to commonwealth countries but also to countries of the French community in Africa.
I also urge the committee and C.B.C. authorities to extend French television coverage to Saskatchewan.
I also urge the members of the committee to call before them Mr. Rene Levesque who, some time ago, charged the C.B.C. with discrimination against the Liberals. I was quite surprised at Mr. Levesque's stand since for many years this man made a living out of the C.B.C. He reminds me of the fable-and he should read it-of "The Woodman and the Snake". In view of the unfair criticism he has made, it would certainly be proper that Mr. Levesque be called before the committee which is to be formed.
Mr. Ouimet said-
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a well known rule of this house, quite often honoured in the breach, that attacks are not made in this house on provincial ministers and members of provincial governments. I suggest the hon. member is transgressing this rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) must be relevant to the resolution before us. I have not been in the chair this afternoon during the discussion of these motions, but I thought we were discussing the appointment of committees. No doubt an hon. member can make suggestions concerning what should come before a committee, but I would not think he would be right in discussing the matter that might come before the committee. He might suggest certain things should come before the committee, but not discuss them fully.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the same suggestion. I strongly recommend to the special committee which is to be set up to summon Mr. Rene Levesque in order to study

the unfair attacks he has launched against the C.B.C. That man is biting the hand that fed him.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not proper to get into provincial politics while we are discussing a motion to appoint a committee for the study of the C.B.C. situation. I therefore ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to be a realist just for once and to forget about his ties with the Union Nationale.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is screaming, roaring and groaning. One can only give what one has. In any case, the hon. member was out of order and I would suggest that he read the editorial recently published in the paper Le Devoir and entitled: "Once a drunkard, always a drunkard!" Thus he would have a good idea of what the Liberal convention was and about the attitude of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to stick to the matter under discussion. For my part I surely have no intention of following him on this ground. There are rules governing this house and members of the Union Nationale should comply with them like everybody else.


Mr. Fortin:: That is why you were expelled from the house.
(Text):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) just said that I was thrown out of the legislative assembly of Quebec. I say in this house that I have never been expelled from the legislative assembly of Quebec and I should like the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet to withdraw his declaration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: If the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville has denied it, then of course the hon. member who made the original remark will be obliged to accept his word.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in withdrawing my words, as I evidently do since I accept the hon. member's statement, I would add that the Speaker of the Quebec legislature has been extremely patient.

Business of the House Mr. Dupuis: This is really pathetic.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his words unconditionally.


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I feel that the statement made by Mr. Levesque is dangerous and casts aspersions on C.B.C.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: That
matter having been cleared up, I take it that we can now get back to the motion that is before the house. Has the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) concluded his remarks?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am only making a suggestion. If the matter is considered by the committee, the committee will decide and it may summon as a witness that person who is so ungrateful to a crown corporation which was so good as to give him the opportunity of making a living.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering who is in the chair, whether you are or whether the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville is. He reminds me of the member for Laurier who often shouts, shut up, sit down, as if the Liberals were still in office.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I had some remarks for the new committee that will be established and I again ask the committee to consider my suggestions and to summon this person-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I have already reminded the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) that we were not to go into a full discussion of matters that may be brought before the committee.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am making this suggestion so that the committee may find it advisable to summon him.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This man who is launching an attack detrimental to the C.B.C.-


Mr. Habel:: You are the one who is damaging its reputation.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a position somewhat similar to that of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in that, after reading the resolution which is now before us, I could not quite figure out exactly what was being referred to the committee. I was therefore forced to come to the conclusion that the present wording could only mean that all matters which apply to radio and to television broadcasting are being referred to the committee.
I am not going into any lengthy statement on the many broad principles of radio and television. I am not going to speak on the many important questions that should be considered by the committee because others will do so. However, because I am not and will not be a member of that committee I want to draw to the attention of the house one subject which I sincerely hope will be considered by the committee. I feel that it is of the utmost importance. I refer to the interpretation which is being placed by the board of broadcast governors on the section of the regulations that deals with what are known as controversial broadcasts. The interpretation that is now being placed on that matter is of such a nature that, before I am through, I shall have proved that it is in the process of wrecking some of the finest broadcasts in Canada, one of which has been on the air for some 17 years.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: May I inquire of the acting house leader what the business will be on Friday? I take it that tomorrow will be private members' day.


George Clyde Nowlan: Tomorrow will be private
members' day. On Friday we are proceeding with the budget debate. Under the rules this will necessitate a division on Friday afternoon.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the acting house leader tell us what the business will be on Monday and next week?


George Clyde Nowlan: Monday, I believe, is private members' day again. Beyond that I cannot go. I will be able to give it tomorrow but I could not give it tonight.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
90205-6-76i


[Stage Direction]
The governments of Canada and the United States of America
Recognizing that their peoples have, for many generations, lived together and co-operated with one another in many aspects of their national enterprises for the greater wealth and happiness of their respective nations, and
Recognizing that the Columbia river basin, as a part of the territory of both countries, contains water resources that are capable of contributing greatly to the economic growth and strength and to the general welfare of the two nations, and
Being desirous of achieving the development of those resources in a manner that will make the largest contribution to the economic progress of both countries and to the welfare of their peoples of which those resources are capable, and
Recognizing that the greatest benefit to each country can be secured by co-operative measures for hydroelectric power generation and flood control, which will make possible other benefits as well,
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I Interpretation
(1)	In the treaty, the expression
(a)	"average critical period load factor" means the average of the monthly load factors during the critical stream flow period;
(b)	"base system" means the plants, works and facilities listed in the table in annex B as enlarged from time to time by the installation of additional generating facilities, together with any other plants, works or facilities which may be constructed on the main stem of the Columbia river in the United States of America;
(c)	"Canadian storage" means the storage provided by Canada under article II;
(d)	"critical stream flow period" means the period, beginning with the initial release of stored water from full reservoir conditions and ending with the reservoirs empty, when the water available from reservoir releases plus the natural stream flow is capable of producing the least amount of hydroelectric power in meeting system load requirements;
(e)	"consumptive use" means use of water for domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes but does not include use for the generation of hydroelectric power;
(f)	"dam" means a structure to impound water, including facilities for controlling the release of the impounded water;
(g)	"entity" means an entity designated by either Canada or the United States of America under article XIV and includes its lawful successor;
(h)	"international joint commission" means the commission established under article VII of the boundary waters treaty, 1909, or any body designated by the United States of America and Canada to succeed to the functions of the commission under this treaty;
(i)	"maintenance curtailment" means an interruption or curtailment which the entity responsible therefor considers necessary for purposes of repairs, replacements, installations of equipment, performance of other maintenance work, investigations and inspections;
(j)	"monthly load factor" means the ratio of the average load for a month to the integrated maximum load over one hour during that month;
(k)	"normal full pool elevation" means the elevation to which water is stored in a reservoir by deliberate impoundment every year, subject to the availability of sufficient flow;
(l)	"ratification date" means the day on which the instruments of ratification of the treaty are exchanged;
(m)	"storage" means the space in a reservoir which is usable for impounding water for flood control or for regulating stream flows for hydroelectric power generation;
(n)	"Treaty" means this treaty and its annexes A and B;
(o)	"useful life" means the time between the date of commencement of operation of a dam or facility and the date of its permanent retirement from service by reason of obsolescence or wear and tear which occurs notwithstanding good maintenance practices.
(2)	The exercise of any power, or the performance of any duty, under the treaty does not preclude a subsequent exercise or performance of the power or duty.

ARTICLE II Development by Canada
(1)	Canada shall provide in the Columbia river basin in Canada 15,500,000 acre-feet oi storage usable for improving the flow of the Columbia river.
(2)	In order to provide this storage, which in the treaty is referred to as the Canadian storage, Canada shall construct dams:
(a)	on the Columbia river near Mica creek, British Columbia, with approximately 7,000,000 acre-feet of storage;
(b)	near the outlet of Arrow lakes, British Columbia, with approximately 7,100,000 acre-feet of storage; and
(c)	on one or more tributaries of the Kootenay river in British Columbia downstream from the Canada-United States of America boundary with storage equivalent in effect to approximately 1,400,000 acre-feet of storage near Duncan lake, British Columbia.
(3)	Canada shall commence construction of the dams as soon as possible after the ratification date.

[Stage Direction]
Development by the United States of America Respecting Power
(1)	The United States of America shall maintain and operate the hydroelectric facilities included in the base system and any additional hydroelectric facilities constructed on the main stem of the Columbia river in the United States of America in a manner that makes the most effective use of the improvement in stream flow resulting from operation of the Canadian storage for hydroelectric power generation in the United States of America power system.
(2)	The obligation in paragraph (1) is discharged by reflecting in the determination of downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled the assumption that the facilities referred to in paragraph (1) were maintained and operated in accordance therewith.
ARTICLE IV Operation by Canada
(1)	For the purpose of increasing hydroelectric power generation in Canada and the United States of America, Canada shall operate the Canadian storage in accordance with annex A and pursuant to hydroelectric operating plans made thereunder. For the purposes of this obligation an operating plan if it is either the first operating plan or if in the view of either Canada or the United States of America it departs substantially from the immediately preceding operating plan must,
in order to be effective, be confirmed by an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America.
(2)	For the purpose of flood control until the expiration of 60 years from the ratification date, Canada shall
(a)	operate in accordance with annex A and pursuant to flood control operating plans made thereunder
(i)	80,000 acre-feet of the Canadian storage described in article 11(2) (a),
(ii)	7,100,000 acre-feet of the Canadian storage described in article 11(2) (b),
(iii)	1,270,000 acre-feet of the Canadian storage described in article II (2) (c). provided that the Canadian entity may exchange flood control storage under subparagraph (ii) for flood control storage additional to that under subparagraph (i), at the location described in article II(2)(a), if the entities agree that the exchange would provide the same effectiveness for control of floods on the Columbia river at The Dalles, Oregon;
(b)	operate any additional storage in the Columbia river basin in Canada, when called upon by an entity designated by the United States of America for that purpose, within the limits of existing facilities and as the entity requires to meet flood control needs for the duration of the flood period for which the call is made.
(3)	For the purpose of flood control after the expiration of 60 years from the ratification date, and for so long as the flows in the Columbia river in Canada continue to contribute to potential flood hazard in the United States of America, Canada shall, when called upon by an entity designated by the United States of America for that purpose, operate within the limits of existing facilities any storage in the Columbia river basin in Canada as the entity requires to meet flood control needs for the duration of the flood period for which the call is made.
(4)	The return to Canada for hydroelectric operation and the compensation to Canada for flood control operation shall be as set out in articles V and VI.
(5)	Any water resource development, in addition to the Canadian storage, constructed in Canada after the ratification date shall not be operated in a way that adversely affects the stream flow control in the Columbia river within Canada so as to reduce the flood control and hydroelectric power benefits which the operation of the Canadian storage in accordance with the operating plans in force from time to time would otherwise produce.
(6)	As soon as any Canadian storage becomes operable Canada shall commence operation thereof in accordance with this
[Stage Direction]
article and in any event shall commence full operation of the Canadian storage described in article II(2)(b) and article II(2)(c) within five years of the ratification date and shall commence full operation of the balance of the Canadian storage within nine years of the ratification date.

[Stage Direction]
Entitlement to Downstream Power Benefits
(1)	Canada is entitled to one half the downstream power benefits determined under article VII.
(2)	The United States of America shall deliver to Canada at a point on the Canada-United States of America boundary near Oliver, British Columbia, or at such other place as the entities may agree upon, the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled, less
(a)	transmission loss,
(b)	the portion of the entitlement disposed of under article VIII(l), and
(c)	the energy component described in article VIII(4).
(3)	The entitlement of Canada to downstream power benefits begins for any portion of Canadian storage upon commencement of its operation in accordance with annex A and pursuant to a hydroelectric operating plan made thereunder.

[Stage Direction]
Payment for Flood Control
(1)	For the flood control provided by Canada under article IV(2)(a) the United States of America shall pay Canada in United States funds:
(a)	1,200,000 dollars upon the commencement of operation of the storage referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) thereof,
(b)	52,100,000 dollars upon the commencement of operation of the storage referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii) thereof, and
(c)	11,100,000 dollars upon the commencement of operation of the storage referred to in subparagraph (a)Ciii) thereof.
(2)	If full operation of any storage is not commenced within the time specified in article IV, the amount set forth in paragraph
(1)	of this article with respect to that storage shall be reduced as follows:
(a)	under paragraph (l)(a), 4,500 dollars for each month beyond the required time.
(b)	under paragraph (1Mb), 192,100 dollars for each month beyond the required time, and
(c)	under paragraph (l)(c), 40,800 dollars for each month beyond the required time.
(3)	For the flood control provided by Canada under article IV(2)(b) the United States
of America shall pay Canada in United States funds in respect only of each of the first four flood periods for which a call is made 1,875,000 dollars and shall deliver to Canada in respect of each and every call made, electric power equal to the hydroelectric power lost by Canada as a result of operating the storage to meet the flood control need for which the call was made, delivery to be made when the loss of hydroelectric power occurs.
(4)	For each flood period for which flood control is provided by Canada under article IV(3) the United States of America shall pay Canada in United States funds:
(a)	the operating cost incurred by Canada in providing the flood control, and
(b)	compensation for the economic loss to Canada arising directly from Canada foregoing alternative uses of the storage used to provide the flood control.
(5)	Canada may elect to receive in electric power, the whole or any portion of the compensation under paragraph (4)(b) representing loss of hydroelectric power to Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Determination of Downstream Power Benefits
(1)	The downstream power benefits shall be the difference in the hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the United States of America with and without the use of Canadian storage, determined in advance, and is referred to in the treaty as the downstream power benefits.
(2)	For the purpose of determining the downstream power benefits:
(a)	the principles and procedures set out in annex B shall be used and followed;
(b)	the Canadian storage shall be considered as next added to 13,000,000 acre-feet of the usable storage listed in column 4 of the table in annex B;
(c)	the hydroelectric facilities included in the base system shall be considered as being operated to make the most effective use for hydroelectric power generation of the improvement in stream flow resulting from operation of the Canadian storage.
(3)	The downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled shall be delivered as follows:
(a)	dependable hydroelectric capacity as scheduled by the Canadian entity, and
(b)	average annual usable hydroelectric energy in equal amounts each month, or in accordance with a modification agreed upon under paragraph (4).
(4)	Modification of the obligation in paragraph (3)(b) may be agreed upon by the entities.

[Stage Direction]
Disposal of Entitlement to Downstream Power Benefits
(1)	With the authorization of Canada and the United States of America evidenced by exchange of notes, portions of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled may be disposed of within the United States of America. The respective general conditions and limits within which the entities may arrange initial disposals shall be set out in an exchange of notes to be made as soon as possible after the ratification date.
(2)	The entities may arrange and carry out exchanges of dependable hydroelectric capacity and average annual usable hydroelectric energy to which Canada is entitled for average annual usable hydroelectric energy and dependable hydroelectric capacity respectively.
(3)	Energy to which Canada is entitled may not be used in the United States of America except in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4)	The by-passing at dams on the main stem of the Columbia river in the United States of America of an amount of water which could produce usable energy equal to the energy component of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled but not delivered to Canada under article V or disposed of in accordance with paragraphs
(1)	and (2) at the time the energy component was not so delivered or disposed of, is conclusive evidence that such energy component was not used in the United States of America and that the entitlement of Canada to such energy component is satisfied.

[Stage Direction]
Variation of Entitlement to Downstream Power Benefits
(1)	If the United States of America considers with respect to any hydroelectric power project planned on the main stem of the Columbia river between Priest Rapids dam and McNary dam that the increase in entitlement of Canada to downstream power benefits resulting from the operation of the project would produce a result which would not justify the United States of America in incurring the costs of construction and operation of the project, Canada and the United States of America at the request of the United States of America shall consider modification of the increase in entitlement.
(2)	An agreement reached for the purposes of this article shall be evidenced by an exchange of notes.

[Stage Direction]
East-West Stand-by Transmission
(1)	The United States of America shall provide in accordance with good engineering practice east-west stand-by transmission service adequate to safeguard the transmission from Oliver, British Columbia, to Vancouver, British Columbia, of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled and to improve system stability of the east-west circuits in British Columbia.
(2)	In consideration of the stand-by transmission service, Canada shall pay the United States of America in Canadian funds the equivalent of 1.50 United States dollars a year for each kilowatt of dependable hydroelectric capacity included in the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled.
(3)	When a mutually satisfactory electrical co-ordination arrangement is entered into between the entities and confirmed by exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America the obligation of Canada in paragraph (2) ceases.

[Stage Direction]
Use of Improved Stream Flow
(1)	Improvement in stream flow in one country brought about by operation of storage constructed under the treaty in the other country shall not be used directly or indirectly for hydroelectric power purposes except:
(a)	In the case of use within the United States of America with the prior approval of the United States entity, and
(b)	in the case of use within Canada with the prior approval of the authority in Canada having jurisdiction.
(2)	The approval required by this article shall not be given except upon such conditions, consistent with the treaty, as the entity or authority considers appropriate.

[Stage Direction]
Kootenay River Development
(1) The United States of America for a period of five years from the ratification date, has the option to commence construction of a dam on the Kootenay river near Libby, Montana, to provide storage to meet flood control and other purposes in the United States of America. The storage reservoir of the dam shall not raise the level of the Kootenay river at the Canada-United States of America boundary above an elevation consistent with a normal full pool elevation at the dam of 2,459 feet, United States coast
[Stage Direction]
and geodetic survey datum, 1929 general adjustment, 1947 international supplemental adjustment.
(2)	All benefits which occur in either country from the construction and operation of the storage accrue to the country in which the benefits occur.
(3)	The United States of America shall exercise its option by written notice to Canada and shall submit with the notice a schedule of construction which shall include provision for commencement of construction, whether by way of railroad relocation work or otherwise, within five years of the ratification date.
(4)	If the United States of America exercises its option, Canada in consideration of the benefits accruing to it under paragraph
(2)	shall prepare and make available for flooding the land in Canada necessary for the storage reservoir of the dam within a period consistent with the construction schedule.
(5)	If a variation in the operation of the storage is considered by Canada to be of advantage to it the United States of America shall, upon request, consult with Canada. If the United States of America determines that the variation would not be to its disadvantage it shall vary the operation accordingly.
(6)	The operation of the storage by the United States of America shall be consistent with any order of approval which may be in force from time to time relating to the levels of Kootenay lake made by the international joint commission under the boundary waters treaty, 1909.
(7)	Any obligation of Canada under this article ceases if the United States of America, having exercised the option, does not commence construction of the dam in accordance with the construction schedule.
(8)	If the United States of America exercises the option it shall commence full operation of the storage within seven years of the date fixed in the construction schedule for commencement of construction.
(9)	If Canada considers that any portion of the land referred to in paragraph (4) is no longer needed for the purpose of this article Canada and the United States of America, at the request of Canada, shall consider modification of the obligation of Canada in paragraph (4).
(10)	If the treaty is terminated before the end of the useful life of the dam Canada shall for the remainder of the useful life of the dam continue to make available for the storage reservoir of the dam any portion of the land made available under paragraph (4)
that is not required by Canada for purposes of diversion of the Kootenay river under article XIII.
ARTICLE XIII Diversions
(1)	Except as provided in this article neither Canada nor the United States of America shall, without the consent of the other evidenced by an exchange of notes, divert for any use, other than a consumptive use, any water from its natural channel in a way that alters the flow of any water as it crosses the Canada-United States of America boundary within the Columbia river basin.
(2)	Canada has the right, after the expiration of 20 years from the ratification date, to divert not more than 1,500,000 acre-feet of water a year from the Kootenay river in the vicinity of Canal Flats, British Columbia, to the headwaters of the Columbia river, provided that the diversion does not reduce the flow of the Kootenay river immediately downstream from the point of diversion below the lesser of 200 cubic feet per second or the natural flow.
(3)	Canada has the right, exercisable at any time during the period commencing sixty years after the ratification date and expiring 100 years after the ratification date, to divert to the headwaters of the Columbia river any water which, in its natural channel, would flow in the Kootenay river across the Canada-United States of America boundary, provided that the diversion does not reduce the flow of the Kootenay river at the Canada-United States of America boundary near Newgate, British Columbia, below the lesser of 2500 cubic feet per second or the natural flow.
(4)	During the last 20 years of the period within which Canada may exercise the right to divert described in paragraph (3) the limitation on diversion is the lesser of 1000 cubic feet per second or the natural flow.
(5)	Canada has the right:
(a)	if the United States of America does not exercise the option in article XII (1), or
(b)	if it is determined that the United States of America, having exercised the option, did not commence construction of the dam referred to in article XII in accordance therewith or that the United States of America is in breach of the obligation in that article to commence full operation of the storage, to divert to the headwaters of the Columbia river any water which, in its natural channel, would flow in the Kootenay river across the Canada-United States of America boundary, provided that the diversion does not reduce the flow of the Kootenay river at the Canada-United States of America

boundary near Newgate, British Columbia, below the lesser of 1000 cubic feet per second or the natural flow.
(6)	If a variation in the use of the water diverted under paragraph (2) is considered by the United States of America to be of advantage to it Canada shall, upon request, consult with the United States of America. If Canada determines that the variation would not be to its disadvantage it shall vary the use accordingly.

[Stage Direction]
Arrangements for Implementation
(1) Canada and the United States of America shall each, as soon as possible after the ratification date, designate entities and when so designated the entities are empowered and charged with the duty to formulate and carry out the operating arrangements necessary to implement the treaty. Either Canada or the United States of America may designate one or more entities. If more than one is designated the powers and duties conferred upon the entities by the treaty shall be allocated among them in the designation.
(2)	In addition to the powers and duties dealt with specifically elsewhere in the treaty the powers and duties of the entities include:
(a)	co-ordination of plans and exchange of information relating to facilities to be used in producing and obtaining the benefits contemplated by the treaty,
(b)	calculation of and arrangements for delivery of hydroelectric power to which Canada is entitled for providing flood control,
(c)	calculation of the amounts payable to the United States of America for stand-by transmission services,
(d)	consultation on requests for variations made pursuant to articles XII (5) and XIII (6),
(e)	the establishment and operation of a hydrometeorological system as required by annex A,
(f)	assisting and co-operating with the permanent engineering board in the discharge of its functions,
(g)	periodic calculation of accounts,
(h)	preparation of the hydroelectric operating plans and the flood control operating plans for the Canadian storage together with determination of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled,
(i)	preparation of proposals to implement article VIII and carrying out any disposal authorized or exchange provided for therein,
(j)	making appropriate arrangements for delivery to Canada of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled including
such matters as load factors for delivery, times and points of delivery, and calculation of transmission loss,
(k)	preparation and implementation of detailed operating plans that may produce results more advantageous to both countries than those that would arise from operation under the plans referred to in annexes A and B.
(3)	The entities are authorized to make maintenance curtailments. Except in case of emergency, the entity responsible for a maintenance curtailment shall give notice to the corresponding Canadian or United States entity of the curtailment, including the reason therefor and the probable duration thereof and shall both schedule the curtailment with a view to minimizing its impact and exercise due diligence to resume full operation.
(4)	Canada and the United States of America may by an exchange of notes empower or charge the entities with any other matter coming within the scope of the treaty.

[Stage Direction]
Permanent Engineering Board
(1)	A permanent engineering board is established consisting of four members, two to be appointed by Canada and two by the United States of America. The initial appointments shall be made within three months of the ratification date.
(2)	The permanent engineering board shall:
(a)	assemble records of the flows of the Columbia river and the Kootenay river at the Canada-United States of America boundary;
(b)	report to Canada and the United States of America whenever there is substantial deviation from the hydroelectric and flood control operating plans and if appropriate include in the report recommendations for remedial action and compensatory adjustments;
(c)	assist in reconciling differences concerning technical or operational matters that may arise between the entities;
(d)	make periodic inspections and require reports as necessary from the entities with a view to ensuring that the objectives of the treaty are being met;
(e)	make reports to Canada and the United States of America at least once a year of the results being achieved under the treaty and make special reports concerning any matter which it considers should be brought to their attention;
(f)	investigate and report with respect to any other matter coming within the scope of the treaty at the request of either Canada or the United States of America.
[Stage Direction]
(3)	Reports of the permanent engineering board made in the course of the performance of its functions under this article shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained and shall be accepted unless rebutted by other evidence.
(4)	The permanent engineering board shall comply with directions, relating to its administration and procedures, agreed upon by Canada and the United States of America as evidenced by an exchange of notes.
ARTICLE XVI Settlement of Differences
(1)	Differences arising under the treaty which Canada and the United States of America cannot resolve may be referred by either to the international joint commission for decision.
(2)	If the international joint commission does not render a decision within three months of the referral or within such other period as may be agreed upon by Canada and the United States of America, either may then submit the difference to arbitration by written notice to the other.
(3)	Arbitration shall be by a tribunal composed of a member appointed by Canada, a member appointed by the United States of America and a member appointed jointly by Canada and the United States of America who shall be chairman. If within six weeks of the delivery of a notice under paragraph (2) either Canada or the United States of America has failed to appoint its member, or they, are unable to agree upon the member who is to be chairman, either Canada or the United States of America may request the president of the international court of justice to appoint the member or members. The decision of a majority of the members of an arbitration tribunal shall be the decision of the tribunal.
(4)	Canada and the United States of America shall accept as definitive and binding and shall carry out any decision of the international joint commission or an arbitration tribunal.
(5)	Provision for the administrative support of a tribunal and for remuneration and expenses of its members shall be as agreed in an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America.
(6)	Canada and the United States of America may agree by an exchange of notes on alternative procedures for settling differences arising under the treaty, including reference of any difference to the international court of justice for decision.

[Stage Direction]
Restoration of Pre-Treaty Legal Status
(1)	Nothing in this treaty and no action taken or forgone pursuant to its provisions shall be deemed, after its termination or expiration, to have abrogated or modified any of the rights or obligations of Canada or the United States of America under then existing international law, with respect to the uses of the water resources of the Columbia river basin.
(2)	Upon termination of this treaty, the boundary waters treaty, 1909, shall, if it has not been terminated, apply to the Columbia river basin, except in so far as the provisions of that treaty may be inconsistent with any provision of this treaty which continues in effect.
(3)	Upon termination of this treaty, if the boundary waters treaty, 1909, has been terminated in accordance with article XIV of that treaty, the provisions of article II of that treaty shall continue to apply to the waters of the Columbia river basin.
(4)	If upon the termination of this treaty article II of the boundary waters treaty, 1909, continues in force by virtue of paragraph (3) of this article the effect of article II of that treaty with respect to the Columbia river basin may be terminated1 by either Canada or the United States of America delivering to the other one year's written notice to that effect; provided however that the notice may be given only after the termination of this treaty.
(5)	If prior to the termination of this treaty Canada undertakes works usable for and relating to a diversion of water from the Columbia river basin, other than works authorized by or undertaken for the purpose of exercising a right under article XIII or any other provision of this treaty, paragraph
(3)	of this article shall cease to apply one year after delivery by either Canada or the United States of America to the other of written notice to that effect.
ARTICLE XVIII Liability for Damage
(1)	Canada and the United States of America shall be liable to the other and shall make appropriate compensation to the other in respect of any act, failure to act, omission or delay amounting to a breach of the treaty or of any of its provisions other than an act, failure to act, omission or delay occurring by reason of war, strike, major calamity, act of God, uncontrollable force or maintenance curtailment.
(2)	Except as provided in paragraph (1) neither Canada nor the United States of

America shall be liable to the other or to any person in respect of any injury, damage or loss occurring in the territory of the other caused by any act, failure to act, omission or delay under the treaty whether the injury, damage or loss results from negligence or otherwise.
(3)	Canada and the United States of America, each to the extent possible within its territory, shall exercise due diligence to remove the cause of and to mitigate the effect of any injury, damage or loss occurring in the territory of the other as a result of any act, failure to act, omission or delay under the treaty.
(4)	Failure to commence operation as required under articles IV and XII is not a breach of the treaty and does not result in the loss of rights under the treaty if the failure results from a delay that is not wilful or reasonably avoidable.
(5)	The compensation payable under paragraph (1):
(a)	in respect of a breach by Canada of the obligation to commence full operation of a storage, shall be forfeiture of entitlement to downstream power benefits resulting from the operation of that storage, after operation commences, for a period equal to the period between the day of commencement of operation and the day when commencement should have occurred;
(b)	in respect of any other breach by either Canada or the United States of America, causing loss of power benefits, shall not exceed the actual loss in revenue from the sale of hydroelectric power.
ARTICLE XIX Period of Treaty
(1)	The treaty shall come into force on the ratification date.
(2)	Either Canada or the United States of America may terminate the treaty other than article XIII (except paragraph (1) thereof), article XVII and this article at any time after the treaty has been in force for 60 years if it has delivered at least 10 years written notice to the other of its intention to terminate the treaty.
(3)	If the treaty is terminated before the end of the useful life of the dam built under article XII then, notwithstanding termination, article XII remains in force until the end of the useful life of the dam.
(4)	If the treaty is terminated before the end of the useful life of the facilities providing the storage described in article IV(3) and if the conditions described therein exist then, notwithstanding termination, articles IV(3) and VIM) and (5) remain in force until either
the end of the useful life of these facilities or until those conditions cease to exist, whichever is the first to occur.

[Stage Direction]
Ratification
The instruments of ratification of the treaty shall be exchanged by Canada and the United States of America at Ottawa, Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Registration with the United Nations
In conformity with article 102 of the charter of the United Nations, the treaty shall be registered by Canada with the secretariat of the United Nations.
This treaty has been done in duplicate copies in the English language.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective governments, have signed this treaty at Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, this seventeenth day of January, 1961.
For Canada:
John G. Diefenbaker Prime Minister of Canada
E. D. Fulton
Minister of Justice A. D. P. Heeney Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the United States of America
For the United States of America:
Dwight D. Eisenhower President
of the United States of America Christian A. Herter Secretary of State
Elmer F. Bennett Under Secretary of the Interior
Annex A
PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION General
1.	The Canadian storage provided under article II will be operated in accordance with the procedures described herein.
2.	A hydrometerological system, including snow courses, precipitation stations and stream flow gauges will be established and operated, as mutually agreed by the entities and in consultation with the permanent
[Stage Direction]
engineering board, for use in establishing data for detailed programming of flood control and power operations. Hydrometeorological information will be made available to the entities in both countries for immediate and continuing use in flood control and power operations.
3.	Sufficient discharge capacity at each dam to afford the desired regulation for power and. flood control will be provided through outlet works and turbine installations as mutually agreed by the entities. The discharge capacity provided for flood control operations will be large enough to pass inflow plus sufficient storage releases during the evacuation period to provide the storage space required. The discharge capacity will be evaluated on the basis of full use of any conduits provided for that purpose plus one half the hydraulic capacity of the turbine installation at the time of commencement of the operation of storage under the treaty.
4.	The outflows will be in accordance with storage reservation diagrams and associated criteria established for flood control purposes and with reservoir-balance relationships established for power operations. Unless otherwise agreed by the entities the average weekly outflows shall not be less than 3000 cubic feet per second at the dam described in article II(2)(a), not less than 5000 cubic feet per second at the dam described in article II(2)(b) and not less than 1000 cubic feet per second at the dam described in article II(2)(c). These minimum average weekly releases may be scheduled by the Canadian entity as required for power or other purposes.
Flood Control
5.	For flood control operation, the United States entity will submit flood control operating plans which may consist of or include flood control storage reservation diagrams and associated criteria for each of the dams. The Canadian entity will operate in accordance with these diagrams or any variation which the entities agree will not derogate from the desired aim of the flood control plan. The use of these diagrams will be based on data obtained in accordance with paragraph 2. The diagrams will consist of relationships specifying the flood control storage reservations required at indicated times of the year for volumes of forecast runoff. After consultation with the Canadian entity the United States entity may from time to time as conditions warrant adjust these storage reservation diagrams within the general limitations of flood control operation. Evacuation of the storages listed hereunder will be guided by the flood
control storage reservation diagrams and refill will be as requested by the United States entity after consultation with the Canadian entity. The general limitations of flood control operation are as follows:
(a) The dam described in article II(2)(a) -The reservoir will be evacuated to provide up to 80,000 acre-feet of storage, if required, for flood control use by May 1 of each year.
Cb) The dam described in article II(2)(b) [DOT]

The reservoir will be evacuated to provide up to 7,100,000 acre-feet of storage, if required, for flood control use by May 1 of each year.
(c)	The dam described in article II(2)(c) -The reservoir will be evacuated to provide up to 700,000 acre-feet of storage, if required, for flood control use by April 1 of each year and up to 1,270,000 acre-feet of storage, if required, for flood control use by May 1 of each year.
(d)	The Canadian entity may exchange flood control storage provided in the reservoir referred to in subparagraph (b) for additional storage provided in the reservoir referred to in subparagraph (a) if the entities agree that the exchange would provide the same effectiveness for control of floods on the Columbia river at The Dalles, Oregon.
Power
6.	For power generating purposes the
15,500,000	acre-feet of Canadian storage will be operated in accordance with operating plans designed to achieve optimum power generation downstream in the United States of America until such time as power generating facilities are installed at the site referred to in paragraph 5(a) or at sites in Canada downstream therefrom.
7.	After at-site power is developed at the site referred to in paragraph 5(a) or power generating facilities are placed in operation in Canada downstream from that site, the storage operation will be changed so as to be operated in accordance with operating plans designed to achieve optimum power generation at-site in Canada and downstream in Canada and the United States of America, including consideration of any agreed electrical co-ordination between the two countries. Any reduction in the downstream power benefits in the United States of America resulting from that change in operation of the Canadian storage shall not exceed in any one year the reduction in downstream power benefits in the United States of America which would result from reducing by 500,000 acre-feet the Canadian storage operated to achieve optimum power generation in the United States of America

and shall not exceed at any time during the period of the treaty the reduction in downstream power benefits in the United States of America which would result from similarly reducing the Canadian storage by 3,000,000 acre-feet.
8.	After at-site power is developed at the site referred to in paragraph 5(a) or power generating facilities are placed in operation in Canada downstream from that site, storage may be operated to achieve optimum generation of power in the United States of America alone if mutually agreed by the entities in which event the United States of America shall supply power to Canada to offset any reduction in Canadian generation which would be created as a result of such operation as compared to operation to achieve optimum power generation at-site in Canada and downstream in Canada and the United States of America. Similarly, the storage may be operated to achieve optimum generation of power in Canada alone if mutually agreed by the entities in which event Canada shall supply power to the United States of America to offset any reduction in United States generation which would be created as a result of such operation as compared to operation to achieve optimum power generation at-site in Canada and downstream in Canada and the United States of America.
9.	Before the first storage becomes operative, the entities will agree on operating plans and the resulting downstream power benefits for each year until the total of
15,500,000	acre-feet of storage in Canada becomes operative. In addition, commencing five years before the total of 15,500,000 acre-feet of storage is expected to become operative, the entities will agree annually on operating plans and the resulting downstream power benefits for the sixth succeeding year of operation thereafter. This procedure will continue during the life of the treaty, providing to both entities, in advance, an assured plan of operation of the Canadian storage and a determination of the resulting downstream power benefits for the next succeeding five years.
Annex B

[Stage Direction]
1.	The downstream power benefits in the United States of America attributable to operation in accordance with annex A of the storage provided by Canada under article II will be determined in advance and will be the estimated increase in dependable hydroelectric capacity in kilowatts for agreed critical stream flow periods and the increase
in average annual usable hydroelectric energy output in kilowatt hours on the basis of an agreed period of stream flow record.
2.	The dependable hydroelectric capacity to be credited to Canadian storage will be the difference between the average rates of generation in kilowatts during the appropriate critical stream flow periods for the United States of America base system, consisting of the projects listed in the table, with and without the addition of the Canadian storage, divided by the estimated average critical period load factor. The capacity credit shall not exceed the difference between the capability of the base system without Canadian storage and the maximum feasible capability of the base system with Canadian storage, to supply firm load during the critical stream flow periods.
3.	The increase in the average annual usable hydroelectric energy will be determined by first computing the difference between the available hydroelectric energy at the United States base system with and without Canadian storage. The entities will then agree upon the part of available energy which is usable with and without Canadian storage, and the difference thus agreed will be the increase in average annual usable hydroelectric energy. Determination of the part of the energy which is usable will include consideration of existing and scheduled transmission facilities and the existence of markets capable of using the energy on a contractual basis similar to the then existing contracts. The part of the available energy which is considered usable shall be the sum of:
(a)	the firm energy,
(b)	the energy which can be used for thermal power displacement in the Pacific northwest area as defined in Paragraph 7, and
Cc) the amount of the remaining portion of the available energy which is agreed by the entities to be usable and which shall not exceed in any event 40 per cent of that remainder.
4.	An initial determination of the estimated downstream power benefits in the United States of America from Canadian storage added to the United States base system will be made before any of the Canadian storage becomes operative. This determination will include estimates of the downstream power benefits for each year until the total of
15,500,000	acre-feet of Canadian storage becomes operative.
5.	Commencing five years before the total of 15,500,000 acre-feet of storage is expected to become operative, estimates of downstream power benefits will be calculated annually for the sixth succeeding year on the basis of the assured plan of operation for that year.
[Stage Direction]
6.	The critical stream flow period and the details of the assured plan of operation will be agreed upon by the entities at each determination. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the entities, the determination of the downstream power benefits shall be based upon stream flows for the 20-year period beginning with July 1928 as contained in the report entitled Modified Flows at Selected Power Sites-Columbia River Basin, dated June 1957. No retroactive adjustment in downstream power benefits will be made at any time during the period of the treaty. No reduction in the downstream power benefits credited to Canadian storage will be made as a result of the load estimate in the United States of America, for the year for which the determination is made, being less than the load estimate for the preceding year.
7.	In computing the increase in dependable hydroelectric capacity and the increase in average annual hydroelectric energy, the procedure shall be in accordance with the three steps described below and shall encompass the loads of the Pacific northwest area. The Pacific northwest area for purposes of these determinations shall be Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana west of the continental divide but shall exclude areas served on the ratification date by the California Oregon Power Company and Utah Power and Light Company.
Step I
The system for the period covered by the estimate will consist of the Canadian storage, the United States base system, any thermal installation operated in co-ordination with the base system, and additional hydroelectric projects which will provide storage releases usable by the base system or which will use storage releases that are usable by the base system. The installations included in this system will be those required, with allowance for adequate reserves, to meet the forecast power load to be served by this system in the United States of America, including the estimated flow of power at points of interconnection with adjacent areas, subject to paragraph 3, plus the portion of the entitlement of Canada that is expected to be used in Canada. The capability of this system to supply this load will be determined on the basis that the system will be operated in accordance with the established operating procedures of each of the projects involved.
Step II
A determination of the energy capability will be made using the same thermal installation as in step I, the United States base system with the same installed capacity as in step I and Canadian storage.
Step III
A similar determination of the energy capability will be made using the same thermal installation as in step I and the United States base system with the same installed capacity as in step I.
8.	The downstream power benefits to be credited to Canadian storage will be the differences between the determinations in step II and step III in dependable hydroelectric capacity and in average annual usable hydroelectric energy, made in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
[See table page 1201.]

[Stage Direction]
It is with great pleasure that I am able to announce that the treaty for the co-operative development of the Columbia river basin has been signed in Washington today. This marks the successful outcome of nearly three years of intensive work on a project that will, in years to come, bring very great benefits to both Canada and the United States.
Knowing the great importance that a suitable arrangement for development of the Columbia basin could have for Canada, the present government began work on it almost immediately after it assumed office. The project had been under consideration for many years and engineering studies, under a reference to the international joint commission, had been pursued since 1944. The problem was to get the matter actively advanced and to put negotiations with the United States on a profitable and fruitful basis. Essential to the whole plan, so far as Canada was concerned, was the need to secure recognition by the United States-which there had never been before-of the principle that a downstream country should share the benefits it might get from storage works in a neighbouring upstream country. I regard it as a great achievement that, not only were we able to get negotiations under way with purpose and action, but we were also successful in securing agreement on that principle of such basic and far-reaching importance to this country.
It will be recalled that at the end of January 1959, the governments of Canada and the United States requested the international joint commission to report to them on:
(a)	the benefits which will result from the co-operative use of storage of waters and electrical interconnection within the Columbia river system; and
(b)	the apportionment between the two countries of such benefits more particularly in regard to electrical generation and flood control.
The commission reported and submitted the principles on which it had been able to


[Stage Direction]
Estimated
Normal Elevation	Initial Installation Ultimate Installation
Stream Usable 

 Gross 
[Stage Direction]
Project	Stream	Mile Above Mouth	Storage Acre-feet	Pool Feet	Tailwater Feet	Head Feet	No. of Units	Plant Kilowatts	No. of Units	Plant Kilowatts
								(Nameplate)		(Nameplate)
Hungry Horse	S. Fk. Flathead	
5	3,161,000[4]	3,560	3,083	477	4	285,000	4	285,000Kerr	Flathead	
73	1,219,000	2,893	2,706	187	3	168,000	3	168,000Thompson Falls	Clark Fork	
209	Pondage	2,396	2,336	60	6	30,000	8	65,000Noxon Rapids	Clark Fork	
170	Pondage	2,331	2,179	152	4	336,000	5	420,000Cabinet Gorge	Clark Fork	
150	Pondage	2,175	2,078	97	4	200,000	6	300,000Albeni Falls	Pend Oreille	
90	1,155,000	2,062	2,034	28	3	42,600	3	42,600Box ('anyon	Pend Oreille	
34	Pondage	2,031	1,989	42	4	60,000	4	60,000Grand Coulee	Columbia	
597	5,232,000[4]	1,290[3][	*] 947	343	18	1,944,000	34	3,672,000Chief Joseph	Columbia	
546	Pondage	946	775	171	16	1,024,000	27	1,728,000Wells I1]	Columbia	
516	Pondage	775	707	68	6	400,000	10	666,700Rocky Reach	Columbia	
474	Pondage	707	614	93	7	711,550	11	1,118,150Rock Island	Columbia	
453	Pondage	608 [3]	570	38	10	212,100	10	212,100Wanapum	Columbia	
415	Pondage	570	486	84	10	831,250	16	1,330,000Priest Rapids	Columbia	
397	Pondage	486	406	80	10	788,500	16	1,261,600Brownlee	Snake	
285	974,000	2,077	1,805	272	4	360,400	6	540,600Oxbow	Snake	
273	Pondage	1,805	1,683	122	4	190,000	5	237,500Ice Harbour	Snake	
10	Pondage	440	343	97	3	270,000	6	540,000Me Nary	Columbia	
292	Pondage	340	265	75	14	980,000	20	1,400,000John Day	Columbia	
216	Pondage	265	161	104	8	1.080,000	20	2,700,000The Dalles	Columbia	
192	Pondage	160	74	86	16[2]	1,119,000	24 [2]	1,743,000Bonneville	Columbia	
145	Pondage	74	15	59	10	518,400	16	890,400Kootenay Lake	Kootenay	
16	673,000	1,745	Chelan	Chelan	
0	676,000	1,100	707	393	2	48,000	4	96,000Coeur d'Alene L	Coeur d'Alene	
102	223,000	2,128	-	-	-	TOTAL-24 Projects	13,313,000[4]	3,128	166	11,598,800	258	19,476,650
l1] The Wells project is not presently under construction; when this project or any other project on the main stem of the Columbia river is completed, they will be integral components of the base system.
[2]	Includes two 13,500 kilowatt units for fish attraction water.
[3]	With dashboards.
[4j In determining the base system capabilities with and without Canadian storage the Hungry Horse reservoir storage will be limited to 3,008,000 acre-feet (normal full pool elevation of 3,560 feet) and the Grand Coulee project will not include the effect of adding dashboards, limiting the storage to 5,072,000 acre-feet (normal full pool elevation of 1,288 feet). The total usable storage of the base system as so adjusted will be 13,000,000 acre-feet.
[Stage Direction]

achieve agreement on December 29, 1959. Less than a month later, on January 25, 1960, the two governments announced the appointment of delegations to represent them in negotiations looking toward the formulation of a definite agreement for development of the Columbia basin. Eight months after that, on September 28, the two negotiating teams were able to submit a progress report that set forth the basic provisions that they recommended for inclusion in a treaty. That progress report was accepted by the two governments in an exchange of notes on October 19 last.
Since October the negotiations for a treaty have proceeded with meetings in Washington and Ottawa. On January 8 of this year the negotiating teams signed a report to the two governments submitting a draft of the treaty that they recommended for signature and ratification. That draft treaty has now been considered, not only by the national governments in Ottawa and Washington but also by the government of British Columbia in Victoria. It has been approved by all governments and has been signed today on behalf of Canada by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister and Hon. E. D. Fulton, Minister of Justice and chairman of the Canadian negotiating group, and by the Canadian ambassador in Washington.
The treaty does not depart in any fundamental respect from the program that was recommended in the progress report of September 28, although a number of improvements have been made.
So far as Canada is concerned, the most important single feature of the treaty is the one I have already referred to-the recognition of the principle of division of downstream benefits. From that principle all the great advantages that are possible for Canada as a result of co-operative development of the Columbia basin flow. Without that principle the entire arrangement would be fruitless for this country. Our predecessors in office had failed to achieve recognition of this basic point. We have succeeded. The treaty embodies the principle that downstream benefits are to be divided equally. That alone is a success of the most outstanding character.
We have been able to achieve this in a way which will fully respect the sovereignty of each country. By avoiding any complicated cost-sharing and by making the arrangement as self-enforcing as possible we have ensured that there will be no unnecessary intrusion into each other's affairs across the international boundary.
The Columbia river treaty calls for construction of three major dams for the storage of water on the Columbia river system in
Canada. The largest of these will be located near Mica Creek on the main stem of the Columbia river and is estimated to cost some $247 million. The second dam will be near the outlet of the Arrow lakes at an estimated cost of nearly $72 million. The third dam will be on the Kootenay system tributary to the Columbia river, probably near Duncan lake, at an estimated cost of nearly $26 million. The total expenditure involved in the Canadian storages is thus estimated to be approximately $345 million. Table 1 attached sets forth these figures in greater detail.
The dams in Canada will store very large quantities of water for regulated release to increase the production of power downstream. Initially that increase in power production will be entirely in the United States since Canada does not now have any generators installed on the Columbia river in this country. In return for the very valuable regulation of the flow of water, the treaty provides that Canada will receive 50 per cent of the increase in usable power in the United States. This increase in power downstream is the gain that is commonly referred to as the "downstream benefit". It is these benefits that the United States has agreed to share with us.
The magnitude of the increase in power production as a result of the Canadian storages is very great indeed. This results in part from the fact that the Columbia river has an extreme variation in flow in its natural state. The flow at the border can vary as much as 40:1 because of seasonal fluctuation. The increase in power output is also great because of the enormous investment that the United States has made in the installation of power producing facilities downstream. The control of the widely variable natural flow of water in order to cause the passage of regulated quantities at a planned rate through the very large United States facilities is what produces the valuable downstream benefits. It has been agreed in the treaty that the Canadian storages will be put in the most favourable position in the attribution of benefits to storage. In the terms of engineering science, this is described by giving the Canadian storages "next added" position in the credit that is to be given to our 15.5 million acre-feet in regulation for downstream benefits. By agreeing that our storages have that position, the United States has agreed, in effect, that their benefits shall be of the largest order that this storage can achieve. This is a point of very great importance in ensuring the maximum share of power for Canada.
To give some idea of the magnitude of the power benefits I am advised that the Canadian share attributable to the storages and

delivered to load centres in British Columbia will amount to 6.856 billion kilowatt hours per year and to a firm electrical capacity of 1,-
118,000	kilowatts. Table 2 attached gives a detailed example of the power benefits to be received in a sample year.
There has been some confusion concerning the sharing of the downstream benefits because figures released in Portland, Oregon, on October 19, 1960, dealt with the question in a somewhat different way than figures released here have done. I want to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that those figures were inaccurate. I am advised that, so far as Canadian information goes, they are entirely accurate. Moreover, on the extent of the downstream power and its division between the two countries they are entirely consistent with the figures released here. The problem is to analyse them without a knowledge of electrical engineering. In order to help clarify what has been a point of uncertainty table 3 has been prepared and is attached hereto.
The power that Canada secures from the treaty projects will not only be great in quantity, but it will also be low in cost. The treaty provides that the United States will deliver the Canadian share of the power free of charge at a point on the Canada-United States boundary near Oliver, British Columbia. They will also provide stand-by transmission facilities at a cost of $1.50 per year for each kilowatt of Canadian capacity. These stand-by facilities will make it unnecessary for British Columbia to incur substantial costs that would otherwise be necessary to build an additional line to ensure the regular delivery of the power to Vancouver. As a result of all these factors it is estimated, on what I am advised is a conservative basis, that the Canadian share of power can be delivered at load centres in the lower mainland and interior at less than 4 mills per kilowatt hour.
The United States will, of course, secure an equal amount of the increase in power brought about there by the control of the Canadian storages. In considering the cost of this power to the United States, it is important to bear in mind that, although they do not now have to make new expenditures equal to those in Canada to secure this power, this is only because the United States has already expended upwards of $2 billion at 1957 prices on plants and developments on the Columbia river in their country. As I have said, it is only because this investment has been made that the increase in downstream power from Canadian storage is possible.
The securing of downstream benefits from the Canadian storages is only the initial stage of the results that will flow from the Columbia river development. It will be possible later
on to instal generators at the dam near Mica creek and also, as the power requirements of British Columbia justify it, to construct additional plants downstream in Canada to make use of our regulated flow of water.
The treaty makes provision for flexibility in the plans under which our storages will be regulated. As power generation facilities are installed on the Columbia river in Canada it will be possible to devote steadily greater proportions of the stored water to increasing power generation in Canada and the United States jointly instead of in the United States alone. There will thus be a shift of emphasis in the future from shared downstream benefits to Canadian power production. While the nature and timing of Canadian power plans cannot be definite at this stage, I am advised that it seems reasonable to estimate that the Columbia river development will ultimately produce 20.2 billion kilowatt hours of power each year in Canada over and above the 6.856 billion kilowatt hours that is our initial share of downstream benefits. It is estimated that the average cost of this entire block of power delivered at British Columbia load centres will still be approximately the 4 mill figure that I have mentioned.
While these later developments cannot, as I have said, be scheduled at this time the character of the projects and the magnitude of the power they would produce can be calculated. Table 4 lists these possibilities.
In order that the full magnitude of the investment in the initial phase of the program may be understood, I should mention, as the tables will disclose, that in addition to the $345 million for the storages that I have already referred to, there will be investment in new transmission in British Columbia to an estimated cost of some $114 million. The total investment in the first phase will thus amount to about $458 million. The ultimate investment to provide for a full development of the kind I have referred to could be in the vicinity of $1.5 billion.
I have dealt thus far with only one aspect- although the largest aspect-of the advantages that will flow from the Columbia river development. I have spoken entirely of power. The regulation of the flow of water in Canada will provide other benefits through the reduction of the danger of serious floods in the United States. Under the treaty Canada will receive a substantial return for this service.
I mentioned that the three Canadian storages will impound a very large quantity of water of which 15.5 million acre-feet will be operated1 under agreed plans for the optimum production of power in the Columbia river basin. Of these 15.5 million acre-feet,
8,450,000	acre-feet will be handled from time
[Stage Direction]
to time under agreed flood control plans. These will be designed to control the flows of water downstream in the United States so that they will, at the flood periods, not exceed 800,000 cubic feet per second at The Dalles, Oregon. This plan of operation for flood control will continue for 60 years. In return for this service the United States will make payments to Canada upon the commencement of operation of each storage dam. These payments will be calculated on the basis that Canada is entitled to a return equivalent to 50 per cent of the estimated damage that is prevented to downstream developments as they would stand in 1985. The calculations are complicated and involve a number of assumptions, but they have been established to the satisfaction not only of the engineers but of the financial experts on both sides. As the payments for the full amount of the service over the entire 60 years will be made to Canada in lump sum on the completion of the various storages, they will help substantially in the financing of the dams. The treaty calls for the dams on the Arrow lakes and near Duncan lake to be completed in five years from the ratification date. The dam at Mica creek is larger and its completion is not called for until nine years from the ratification date. The total of the flood control payments to be made at the five and nine year completion dates is $64.4 million in United States funds. In order to enable the completion schedule to be maintained the treaty calls for the construction of all three dams to begin as soon as possible after the ratification date.
While I need not enlarge on the obvious advantage of the very substantial lump sum flood payment in helping with initial financing, I think I might point out that this is not the whole story. If the payment is invested in the projects, it is not an obligation to repay and it bears no interest. The saving from that fact is very great. It can be demonstrated by assuming that the money invested in the projects earns money at a low borrowing rate over the amortization period. The end result is a value to Canada over a 50-year period of $190,200,000. There is attached a table on this matter (table 5).
During the 60 years that the agreed flood control plan is to operate, Canada will also stand ready to provide additional flood control on an "on call" basis if it is required. For this service Canada will be paid $1,875,000 on each of the first four calls up to a total of $7.5 million. This amount is related to a plan that was originally contemplated in the progress report on September 28, 1960, but which has now been varied in order to provide greater freedom for Canada to use the stored water for power production. In
addition to the cash payments that I have referred to, Canada will also receive compensation-in cash or in power at our option -for any loss in power that may be suffered through the control of water to avoid flooding beyond the primary flood control objective. This is a compensation that was not originally provided for in the progress report and is an improvement from the Canadian point of view.
The dams that are contemplated will have a life and usefulness well beyond the 60 years of the flood control plan. After that time Canada has agreed, so far as existing facilities may then permit, to provide flood control for the United States to the extent that the flows of water down the Columbia from Canada continue to constitute a flood hazard. If any call is made for such flood control after the 60-year period the United States is committed to pay Canadian operating costs, together with compensation for any economic loss to Canada that results. Any losses in Canadian power may be taken by Canada in power, rather than in cash.
I have dealt with the three storage dams planned in Canada. There is a fourth major storage contemplated under the treaty which would involve construction in the United States and some flooding into Canada. This is the storage on the Kootenay river in Montana that has been referred to as the Libby dam. Under the treaty the United States will have five years from the ratification date to decide whether it wishes to build this dam at its own expense. If it exercises this option, the treaty requires Canada to make available the land in Canada that is needed for the reservoir. This land would cost, it is estimated, from $7 million to $12 million. In return for that, Canada would secure all the increase in power capacity that results on the lower Kootenay river after it has reentered Canada below the Libby dam as well as valuable flood protection. It is estimated that the gain in power in Canada will amount to between 250,000 and 300,000 kilowatts. The United States, which meets the entire cost of the dam, will secure the benefis that accrue on their side of the boundary. For purposes of convenience, the tables that I have submitted give an indication of the results for Canada if the Libby option is exercised.
The treaty makes provision for a number of diversions of water that may be made by Canada from the Kootenay river in its natural course in different circumstances and at different times. It will be possible, even if the United States exercises its option to build the Libby dam, to divert 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year from the Kootenay river in Canada into the head waters of the

Columbia river to increase power production in Canada. It will not be advantageous to do this until generators have been installed on our part of the Columbia, which will not be for some years. This right, is exercisable by Canada at any time after 20 years from the ratification date. If the United States does not exercise its option to build Libby dam, the treaty provides that Canada has the immediate right to make a major diversion from the Kootenay river into the Columbia river that would send approximately 90 per cent of the flow down that course. There are also provisions for major diversions at the end of 60 and 80 years even if the United States has built the Libby dam. The permanent rights of Canada to the free use of the waters of the Kootenay river are thus protected.
I might emphasize at this point that the position of the boundary waters treaty of 1909 has been kept very much in mind in recent negotiations. The applicability of that treaty to the Columbia has been preserved to the fullest extent consistent with the great and beneficial developments envisaged in this new treaty and our rights under the boundary waters treaty have been completely protected against the time when the new treaty may approach an end. The application of the boundary waters treaty to other waters along the international boundary will, of course, be unaffected by the Columbia river treaty.
The outline I have given of the main features of the construction projects and returns to Canada under the Columbia river treaty has, of necessity, been brief and general. A study of its terms and of the tables I have submitted will fill in much of the detail. There is one further matter, however, on which it might be useful for me to provide some information that will help in an evaluation of the proposed development.
I mentioned that the principle of sharing downstream benefits is basic to the treaty. I also mentioned that while, in the initial phase, the main power advantage to Canada will be downstream benefits returned by the United States, there will be a steady shift in later years to power produced in Canada. Of the three Canadian storages, those in the Arrow lakes and near Duncan lake will provide the major returns in the early years, because their value is largely for downstream benefits. The great dam near Mica creek will produce its largest advantages in the later phase because it makes possible very great power production in Canada. The costs of the Arrow lakes and Duncan lake storages are so low in relation to the power return they secure that they can, in effect, go a great
distance toward easing the burden of the Mica costs in the early years before its full benefits come in. Similarly our returns from the Libby dam, if it is built, will come at a very small cost. I have a table (table 6) that shows the large accumulations of revenue that can be made in the early years from the sales of power deriving from the Arrow lakes and Duncan lake storages and downstream from Libby in Canada. These figures are all on the basis that the power is sold at the 4 mill figure I have referred to. The other assumptions are shown and all are, I believe, conservative.
This table shows that, on the basis I have mentioned, the dams at Arrow lakes and Duncan lake as well as the new transmission to return the downstream power, together with the new facilities on the lower Kootenay, can be fully paid for in accumulated revenues by about 1983. The interest on the earned revenues of these projects can more than offset their total annual costs by 1991. The table is based on a decline in downstream power benefits at that time which may or may not occur to the extent assumed. In no event, however, can the projects after that point be net losers. They will, moreover, have served their purpose in securing great amounts of low cost power in the early years and in assisting to make the Mica dam possible and thus ensuring its enormous benefits in later years.
Implementation of the program under the treaty will require the designation of responsible operating entities in both Canada and the United States. In the case of Canada it is expected that the operating entity will be the British Columbia Power Commission. There will also be a permanent engineering board, consisting of two members appointed by Canada and two by the United States, to make periodic inspections, to require reports from the operating entities and generally to watch the operation of the plans provided for by the treaty. The board will report to the governments of Canada and the United States whenever there is a substantial deviation from the hydroelectric and flood control operating plans. The board will also have additional functions including that of assisting in the reconciliation of any differences on technical or operating matters.
If the entities cannot reconcile any differences that arise between them with the help of the permanent engineering board, or if there are other unresolved differences, the treaty provides that either party to the treaty-that is, either Canada or the United States-may refer the matter to the international joint commission. If the commission does not render a decision within stipulated
1206	HOUSE OF COMMONS
times, either party may submit the difference to an arbitration tribunal. There is also provision for alternative procedures, if they are agreed on, including reference to the international court of justice.
The treaty, if ratified, will remain in force for a minimum of 60 years, terminable on 10 years' notice by either party. There are, however, as I have mentioned, special provisions that extend beyond the minimum 60-year period in relation to flood control and certain diversions of water from the Kootenay river.
I have dealt only with the highlights of this extensive and complex agreement. The government will, of course, submit the entire treaty for consideration by the parliament of Canada and for its approval before ratification tabes place. The timing of ratification will depend, so far as Canada is concerned, partly on action by British Columbia. So far as the government of Canada itself is concerned, we would be prepared to initiate action for parliamentary approval and subsequent ratification at once. The significance of this treaty, and the program contemplated by it, for the economic development of Canada is such that any undue delay would be most unfortunate.
The government of Canada has made it clear to the government of British Columbia that it is prepared to join on an equal basis in the financing of the construction costs of the storage dams I have referred to. It has been made clear that we are prepared to do this on a basis that will call for repayment, not on a fixed schedule but as returns are earned through the sale of power. That offer is still open. My colleague the Minister of Finance has made it clear that he stands ready to meet the premier of British Columbia in order to discuss the offer at any time that may be mutually convenient.
In conclusion, the treaty that is being signed today is without precedent in the relations between nations. It represents a new level of co-operation for mutual advantage. Without the proposed agreement neither country could secure benefits for its people equal to those that can be realized through the action that the treaty contemplates. The treaty is, I believe, fair and equitable to both parties. Its implementation will be a splendid example of co-operation between neighbours. It will also through the great investment involved and by reason of the low cost power it provides serve as a most important stimulus to the Canadian economy.

[Stage Direction]
Project	At-Site Investment Cost	Transmission Investment Cost	Total$	$	$71,800,000	81.400.000 2,300,000 30.100.000	153.200.000 27,900,000 277.300.000Duncan lake	. 25,600,000 . 247,200,000	Total cost of treaty projects	. 344,600,000	113,800,000	458,400,000Estimated cost of Libby flowage in Canada	
Extensions to West Kootenay area power developments...	. 10,000,000 . 46,000,000	0 25,400,000	10,000,000 71,400,000Totals	.. 400,600,000	139,200,000	539,800,000

[Stage Direction]
Benefits Adjusted to a 70% Load Benefits At The Generators Factor and Delivered to Loads (1>
Capacity	Energy in Billions	Capacity	Energy in BillionsProject	in Kilowatts	of Kilowatt Hours	in Kilowatts	of Kilowatt HoursHigh Arrow lakes	
771,000	4.240	684,000	4.194Duncan lake	
145,000 	
394,000	0.057	118,000	0.724Mica storage	1.761	316,000	1.938Total for treaty projects	
1,310,000	6.658	1,118,000	6.856
Estimated downstream benefits in the West Kootenay area in Canada from
Duncan and Libby regulation	
359,000	2.201Total Benefits at Loads	
1,477,000	9.057
CD 6 per cent transmission loss assumed for all power delivered to Vancouver and Kamloops areas. No losses assumed for power utilized in the Trail area. In the adjustment to a 70 per cent load factor it is assumed that some Canadian capacity will be exchanged for additional energy.

[Stage Direction]
ESTIMATED POWER BENEFITS-1970-UNITED STATES AND CANADA*1)
	Project	Share of Increase in Average Annual Usable Energy in Kilowatt Years	Secondary Energy Previously Existing	Total Increase in Prime Energy in Kilowatt Years	Share of Increase in Dependable Capacity in Kilowatts
			Which is "Firmed Up" -Kilowratt Years*2)		
Canada	.... High Arrow	. ... 484,000	0	484,000	771,000Duncan	. ... 75,000	0	75,000	345,000Mica storage	.... 204,000	0	£04,000	394,000Total	.... 763,000	0	763,000	1,310,000United States	.... High Arrow	... 484,000	161,000	645,000	771,000Duncan	... 75,000	63,000	138,000	145,000Mica storage	... 204,000	155,000	359,000	394,000Total	... 763,000	379,000	1,142,000	1,310,000
Other power benefits are realized by the United States at the Libby project and downstream in the United States from Libby, and by Canada at the West Kootenay reach in Canada downstream from the Libby and Duncan lake reservoirs.
WThis table is an expansion of a table appearing in the "Analysis and Progress Report" issued by the United States Columbia river negotiators on 19 October 1960.
(*)There is no additional energy in this column for the United States as a result of the construction of the Canadian storage. What happens is that energy presently available but not sure at worst possible flow conditions becomes sure at all times, i.e. "firmed up".

[Stage Direction]
ESTIMATED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ONE POSSIBLE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER IN CANADA!']
Project [2]	Project Investment Cost- SMillions	Transmission Investment Cost- SMillions	Total Investment Cost- SMillions	Annual Power Benefits at Loads- Billions of KWH (70% load factor)	United States Flood Control Payments SMillions
Canal Flats diversion and Calamity Curve					
project	38.8	10.5	49.3	1.007!']	0Mica generation	85.0	205.5	290.5	6.938	0Mica D/S benefits from the United States	247.2	30.1	277.3	1.938 [s]	1.2Downie creek	148.2	118.8	267.0	3.653	0Revelstoke canyon	122.1	52.9	175.0	2.488	0Arrow lakes D/S benefits from the United	States	71.8	81.4	153.2	4.194 PI	52.1Duncan lakes D/S benefits from the United	States	25.6	2.3	27.9	0.724 PI	11.1Extensions to West Kootenay and Pend	Oreille area generation	115. Op]	50.4	165.4	4.374	0Murphy creek	93.8	11.6	105.4	1.770	0TOTALS	947.5	563.5	1,511.0	27.086	64.4p]
['] All projects listed benefit either directly or indirectly from the Columbia river treaty.
[2]	Listed in downstream order.
[8] Includes estimated cost of Libby flowage in Canada.
!'] Includes estimated benefits of Canal Flats diversion realized at downstream plants on the Columbia river in Canada.
[6] Estimates of downstream benefits for the year 1970.
Pi This total does not include "on call" payments, the total of which is expected to be $7.5 million.

[Stage Direction]
FLOOD CONTROL PAYMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES!']
	Payment Made	Value of Payment when Invested in
	at Commencement	Columbia River Projects
Project	of Operation	(5£% Interest and 50 Yr. Amortization Period)High Arrow lakes	
52,100,000	153,800,000Duncan lakes	
11,100,000	32,800,000Mica storage	
1,200,000	3,600,000Totals	
64,400,000	190,200,000
['] Payment for primary flood control only, no payment included for secondary flood control requirements.

[Stage Direction]
The assumptions used in the calculations for the attached table (which in most respects are less favourable to Canada than is likely in fact to be the case, especially in relation to numbers 2, 6 and 8) are as follows:
(1)	High Arrow lakes completed or partially completed by 1965; Duncan lake completed by 1966; Libby completed by 1967; extensions to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting generation facilities in the West Kootenay area completed in 1969 and further facilities (the canal plant) completed in 1970.
(2)	No market in the United States for surplus Canadian downstream benefits.
(3)	Power sales in Canada made at 4.0 mills per kilowatt hour.
(4)	An 8 per cent annual load growth in British Columbia. This is based on load forecasts excluding special industrial loads such as Kitimat.
(5)	An interest rate of 5J per cent applied to both construction costs and accumulated operating benefits or deficits.
(6)	No co-ordination agreement with the United States and thus a continuing annual charge of $1.50 per kilowatt for downstream capacity benefit stand-by transmission.
(7)	Capacity benefits traded for energy benefits at the rate of 1.65 kilowatts of capacity for 1.00 kilowatt years of energy, giving an end result at a 70 per cent load factor.
(8)	An average reduction in downstream benefits of 100 million kilowatt hours annually in the 1970 to 1985 period and a reduction of 169 million kilowatt hours annually in the 1936 to 2010 period.

[Stage Direction]
(1) (2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)
	Incremental									
Incremental	Power	Trans-	AnnualPower	Revenues	Project	mission	Total	Accumulated	ProfitSales	at	Flood	Annual	Annual	Annual	Net	Net	On NetIn B.C.	4.0 Mills	Control	Total	Cost	Cost [*]	Costs	Annual	Revenue	RevenuesA ear Projects Completed	KWH X 10*	Per KWH	Revenues	Revenues	(51% Int.)	(51% Int.)	(5J% Int.)	Revenue	To Date	(51% Int.)$ Million	S Million	$ Million	$ Million	S Million	$ Million	S Million	$ Million	$ Million1965 Arrow Lakes	0.288	1.152	52.100	53.252	4.670	6.592	11.262	41.990	41.990	2.30966 Duncan Lake[2]	1.361	5.444	11.100	16.544	6.892	6.888	13.780	2.764	47.063	2.58867 	2.434	9.736	0	9.736	6.892	7.183	14.075	-4.339	45.312	2.49268 	3.691	14.764	0	14.764	6.892	7.710	14.602	0.162	47.966	2.63869 Exts. in West Kootenay	5.041	20.164	0	20.164	7.463	8.159	15.622	4.542	55.146	3.0331970 Canal Project	6.543	26.172	0	26.172	10.239	9.950	20.189	5.983	64.162	3.52971 	6.995	27.980	0	27.980	10.239	9.924	20.163	7.817	75.508	4.15372 	6.895	27.580	0	27.580	10.239	9.898	20.137	7.443	87.104	4.79173 	6.795	27.180	0	27.180	10.239	9.872	20.111	7.069	98.964	5.44374 	6.695	26.780	0	26.780	10.239	9.846	20.085	6.695	111.102	6.11175 	6.595	26.380	0	26.380	10.239	9.820	20.059	6.321	123.534	6.79476 	6.495	25.980	0	25.980	10.239	9.794	20.033	5.947	136.275	7.49577 	6.395	25.580	0	25.580	10.239	9.768	20.007	5.573	149.343	8.21478 	6.295	25.180	0	25.180	10.239	9.742	19.981	5.199	162.756	8.95279 	6.195	24.780	0	24.780	10.239	9.716	19.955	4.825	176.533	9.7091980 	6.095	24.380	0	24.380	10.239	9.690	19.929	4.451	190.693	10.48881 	5.995	23.980	0	23.980	10.239	9.664	19.903	4.077	205.258	11.28982 	5.895	23.580	0	23.580	10.239	9.638	19.877	3.703	220.250	12.11483 	5.795	23.180	0	23.180	10.239	9.612	19.851	3.329	235.693	12.96384 	5.695	22.780	0	22.780	10.239	9.586	19.825	2.955	251.611	13.83985 	'	5.632	22.528	0	22.528	10.239	9.560	19.799	2.729	268.179	14.75086 	5.463	21.852	0	21.852	10.239	9.516	19.755	2.097	285.026	15.67687 	5.294	21.176	0	21.176	10.239	9.472	19.711	1.465	302.167	16.61988 	5.125	20.550	0	20.500	10.239	9.428	19.667	0.833	319.619	17.57989 	4.956	19.824	0	19.824	10.239	9.384	19.623	0.201	337.399	18.5571990 	4.787	19.148	0	19.148	10.239	9.340	19.579	-0.431	355.525	19.5541991 ["]	4.618	18.472	0	18.472	10.239	9.296	19.535	-1.083	374.016	20.571 [4]
Notes: l1] This analysis does not include Mica which, in addition to its substantial downstream benefit advantage under the treaty will make possible very large power production in Canada.
[2]	Cost of Libby flowage in Canada added in 1966.
[3]	Annual transmission costs include the SI.50 per k.w. paid to U.S. for stand-by downstream benefit transmission.
[4]	Interest on accumulated benefits has exceeded annual costs at this point. Interest will continue to increase and costs will continue to decline from here on. The profitability of the projects is thus assured. Substantial power benefits will continue to be derived.
1210	HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 19, 1961