1962-12-13

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, following the passage of the motion of this house congratulating Sir Winston Churchill on the occasion of his 88th birthday anniversary, I forwarded to him the motion which was passed by the house as well as a copy of the Hansard in question. I now have received from him the following letter:
My dear Prime Minister:
I am deeply obliged to you for your letter of December 1 which I received today. The honour which the Canadian House of Commons has accorded me means much to me and to my family. I should be glad if you would convey to the house my warm thanks and my profound and affectionate respect.
Yours very sincerely,
Winston S. Churchill


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PAYMENT ON 1961-62 POOL

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I have a statement to make to the house with regard to the 1961-62 barley pool.
The 1961-62 barley pool has now been closed and the government has authorized the distribution of the final surplus on producers' deliveries of 56,372,547.9 bushels. The final surplus is $17,037,035.43. After deducting the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy and final payment costs, and after adding estimated additional interest earnings, the final payment on the 1961-62 barley account will average 30.2 cents per bushel. This compares with an average final payment of 8.4 cents per bushel in the case of the 1960-61 pool.
The final payments for the principal grades of barley delivered to the 1961-62 pool are as follows:
		Cents
	Grade	per bushel
No.	2 Canada western six row	31.725No.	3 Canada western six row	31.725No.	2 Canada western two row	36.675No. 3 Canada western two row	34.324No.	1 feed	28.879No.	2 feed	31.849No.	3 feed	35.809
The first cheques with respect to this pool will be issued shortly following this announcement.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement which has just been made by the Minister of Agriculture might well have been anticipated at about this time. The announcement that a payment on barley averaging 30.2 cents per bushel is about to be made by the Canadian wheat board indicates a payment considerably higher than the final payment that has been made in recent years. However, it is also a higher payment on a much smaller quantity of barley than is customary. This, of course, reflects the fact that the crop last year was very small, and with a small supply and a good demand the selling prices of the wheat board were higher than in recent years. The farmers of western Canada await with much greater anticipation the announcement of a final payment-interim and/or final; I would hope the whole works, because it belongs to the farmers-on the 1961-62 wheat crop.


Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to say is that we in this party welcome this announcement which has been made, and I am sure the barley producers of Canada will appreciate their cheques as soon as possible.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON

[Stage Direction]
1961 CROP
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Agriculture when the farmers of western Canada may expect an announcement on the final wheat payment for the 1961-62 crop year. I think they are expecting an announcement shortly.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained to the house once before that the usual time to make this payment is about the month of July. As this is the month of December and we have seven more months to wait, I would expect the announcement to be made some time between Christmas and next July.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Since the announcement of the last payment was made in February of this year, not July, after selling the crop for a nine month period, I wonder whether we could have another nine month selling period in order that the farmers may be paid now?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am constantly being surprised and appalled by the ignorance of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Both the supplementary and the answer I think are way off base.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to comment on a report that the government had set a deadline for the agreement of the province of British Columbia to the Columbia development treaty as now formulated.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the item in question, but I can say that no deadline has been set.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the agreement made between the Prime Minister and the premier of Japan last June for a Japanese-Canadian ministerial committee, can the Prime Minister tell the house what is holding up the first meeting of this committee?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, nothing is holding up the first meeting. Consideration has been given to this question, the determination of which depends on meeting and accommodating both sides. My hope is that it will be possible for such a meeting to be held in the month of January.
IMr. Argue.]


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the government has advised the government of Japan that the reason for Canadian ministers not meeting their opposite numbers in Japan is that the government feels that its position in this house is very insecure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I suffered from the same insecurity and frustration as does the hon. gentleman, I would agree with the question he asked.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister been invited to the interprovincial conference on trade which his friend Mr. Macaulay has called in Toronto for January 14?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[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, notice of which has been sent to him. Has the minister given up the intention of opening a commercial office in the important centre of Milan, Italy? If not, when does he intend to proceed with the establishment of such an office?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; we shall be opening a trade centre in the beautiful, attractive and important trade centre of Milan next year.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. I must say right away that even though I shall refer to a press report, I am not asking him to make any comments about it, but simply to answer the question arising from that report published in the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 16, 1962, and which reads as follows:

(Text):
The Danish ambassador said this:
Not a grain of Canadian wheat has ever reached the starving masses of China. If the average Canadian only knew what ruthless purposes Canada's wheat shipments to Peking were serving, I doubt if a single shipment would have been allowed to go through,-
(Translation):
A little further, the article goes on to say: (Text):
All of us western ambassadors in Peking made nearly identical reports to our respective governments-
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might put his question now.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Has the Canadian government been informed by countries of the western bloc-
(Text):
Has the Prime Minister been told by members of the western bloc that the wheat we sell to communist China does not serve the purposes that it should serve?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has to do with a news item which appeared as far back as November 16. However, in view of the question asked me may I say this. My recollection is that the person in question who allegedly made the statement subsequently stated that he had in fact not made that statement. In so far as the direct question is concerned may I say that no such suggestion has come from any member among the western nations.


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us what percentage of the wheat that was sold to China reached mainland China.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize the fact that this is information which it is quite impossible to have at hand.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. When can we expect the government to introduce the bill on the redistribution of electoral districts, under a non-partisan commission, as promised on September 27 in the speech from the throne?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that with the rate of progress up to the present time it will not be at an early date.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
On the orders of the day:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the Prime Minister on the gift of a pair of snowshoes made to him by his party yesterday-


An hon. Member:: Igloo to igloo.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -may I ask him if he does not think that a pair of running shoes would have been more appropriate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on every occasion that I have been in competition with the opposition I have been able to outrun them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. While I appreciate the spirit in which certain questions have been offered and answered, perhaps we can come back to orders of the day.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since it now seems unlikely, for reasons that are well known, that there will be any action at this session on the proposal to amend the British North America Act with respect to contributory old age pensions, will the government consider amending the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act to provide increases in the pensions given under those pieces of legislation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman does not expect an answer to that question. When government policy is available for announcement it will be placed before the house.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house when the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Public Works will be back in the house

Inquiries of the Ministry so that those of us who wish to discuss the calamitous Columbia river treaty can do so in their presence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
knows that the use of certain terms or the expression of opinions within questions is strictly against standing order 39.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to withdraw the adjective which was found offensive, and redirect my question to the Prime Minister. Could he let us know when either one of the two ministers referred to will be back in the house?


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that so far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned, he is always absent from the house when attending a NATO ministerial meeting. This has been so throughout the years. He will be back upon the conclusion of the meeting. In so far as the Minister of Public Works is concerned, I am surprised that he is absent from his seat today, but no doubt he is on official business.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can he assure the house now that before approval is given the recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission in respect of permission for Japanese fishermen to fish in Canadian waters, this matter will be submitted to the house for debate?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of allowing Japanese fishermen to fish anywhere in Canadian waters. The recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission are now before the government for study, and at a future date a statement will be made.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the New York world's fair authorities are contemplating the purchase of the Nova Scotia built vessel The Bounty, would the government recommend to the national centennial commission the immediate purchase of this vessel

as an exhibit of shipbuilding craftsmanship representing part of Nova Scotia's contribution to Canada's history?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his representations, and I think he will recognize that if he wants to put such a question it should appear on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources inform the house whether he is taking or has taken any measures to alleviate the hardship being caused to persons who have been forcibly evicted from their homes as a result of flood conditions in Whitehorse?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I noticed the account of this flooding in the press I got in touch with the territorial government, and I am assured that they have already taken action to provide emergency shelter for these unfortunate people.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the Minister of Justice whether the R.C.M.P. were interviewing students and faculty members of Canadian universities to obtain information regarding political activities by other students and faculty members. On Tuesday the minister did not really have an adequate opportunity to answer the question. I raise the matter today in order to accommodate the minister and ask him if he will give the house an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With the greatest respect to the hon. member, I do not believe that is a proper question for orders of the day. It is not of the necessary importance that it be answered on orders of the day.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker in connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Surely if there is any truth in the statement that

R.C.M.P. officers are questioning faculty members and students with regard to the political activities of others, that is a question which ought to be answered on orders of the day. There is no other opportunity to deal with the matter. If the Minister of Justice does not want to answer, that is his prerogative. It seems to me it is a proper question to be asked on orders of the day, since I submit it affects the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country.


Mr, Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will bear in mind that this question was raised following an editorial in a certain newspaper, and was an allegation made by a certain individual. According to the procedure of the house there is a certain item of business coming up when questioning can be advanced and the whole matter gone into if need be. I submit to the hon. member that orders of the day is not a time when every subject can be canvassed. Requests are made for information at this time when it is not possible to get that information through the regular channels within a reasonable time. That is the ruling I have made, and that is the prerogative of the Chair in this regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the question was asked last Monday, and the minister has had ample opportunity to ascertain whether the statement is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That does not change the principle.


Thomas Rodney Berger: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that Your Honour is proceeding under a misapprehension. I did not ask the question on the basis of newspaper reports, but rather on the basis of confidential communications. I suggest with great respect that the urgency of the matter arises because the ministry is declining to give the house an answer to which it is entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if the hon. member will reflect upon it, if we proceed from orders of the day there is a certain item of business that may be called; and while I am not suggesting what he should do, I think he will understand the rules well enough to know that he can discuss the matter then.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister of Justice whether he could assure the house that all members of the R.C.M.P. had been furnished with copies of the bill of rights.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this must impress the house as a very urgent question to 27507-3-166
Portability of Pensions be asked on the orders of the day. I am also sure the R.C.M.P. are better informed on that subject than the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. f Translation) :



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Will the 30 tons of ice cream which were imported from England and reached the port of Montreal last week help the government to remove the subsidies on dairy products?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel sure the hon. member will admit that it would be more suitable for his question to be put on the order paper.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order?


Jean Robert Beaulé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order concerning the question asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont). Is it not just as important as the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he referred to snowshoes and skates?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe the hon. member can question the Chair's ruling. I do not believe the hon. member can rise when the Chair has given a ruling on certain questions.
(Text):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can inform the house why the short runways of the Downsview R.C.A.F. station are being used to land T.C.A. commercial jet liners, and for how long this practice will be continued.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question should go on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are

Inquiries of the Ministry there any categories of civil servants for which the civil service commission recommended pay increases which were not given increases in the announcement made last Monday?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I am not certain of the details of the recommendations, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check on that matter and advise the house later.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
An article published in yesterday's newspaper La Presse under the title:


Mr. Gregoire:: a failure as a martyr.
Reads as follows:
It seems obvious that Mr. Lambert, in that instance, merely bowed to the implicit or expressed will of the government to court the Socreds.
I should like to point out that Social Crediters enjoy no special privileges in this house and that reporter Jean Charpentier who makes that statement proves himself to be a first class scatterbrained newspaperman among all Canadian press people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has stated his point of privilege.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether he can give the house any information relative to the organization of the dominion council of health's special committee on the relation of smoking and disease.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Only that on the recommendation of the dominion council of health a committee to study this matter was formed and is now at work.



INQUIRY AS TO FILLING OF VACANCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the

Secretary of State whether he could draw to the attention of his colleagues the fact that today is the fifth week since a vacancy occurred in this house, and urge them to do something about it.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168, 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225, loans investments and advances item L20, $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
["In view of the fact that it is now one minute to six, I will call it six\n\no'clock. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.\n(Translation):", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.']
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock yesterday I was talking about some of the legislation, reports and so on that the government has had in its hands for weeks, in some cases for months and in some cases for years, that to date have received no positive action to deal with these problems. As I pointed out, we are becoming increasingly disturbed because of this lack of action.
Perhaps I may review some of the specific items that I mentioned, Mr. Chairman. There is the matter of ARDA. Of course, as we all know, this was supposed to be an act with very broad scope that would in fact give the government the authority and power to implement schemes and projects of all kinds to improve the lot of agriculture for the whole of Canada. We submit that there has not been any positive action on the part of the government in this connection in spite of the fact that several projects have been submitted to them. I am not saying there

has been none, but there has not been anything of a substantial nature in keeping with the spirit that was expressed when this act was brought in.
The fact is that agriculture, in spite of the propaganda program of the Conservative party during the last election campaign, still has many problems, and farmers' income is going down. I have in my hand an Associated Press report from Rome which says:
Canada fared the worst among countries where farmers' net incomes fell last year, the United Nations food and agriculture organization annual review reported Sunday.
The fall was 24 per cent. It brought net farm incomes in Canada in 1961 to the lowest level since 1945. Farmers' cash incomes, however, rose because of sales from previous years' stocks, the report said.


The Chairman:: Order. There is a great deal of competitive conversation in the committee that could be better carried on elsewhere. I think out of courtesy to the hon. member who has the floor hon. members who intend to remain in the committee should co-operate by keeping their conversations for another time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, obviously the problem of farm income dropping and the cost-price squeeze is worse now than it was a year ago; it is worse now than it was two years ago, and so the plan to remedy this situation that was indicated when ARDA was brought out has not been of any effect. The problem is still with us, and we are insisting that some positive action be taken in this respect and taken soon.
The second thing I mentioned was the problem with respect to some Canadian publications. The royal commission set up to study this question has reported and made recommendations, and no action has been taken. We believe it will be too late to take action after the whole Canadian magazine industry has gone bankrupt or been forced out of business by unfair competition. In this respect we think it is time for the government to take action. They have authority now to do it; they do not need to wait for any further authority from parliament.
Then there is the matter of the royal commission on transportation, which submitted its report to the government several months ago. We are now faced with the problems of additional subsidies to the railways, and there is a large segment of the Canadian population which feels there is unjust competition to the trucking industry because of these subsidies. We believe that both the railways and the trucking industry have important parts to play in the area of transportation in this country and it is up to the government to take some action based upon those recommendations. If they had taken some action 27507-3-166J
Interim Supply
we would not be reeling from one temporary improvisation to another with respect to the over-all problem of transportation.
I mentioned also that there was an inquiry into air service requirements for the prairie provinces undertaken over a year ago. A report is now in the hands of the government and we should like to see some action taken with regard to it. The Atlantic provinces economic council has, I submit, sufficient power to make inquiries and forward recommendations to the government. All these other boards they are setting up are, in my opinion, redundant. They may have other purposes, but certainly insufficient action has been taken on those recommendations which are already in the government's hands.
Later this session we shall be discussing another board, the national economic development board. We submit that the national productivity council, which has already been established, has once again the necessary power to inquire into this field and make recommendations for positive action which the government might take. So there is no need for any of these new boards. I say this because the government has not taken any action on the recommendations which it already has.
Another thing we welcomed in the speech from the throne was the statement regarding action to be taken to provide additional grain storage in eastern Canada. Well, we have been here for several weeks, and no action has been taken to provide such storage. There were indications that the surcharges inhibiting Canada's international trade would be removed as soon as possible. We believe this should be done, because they constitute a great burden on some of the business people of Canada. But these surcharges are still being imposed.
There is one other thing about which we in this group are probably more disturbed than we are about any other matter. It is the difficulty which municipalities are facing in finding the capital they require for their social development programs. We believe there is an area here, in the provision of these finances, where the federal government through the Bank of Canada could make a most useful contribution to assist both provinces and municipalities to raise the capital they need and save them some money in the process because it could be done at a lower rate of interest. We submit that the Bank of Canada already has the necessary authority to do this, provided the present government would take some action.
In the few minutes I have left I want to say that up to this point in the session the party to which I belong has prevented the Liberals from dissolving this parliament. We have done this for two reasons. One is that

Interim Supply
we believe that on June 18, when the people of Canada had the opportunity to express themselves, they elected the composition of the parliament as we see it here today; in other words it was a true and accurate reflection of the wishes of the people, and as responsible members of parliament it was our duty to try to work together with all other members, regardless of which party they belong to, in the interests of the Canadian people. To this point we have done that.
The second reason is that ordinarily there is a slowing down of the economy during the winter months, and unemployment increases due to climatic conditions. Also we know that when an election campaign is in progress the economy goes into a dormant state while businessmen wait to see what is going to happen before they make major decisions. So we took the position that it would not be in the interests of Canada generally to face the problems both of winter, with the slowing down of the economy, and an election at the same time.
However, we are not happy with the progress that is being made. We believe no further legislation is needed with regard to many, in fact most, of the specific matters with respect to which I have urged that action should be taken. Thus the blame does not rest on parliament for this lack of action. It rests solely on the shoulders of the government. The government already has authority to do all these things for which I have asked, with one exception. We believe that the responsibility here in this parliament is not something to be played with. We believe that if we pass legislation, whether it is in this parliament or in past parliaments, it is up to the government to take the action which was anticipated on the basis of that legislation. In many cases this has not happened.
So in closing I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the government and in particular to the Prime Minister, that I am authorized on behalf of this party to indicate that unless some positive action is taken within the next few weeks we are going to reassess our position, our attitude toward keeping this government in office. I want to say, too, that we intend to support this interim supply motion without amendment but unless there is some positive action, some progress that we can see in those fields I have mentioned, it will probably be the last one that we shall support.
We want to make this perfectly clear. We want to serve notice on the government so they will have sufficient time to take some action. We do not want to take the irresponsible position of dissolving parliament, or

being party to the action which dissolves parliament, in what might be termed a snap vote. We serve notice on them now, and they will have until the next supply motion which comes up in January to indicate when they are going to take some action on these things. But I repeat, if there is nothing by then to indicate that they are doing something, we shall not support any more supply motions.
We are asked here for another $330 million, which makes up ten twelfths of the total requirement for this fiscal year, without having passed any of the estimates and without having passed a budget. We are also disturbed because the government is, in addition, asking for authority to borrow an additional $500 million. This too, as is well known to all members of this house, is a matter which we in this party regard with great apprehension. This in itself indicates that there is something basically wrong with the economy and with the monetary and fiscal system under which we are operating in Canada. We would like the government to show us some policy or some action which they could take in order that this kind of borrowing will not be necessary in years to come.


Mr. Herridge:: Members of this party are glad that this debate provides an opportunity to discuss a matter of great importance to the people of Canada. I refer to the Columbia river treaty. Since the treaty was signed on January 17, 1961 we have heard nothing but a series of contradictory statements from representatives of the government of Canada and representatives of the government of British Columbia. As a result members of this house, and, I believe, Canadians generally are simply more confused than they were when the Prime Minister made his announcement in the house with respect to the signing of this treaty. The members of this party believe it is the responsibility and duty of the government frankly and fully to inform the house of the developments since this treaty was signed, and to bring the house up to date on the situation.
I want to emphasize that this party views every question of this type on the basis of its national policy, which is to promote the development of Canadian natural resources by Canadians for Canadians. Therefore throughout the years we have consistently urged the development of the Columbia river and other developments of this type in accordance with this policy. However, we oppose the present terms of the Columbia river treaty because the treaty does not comply

with the policy and the philosophy of this party, and it is not to the advantage of the Canadian people.
I wish also to emphasize that the New Democratic party is the only political party which, provincially and federally, has consistently supported what is known as the McNaughton plan, namely the full economic development of the Columbia to produce the maximum of power for Canadian use, with downstream benefits to be used in British Columbia or in the rest of Canada, and the surplus water of the Columbia to be used to irrigate Canadian soil, and to provide permanent jobs as a result of this policy. The decision on the part of the members of this party to oppose the present treaty was made only after the most careful analysis of the treaty by members of the party and by competent professional and technical advisers. Those advisers were sought in several provinces in Canada.
In order that there may be no doubt as to the position of the New Democratic party, the B.C. federation of labour and other unions in British Columbia, I am going to place their policy briefly on record. This is the policy of the New Democratic party as adopted unanimously at two provincial conventions in British Columbia:
Our cheapest source of power must be developed first. Available statistics suggest that this can be developed on the Columbia river. The New Democratic party favours the McNaughton plan, which would eliminate the High Arrow dam project and the flooding of thousands of acres of valuable B.C. land. This low cost power must be used in British Columbia to create new industries and the thousands of new jobs which are required to expand our industrial production rapidly and to end mass unemployment in our province.
No firm or long term contracts should be made for the export of power or sale of downstream benefits from British Columbia.
I think that is clear enough. That policy was unanimously adopted by the founding convention of the New Democratic party in 1961 and at a convention held in British Columbia just a few weeks ago.
Now I want to deal with the position of the B.C. federation of labour, and to pay a tribute to the men in the B.C. federation of labour who have given this question much study. They have employed competent research workers; they did not come to their decision off the bat, as it were. They discussed this policy in committee and came to their conclusions after a careful analysis of the treaty and of the surrounding circumstances. As a result of their conclusions they adopted a policy in 1961, which was endorsed this year, which deals with the question of power and politics. I will just read briefly from the pamphlet which contains their policy:
Interim Supply
Power resources belong to the people.
Bennett still opposes the best interests of the public in B.C. industry.
Social Credit and Mr. Bennett have been forced to completely reverse their position on public ownership of power and admit their long term error.
But, as the C.C.F. warned the people of the province at the historic session of the legislature, "The Social Credit cabinet ministers are still babes in the woods when it comes to power development".
I am glad that they qualified that statement, because they are not babes in the woods in some respects.
For example, Premier Bennett has stated repeatedly that he wants to export cheap Columbia power to the United States.


Gilles Grégoire: Who said that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A member of our party in the B.C. federation of labour.
This is opposed by labour, by the federal government and by the C.C.F. If Mr. Bennett is allowed to do this it will mean:
1. Expensive power to industry and domestic consumers in B.C. 2. Cheap power to American industries. 3. More jobs for Americans-fewer jobs for Canadians. 4. Cheaper U.S. goods to compete with Canadian products.
That will include the agricultural production, which would be increased in the U.S. by the use of Canadian waters. It goes on to mention that exporting power means exporting jobs and deals with the question of their stand, which is identical to the stand indicated in the resolution passed at the New Democratic party convention.
I should like to deal briefly, Mr. Chairman, with the work of the "Columbia for Canada" committee and to congratulate the members of those unions who got together on this question. They also had a research committee, established consisting of very competent engineers and people, some of whom I know quite well. The work of this committee has also been endorsed by the B.C. federation of labour. I should like to pay tribute to Mr Orville Braaten, Mr. Jerry LeBourdais and Mr. John Hayward, staunch trade unionists who have accepted their responsibilities for dealing with the question of natural resources. Mr. Chairman, I have often criticized trade unionists for their concentration on, shall I say, wages and working conditions. I have often said to them that they have just as much right to deal with these larger issues as chambers of commerce or business organizations, and I am glad to say that the B.C. federation of labour-in fact all trade unions m British Columbia-are taking a much greater interest in the development of our natural resources than they did a few years ago. They have done some very excellent work indeed on this question. As a result of their work I have received nearly 5,000 cards

Interim Supply
addressed to me in Ottawa as member of parliament for Kootenay West. I have one here which says:
General McNaughton, April 6,	1962 publicly
denounced the draft Columbia river treaty.
"It amounts to servitude in perpetuity of our vital rights and interests. Canada was sold down the river by the government, in fact, you can say by two governments".
I support your stand against the Columbia giveaway.	.
Block the export of half a million Canadian jobs to the United States.
Support General McNaughton's plan.
These cards have come from all over British Columbia. We have had a few from Alberta, very few indeed, but more from Saskatchewan and some from Ontario. But this is the result of trade unionists accepting some responsibility for the conservation and proper development of our natural resources, and I am very pleased indeed to see it.
In my own district members of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers, of which I have been an honorary member since 1941, a fact of which I am very proud, have done a good job in this regard. They appointed a special committee composed of competent people to carry out research on the problem, and they have made excellent representations in co-operation with farmers' organizations in the district. There has been the closest co-operation between the representatives of the farmers in my constituency and the representatives of the trade unions on this very important issue, because together they realize that this is a matter concerning their bread and butter and the bread and butter of children to come.
We admit that this is a complicated problem and that it is very difficult for people to be fully informed through the daily press. However, at this point I must give credit to Mr. James G. Ripley, editor of Engineering and Contract Record, for his excellent article entitled "The Columbia river treaty" in the September issue of that magazine, which has been widely circulated and is most useful to persons seeking an understandable explanation of the terms of the treaty and information on this problem. I see the hon. member opposite is nodding his head in agreement. There is no question but that Mr. Ripley has done a great public service, because I have had dozens and dozens of letters from people who have received copies of this article. I myself distributed 1,100 reprints of this article in this magazine through the co-operation of trade unionists in Vancouver. I think this is the first breakthrough we have had with respect to the ordinary person understanding the terms of this treaty and what it

means to Canadians. I must also congratulate Margaret "Ma" Murray for her November 15 supplement to her Bridge River-Lillooet News entitled "Eye Opener on the Columbia". I think it is a great credit to this lady of central British Columbia who, I understand, at the present time is over 75 years of age. I remember when this lady gave my wife slim and trim lessons 45 years ago. Anyway, she is just as alert as ever, and I am glad to see it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: And still giving lessons in politics.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. Some people have considered in the past that this has simply been a local protest of people who are being flooded out. They looked upon me as a pleader for special interests. I have been criticized in a few quarters because of my wife's property. There are a few acres of my wife's property which would be flooded. I may explain that I live on my wife's ranch. We have an arrangement under which she allows me to live there most of the time.


An hon. Member:: How many acres?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I said a few acres. We are more fortunate than are most people. We have more land than most people, and we can move back from the water's edge. There has been an impression abroad that I was speaking for special interests in the Arrow lakes valley. May I say that it is natural for ranchers to be concerned when they see the work of 40 years, 50 years or possibly 60 years destroyed overnight.
However, the issue is larger than that. All these organizations have studied it from the national' viewpoint, the provincial viewpoint, the district viewpoint and the local viewpoint. To give some idea of the widespread opposition to this treaty I wish to mention some of the organizations which have dealt with it and have adopted resolutions. They include the Arrow lakes water resources committee, which is a committee of farmers and others. Industrialists, merchants and trade unionists, including representatives of the city of Revel-stoke, have expressed strong opposition to this treaty. I also must mention members of the British Columbia advisory board of the farmers institutes of British Columbia; local organizations of the farmers institutes; women's institutes, and all the chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia. They have expressed their opposition to the High Arrow aspect of this Columbia river treaty. If you do away with the High Arrow, then it is possible to adopt the McNaughton plan. They

have done so, because they have realized the unnecessary destruction of great and valuable natural resources.
Then in addition, numerous other organizations and individuals have expressed their opposition. I wish to pay my tribute to the engineers, who included Mr. Bartholomew of Vancouver, the consulting engineer for the Arrow lakes water resources board; Mr. Affleck, consulting engineer for Kootenay West New Democratic party district council; Mr. Larrett Higgins of Ontario and Mr. Richard Dean of Rossland, a hydro engineer, and Mr. MacDonald of Rossland, another engineer. Numerous other people have volunteered their services and have looked at this matter objectively because they were not directly affected. It cannot be said that persons living in Ontario or Quebec are directly affected, but I may say we have letters from Quebec. We must credit them with looking at this matter in an objective way. Surely the opinions of these large and responsible organizations and thousands of people warrant consideration by the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.
Furthermore, the contradictory statements from representatives of the government of Canada and representatives of the province of British Columbia have caused confusion in the public mind, and they are entitled to an explanation instead of the continuing silence on the part of this government.
Before proceeding I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on his speech. I listened to it attentively and enjoyed the greater part of it. There were in it one or two spots with which I could not agree. In any event I was glad to hear him urge that the government return to the principles proposed by the international joint commission for the development of the Columbia while General McNaughton was chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission. I was pleased to hear him say he opposed the construction of the Libby and High Arrow dams. I was delighted at his suggestion that we renegotiate the treaty and secure with the United States an agreement which will provide for a logical and measured development, commencing with the Mica dam first. I was also very much pleased to hear him suggest that General McNaughton and other qualified witnesses should be heard before the committee on external affairs so that the house will be informed.
I was pleased to hear him urge that public hearings should be held before any decision was made. Let me say this. Long before the treaty was signed General McNaughton told me that the international joint commission,
Interim Supply
Canadian section, considered it an obligation to hold hearings in the district before they made a final recommendation to the government on a treaty of this type. Mr. Williston, minister of lands and forests, assured us in Castlegar it would be done there in 1960. He said "I can assure you there will be public hearings held in this district before any treaty is signed on behalf of Canada".
There were no hearings held until after the treaty was signed. Even then, what were the hearings? They were held by the water controller, Mr. Paget, who made the decision as to the issuing of the licence to British Columbia hydro. This gentleman was one of the chief exponents of the present treaty on behalf of the government of British Columbia in Ottawa. This gentleman was actually judging his own actions. Dr. Keenleyside, chairman of B.C. hydro, made an application to him for this licence and it was granted by Mr. Paget. This is a wrong conception of justice altogether, namely that the person who promoted the idea should then sit in judgment as to whether or not a licence should be given with respect to it.
Before I pass on from the remarks of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano I might mention the fact that I had the honour of naming the riding some years ago, and I will explain that to him, as he may be interested. I know he is as interested in history as I am. However, I did not agree with his suggestion with respect to the sale of downstream benefits. I think he spoke in terms of selling them for a lump sum in cash. However, I was pleased to note the tenor of his whole speech, and I trust that he keeps moving in that direction until he finds a haven in this group over here. What about the history of this tragedy of errors? I may say that I am not dealing with technical matters, although I know the member for Coast-Capilano is familiar with them. First of all, I am not a technical man. I am just an ordinary hillbilly. However, I know the circumstances which I am discussing. I suppose I am the only member of parliament who has ridden down the Columbia river in an Indian canoe in the early years of this century. I know every foot of the Columbia, and as far as the local aspect is concerned I know what I am talking about and I speak with a certain, shall I say, sentimental interest in this question.
What of the history of development?
1.	There was a reference by the House of Commons of Canada and the congress of the United States to the international joint commission in March, 1944, authorizing an investigation of the Columbia for development.
2.	Between that date and up until recently the federal government expended approximately $5 million on investigations.

Interim Supply
3.	General McNaughton obtained recognition of United States authorities of Canada's rights as the upstream state under article 2 of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. When he first took that stand they were going to deny us those rights.
4.	The international joint commission, while General McNaughton was chairman of the Canadian section, established principles that would apply to the development of the Columbia.
5.	General McNaughton negotiated agreement for the acceptance of the principles for the division of downstream benefits. We were all happy when that matter was settled as far as the principle was concerned.
6.	The government of Canada, in association with the government of British Columbia, proceeded to negotiate a treaty on the basis of the McNaughton plan. Those negotiations went on for two or three meetings.
7.	Shortly after negotiations commenced the government of British Columbia reversed its stand and insisted on the present treaty plan.
8.	The federal government surrendered abjectly to the government of British Columbia because, as the present Minister of Public Works said, I did not wish to tread on Mr. Bennett's toes.
9.	Negotiations continued after this surrender and a treaty was drafted, the terms of which were acceptable to the government of British Columbia. There is no question about that, I must say in fairness to the federal government.
10.	The treaty was signed on January 17, 1961 with great fanfare. I remember the day the Prime Minister rose, announced this treaty and read extracts from the speech made in Washington. This treaty was signed when Washington was preparing for a coming election. It was signed with great fanfare and announced in this house by the Prime Minister as a great development. Actually I am quite confident that the Prime Minister did not really understand what the terms of the treaty meant.
11.	After the signing the treaty was hailed as a great advantage to the United States and documents were published to this effect in the United States, copies of which I have, by the Republican party and were used in the subsequent United States election to prove what a good deal they had made.
12.	Premier Bennett's about-face. He strongly criticized the treaty, demanded the right to sell the downstream benefits in the United States after his representative had agreed to the terms of the treaty in Ottawa, and said there is a market in the northwestern states for this power at five mills.

13.	Then we got an interesting interjection from the United States in the form of a statement by Mr. Stewart L. Udall, secretary of the interior of the United States of America and the member of President Kennedy's cabinet who has the direct responsibility of seeing that the Columbia river treaty is carried out by the United States. He said:
To provide flood control and power benefits equivalent to those provided by the Canadian storage as ot 1970 entirely from projects in the United States would require an investment in the United States of about $710 million over the next nine years. To realize these benefits through Canadian storage, on the other hand, the costs in the United States over that period are estimated at not over $150 million.
They were using this in the United States election, and I do not blame them one bit.
14.	The Minister of Public Works, chairman of the negotiating committee, admitted the treaty is second best and stated that "Canada would have been better off with a Columbia treaty drawn according to General McNaughton's wishes". But, he said, "B.C. opposed the move because it conflicted with provincial interests".
15.	The Secretary of State for External Affairs, a gentleman for whom I and all members of the house have great respect, enlarging on the speech of the Minister of Public Works, said in the house on April 13, 1962 that the United States had agreed to accept the McNaughton plan but then the treaty had to be changed because the B.C. government refused to go along with this plan.
16.	Now we come to a dynamic political development. Mr. Bennett criticized the treaty in his famous speech at Prince George on September 16, 1961. I think a number of members have copies of the manuscript in which he roundly condemned the treaty and said that it was a poor treaty for Canada but that it could be made to work on his terms.
17.	The Minister of Public Works replied to Premier Bennett's speech on November 28, 1961 and said when referring to the export of power proposed by Mr. Bennett that this would be "the greatest betrayal of Canadian interests that it would be possible to contemplate". One can now understand why the Minister of Public Works is not here today, when the government has repudiated his stand and position with respect to the export of power and the export of downstream benefits.
18.	On reading the throne speech this session members of parliament realized that the government of Canada had surrendered to Premier Bennett for the second time by making provision for the long term firm export of power.


Mr. McCleave:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I know he wants to be fair. Knowing the Minister of Public Works as he does, would the hon. member not agree that the minister would not be absent from the house unless he had made plans beforehand?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to be fair to the minister, yes. I am sure that the Minister of Public Works would not deliberately avoid his duty, but I think he must feel somewhat gratified that he has other business to keep him away from the house this afternoon.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He will be back today.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 19. Since that time we have read of Mr. Bennett's visit to Washington and of his attempts to sell his power at five mills, which he said could be sold quite easily. There is no question but that Dr. Keenley-side also said that; but let me tell you that though Dr. Keenleyside is a most impressive figure in a village hall, he did not win the hearts of my constituents.
20.	Premier Bennett's latest move suggesting that a United States negotiator be appointed to carry on negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. Did you ever before hear of anything like that in Canadian history, a premier suggesting that we go to the United States to get a negotiator to carry on negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia?
21.	This whole sorry mess is, I say, proof that the government entered into this treaty without planning and without the facts, and listened to the boys who make decisions based on computer machines without any relation to the conservation of Canada's natural resources or the sociological aspects of this very important problem.
22.	General McNaughton approached this problem as a Canadian development. The treaty reverses this position, because while the Americans are physically downstream the treaty gives them all the rights of an upstream state by reason of their obtaining Canada's consent to the building of the Libby dam.
What in brief are the major defects of this treaty from our point of view?
1.	This treaty is the result of a complete lack of planning and lack of knowledge of the facts. It is the result of political rather than co-operative and effective planning. This government entered into the treaty before it knew it could build the High Arrow dam. There are doubts yet about the safety of the foundation. Drillers have gone down hundreds of feet and have not been able to find rock.
Interim Supply
The government entered into the treaty without knowing the cost of moving huge quantities of timber to the pulp mill below the dam. The government entered into the treaty, and the government of British Columbia is to blame as well, without any estimate of the damage to public and private investment, wharves, docks, roads, highways, farms, villages, 18 communities wiped out almost completely and others partially. The government signed the treaty without any assessment of the damage to agricultural land, timber and so on.
2.	The treaty for the first time in Canadian history gives control of Canadian waters to United States authorities. For the first time in Canada's history this treaty hands over to another state sovereign rights that belong to Canada.
3.	It diminishes the value of the Columbia river for power development in Canada and also provides for power at a higher cost than would be possible under the McNaughton plan. That can be proved.
4.	It means the loss of permanent jobs for Canadians forever.
5.	It unnecessarily destroys land and living space and millions in public and private investment. Under this treaty we destroy 57,000 acres of agricultural land and forest by the flooding of the Arrow lakes region and of a portion of East Kootenay, whereas under General McNaughton's plan we can bring into production in the future hundreds of thousands of acres of some of the most fertile land in Canada and lay the foundation for a great cattle industry in that area.
6.	It destroys recreational resources, fish and wildlife. The fish and wildlife people of British Columbia made a report on this matter. It destroys fishing in the Arrow lakes. The rise and fall of 78 feet annually makes it impossible for the fish to spawn and prevents a proper supply of food for them.
7.	It destroys miles of beautiful sandy beaches. People go to Florida, but let me tell hon. members that the Arrow lakes district is the most beautiful inland park in Canada, with many miles of sandy beaches.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee give unanimous consent to extend the hon. gentleman's time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I appreciate this courtesy, as I have just about completed my remarks. The members of this group believe that Canadian power resources should be developed for Canadians; that Canadian surplus water

Interim Supply
should be used to irrigate Canadian soil; that the Columbia river should be developed so as to provide permanent jobs for Canadians of this and future generations. We believe our surplus water should be used to irrigate the Okanagan and, in the future, prairie lands that are available. We believe our surplus power should be put through a national power grid. These developments will not come in the immediate future, but I believe they will come with national unity and if federal and provincial governments do some co-operative planning. We believe we must provide permanent employment to all Canadians by protecting and using to the best advantage these great national resources. For these reasons the members of this party support the McNaughton plan for the development of the Columbia river.


Mr. Foy:: 

Interim, Supply
That is the feeling of the trucking industry. Truckers have been wooed by those who speak of the issue of free enterprise versus socialism. The truckers obviously expect consideration from the government in what it proposes to do about the MacPherson report, and they are obviously going to fight to get it. The truckers have sought no special favours and know they are entitled to none. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed that the only reference in the throne speech to the justification for implementing the MacPherson report was that of eliminating horizontal freight rate increases. That is one of the major problems, and I say that without expressing any opinion on the solution recommended by the royal commission. It is a very complicated solution; I understand that even the experts are still shaking their heads over it.
Here is a politically attractive issue, the removal of horizontal freight rate increases. But we must remember that the section of Canada's population affected by that type of freight rate increase, while it is a most important section and is deserving of the concern and consideration of every member of this house, must be looked after by a solution of the transportation problem that is fair to all of the interests that are affected. Let us get the railway problems straightened out, but let us remember also that in dealing with this very important problem of transportation we are dealing with a vital and dynamic element in the Canadian economy. The trucking industry is responsible, I might say, for employing 100,000 people in Canada. No government can make a move on transport legislation today without running head on into issues that affect every form of transport. Therefore I urge the government in what it is planning to do about the MacPherson report to keep in mind that it is dealing with the transportation system, not only a railway system but a transportation system made up of independent competitive elements which all have their place and which are all entitled to fair treatment. The time when our Canadian transport thinkers were able to march with the minds of Beatty and Thornton, or even with Crump and Gordon, is gone. A new era in transportation is upon us. We have to live in that era. We have to deal fairly with transportation industries that actually constitute it, and we have to deal fairly with all of them. (Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all to protest against the method used by the government to put interim supply before us.

Since April of last year, we have been asked for proportions of one twelfth at the end of each month. Yes, come the last days of each month, we are told: "We need that to pay the civil servants". Today, we have reached the tenth twelfth, and we still have not been given an opportunity for close examination.
It is becoming more and more evident that it is time we should revise our procedure in this house.
Formerly, governments tried to follow as closely as possible the parliamentary practices which had always prevailed. Today, it is the opposite; no attention is paid to any of the parliamentary customs. That is why I say that perhaps the time has come to amend our standing orders so that the Minister of Finance would have to introduce the budget before February 15, and so that the government could not introduce any legislation until the estimates of every department are passed by parliament.
In a case of extreme urgency, the unanimous consent of the house could always be asked so that some special bill might be discussed and passed. But it seems to me that the procedure used by this government ignores the members of the house and particularly of the opposition.
This time, however, we can take a little more time because it could not be said that the civil servants will not be paid if we take two or three days to discuss interim supply. We have an opportunity to go over certain happenings.
For instance, I should like to raise the matter of the recent salary increases. I think they were given against all common sense. Those who were in greatest need of them have been overlooked. I readily admit that those who earn $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 or even $18,000 per year, are also entitled to a salary increase because of the increase in the cost of living. But they could always wait a few months. But when those who earn less than $3,500 per year are deprived of an increase merely because the pay research bureau did not recommend an increase in their case, such an excuse does not seem valid to me, and I suggest that this is utter nonsense on the part of the civil service administration.
The previous minister of finance claimed that when the pay research bureau would not recommend a salary increase, its report could be made public, but that when the
i

bureau submitted a report recommending an increase, that report became a confidential document and could not be divulged to anyone, not even to members of parliament, except in parts, from month to month, as increases were being granted. If my memory serves me right, the increases started in a certain year and since then, every month of April, May, June, July, August, September and October, increases are being granted to certain groups of civil servants, but never do the October, September or July groups get retroactive pay to April 1, whereas the first group got it.
That is a flagrant case of injustice to civil servants. But that is the way the former minister of finance wanted it. I trust the new minister will not follow the same procedure in future.
This year, the research bureau has recommended increases. About 5,000 employees are getting increases, but they are the most highly paid civil servants. To be sure, the professional classes needed a raise, but this need was not so pressing as it was for the others, to whom the high cost of living has brought hardship seldom to be equalled.
Well, they were denied an increase, although a few days before Christmas 50,000 civil servants received one. On the eve of a snow-bound election-the Prime Minister is all set since yesterday-salary increases are now granted to groups earning $3,500 or over. I admit that they needed one, but I fail to understand how a government, aware of its responsibilities, can behave in such a manner and refuse any increase to the employees whose earnings are under $3,500 in spite of the fact, as expressed by the Minister of Finance, that no other increase is in sight before the month of April 1963.
If there is a group of employees who are in need, surely it is that one because those people generally have families, they have the same obligations as others on their houses, they experience financial difficulties which accumulate as the cost of living rises. In fact, those people find it almost impossible to make both ends meet.
Nothing in the act could prevent the minister from overriding the pay research bureau's recommendations, but this is the excuse he gave, the one he gave me when I asked him a question.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister explain why
Interim Supply
the clerks and typists in grades 1 and 2 do not benefit from the salary increases announced yesterday?
(Translation):
This is the excuse given by the minister: (Text):
Mr. Speaker, because the pay research bureau reported in that way.
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame to try and blame officials who are subject to the instructions of a ministry and especially of the Minister of Finance. Besides, as I said earlier, neither the Minister of Finance nor the government has to bow to the pay research bureau's recommendations. They can override them, they have a right to make their own decisions. When they believe a situation is unfair or inconsistent, they have the power to change this decision or this recommendation.
Nothing was done in the circumstances. So, 33 per cent of the federal civil servants, 33 per cent of those who receive the lowest salaries, do not get a raise. Among them, 1 per cent receive less than $2,000 yearly, 6 per cent earn less than $2,500, 10 per cent less than $3,000, and 16 per cent less than $3,500.
Mr. Chairman, while I was studying the question, I found in today's Gazette two short items reading as follows:
(Text):
"Pay boosts for others wait year".
Finance Minister Nowlan said yesterday that the pay of a large group of government clerks and typists who were passed over in the new round of pay increases won't be reviewed again until next October.
He told reporters that the government is not considering the case of the employees ranked as grade 1 and 2.
(Translation):
That is the Minister of Finance's way of doing things.
(Text):
He will not be considering.
(Translation):
They do not want to review the situation.
On the other hand, as can be found on the front page of the newspaper, we note a situation which seems much more logical.
(Text):
Lesage reveals civil service salary boosts.
Premier Lesage yesterday announced pay raises for 3,668 civil servants totalling $978,999 a year.
The raises are retroactive to November 1, he announced following a cabinet meeting. They affect government employees whose salary is under $6,800 a year, he said.
(Translation):
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the government of the province of Quebec starts by paying more adequate salaries to those who

Interim Supply
need them most; increases are being granted to those who earn less than $6,800 a year. In other words, pay increases are given to those who need them most.
The article goes on to say that in mid-January the provincial government will give a pay increase to those who have a higher salary.
That is how this government should have proceeded in the case of the civil servants but it failed to do so.
If one tries to get information, he is told that those government employees get salaries which are about the equivalent of those paid by certain concerns, in private industry.
I wonder where they got those figures. Perhaps they come from certain concerns where business is not too good or from employers who are quite content to employ people who are less qualified in order to pay smaller salaries.
Yet, when we speak of good insurance brokers' firms, of good lawyers' or notaries' offices, we find that the salaries paid there are even higher than those of federal civil servants. I know that at the Metropolitan Life Insurance, in Ottawa, working conditions are better and salaries higher than those paid by the federal government. Moreover, with regard to security the company offers its employees more than what the federal government gives to its civil servants.
Even if it were true that salaries paid by private enterprise are inferior or equal to those paid by the federal government, would it not be up to the government of Canada to show others the way and to make them realize that they are not paying appropriate salaries?
Is it not up to the government to set an example? Indeed, even if we may not pass legislation here which would call for salary increases-as the matter is under provincial jurisdiction-we may, nevertheless, grant a needed raise in salaries, thus showing people in industry and business how they should deal with their employees.
Unfortunately, this government's gesture simply indicated to business and industry in what shameful manner it treats its employees as if they were second rate citizens, and more particularly the low salaried classes.
It seems that the government want to save at the expense of the civil servants. They seem to think that those who might find work in another office will leave, and that they can be replaced by stenographers grade 1 or 2 with lower salaries. This action will mean a saving for the government at the expense of

the low-salaried classes, and I think such proceedings entirely shameful.
Sir, the Minister of Finance gave an interview to the Canadian Press. I hope he will amend his ways-he is old enough to do so- and that he will not share the attitude of some hon. members. I wish he would revise his position and go ahead, even without consulting the pay research bureau, in the knowledge that some civil servants are in greater need than others.
He has the right to do so. He has the right to make such a recommendation to the cabinet and to the treasury board. That is what he should do, and if he does not, I feel that he fails in his duty, since the Minister of Finance is the one responsible for salaries.
I heard earlier a Social Crediter sternly criticizing the government. He took objection to everything the government has done since the beginning. He condemned the government as harshly as the Liberals or the New Democratic party would condemn it. And yet, in spite of everything, in spite of all those criticisms, and of the warnings given by the Social Credit party to the government since the beginning of the session-"If you do not mend your ways, we shall be forced to drop you"-they have not yet abandoned it, and when it is time to vote, they hide or vote for the government.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that they should take a more consistent position. I do not know whether that is the Hitler way of doing things, because I made no special study of Hitler's career, but I do know that this method is not consistent with ordinary parliamentary procedure.


Mr. Ricard:: You might perhaps come back to the matter under discussion.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I beg your pardon?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Stick to the matter under discussion.


Alexis Pierre Caron: My remarks are in order, and when I speak in this house, it is up to the Chair to rule me out of order if I am, and not to the whip of the Conservative party.
What offends me most of all, is when I hear those Social Crediters put the Liberal party- supreme insult-on the same footing as the Conservative party and suggest that during 22 years, the Liberal party, like the Conservative party, did nothing.
If they can make such a statement, it is because they refuse to face and look into the real situation.

The Liberal party, during those 22 years, gave the country a positive administration which rendered invaluable services to the Canadian nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The Liberal party, for 22 years, conducted the country's business so that ordinary crises would not be so hard to suffer, that unemployment would not increase disproportionately.
I know that we did not print paper like they did under Hitler when, with 100,000 marks, only a small loaf of bread could be bought; but we saw to it that the administration would allow us to give the Canadian people what they needed.
Let us take for instance social legislation-


Mr. Gauthier:: By taking away the rights of the provinces.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I hear someone speaking.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: By selling the provinces.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I could not catch a thing. If you want to speak, at least open your mouth.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It is nothing new, you never catch anything.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I am not against answering questions, but I hope that they will stop whispering and will speak in an understandable way.


An hon. Member:: Do not ask too much of Social Crediters.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No. I know that I am somewhat exacting.
But during the 22 years that we were in power and perhaps a little before, our social legislation was written in our statutes by the Liberal party, our whole social legislation with no exception. The Conservative party did not initiate a single piece of social legislation.
If today, in spite of the crisis that we undergo, the people suffer in a somewhat lesser degree than during the last crisis, it is because the Liberal party had established the Unemployment Insurance Act, which makes it possible to correct the situation to a certain degree. Without such legislation on the part of the Liberals of the day, conditions would be worse than in 1930-35. It is thanks to the Liberal party that hardship has been somewhat alleviated.


Bernard Dumont: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, certainly.


Bernard Dumont: What could you answer to this, which is reported in Hansard of April
Interim Supply
4, 1957? It is a question directed to the minister of labour of that day:
Does the minister know that a good number of the employees of his department in British Columbia are in arrears for periods of up to seven months in respect of overtime pay, involving sums amounting in certain cases to over $500;
Is that the same as with the Conservatives?


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is a question which I have not had the opportunity of considering, but if it was in 1957, it might as well have been under the Conservative government as under the Liberal administration.


Bernard Dumont: The date is April 4, 1957.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In any case, I do not pretend that the Liberal party has been absolute perfection. Perfection is not of this world. Man is a finite being who must bear something of the original sin and carry it about with him, as you all have to carry the load of your own faults and even those of your leader, Mr. Caouette.


The Deputy Chairman:: I have been listening with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), but I am certain that because of his parliamentary experience he will recall that we are now discussing particular items, and I know that, as the rule of relevancy applies in this case, the present remarks of the hon. member are not those we may expect in this house except when we are, for instance, discussing the speech from the throne.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, during the debate on the first item of the interim supply or on the main estimates, it has been the custom in this house to let us edge away a little bit from the item before the house. Such was the opinion expressed by your immediate predecessor in the chair. He allowed discussion of the Columbia river question-


Rémi Paul: Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, allow me to continue with my remarks before you give your ruling.


Rémi Paul: When the hon. member states it is permissible to wander away a little bit from the subject under discussion, I agree with him. But a practical meaning must be given to the expression "a little bit".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, when I refer to those matters, I am dealing with questions which relate to the financial administration of this country. I am entitled to mention what was accomplished in the past, in order to determine what has not been done recently and what is not being done now under the present regime. That is why I was enumerating all the social security acts passed by the Liberal party.

Interim Supply
In 1927, the Old Age Pensions Act, which provided for a means test, for persons 70 years of age and over; in 1940, the Unemployment Insurance Act; in 1942, the Provincial Assistance Act, to promote the building of technical schools, thus enabling thousands of young people to learn a trade; in 1944, the Family Allowances Act, which was so beneficial to this country; in 1948, the national health program, by means of which grants were to be paid for the enlargement of hospitals, in anticipation of the Hospital Insurance Act now in force; in 1951, the Old Age Security Act, without a means test, for every person of 70 years of age and over; in 1951-


Rémi Paul: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to criticize the present government's administration by making a review of the political activities of one or the other of the previous governments. I respectfully submit that those remarks are not in order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I find your ruling a little strict. I was making comparisons between what was done and what was not done or is not being done. I am not supposed to merely observe that I do not approve the budget because I do not like it for if that was the case, my observations would be rather limited.
I think I am entitled to prove by way of what was done in the past what this government is not doing in respect of social security legislation as well as in other fields.
Those who wished to do so were allowed to discuss the Columbia river project. A discussion on transportation was allowed, but when I try to recall what was accomplished by the Liberal party, I am immediately attacked by Conservatives and Creditists. I submit it is unfair to prevent me to recall what was done by the Liberal party compared to what the present administration has done since 1959. Besides, my recital is short and I was almost through because I had reached 1951 when was adopted the Blind Persons Act; in 1954, the Disabled Persons Act; in 1956-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. Once more, I must point out to the hon. member who has the floor that he is commenting on certain discussions which took place in this house. He mentioned, for instance, the matter of the Columbia river. He will agree that that is a problem of the present administration.

Once again, I am asking the hon. member to limit his criticism to the present administration, provided he does not refer to past administrations of a decade or so ago.


Mr. Habel:: I rise on a point of order. I
find it strange that the chairman is so, I will not say unfair because I know you are trying to be fair in your rulings, but 1 will say so strict when this government is asking the house every month to vote one twelfth of the annual supply required to manage the business of a nation such as Canada. Name a business firm which would ask a bank every month for a $10,000 or $100,000 loan without submitting a financial statement.
The Depuiy Chairman: I believe the hon. member's remarks do not constitute a point of order.


Bernard Dumont: On a point of order; one word only. When the four war horses of the Liberal party are absent, let the colts talk.
The Depuiy Chairman: In my opinion, the member for Bellechasse has no reason for raising a point of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, as the member for Villeneuve is away, the member for Bellechasse is free to talk.
I shall not go back to ten years ago, but only as far as 1954. Disability pensions; in 1956, legislation promoting equal salaries for women-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a point of order.
The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member is an experienced parliamentarian and he should follow the Chair's instructions. If they do not suit him, the rules provide certain procedures to refuse them.
However, I trust to his vast experience and I am sure that he will get back to the subject before us: this government's administration.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I stuck to what you said. You asked me not to go back more than ten years. That is the reason why I concentrated on the last ten years. However, if you do not agree, I can go back only two or three years because, since then, we have been under a Conservative administration.
What is the Conservative government doing to improve the situation? Absolutely nothing.
The Conservative government is only marking time as a frisky horse, but it does not run.

That is the reason why I wanted to demonstrate that under the Liberal administration we had done something, that we had not been satisfied to go blindly on as does this government.
I wanted to point out that a Liberal government acted in a more responsible way than a Conservative government which behaves, at present, like a parliament of school boys at play.
Moreover, we have proven that this government is the worst Canada has ever known since confederation.
Never has the business of the country been in the hands of such unqualified people. Never have ministers been so undecided in their actions. Never has a prime minister administered the country as the present leader of this government is doing, taking into consideration only his own pride, trying to become famous with some little insignificant measures. The Prime Minister is never up to par when the time comes to be firm in the best interest of the country. The Conservatives have the impression that they have succeeded in condensing in one single piece of legislation many laws, most of which were already in our statute books as is the case for the Canadian Bill of Rights. At a meeting held in Hamilton, lawyers-some colleagues of yours, Mr. Chairman-were heard to say that the bill of rights changes nothing in the present situation since it is already covered by the statutes of Canada.
That is the legislation which has been enacted by the Conservative government. That is their way of governing the country. It is a government of visions and commissions.
They have set up about 19 royal commissions. Every time they are stuck with a problem, they postpone the issue by setting up a royal commission.
When a royal commission like the Mac-Pherson commission presents a report, they do not even have the courage of taking decisions. Nothing is done and the country is in a mess.
There is at present a dispute between the railroads and the trucking industry. That is due to the government's procrastination and to its failure to foresee and remedy the situation.
Every time a royal commission submits a report, they shelve it and forget about it.
Consideration has been given to the first two parts of the report presented by the commission which was set up to look into the public service. Action has already been taken without referring the question to the house. The report is being put into effect without consideration for parliament and its members.
Interim Supply
Yet, when the party in power was sitting on this side of the house, only five years ago-they will soon be back here-they claimed that the government of the time had no respect for the principles of democracy.
Do they pay any heed to those principles? Far from it, they laugh about the matter as one parliamentary secretary is doing at present instead of contributing something worthwhile to the debate.
The present government is incompetent and that is what I set out to prove. It should have the courage of giving the civil servants who are inadequately paid the salary increase to which they are entitled.


Bernard Dumont: May I just ask a question, Mr. Chairman?


Rémi Paul: I must point out to the hon. member for Bellechasse that two conditions must be met before he can ask a question. First, the member who is speaking must agree to it, and second, he must have some time left. In this case, that time had expired. Therefore, unless he can obtain the unanimous consent of the house, it will be impossible for him to ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bernard Dumont: I want to ask the hon. member if he would have agreed to the adjournment of the house in order to discuss the Grey cup, as his leader did?


Alexis Pierre Caron: In asking that question the hon. member shows his ignorance or his intellectual dishonesty.
When the adjournment was suggested, it was to discuss a matter of principle more important than the Grey cup itself, namely the freedom of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the fields of radio and television and the problem that arises through the interference of the board of broadcast governors in those fields.
That is what my leader wanted to do; when matters of principle are involved, we never give an inch.


Bernard Dumont: May I ask a supplementary question?


Rémi Paul: I do not believe that in committee supplementary questions are in order.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, in my turn, I would like to take this opportunity to express my views to the house. I have the honour of representing one of the two largest ridings in the province of Quebec, one of the 22 largest in Canada.

Interim Supply
It is an immense riding which, in spite of a most rigorous winter and a very poor summer, would not be in such a serious situation if it had not been so neglected in the past. Located at the watershed, its subsoil is rich in minerals of all kinds, in almost infinite quantity, a large part of which is still undeveloped and untapped.
Mr. Chairman, we virtually walk on gold, on copper, on zinc and on metals of all kinds. Still, our people are reduced to extreme poverty. Unemployment is prevailing there more than anywhere else in this country, in spite of this great wealth. A few mines are being operated, but we have to export this ore in order to have it processed. We must cope with this situation as soon as possible. Moreover, the soil can be adapted to all kinds of crops. In the past, we have used it only for dairying.
In the Abitibi district, the butter dairies had to be closed because there are not enough outlets and because there are butter surpluses practically everywhere. The farmers have to buy part of their own production. That is why they lose interest in that industry. The best organized of our parishes are being deserted by farmers. Their farming revenues being too small to ensure them a decent living, they come to town where they increase the number of unemployed.
Our vast forests contain the essential products for pulpwood and timber. Here again, we must export that pulpwood, waste and bark. Yet we have waterways and waterfalls from which power could be produced to develop our own natural resources. Nobody had thought about that.
Mr. Chairman, if we directed the farm production towards beef breeding in that vast county, we could produce enough cattle for the consumption of all the population of the province of Quebec. To achieve that, the government should establish in that part of the province of Quebec an experimental farm where the climate and the nature of the soil could be studied on the spot to give better advice to cattle-breeders.
In that region which offers such possibilities, a problem has arisen which comes from that continuous concern caused by a system which allows unemployment to exist. Every part of the country suffers from that situation.
Mr. Chairman, for a long time, great men who are considered the elite of the country,

have been trying to find a solution to or the causes of unemployment for which the two traditional parties are to blame.
Unemployment is a social evil which we cannot tolerate any longer. We must stop it. We must find a means to solve that problem as soon as possible. In my opinion, the best way to achieve that is to find a better market for consumer goods. As a matter of fact, if the consumer's purchasing power is not at the same level as production, we shall never be able to solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, there will be thousands of families in my constituency this winter who, as a result of unemployment, will find themselves in most difficult circumstances, who will lack food, clothing, heating and medical care. And all that, in the midst of abundance.
Most of them will not be eligible for unemployment benefits, because they have remained unemployed for so long that they do not have enough stamps to be entitled to them.
Mr. Chairman, statistics show that at one time, there were 150,000 unemployed in the country, and later they show there were 350,000 and later still, 500,000. We are inclined to believe that that is the largest number of unemployed workers. The fact remains that at one period or other of the year, there may be 250,000 unemployed persons, and the number increases later on. But some of the first group, at least, have found employment, which means that by the end of the year probably one million workers might be considered as having been unemployed at some time or other during the year. So the problem of the person who has been unemployed for three, four, five or even six months in the year is not settled the day he finds employment. This class of worker must be considered as being in need, because we see that those who are lucky enough to hold permanent jobs barely manage to make both ends meet with their regular pay. Therefore, the workless, those who have to do without any income for part of the year, know the worries which can be caused by such a problem.
Mr. Chairman, there is another problem in my constituency. In my district, there are unincorporated parishes, apart from the municipal corporations. Now, the winter works program which was set up by this government

a few years ago allows municipalities to develop projects and take advantage of that program. Let us see. May I quote the first paragraph of a small folder on the winter works program which I was given. It reads as follows:
The purpose of the municipal winter works program is to give an incentive to municipalities and communities to multiply the employment opportunities during winter-
It seems to me this means that the parishes not incorporated in municipalities can also take advantage of this winter works promotion program. However, after having checked on the matter, I have been told that the communities, in order to take advantage of this program, must apply to the county council or corporation. Then, I wondered why the corporation of the county of Abitibi was not helping out its localities. I have investigated, and here is the answer which I received from the corporation of the Abitibi county. I quote:
When you came to my office, I told you what the situation was, and the reeve has asked me to give you a written confirmation of the decision taken by the county council.
It goes without saying that this reply is from the secretary of the corporation. I continue:
This decision is to the effect that the corporation of Abitibi county, as a corporation, flatly refuses to take in charge the winter works program in the unorganized territories.
Mr. Chairman, this does not bring any solution to the problem of the communities.
I fully appreciate that the corporation of Abitibi county must be facing the same financial problem as nearly all the other municipalities. It has not enough money in its treasury to assist the non-incorporated parishes.
The county corporation must provide for at least 10 per cent of the salary and cost of building materials.
But the corporation does not have sufficient funds to help so many communities. That is why it cannot accomplish this task alone.
I, therefore, asked on various occasions, in this house, what the Minister of Labour intended to do in this matter, and I was told each time that I was out of order. Nobody wanted to answer those questions.
In this case, I believe it would be a good thing if the Minister of Labour, and perhaps even other members of the government came down to the level of the working classes. I even invite them to visit the Abitibi district,
Interim Supply
the county of Chapleau which I represent, to see for themselves what problems exist in that district. They would in future be in a better position to evaluate our claims.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell too much upon the subject under discussion this afternoon, but I would like to point out to the house that, in order to remedy as soon as possible the problems which our working people have to face, as well as our farmers, who have only a very small income-and some of them have practically none-and even our labourers, our workers who are unable to find any employment in their field, the government should immediately provide for a raise in family allowances to help those people right now, without increasing taxes, of course, because this always spoils the effect.
The government should also increase the so-called old age pensions and lower the retirement age. We should also increase pensions to disabled persons, to the blind and to all those in need, in order to enable them to live decently in a Canada as wealthy as it is, without having to beg elsewhere for the basic requirements of life.
Now, Mr. Chairman, such is not the case. Such measures are needed in the shortest possible time to give satisfaction to that population which would only be too happy to benefit from all the advantages Canada has to offer with all its national wealth.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting-I request it for my riding as well as for all other parts of Canada-a basic tax exemption on personal income tax raised to $5,000 per year for married people and to $3,000 for single taxpayers. In addition, it would be wise for the government to give exemptions from municipal and school taxes, in the form of a refund of municipal and school taxes, to any property owner receiving some kind of government pension.
Among about a hundred letters which I recently received, one referred to a rather pitiable case. A government pensioner who lives with his wife and who only gets $89 a month owes a $500 tax bill. When you figure the cost of electricity, water and insurance premiums, etc., you realize that they must spend $56 per month for those items alone. Now, under such circumstances, needless to say those people would prefer to lead a normal life and it is up to us to enable them to do so.
That is why we are asking for all that. If the government does not take steps to remedy the situation pretty soon, you can be sure that I will be ready to help throw it out of office.

Private Bills
(Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the Columbia river treaty. The members of the New Democratic party believe that this treaty is an improvident one. It assigns to Canada the job of storing vast quantities of water, while effectively depriving Canada of the right to use the waters of the Columbia river not only for the purpose of generating electricity but also for agricultural and industrial purposes.
This treaty, if it is proceeded with, will stunt the agricultural and industrial development of British Columbia, and indeed of the prairie provinces, not just for years to come but for generations to come. This country has for years been a country of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Successive governments have been guilty of exporting Canadian resources on a wholesale basis to the United States-our oil, our minerals and our lumber. We have simply, for many, many years, been doing nothing more than that, and this is true not only of this government but of all its predecessors going back over the years. We have been giving up our resources and depriving Canadians of the opportunity to build the kind of industry we will need in this country if we are going to provide the standard of living Canadians have a right to enjoy.


Rémi Paul: Order; it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house may I request the unanimous consent of the house to giving precedence to item No. 10 appearing on page 21 of the orders of the day, a bill standing in my name?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) requests the unanimous consent of the house to giving his bill, standing as item No. 10, precedence over items 1 to 9.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, if this procedure is agreeable to the house there may be other hon. members who would wish to have the same privilege. I would like to bring forward the bill standing in my name, but perhaps we could deal with them

one at a time and leave them until the first order of business has been dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is referring to item No. 407, I take it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we follow the procedure of asking that precedence be given to these bills on the next day they come up for discussion. Some of these items are quite a long way down the order paper and there may be hon. members who wish to speak on them who would otherwise be denied the right. This right would be guaranteed them if we agreed to give them precedence on the next occasion these bills come up for discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate to the hon. member that the hon. member for Mount Royal made a similar request on Tuesday. The house did not deal with it as an order. The house moved to consider a certain item in the name of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk). I do not know whether that is deemed to be sufficient notice; that is entirely up to the house. The house, naturally, must give its unanimous consent to this being done. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to make his request for precedence apply to the next sitting, I have no objection. But I think there is a responsibility to see that those who are concerned with these matters are aware of any changes. If we do not do it in the way of giving precedence at the next sitting, then there may be some hon. members who are unaware that this is the way we are proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member for Timiskaming objects? He withholds unanimous consent?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member withholds unanimous consent to this item having precedence?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make it very clear that if the hon. member now asks for unanimous consent to his bill being given precedence the next time these matters are up for discussion, we would be quite happy to agree to it.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, I do so now.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore it is agreed that the hon. member for Mount Royal is seeking

precedence for next Tuesday for his bill, item No. 10. Is the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) making a similar request?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would request the same privilege.


Mr. Lewis:: What is the item number?


Mr. Speaker:: It is item No. 407, an act respecting the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada. Are there any similar requests at this time? Very well, those two items, with the consent of the house, will be given precedence on Tuesday next.


MADELEINE-FRANC OISE HANKOWSKI
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the consent of the house to deal with the first nine items on the order paper en bloc. They are all bills for consideration in committee which have been passed by the other place and have been considered in our miscellaneous private bills committee. To save the time of the committee I would beg leave of the house to having them treated en bloc because the list of divorce bills from the Senate is growing and growing. We have over 400 items on the order paper right now. That is the only reason for asking that they be treated en bloc.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's proposal is that items 1 to 9 be referred to the committee of the whole as one group and considered by the committee in that way. Is that agreeable to the house?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would object to that procedure. I have some remarks to make on the first one and I would certainly hope that the hon. member is not suggesting they are all as bad as the first one may be.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is suggesting that items 1 to 9 be referred to the committee of the whole. When the Speaker has left the chair and the chairman has assumed the chair he will recognize any hon. member who may wish to speak.


William Arnold Peters: No, there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: In other words, the hon. member objects to this course being followed. Then item No. 1 only will be dealt with.
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Madeleine-Francoise Hankowski-Mr. Mandziuk-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the first bills to pass both courts of this parliament, and it is of interest because in this
Divorce Bills
case we have the right of a double examination, which the house is being asked to consider in another bill that is now before it, and to eliminate part of the protection that is now given. I think this should be borne in mind when we are discussing this particular case. It should also be borne in mind that the Senate has heard this case and the miscellaneous private bills committee has heard it. These bills were not given any consideration in the miscellaneous private bills committee, as far as I know; they were taken en bloc. Therefore I think a discussion on this bill will indicate that this is not an acceptable practice, and also that the other place is not sufficiently capable or trained to handle these particular bills.
In this case Madeleine-Francoise Hankowski is asking for a divorce from her husband Jan Paul Hankowski. There are several things involved here that are a disgrace to Canada, certainly a disgrace to this type of procedure and certainly a disgrace to at least one of the lawyers in it. After you hear the evidence, Mr. Chairman, we will ask that this lawyer be disbarred. The people who heard this case were not unaware of points of law. They were Senators Bradley, Q.C.-if it means anything, and in this case it does not -Burchill, Cameron and Gershaw. These gentlemen heard this case in the other place.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


William Arnold Peters: This was a contested case-


Rémi Paul: Order. The hon. member has risen on a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a well understood practice that reference should not be made, particularly derogatory reference, to people from the other place. I submit that the hon. member is clearly out of order in launching a tirade of that nature. If he wants to talk about a disgrace he should hold up a mirror and see it personified fully.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is the same old argument that the hon. gentleman is involved in, and he is not completely uninvolved in this particular case because I suggest he had a responsibility. In dealing with this case let me point out some of the evidence to establish the character of Jan Paul Hankowski himself. I would refer the committee to the Senate hearing in which the lawyer for the petitioner was involved:
Q. Mrs. Hankowski, you were living with your husband where?
A. In Montreal.
Q. How long before you were married did you know him?
A. About a year.

Divorce Bills
Q. What is his occupation?
A. Freelance photographer.
Q. As such, does he have steady employment with an employer?
A. No, he works for many different people.
Q. Since you married him what have been his actions towards you, has he been a steady person?
A. No, he has been very unstable, and drinking most of the time, and certainly didn't contribute towards my support.
Q. Who is supporting you?
A. I am supporting myself.
Q. And you supported him?
A. I supported him mostly.
Q. Did he ever take money from you against your will?
A. Yes, X have seen him take money from my purse.
Q. I note you served at one time this petition on him in New York city. Why did you have to do that?
A. Because he was there at the time.
Q. Was this after the incident at the hotel-


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know just what part of the evidence which the hon. member has read out so far he considers misleading, as far as the Senate divorce committee is concerned.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. gentleman will contain himself-


Robert Jardine McCleave: On the point of order I raised a few moments ago concerning a derogatory remark about a person in the other place, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this matter should be disposed of and that you should request or order the hon. member to withdraw the remark he made.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I wish to associate myself with the request of the hon. member for Halifax, because this house has a great deal of respect for those people who take it upon themselves to hear evidence in the other place. They have considerable experience- more experience than the hon. member for Timiskaming has-and they are learned in the law, or at least the chairman of the divorce committee is. They are trying to do a good job. Witnesses appear before them and I think these smears and insults are unjustified. Even our courts have experienced perjured evidence, and if the hon. member wishes to point out an instance where the Senate divorce committee was misled, we should be pleased to hear him. But I do not think it is a function of members of this committee just to read from the evidence to fill in time.


William Arnold Peters: I hope the timekeeper is keeping track of the amount of time spent on these interruptions. I thank the hon. member for helping me build my case. All the evidence from which I have been reading-


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that we should clear this matter up. Never in its history has the House of

Commons cast reflections on people in the other chamber. Having been requested to withdraw his remarks with regard to Senator Bradley, I think the hon. member should be asked to do so by the Chair.


Rémi Paul: I should like to remind the hon. member for Timiskaming that standing order 35 reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.


William Arnold Peters: For my own information,
would those who have raised the point of order kindly state what remark of mine they object to?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I shall be glad to. I have jotted down what the hon. member said. He said that the divorce committee of the other place is not sufficiently capable, or not capable of hearing such cases. That is an accusation of incompetence.


William Arnold Peters: That is a really ridiculous charge. I intend to prove what I say. At least, I hope to have the opportunity to do so.


Mr. Nasserden:: On the point of order; the reference which I think the committee should take objectively was the hon. member's reference to the Q.C., and the derogatory remark he made in that regard.


Rémi Paul: We are not discussing here the competence of the committee. We are discussing the bill, and I am sure the hon. member will withdraw the reference he made to the committee of the other house. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression he used about the hon. senator.


William Arnold Peters: I bow to your wishes, though I really do not know what I am withdrawing. But if there was any reflection detrimental to any person I withdraw it.
The gentleman in question in this case, as is indicated in the evidence before the Senate committee, is a person of an artistic type. That, of course, does not mean anything bad. But the evidence also says he drank too much, that he did not hold a job, that he did not make any money, that he seldom worked and that when he did he supplemented the little he earned by money he got from his wife and other women. Every lawyer knows that consideration is given to the character and moral standing of people who appear in these cases. Being in possession of this information, the committee, both in this house and in the other place, was faced with an affidavit from this gentleman,

a contestation. It is signed by a well-known lawyer in Ottawa and it says:
Take notice that the respondent Jan Paul Han-kowski desires to oppose the granting of the divorce prayed for by the petitioner herein. The respondent resides at 144 East-40th Street, Room 201, New York City, State of New York, one of the United States of America.
The statement goes on to give the addresses at which the respondent can be reached in Ottawa and through his barrister. Then it continues:
The respondent Jan Paul Hankowski states that he has never been domiciled in Canada and that moreover the petitioner is not domiciled in Canada.
The respondent further denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the petition.
What evidence do we have to show that this may have been a fact?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I ask the hon. member a question? I do not know from what document the hon. member has been reading, hence the reason for my question. I have the evidence here and it says that the respondent and the corespondent were called but did not appear. I should like to know whether this affidavit which the hon. member has read was filed subsequently with the Senate divorce committee?
I have a further question to ask. If the hon. member was aware of this why did he not himself or through a colleague in his party submit this for consideration by the committee on miscellaneous and private bills when it met?


William Arnold Peters: That is exactly the problem. The committee on private and miscellaneous bills met without ever looking at the evidence in this particular case. The hon. member for Marquette is not aware of what is contained in the official documents. He asks why I did not raise this before. I only asked for this evidence on Thursday of last week and I now have before me a factual record giving all the details.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: If the hon. member-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue my argument.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of order.


William Arnold Peters: I trust this will be deducted from my time.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I will agree to that. Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member just said is a reflection on the members of the miscellaneous private bills committee, that they do not look into matters carefully enough. The members of the miscellaneous private bills committee get a transcript of evidence and that is all they get. There is nothing in the transcript of evidence to give us any indication-
Divorce Bills


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully suggest that the hon. member is not making a point of order, and he should not, under the guise of a point of order, be making a speech in the middle of another hon. member's speech. I respectfully ask him, if he has a defence to make, to make it after the hon. member for Timiskaming has finished.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I suggest that I am trying to set the record straight.


Mr. Brewin:: On the point of order, he is trying to defend the incompetence of the miscellaneous private bills committee.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: One of your colleagues was present on the committee which considered this bill.


Rémi Paul: I think the hon. member for York South is right, and that the hon. member for Marquette is trying to argue the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. When the hon. member who has the floor has finished his remarks, the hon. member for Marquette can have the floor if the Chair recognizes him. I should like to ask the hon. member for Timiskaming to address his remarks to the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on page 11 of the evidence-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order directed to the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming when he suggested that hon. members of this house are incompetent. That clearly offends standing order 35, and the long established practice that we come here and discuss our affairs as gentlemen.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, I do not say that about the members: I say it about the committee.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You said they were incompetent.


Mr. Matheson:: "Incompetent gentlemen".


Rémi Paul: I think the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming were directed to the efficiency of the committee, not of the members of the committee.


William Arnold Peters: I do not even know who the members of the committee are, Mr. Chairman. If you will check the evidence, you will find that this gentleman was born in Warsaw, Poland; that he came to Canada when he was three years of age. If you check any competent authority on domicile, you will find that the domicile of origin is the domicile in which you are born, and can be changed only by doing certain things to change it. It is also

Divorce Bills
true-the hon. member laughs. He is responsible for the committee, but obviously he has not read this bill. The law on this question says:
To everyone at birth the law ascribes a domicil of origin. This domicil clings to one through life and cannot be cast off. It may be submerged by the acquisition of a domicil of choice but it will revive upon the relinquishment of such domicil if a new domicil of choice is not immediately acquired.
Even if he had taken Canadian domicile, when he went to the United States in 1956 he would have had to take either American domicile in the state of New York or revert to his Polish domicile of birth.
Now, Mr. Chairman, knowing this, and having before them this statement presented by the solicitor for Hankowski, the Senate admitted another statement which was presented on June 13, 1961, signed by Mr. Hankowski, which is as follows:
The respondent declares that he withdraws his opposition herein and gives notice thereof to Mr. John M. Schlesinger, attorney for petitioner. The respondent moreover agrees that the domicile of the parties is in the city and district of Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, does it take much intelligence to wonder why in one month he changed his mind? He was a man who had no money and no job. He was a man considered by his wife to be a shiftless character. Why should he come back to Canada? Why should he go to his wife's lawyer's office-not his own, but his wife's-and sign a document saying that he withdrew his objection to the divorce and declared himself to have his domicile in Canada so that his wife might also have a domicile in Canada? Mr. Chairman, this could not happen in any competent court in Canada. No judge would allow it. And to make things worse, let me tell you that when the original petition was presented by the petitioner, and the secretary of the attorney for the petitioner signed this second document in Montreal on May 2, 1961, she happened to sign it "Shirley R. Taviss, commissioner of the superior court for the district of Montreal." It is a fundamental fact that no employee of one lawyer can sign a document that his employer is in all conscience interested in. Why I said that the senators should know better is that three of the four senators have had some legal training. One of them is a Q.C., which is an honour to uphold. I suggest that it is a fundamental matter when a secretary, who might have the right to commission oaths, signs a document submitted by the respondent in this case, without the lawyer for the petitioner notifying the respondent's lawyer that there is some change in instructions which was given to the secretary who administered the oath. Any court would make

this invalid. I think that every lawyer knows that, and I would ask the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Marquette, who are both lawyers, whether they disagree with this principle. They have the training which I have not had, but I would suggest that here is a flagrant case in which I can do nothing but assume from the evidence that there has been a pay-off.
I suggest that the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house have the responsibility upon them of calling this back into committee, calling in the officials and all the people connected with it, and that charges should be laid by this house in this case. Mr. Chairman, I phoned the lawyer handling the case for the respondent today, and asked him what arrangement had been made when he dropped the case. He told me that today was the first time he knew that the case had not been dropped. He said that he knew that this question of domicile was definite, and he pointed out that the Senate obviously would not handle it, and he was shocked when he found that the case had been presented to that house, had passed the Senate, and that no questions had been asked about domicile or this intervention. He did not know and was not notified that this case was coming up before the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, we are asked in another bill which is before this house to give the Senate the full responsibility for divorce. I say that not only has the Senate not the ability to handle divorce, but that this house and the Senate together have not the ability to do so. In this case-


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order-


William Arnold Peters: -it is our responsibility and privilege-


Rémi Paul: Order.


William Arnold Peters: -to do something about this question.


Rémi Paul: Order. I would ask the hon. member, when the Chair rises to its feet, please to sit down. I would ask the hon. member for Timiskaming to withdraw the last part of his remarks about the members of the Senate. I think that those remarks are out of order, and I am sure that if he refers to standing order 35 he will agree to withdraw them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any reflection on them as individuals, but I think you would have to adjudicate upon the charges I have made in this case if you were to ask me to withdraw anything more than that. If it is only as to disrespect implied to individuals, then I am quite happy to withdraw that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that rule 35 clearly states as follows:
-nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
Hence the partial retraction is not complete enough. The retraction must be of the offensive words used against the Senate as well. That point is clearly spelled out in this rule.


An hon. Member:: This is getting ridiculous.


Mr. Barnett:: I am sure these remarks were never intended to mean that members of this house could not assess the worth or otherwise of the work that is done by this house from time to time or for that matter by the other place. I feel that the hon. member is really stretching that matter to ridiculous extremes if he is trying to imply that the hon. member for Timiskaming has cast a reflection upon other members of this house or of the other place as individuals.


An hon. Member:: Did you hear him talking?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, I heard him.


Mr. Aiken:: May I ask the hon. member a question for the purpose of clarification of my own mind? He read an affidavit which I understood him to say was not anywhere in the evidence which has previously appeared. Is this correct? Is the affidavit he read today something new or was it in the original evidence?


William Arnold Peters: No. Unfortunately the part of the evidence we have before us usually is only the printed report of the committee of the other place. This is the complete file or the complete document. This was dated May 4, 1961. This was before the other place. The second document from which I read, and which I think certainly has been open to question, because of the commissioner who signed it being the secretary of the lawyer concerned for the plaintiff, was before the other place and it was signed on June 13, 1961. No new evidence has been adduced, no evidence that was not already presented in the original hearing.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If I may, presuming that the hon. member has finished, I should like to say a few words on this subject as a member of the private bills committee. Some criticism of the committee has been expressed. I am a member of that committee and I attended the sittings in which this particular divorce matter was considered. The reason I am saying this is that at that time there was present a member of the party to which the hon. member for Timiskaming belongs. At that time I particularly asked if any of the 27507-3-167
Divorce Bills
cases before us had attached to them any question of credibility. From time to time there have been raised cases such as those raised today, in which there has been some question about the reliability of evidence and the propriety of the proceedings. This question was particularly asked at that time and I was assured-and no one said otherwise-that with regard to none of the group of cases that were considered that day had any question ever been raised. Therefore the group of bills was put through.
While I am inclined to agree that, if the circumstances which have been stated are correct, perhaps there should have been second consideration of this bill, I feel that it is extremely unfortunate that the matter was not raised then, before the private bills committee. This evidence which the hon. member has produced was not before the private bills committee. It was the file that was before the Senate. I feel that it is now rather late. I do not know just what action we should take. If these statements are true, then perhaps the matter should be reconsidered.
In connection with the question of domicile, may I say that the hon. member for Timiskaming has made the matter sound terribly simple. As all of those trained in the law know very well, questions of domicile are not simple, particularly when a person has been born in Poland, resides for some time in Canada and then moves to the United States. I say that the matter is not as simple as he has stated it to be. It is an extremely complicated matter when a person has moved about and has stayed for some time in one place and another. I say that the question of domicile is one which certainly is not as simple as black and white or yes and no. If the hon. senators in the other place had all these facts before them, I believe they must have come to the conclusion that the question of domicile has been satisfactorily answered, and perhaps even without the second affidavit they would have been satisfied with the evidence that this person was actually domiciled in Canada. At this particular point in the proceedings I do not feel that we should go back, as it is not an open and shut case. It is something that has happened. Unfortunately, it was not considered in the private bills committee for the simple reason that it was never raised.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I first finish my remarks?


John Ross Matheson: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Even if the matter had been raised there, I doubt very much that the

Divorce Bills
committee would go back and reconsider the question of domicile, unless there was a fairly definite indication that something was wrong. Here was a case in which the domicile could very well have been in Canada and probably was in Canada. However, without going into a complete retrial of the matter I think we should accept the decision which was made in the other place.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask my hon. friend whether he would agree that if, in fact, there is no domicile in the province of Quebec in this particular instance, then the bill has no legal validity; that is to say, it is not entitled to international recognition and, in the event of these people subsequently marrying, any issue of these marriages would be deemed, by the rules of private international law, illegitimate? Am I not correct?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: This is a complicated hypothetical question, Mr. Chairman. What I say is this. If this parliament grants a divorce bill in Canada, it is completely effective in Canada; and I think we cannot consider too much about what will happen in other countries. That is the affair of the parties to the divorce.
I answer the hon. member in that way.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I wish to be fair to the hon. member for Timiskaming as well as to the other hon. members of this House of Commons. If the evidence is such that the matter should be referred back to the miscellaneous private bills committee I, who have the honour to be the chairman of that committee, would consent to a transfer of it there. However, I wish to state this. There are 901 divorce cases. Most of them have gone through the other place. Some must be heard. If anyone in this house or in this country expects the members of the miscellaneous private bills committee to read every file of evidence from the other place, then I will be the first one to resign and get off that committee, as it is an impossibility. We carried on the practice which has been carried on for years. There are cases in which the committee, this house and the other place have been misled. These things have happened in our courts. We had a recent case in Toronto where a decree absolute was granted and yet application was made for annulment, it was proved that the divorce was granted on perjured evidence, and the divorce was annulled.
We wish to do the right and the fair thing. I have a great deal of respect for the Senate divorce committee. Those people put in a great deal of time. I have sat in on several of their hearings and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman and the members of the committee spend more time in trying to dig into evidence and in examining

witnesses than do some of our judges in our superior courts to whom a petition is made for divorce. I have a lot of respect for their judgment, and if the odd case slips through in which there is some irregularity I do not think it is the fault of the other place or the fault of the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house. As a matter of fact, there are three members of the party to which the hon. member for Timiskaming belongs who are members of the miscellaneous private bills committee. One of them was present, and I only regret that he did not bring up this matter, if it had been drawn to his attention. I would agree to have this bill sent back to the miscellaneous private bills committee for further study if we can proceed with others and not waste any more time.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, as one of the representatives of our party on the miscellaneous private bills committee I want to say that in my opinion what we have heard in the last hour simply underlines the long held contention of certain members of our party, which is basically that the members of the private bills committees of the other place and of this house lack the energy, the technical ability and the time to deal with these cases properly. The reason that members of this party on that committee did not raise this issue in the committee is that we lacked the energy and ability at the time, and we have no confidence in that committee or in the other place with respect to dealing with these bills. I think what has just been drawn to our attention ably illustrates the correctness of our position.


Mr. Nesbiii:: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I think some hon. members have perhaps forgotten, or to which they have perhaps not paid full attention. Under the British North America Act this parliament has the power to pass any act it wishes for which authority is given under that act. The fact of the matter is that the committees of the other place and this house have normally followed certain rules regarding divorce, namely that the ground must be adultery, but I would point out that this is only a matter of custom. They have the power to grant a divorce for any reason whatsoever.
The second point has to do with the question of domicile raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. This is not a question of fact or law alone but a question of mixed law and fact. It is not the duty of this house or, indeed, of the other place, to start deciding questions of law but rather to decide questions of fact, and domicile is always a mixture of the two. In any event, parliament can grant divorce for any reason

it likes. Because of the normal custom of granting divorce for one reason only I think the point I have made may have been overlooked.


Mr. Scoli:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the bill and in so doing I should like to preface them by saying that I hope anything I say will not be construed as being disrespectful to members of the house or the committee, or members of the other place. But, Mr. Chairman, when as a member of the bar of Ontario I take a look at this bill it is really shocking to see how these matters are handled.
I agree completely with the hon. member who just spoke, that once we get into the question of divorce it does not really matter what grounds are used. He is quite correct. Within our legislative jurisdiction we can grant a divorce on any ground we like to anybody in Canada. But the hon. member had better not publicize this fact too widely or we will have thousands of these cases from every part of Canada in the next session. Many more people from all over the country will be coming to us for divorces, and if hon. members think we are tied up now, just wait a year or two and we will be dealing with nothing but divorce.
I should like to comment also on the remarks of the chairman of the committee, with which I wholly concur, when he says it is an absolute impossibility for his committee, no matter how hard working its members are, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how desirous they are of doing a good job, to deal with these bills adequately. I could not agree more. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, that is the whole point we are trying to make, and what has happened in the house this afternoon points up the absurdity of us as members of the House of Commons trying to go into matters of this kind. This is the whole purpose of our party raising this issue in the way we have. We have no desire at all to prevent people getting divorces. As far as I am concerned, I will vote for all of them as they go through. But what we are trying to point out to the house and to the country at large is the absolutely ridiculous position in which we as members of the House of Commons are placed.


Rémi Paul: Order. I think the hon. member is now discussing the procedure with respect to divorce bills generally and I would ask him to come back to the bill we are at present studying in committee.


Reid Scott: I will be very glad to do so. I have made the point I wanted to make, I will be glad to come back to the bill. When the brief that was before the other place 27507-3-167J
Divorce Bills
was first shown to me this afternoon by the hon. member for Timiskaming and he told me of his objections, I did not really think that the things he said could possibly be true. So prior to this hour arriving I had occasion to take the brief that was before the other place and to study it. I understand that this was not done in the miscellaneous private bills committee, but the hon. member for Timiskaming has raised a very grave charge to which any member of the bar in any jurisdiction would have to listen.
Let us consider what happened here, Mr. Chairman, because with all the interjections the committee may have lost sight of it. The plaintiff commenced the divorce action and her husband was served with the papers. He then went to a solicitor in Ottawa and filed a notice that he wished to contest the divorce. This was done on the 4th of May, 1961. This was then a contested divorce action. Just a month later a document is prepared and is signed by the defendant husband in which he withdraws his objection, changes his mind and says that he is now domiciled in Montreal whereas he had previously said that he had never been previously domiciled in Canada at all.
The really serious part of this matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the second document is a sworn document sworn by the secretary of the lawyer acting for the wife. There is no court anywhere in Canada that would permit this matter to go through. If in a normal court of law a contested divorce action suddenly becomes an uncontested divorce action, the judge immediately requires the plaintiff, the defendant and the lawyers to come and explain to him why all of a sudden a defended action has become an undefended action. This is just normal court procedure. But, Mr. Chairman, if a judge in any court in Canada saw that the notice withdrawing objection was sworn by the secretary of the lawyer acting for the plaintiff the matter woud likely be referred to the discipline committee of the local bar association.
There is no possibility of any court in Canada permitting a divorce of this kind to go through without a very serious investigation as to how these circumstances arose. Yet this bill was before members of the other place and was passed by them. It then went to a committee of our own house and was passed. I cast no reflection on the members of that committee because obviously they did not have the facts before them. The bill has now come back to the house. Had it not been for the industrious methods adopted by the hon. member for Timiskaming in looking into these divorce actions, taking his duty seriously and going into the evidence as we are all supposed to do, if we are going to

Divorce Bills
legislate on these matters, this very serious matter would never have come to our attention.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the other matter raised by the hon. member lor Timiskaming was that of domicile. Of course, he is quite right. There is no domicile here in the province of Quebec. The man was born in Warsaw, came to Canada for a little while and wandered around from place to place. Eventually, he ended up in Miami and from Miami he went to New York. He was served with the papers in New York, but not at the address at which he was supposed to be living, an address 17 blocks away. This may be a minor discrepancy in the papers, however. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is no domicile here at all. Perhaps we should not concern ourselves because, as the hon. member has said, we do not really have to care about domicile.
However, we are trying to point out that this bill before us has never really received the proper study and consideration to which it is entitled. The committee of the other place and the committee of this house, perhaps through no fault of their own, are just not in a position to give these matters the study they properly deserve. My hon. friend says we should not concern ourselves with points of law. However, we are forced to do so. We are put in the position of being judges when these matters come before us, and we must consider them in that capacity.
Before I sit down, I should like to inquire of the chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills if he is prepared to move a motion that this bill be referred back to that committee for further study. I would be glad if he would do so, otherwise I would do so.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the hon. member.


Reid Scott: I was saying that the chairman of the house committee was good enough to indicate earlier that, in view of the issues we have raised, he would be prepared to move that this bill be referred back to the miscellaneous private bills committee. I wanted to extend him the courtesy of doing that, rather than moving it myself.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I shall so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Depuiy Chairman: I believe that this committee should carry the bill and then before the bill is read a third time it will be in order to move an amendment to the effect that the bill be referred back to the

miscellaneous private bills committee. I think it is the desire of the committee to follow this procedure.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you cannot know what went on in committee of the whole. There was an undertaking that if this bill were proceeded with to third reading today, there would be a motion that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. I assume the hon. member for Marquette is going to make that motion.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: That is quite right; I move that the bill be referred to the miscellaneous private bills committee, before receiving third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the proper procedure would be for the hon. member for Marquette to move the third reading and then an amendment could be put by someone that the bill be referred back to the committee, pursuant to citation 416, I think it is.
Mr. Mandziuk thereupon moved the third reading of the bill.


Reid Scott: I move:
That the bill be not now read the third time but that the said bill be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills for reconsideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I find some difficulty with the wording of the hon. member's amendment. I think the amendment should be that after the word "be" in the motion the following words be deleted and there be substituted therefor, "referred back to the miscellaneous private bills committee".
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) in amendment:
That the bill be referred back to the miscellaneous private bills committee.
The question is on the amendment. Is it agreed?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the main motion is now that the bill be referred back to the committee. Is it agreed?
Motion as amended agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that it is now one minute to six, I will call it six

o'clock. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
(Translation):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168, 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225, loans investments and advances item L20, $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
At six o'clock the committee took recess. (Text):

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose I had been talking about the Columbia river treaty. I said that it was an improvident treaty. I said that it assigned to Canada the job of storing vast quantities of water while effectively depriving us of the right to use the waters of the Columbia, not only for the purpose of generating electric power but also for industrial and agricultural purposes. I said the treaty would stunt the agricultural and industrial development of British Columbia, and indeed of the prairie provinces, not just for years to come but for generations to come. I pointed out that under successive governments Canadians have given up control over their resources, over their minerals, over their oil, over their manufacturing industries, over their savings; and now
Interim Supply
this government proposes that Canadians should give up control over their water resources in an area, the Columbia river basin, occupying 40,000 square miles.
The government has already signed this treaty. It has not yet brought it before the House of Commons for ratification. We in the New Democratic party can assure the government that when it is brought before the House of Commons, unless the government makes out a case, which so far is lacking, to justify this treaty, a case which no member of the ministry so far during this parliament has made any attempt to adumbrate to the house, the members of this party will resist the treaty. There is no question about that.
Under the old Liberal government Canadians were simply hewers of wood and drawers of water. The old Liberal government was the government in power when Canadians gave up control over their key industries and key resources to United States interests. No one can say that things have not changed under the Conservative government. Our function under the Columbia river treaty is one of storage. We are going to store the water of the Columbia river basin, water which will be used for agricultural and industrial development in the United States. Under the Conservative government we have become hewers of wood and storers of water.
For too many years we in Canada have been giving up control over Canada itself. There is really no necessity, I suppose, to recapitulate to members of the committee what has happened. We no longer control our own oil; the United States does. We no longer control our own mineral resources; the United States does. We do not control any longer our automobile manufacturing industry; the United States does. We do not control our appliance industry; the United States does. We do not even control our own savings any more: the great financial institutions of this country, the mortgage companies, the insurance companies, the investment companies are under control of United States interests.
To a great extent this has happened by default. The old Liberal government, and the same is true of the present government, did nothing to encourage the generation of Canadian capital. They did nothing to expand Canadian ownership. They did nothing to discourage the acquisition of Canadian resources by United States interests.
It is true that these developments took place in the private sector of the economy.

Interim Supply
But in the case of the Columbia river treaty- which we contend is nothing more or less than a gigantic give-away of the control over the water of a whole river basin-there can be no excuse. The government is not dealing here with a development that has taken place in the private sector of the economy; the government is dealing here with a public resource. For the government to retain control over the water resources of the Columbia river basin would not entail any encroachment on private enterprise; it would not impair the right of businessmen, leaders of industry and the like, to carry on their operations as they saw fit. In this case it is a situation where the government has complete control and, in my submission, complete responsibility for what happens to the water resources of the Columbia river.
In this case this is what the government is doing: In the past Canadians, through the failure of previous governments to act, have given up control over their oil, their mineral resources, their agricultural resources, over resources of every type and variety. But this is the first time that we are actually giving up control over a whole river basin. This, I suggest, constitutes some kind of a record, a record of which this government should not be proud.
Let me tell the members of the committee what this treaty does. Let me inform the members of the committee why the members of the New Democratic party oppose this treaty. Let us take a look at the treaty. I have said that Canada's only function under this treaty is to build storage dams. That is mandatory under article II of the treaty. I notice that the Minister of Public Works has joined us this evening, and he may deal with this subject if he decides to defend the treaty, if he can. It is true that the treaty provides for the development of power at Mica creek. This is the one dam where there will be generating capacity developed in Canada. But because the treaty prevents us from diverting the waters of the Kootenay river into the Columbia river the potential generating capacity of the Mica creek dam is markedly reduced. I suggest it is unlikely that if this treaty is proceeded with the Mica creek dam will ever be built. Under the treaty, if there is any delay in building these storage dams and, I repeat it is mandatory that we build these dams-


Mr. Fulion:: Has the hon. member read the treaty? If he has, does he not admit that the treaty specifically gives us the right to divert the waters of the Kootenay river into the Columbia river in stages, should we wish to do so?


Thomas Rodney Berger: I have read the treaty. The minister will admit, I think, that we cannot achieve any substantial diversion until 60 years have passed.


Mr. Fulton:: In 20 years we can divert
1,500,000	acre-feet per annum. After 60 and 80 years respectively we can divert practically the whole river.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you would protect me from this attempt of the minister to invade the time at my disposal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then tell the truth about the treaty.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I am telling the truth about the treaty if the minister will contain himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely there will be ample opportunity for members to speak in this debate. We have been trying to get this minister on his feet for a long time. I suggest the minister ought to obey the rules of this house as much as any private member.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I was about to tell the minister that the only dam where we can generate hydroelectric power in Canada under this treaty is the Mica creek dam and because we are prevented for all practical purposes from diverting the waters of the Kootenay to the Columbia the capacity for generating hydroelectric power at Mica creek is markedly reduced. I suggest that if this treaty is proceeded with, the Mica creek dam will never be built. I was about to put this consideration before the minister-that in this treaty the only thing that is mandatory is the construction of the three storage dams in Canada. It is not mandatory to build dams which will create generating capacity in Canada. If we are behind schedule in the construction of these dams we are to be penalized and deprived of the downstream benefits, the right to share the additional capacity which would result in the United States from storage in Canada.
Under this treaty we have tied our hands regarding the future development not only of the Columbia river but of two other rivers of this country, the Kootenay river and the Fraser river.
Hon. members who were here this afternoon heard a speech by one of my hon. friends who is more familiar with the problems of the Columbia river basin than any other member of the house. I refer to the hon. member for Kootenay West. The house will recall his reference to the boundary waters treaty of 1909. Article II of that treaty, which is most significant for Canadians to consider when they are contemplating the use of their water resources, provides that Canada and

the United States shall have exclusive use and control over all waters that each country has on its own side of the border.
So Canada has the exclusive right to use and to divert the waters of the Columbia river. As Mr. James Ripley, an engineer who is probably proved better qualified to speak on the Columbia river treaty than anyone else, except, perhaps, General McNaughton, has said, the key to the development of the Columbia is diversion. And we have deprived ourselves of the right to divert the waters of three rivers under this treaty.
Under the McNaughton plan, which the government abandoned at the behest of the government of British Columbia, the door would have been left open for the future development of the power of the Columbia river at Mica creek as well as for the development in the perhaps not too distant future of the hydroelectric potential of the Fraser river and the development of the prairie provinces through the utilization of the waters of the Columbia river.
The McNaughton plan kept the door open to all of these things. It provided for the diversion of the waters of the Kootenay to the Columbia. This would have enabled Canada to generate enormous hydroelectric power at Mica creek. The McNaughton plan left the door open for the diversion of the waters of the Kootenay and the Columbia to the prairie provinces for industrial and agricultural purposes, and it left the door open to the diversion of the waters of the Columbia into the Fraser. This is not a practical question at the moment because the Fraser river must be left free of dams to enable salmon to get up river and down river. But it might not be very many years before we achieve a break through and find a way of enabling fish to get round hydroelectric dams. When that day comes, when it is possible for us to develop the hydroelectric potential of the Fraser by diverting the waters of the Columbia river, we shall find we cannot go ahead with it because we are prevented under the terms of this treaty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We shall be able to do so.


Thomas Rodney Berger: The minister will have an opportunity later in the evening to reply to what has been said.
Let us consider these downstream benefits. I am still not sure what the position of the government is-whether they think these downstream benefits should be returned to us in the form of power or whether we should accept a cash payment for them. For that matter I am not sure what position the province of British Columbia has taken. But in any case under the terms of the present treaty these benefits will disappear as the
Interim Supply
years go by. Under the present treaty, Canada is to share the additional power which will be generated downstream in the United States as the result of the additional storage created in Canada. But as the United States brings in additional sources of power, as atomic power is generated-and there is an important development in the field of atomic power taking place today in the northwestern United States -Canada's share of the downstream benefits will decline. This is the opinion expressed by Mr. Ripley and other experts. As the years go by, the downstream benefits will diminish until they no longer exist. This is something which the committee should consider very seriously.
When I indicated that the prospects are that the requirements of the United States for hydroelectric power will diminish, I was thinking of the world's largest atomic plant already under construction at Hanford, Washington, where atomic power will be produced as early as 1964. Yet this government tells us we have a long term prospect of getting downstream benefits. I say these benefits are going to diminish. They are not downstream benefits, they are dubious benefits.
Why is the government now ready to proceed with the sale of the downstream benefits in accordance with the wishes of the government of British Columbia? The government was adamant before June 18 on this particular subject. After that we had austerity, a dollar crisis, and the government needed United States dollars badly. Then the government changed its position and was ready to agree to the sale of downstream benefits of the Columbia to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the only conclusion we can come to is that this government, so badly in need of American dollars, simply decided to change its policy and decided to sell the downstream benefits to the United States in order to get the dollars to pay off the mortgage Canada owes to United States interests. In 1961 the sum of $700 million in profits and dividends went from Canada to the United States. This is the reason for the dollar crisis. This is the reason for the balance of payments crisis. And this has happened because United States interests have a mortgage on Canadian resources. How did this government propose to pay that mortgage off? They chose what I suggest is the wrong way, the worst way, to pay it off: they decided to pay off this mortgage against Canadian resources by giving up control over the waters of a 40,000 square mile river basin, waters which would enable us to develop the agricultural and industrial potential of that area, which in turn might eventually enable

Interim Supply
us to pay off this mortgage. The government is simply paying off this mortgage by taking out another mortgage.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the members of this party are pleased to see the Minister of Public Works here this evening to defend the treaty, if it is defensible, which I doubt. As a matter of fact, when the Minister of Public Works recently decided to undertake a new venture into a new field of political activity in my home province of British Columbia-and I am sure hon. members from British Columbia are to some extent unhappy that his distinguished parliamentary career is coming to an end-some people said that he was leaving a sinking ship. His presence here tonight means, I take it, that he has decided to stay aboard long enough to man the pumps with his colleagues, at least for a decent interval.
I said that what the government was proposing to do under this treaty was to give away a river. Mr. Ripley has said that if we proceed with this treaty we would lose control of the waters of the Columbia river forever. This is the statement not of a member of the New Democratic party, not of a controversial military man, but of a man who took the trouble to find out what was going on in the Columbia river basin, and who took the trouble to find out what the treaty was all about. He discovered that if the Columbia river treaty were proceeded with it would deprive Canadians of control of the waters of the Columbia river basin forever. These are the waters on which the people of the Columbia river basin depend for their livelihood. Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that water is an increasingly valuable commodity today. The demand for water for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes is increasing more rapidly than demand for any other commodity. Yet our government proposes to give up control over the waters of the Columbia river basin.
Let me demonstrate, if I can, to the members of this committee what it is the government is trying to do. Suppose that the government signed a treaty with a foreign country which gave to that foreign country control over the waters of the province of Newfoundland. I would remind hon. members that the province of Newfoundland is
40,000	square miles in area, equivalent to the area of the Columbia river basin. Suppose the government signed a treaty giving up control over the waters of Newfoundland.


Mr. McGrath:: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt him at this point?


Thomas Rodney Berger: I would rather he waited till I had finished.


James Aloysius McGrath: I just wanted to correct the record. The area of Newfoundland covers
155,000	square miles, not 40,000.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I think the hon. member has a point there. I meant the island of Newfoundland is 40,000 square miles in area.
I pointed out that this is equivalent to the area of the Columbia river basin, and if this government proposed to sign a treaty giving up control over the waters of Newfoundland,
I think there would be great resistance to this, not only from members of all parties from that province, but even perhaps the premier of Newfoundland himself would object to it. If that happened surely everybody would be made to see the foolishness, the recklessness and the improvidence of taking such a step, a step which could only have the worst possible consequences for the people of that province. And in the case of the Columbia river basin, this treaty would be the worst possible step to take for the people in that basin, in British Columbia, and in all Canada for that matter.
But that is what is happening. That is precisely what the government is proposing to do. I do not know whether hon. members from Newfoundland would oppose such a step if the government proposed to take it, but I can assure the Minister of Public Works that the members of the New Democratic party from British Columbia are going to oppose this treaty, because it is just as extravagant a mistake as it would be to give up control over the waters of the province of Newfoundland.
I suggest that when the minister tells us why the government is proceeding with this treaty, when he tells us when the government is going to bring the treaty before the external affairs committee of this house, when he tells us when we will get a chance to debate it as a matter of government business, we will look forward to hearing him.
The members of this party do not take a negative attitude towards this problem. We believe that the government ought to renegotiate the treaty and ought to adopt the McNaughton plan. The McNaughton plan was at one stage agreed to by the members of the international joint commission, both Canadian members and United States members. If the government had stood up to the government of the province of British Columbia at that time, we could have had a treaty based on the McNaughton plan which would enable Canadians to develop the full hydroelectric potential of the Columbia river basin, and enable us to retain control over the waters of the Columbia river basin. It would also have been a treaty which would have been fair to the United States, because they

agreed to it before this government gave in to the demands of the premier of British Columbia and abandoned it in favour of the reckless and improvident treaty which the government have already signed with the government of the United States.
We suggest to the government that there is still time to rectify this mistake. There is still time to renegotiate the treaty on the basis of the McNaughton plan. The members of this party urge the government to take the necessary steps before it is too late to renegotiate this treaty. We can assure the government that if it will undertake to renegotiate it and to adopt the McNaughton plan, and persuade the Americans, who I believe can be persuaded, to go back to the McNaughton plan, it can be assured that in that endeavour it will have the support of the members of the New Democratic party in the House of Commons.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Public Works is in his seat this evening. We of the Liberal party have taken note that he is shortly leaving for greener fields-greener in the sense that he is leaving for the land of the evergreen forests. We wish him well. We wish him health and happiness but, of course, nothing more.
In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, we think there are a few questions that the minister should be required to answer with respect to the draft Columbia river treaty which he signed in Washington on January 17, 1961.
Feeling as strongly as we did, the leader of the official opposition on Friday last moved to adjourn the house in order to discuss this very urgent matter. Through the press, the radio and television we had determined that the minister was accepting another position and that he expected to wind up his affairs in the department in a few weeks. Through questions in the house over the past several weeks we had determined that there was no real reason why this treaty should not be before the House of Commons or a committee of the House of Commons in order that inquiries may be made, so that we may determine the actual facts of the treaty, and that witnesses may be called. I refer to witnesses who have had experience with this matter of anywhere from six months to 12 years. We noted that the minister had written a letter to the editor of the Engineering and Contract Record in which he answered or purported to answer a number of charges which were made by General A. G. L. McNaughton who for many years had been chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission. In that letter the minister had this to say:
27507-3-168
Interim Supply
I am sure that it will be desired to investigate every aspect of the treaty and obtain the views of all persons concerned with it. I should myself appear in such a case-
He is speaking, of course, of a committee of the House of Commons or in parliament. He stated further:
A debate about his contentions could be particularly regarded as being within the special purview of parliament and the government's responsibility to parliament.
The minister as the chief negotiator for the government of Canada, the minister responsible to Canada for the treaty is leaving the house. We believe this is an urgent matter. Certainly the urgency of the entire settlement of the treaty is not to be taken lightly.
I had the experience of sitting on the other side of the house in 1955 when the government of the day undertook to block what we considered to be a sell-out of the Columbia river basin to United States private interests. The minister supported the government of the day when the government brought in the International River Improvements Act. Since the signing of this agreement I have stated publicly that it is my opinion that the Columbia river treaty is less acceptable than was the Kaiser deal. This I believe to be a fact. I am not going into the details of the treaty. My friend the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has gone into the details. Some of the members of the New Democratic party have gone into many of the details.


Mr. McGee:: The hon. member does not know the details.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member would speak up a little bit more loudly, I would perhaps be able to hear him.


Frank Charles McGee: I am suggesting that the hon. member does not know the details.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member wishes to find out whether I know something about the details, I suggest that he ask his minister to put this matter before a committee where we shall have plenty of time to discuss it. Then there will be no question about whether or not we have any knowledge. My time is limited and I have other things to discuss.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In our series of questions over the past several weeks the minister finally came up with this statement, as found at page 2178 of Hansard:
All I can say is that at the time the treaty was signed there was no disagreement that was apparent: that every step had been taken to ensure unanimity including the writing of a letter formally

Interim Supply
to Mr. Williston enclosing the text of the treaty, advising him that the treaty was to be signed and that it would be signed in Washington,-
Then he goes on to say this:
So it was presumed, and I think it was a justifiable presumption that it was signed with the knowledge and approval of the government of British Columbia.
We certainly hope that was the case. For that matter the actual details of the building of the dam, the sale of the downstream benefits, the actual financing of the various construction projects were not necessary. It was not necessary to have these details worked out before the agreement is ratified. The very agreement itself in article 8 states that this may be done or shall be done soon after the ratification of the agreement by both governments. Hence in our opinion there is no reason why this matter should not at this moment be before a committee of the House of Commons. However, was there full agreement between the minister or the federal government and the provincial government? In a letter written December 14, 1960, to Mr. Fleming, Mr. Bennett, the premier of British Columbia, had this to say:
The financial proposals put forward by the government of Canada for hydroelectric development of the Columbia river are, regrettably, unacceptable to British Columbia. In order that there will be no delay in carrying out the development, however, British Columbia is prepared to guarantee Canada that this government will fulfil the terms of the treaty which is negotiated with the government of the United States.
Of a further letter from the Minister of Public Works on January 9, written to the premier of British Columbia, in speaking to the House of Commons on the treaty he had this to say, as found at page 4657 of Hansard of May 11, 1961:
I advised him on January 9 that the government of Canada in considering the treaty would act on the assumption that British Columbia was in accord with its terms. I also advised him that, if approved, we would sign it on January 16-
Hence there was really no measure of agreement with respect to the financing of the treaty any more than there is at this stage. It is my belief and the belief of many others that there was a measure of very great haste in the last few months of the negotiations. It will be remembered that the Canadian team consisted first of the minister himself, who has been described by some of the Conservative papers as a brilliant young man. With that I am prepared to agree in that he is a Rhodes scholar; but he is not a hydroelectric engineer and I am sure he has had very little training in engineering. Then there was Mr. Robertson, deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources. I question whether he has any training in electrical engineering or hydro

development. Another member of the team was Mr. Ritchie of the Department of External Affairs, a man with very little knowledge of hydroelectric development. Finally, there was Mr. Bassett, the deputy minister of lands and forests of the province of British Columbia.
On the negotiating team for the United States there was Mr. Bennett, assistant secretary of the department of the interior of the United States. In this capacity he has been working on power system administration for many years. He heads the branch that deals with and sells all federally generated power in the United States including such projects as the Tennessee valley authority, the Bonneville power administration and so forth. General Istchner has been concerned with the Columbia river since early 1950. He is chief of the army engineers and head of the Pacific northwest division of the corps of army engineers, in which region the Columbia river is situated. In addition to being chief of the corps of army engineers he held the position of head of the United States section of the international Columbia engineering board, and he entered into the negotiations with complete and comprehensive knowledge of the subject. At present he is in India for the international bank supervising construction of the multimillion dollar Indus project.
These are the teams that came face to face in a highly technical discussion. Soon after the teams got to work it would appear, as I think the minister will agree, that they had come almost to the point of signing an agreement based on the original international joint commission principles which in effect comprise the present McNaughton plan. They were about to sign what is now considered the McNaughton plan when Premier Bennett of British Columbia or one of his negotiators walked into the negotiations, pulled the rug out from under their feet and said that there would be no flooding of the Kootenays. This was the first doublecross.
After having established that the McNaughton plan could not be accepted by the provincial government and after reaching a point where they were again about to sign an agreement, the correspondence began regarding the financing of the project.


Mr. Clancy:: What do you suggest? Get to the point.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I maintain that this was something contrived in haste.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Get to the point.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps the hon. member would contain himself and look after the St. Mary's project in his constituency. If he wants to

hear more about this matter he should endeavour to have the treaty placed before a committee so that we can hear all sides of the question.


Barry Mather: I rise on a point of order. In fairness to the speaker I think it should be said that we on this side of the house have difficulty in hearing him because of the noise that is going on. I should like a little more quiet so that we can understand better what he is saying.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This is the first time I have heard any complaints about not being heard in the house. I think there may be reasons for the noise in the house this evening, although I do not know. The noise may be more excessive than usual but I am sure I am speaking in good voice.
The minister will admit that the rug was pulled out from under the feet of the negotiators. There was a doublecross. They had reached the point of signing on the new terms when something else broke loose in Victoria, shall I say, and a new obstacle was put forward. Some of us believe that the obstacle was put forward to prevent a real economic development of the Columbia in order to make the Peace river project more acceptable. This is a side issue, but there are many who believe this is the actual reason for the second doublecross.
Despite all this disagreement the minister said in one of his letters that he felt it was imperative that there should be agreement between British Columbia and Canada. However, the time was drawing near when the then president of the United States was about to retire and apparently it was thought that it would be a very great mark in the history and development of Canadian-American relations if the Prime Minister of Canada were to go to the United States and sign this agreement before President Eisenhower withdrew from public life. In fact, I might go so far as to say that the situation was almost as mixed up as a dog's breakfast. Nevertheless it was decided to rush down to Washington and sign the agreement at all costs.
I was not a member of the house at the time the Prime Minister returned here on January 18, 1961, after signing the agreement but I can almost hear his sepulchral tones as he described the signing of this momentous agreement on the eve of the departure of President Eisenhower from public life. He went on to speak of the invitation to a reception at the White House and said in part, as found on page 1159 of Hansard:
That fact gives it emphasis. During the course of our stay there the Minister of Justice-
27507-3-1681
Interim Supply
Now Minister of Public Works.
-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.
The last supper. This is the most expensive last supper, Mr. Chairman, that has been indulged in during our generation. As I have said earlier, this is a poor agreement, a poorer arrangement for Canada than was the old Kaiser deal, the deal that was blocked by the International River Improvements Act. I believe it is wrong. I believe this treaty should be renegotiated.
There are any number of reasons for renegotiating it and there is one reason that I have not heard mentioned in the house, although it might have escaped my notice. I believe the senior member for the Kootenays did mention the fact there had been no definitive decision concerning the feasibility of the base for a dam on the High Arrow. Of course, the High Arrow is the crux of this treaty. Under the treaty we accept full responsibility for maintaining the project. The High Arrow dam will hold back some 20 billion tons of water. Mr. Deane, a professional engineer in the west Kootenay, writing in the Nelson daily News, had this to say:
-since foundation conditions at High Arrow have turned out to be worse than hoped for at the time of drafting the treaty, Canada should re-open negotiations with the U.S. to find alternatives which do not force B.C. and Canada into such an uncertain engineering and financial gamble. The Mica dam site, in contrast to High Arrow, is considered ideal for a large storage dam with rock extending right across the river channel, at shallow depth, allowing the dam to be completely founded on rock.
This is one reason why the agreement should be renegotiated. There is no reason in the world why this agreement should not be brought before the House of Commons at this time to determine whether or not it is feasible or whether this parliament is prepared to accept it. The day after the Prime Minister returned to the house, he was questioned by the Leader of the Opposition. This question appears on page 1166 of Hansard for January 18, 1961, and I quote:
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.
Of course, it would have been unusual if the Prime Minister had admitted at that time there was even a suggestion there should be an agreement with British Columbia before this parliament dealt with the matter. He had

Interim Supply
just left a dinner at the White House after signing this agreement. Then, nine or ten months later he finally said we would have to have an agreement with the province of British Columbia before the matter was referred to a commons committee.
This matter could come before the committee now. However, we might have a third parliament before this treaty comes before a committee of this house. This is the second parliament since the treaty was signed, and there will probably be a third. I am afraid that the minister himself, because of his resignation from the cabinet, will not be in a position to sign it. I feel quite confident that no one on that side of the house will ever ratify the agreement.


Frank Charles McGee: Before the hon. member takes his seat, I wonder if he would tell that funny story about the last supper again? Some of us did not quite appreciate the humour.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member repeat his question?
(Translation):


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in the debate. However, after listening to some of the statements made this afternoon, I feel it is my duty to make a few remarks. I wish to assure you, however, that I will not be long.
We are asked to approve interim supply in order, we are told, to pay the civil servants, and we will be asked later to vote supplementary estimates for the Canadian National Railways.
Mr. Chairman, when will this patchwork system come to an end?
I admit that I have barely three months' experience but if anybody other than the federal government were administered in this way, I am convinced, on account of my business experience, that the country would be driven to utter bankruptcy on short notice.
Mr. Chairman, if there is one body in the world which must have a clearly determined and very precise budget, it is the government of Canada.
Whereas we expected to find an accurate bookkeeping with specific items for such a month, such a week or such a day, we are in presence of the greatest administrative jumble ever seen. Enormous expenditures are made in all fields and, then we are told in the house that more money is needed to pay unforeseen expenses.
As an example, I shall give the specific case of the C.N.R. to which the government is constantly giving money. Now, representatives of the two old line parties find it strange

that Social Crediters should ask questions in committee, because they want to know what use was made of the $50 million passed unanimously in previous years.
Moreover, our group wants to know what use will be made, or rather has already been made, of the further amount of $20 million that we are being asked to vote today, because we are sure that those $20 million have already been spent.
Besides, those questions will remain unanswered like all those we have asked on financial matters.
As a matter of fact, when it is a matter of providing credit to the C.N.R. or to any department concerned with top administration, a wall of silence that a private member is unable to penetrate, is seen rising between the administrators and the government.
Now, we see again today, like this afternoon, some Liberal puppets play their comedy, and cry shame to the Conservatives who grant over $130 million per year to the C.N.R. in order to help this crown corporation wage an unfair war against all our organized truckers across Canada.
The Liberals say that the government wants to bankrupt private enterprise. The jokers forget that in 1957, for instance, as shown at page 3313 of Hansard for April 5, 1957-I believe the Liberals were in office at that time-they voted C.N.R. grants in excess of $318,700,000 to enable it to wage its war against the truckers' association. Those are amounts which supported the fight against the truckers' association.
And now these people pose here as defenders of private enterprise. What a joke, Mr. Chairman.
I am not against giving some assistance since our Social Credit principle is that the government should not exist to give prodigally to all organizations but to give reasonable assistance.
But when such assistance is of such magnitude, when it replaces any efforts those industries should make to help themselves, I consider this kind of assistance harmful even for the companies. Because if you take a man and give him enough money to live without having to lift a finger, you will be rendering this man the greatest disservice. The same goes for the large industries which receive more and more every day from the government to make up for their deficits.
If we have so much money to give away, Mr. Chairman, let us do it as a really democratic government. Let us do it in the

interests of the people who have elected us the same as they did you. Let us give assistance to heads of families, to their children who are awaiting our legislation, instead of laughing and joking.
I expected to find in this house a group of seriously dedicated men. I was most disappointed. What did I find? I did not find administrators, I did not find men who came here to prepare the budget the people have been expecting for over a year. We find here electoral jokers aping puppets and playing politics.
That is why we have in some instances supported this government, because we came here to act in all sincerity. We came here not to launch an election after one or two months. We came here, members of the Liberal party, to administer this country.
What is administration? Administration is to foresee, to prepare legislation so as to put bread on the table of our Canadian families tomorrow.
As for yourselves, you came here to play politics, and to chant: let us go to the country, let us go the country.
We came here to administer the affairs of the country, and this we will do as long as we feel like it, by fastening you to your seats. You will have to stay there and to put up with us.
Mr. Chairman, if the government have so much money, let them fill up the unemployment insurance commission fund_____


An hon. Member:: With what?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -in order to enable-


An hon. Member:: We will tell you.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: If you do not know, others do and you will just have to learn it.
Mr. Chairman, let them fill up the unemployment insurance commission fund so as to make for a more equitable distribution of unemployment insurance benefits.
I should like to say a few words on the Unemployment Insurance Act. It seems that the act has been drafted, not to protect certain groups of people, but to take away the unemployment insurance contributions which they made while they were working.
I want to deal especially with the problems concerning our woodsmen. Mr. Chairman,
I am not joking, although I see some hon. members grinning stupidly on my right.
I am not joking. This is too serious.
I wish to tell the house about one case concerning unemployment insurance, but there are 40 or 50 such instances in my riding.
Interim Supply
Many farmers of my district must go in the woods during the winter because they are unable to support their families on their income alone. Everybody understands that, and those who are interested in my area know that farmers have to spend five or six months in the woods every year. I have here a letter from one of my constituents. I shall not read it to you, but it is pathetic. He is the father of eight children, he owns eight milch cows, and every fall, he has to take to the woods.
It is his wife-stop laughing, because you also have wives-who has to look after the animals in the winter, do the chores and milk the cows. This is nothing to be ashamed of- you surely drink milk-but his wife has to do that. The man has to stay away working in lumber camps for six months.
On the first day, Mr. Chairman, his unemployment insurance booklet is taken away from him and, during the six months he is going to spend in the woods, stamps are affixed in it. He comes back in the spring and goes to the unemployment insurance office only to find he is not entitled to benefits because-


An hon. Member:: It is in another riding.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, it is not in another riding. Look at what is going on in your own and you will see how painful it is. As for me, I know the people, I get around in my riding.
That man, three years in a row, did the same thing each spring. He thought the law was the same for him as for the others. So, when spring came around, he reported to his office and got his unemployment insurance benefits. Now, his whole case is being re-examined. And there are fifty such cases in my riding. All are being reviewed. And, after three years, that farmer is being told to pay back $2,700 before the month of March. The sum of $2,700 is being claimed from him. He was informed in writing by a lawyer, if you please. He was then forced to sell his cattle and all his machinery to pay off and had still $784 to pay. He got another letter from the lawyer whose cost he had to pay, which made a total of $870.
The man became a labourer and it so happens that his salary was seized. He does not even have enough money to support his eight children.


Rémi Paul: I am most interested in the remarks of the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) but unfortunately I can scarcely hear him. I would ask the members of the committee to co-operate and invite them to tone down their private discussions in order

Interim Supply
to allow the hon. member to proceed with his observations. Surely the members will understand and I thank them for their co-operation.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. Fortunately there are still intelligent people in this house.
I have only quoted this as an example. I have written to the Minister of Labour in this regard, but I know he is not acquainted with all such cases, and I am sure that he will examine the situation with great care, for I am told that there are cases of that kind not only in my constituency but in every constituency, Mr. Chairman.
We are here in order to work in the interest of the people. First, we have to discover the diseases from which the people are suffering because to cure the ill, a precise diagnosis must be made in the first place. That is the reason why I pointed it out to the house.
If it is money which is lacking in the unemployment insurance fund, we only have to provide the necessary amount so that the farmers may get the products which will allow them to live like human beings, instead of taking away from them the assets which they took 30 years to build.
If I mention this situation, it is because the related facts are absolutely true.
It is possible to improve their condition through unemployment insurance. I beg of you not to deal lightly with this matter but to take the humanitarian action the people expect of all the hon. members.
With regard to the second point, I shall be brief. If, after having made up the shortfall in the unemployment insurance fund, we still have money-we should have money, for, since I have been here, millions have been paid out without anybody knowing for what purpose-we shall have at least the satisfaction of knowing to what end it has been employed, because the benefits will be felt throughout the population.
We have only to increase the number of projects in the winter works program, which are a great help in some areas. It is just a palliative, but it is better than nothing. Let us double the amount for winter works, to help all our unemployed survive this offseason of four months without too much hardship.
We hope that the government and all hon. members, when those items are discussed in the house, will feel duty bound to make a thorough study of this and to take serious action for the benefit of all our people.


Mr. Drouin:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Vincent Drouin: How can the hon. member explain to the people at home that he voted to keep in power a Conservative government which wants them to give back the unemployment insurance benefits they received under a Liberal administration?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Standing orders
prohibit all comments on the way an hon. member voted, either in the house or in committee. For that reason, I declare the question out of order.
(Text):


Mr. Stewart:: This evening we are being asked to vote ten twelfths of the fiscal requirements for 1962-63. Nevertheless, we have had before this house in committee only one of the estimates for the fiscal year. This is the kind of financial mismanagement which would be intolerable on any farm, in any university or, certainly, in any business concern. Consequently, when the motion is made that the tenth twelfth of the requirement for the present fiscal year be granted, I have serious doubts that I should vote affirmatively.
Having said this, I want to talk this evening about three specific matters that concern eastern agriculture. These are matters which cause doubt to arise in the minds of many people in this country; and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will want to come into this committee before this motion is voted on and try to still the doubts which persist in my own mind and, I think, in the minds of many others on these points.
First, there is the question of the reduction in the assistance for lime. In the original estimates for the present year, $2,640,000 was provided for this important form of assistance. That sum has now been cut to $1,608,900. As hon. members know, the liming of land makes a very important contribution to its fertility. We have had some difficulty in accustoming some farmers to the use of lime, and anything that interrupts this practice in any degree is to be deplored. The government's decision to reduce assistance in this instance is, I think, to be deplored. This decision is especially surprising when we have on the statute books of this country an act passed in the 1960-61 session, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, which in one of its sections provides that the minister may make agreements with the provinces, involving the expenditure of money, for projects for soil improvement and conservation which will improve agricultural efficiency in a province, or in any area thereof specified in the agreement. In other words, in the 1960-61 session there was placed on the statute books of this country an act with a certain aim, and now within the past few months this government proposes to take

action that is directly contrary to the purpose of that recently-made statute. There is a kind of contradiction there, a kind of irresponsibility, which I think ought to be explained to this committee before this present motion passes.
The second matter that raises doubts is the question of the premium subsidy on hogs. We are not talking here about a mere temporary hardship for farmers. This premium was introduced not as an immediate assistance to the agricultural sector of our population, but, as I understand it, as part of a general policy. The policy was that by giving these premiums the quality of hogs would be improved. As you know, sir, this is the kind of policy that has to be pursued consistently if it is going to be effective. Now, suddenly, when we have encouraged our farmers along certain lines of thinking, and have led them to believe that the government of this country approves those lines of thinking, we give them what I think the psychologists would call "negative reinforcement" by reducing this premium. Not only that, sir, but this premium was supposed to permit us to retain, and indeed to develop, markets for our agricultural products in certain parts of the United States and to help us retain our own domestic market for pork products.
It is said that Canadian bacon is among the best in the world. We have been trying to expand our production so that the quality of our bacon will become known to larger and larger numbers of people. Our hope, I believe, was that by selling more bacon abroad and by supplying more of our domestic market, we would improve somewhat our balance of payments position. It would be no vast contribution to this generally difficult problem, but it would be something of a help. But now, sir, without any very great saving in money, this premium subsidy on hogs has been cut back quite sharply, and in a quite unpredictable manner. This has worked great hardship, not only for the farmers, but for the whole agricultural sector of our national economy. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture will want to tell the committee before this motion passes what is the basic, fundamental, and justifying reason for this change, other than the mere notion that every sector of the nation should contribute to balancing the budget.
Mr. Chairman, there is a third reason in this field of agriculture why I am hesitant about supporting the motion now before the committee. I refer to the hardship caused to many maritime farmers by the strange application made by the Minister of Agriculture of the regulations concerning freight assistance on corn. You may recall, sir, that on April 16, 1962, in response to requests made
Interim Supply
by various farm organizations during a period of many months, the government, because of the shortage of western feedstuffs, on which freight assistance normally would be paid, made shipments of corn into the maritime provinces eligible for freight assistance on a temporary basis. During September, 1962, it became evident that western feedstuffs from the 1962 crop would not be available in the maritimes until some time about the first or the middle of the month of November. Consequently, the Minister of Agriculture was asked to extend this special and temporary corn subsidy for one month; that is, until the end of October, 1962. This the minister decided not to do, on the ground that sufficient feed grains had been moved into maritime positions to meet the foreseeable needs in those provinces until such time as western feed grains had become available there.
Unfortunately, it appears that the minister did not put himself in possession of certain important facts before making this serious decision.
I am informed that in July, 1962, a shipload of corn was landed at the Halifax elevator, and that this shipment filled much of the space available for domestic storage in that elevator. It was held there until late in September. During this period the owners of this shipment were unwilling to sell any of this corn, evidently because it had been committed to one company, namely Canada Packers. Towards the end of September this corn was moved into Canada Packers storage. The minister alone can tell this committee precisely what the facts of this transaction were.
This very large supply of corn owned by one company evidently entered into the figures the minister used when he decided that there was enough corn available in the maritimes until such time as western feed grains became available. Moreover, it would appear that something like 50,000 or 60,000 bushels of corn owned by a distiller- of course, on this no freight assistance was paid-stored in the same elevator, and 100,000 bushels of export wheat may have entered into the figures used by the minister in deciding that sufficient grain was available.
I understand that the company in question, Canada Packers, would not have been able to take advantage of the special subsidy on corn in this way if the Department of Agriculture had not allowed it a dual status as both wholesaler and retailer. I am informed that at Truro, Nova Scotia, and at Sussex, New Brunswick, this company is classified for the purposes of the Department of Agriculture as a wholesaler, but that at their very much larger plant at Port Williams,

Interim Supply
Nova Scotia, they are classified as a retailer. As you may know, sir, under the regulations the freight subsidy can be claimed when feedstuffs are transferred from a wholesaler to a retailer. The fact that this company has a dual standing in the eyes of the Department of Agriculture for these purposes means that it does not forgo freight assistance during any long period in which grain bought by the company is in wholesale storage; nor does the company have to worry about losing the freight subsidy on losses in bulk caused by shrinkage during wholesale storage.
From all the facts that are ascertainable it would appear that this particular manufacturer of feed stock was able to stock up on approximately 200,000 bushels of subsidized corn. Naturally I have nothing whatsoever against this particular company. The important thing is that, by making the acquisition of this subsidized corn attractive to the company, and by terminating the subsidy on the basis of figures which evidently included the holdings of the company, the Department of Agriculture made it necessary for the majority of those farmers who buy feed to pay the higher, unsubsidized transportation costs on the feed corn they had to use during the period between the time when the subsidized corn ceased to be available to them and the time when freight-assisted western feedstuffs became available.
This unfortunate situation was noted in a submission by the eastern agricultural conference to the Minister of Agriculture on November 6, 1962. After recommending that feed freight assistance is a sound national policy which should be embodied in a statute of this parliament, the submission continued as follows:
This does not mean that there are no improvements needed. Some adjustments are outlined in the attached federation statement. Also the conference feels quite strongly that definite improvements can be made in the administration of the policy. Great care should be taken to see that in the administration of freight assistance, all parties receive equitable treatment and that no special advantage is gained by individual commercial interests. Such a special advantage, and we believe a violation of the intent of the policy, has been gained recently in connection with the assisted movement of corn to the maritimes.
Later a resolution was passed by the Maritime Co-operative Services Limited, at its annual meeting at the middle of November, and, the following resolution passed at that time would appear to be substantially correct. It reads in part as follows:
Whereas an unusual interpretation of subsidy regulations, which we believe was not the intent of policy permitted one large feed manufacturer to obtain the advantage of the subsidy on corn stored before September 30 by being classed as a retailer at one point while as a wholesaler at another and other companies, including this co-operative doing

similar business by being classed as wholesalers could not qualify for the subsidy payment on corn put in storage;
Therefore be it resolved that.. . this annual meeting expresses disappointment-
I am leaving out certain words there which do not advance this argument and which are not germane.


An hon. Member:: They should be in there.


John B. Stewart: The quotation continues:
-at the cancellation of the subsidy before western feed grains from the new crop were available,-
Then it goes on to resolve further that there has been
-a definite inequity between companies doing the same class of business and that apparently decisions were based on statistical presentations that were not accurate or did not reveal all the facts.
An administrative fumble apparently so disadvantageous as this one to many of the farmers of the maritimes makes one wonder whether this government should be granted the supply for which it now asks. I am quite sure that the Minister of Agriculture will be anxious to come into this committee and deal with the doubts many hundreds of people have because of these three specific matters I have mentioned.
However, before I conclude I wish to return to the point on which I opened. This government is coming to this committee, and it is asking for the tenth and twelfth of the supply for the fiscal year 1962-63. Yet the members of this House of Commons have not had put before them for examination here the estimates which might justify the money that is being voted. It is astonishing to me if the people of this country or the members of this parliament are prepared to tolerate this situation much longer.


Frank Charles McGee: The Liberal filibuster caused that.


John B. Stewart: No reasonable business man, no university administrator and certainly no farmer could hope to conduct a satisfactory business in this way. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the time must very soon come when this committee must refuse supply to this government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I feel humiliated and embarrassed at being obliged to rise at this hour of the evening under a motion for interim supply in order to use the only opportunity which has arisen in this session since September 27 to discuss what undoubtedly is the most important public question affecting the province from which I come. It is a public question which in its magnitude is, in my opinion, at least as important to this nation as was the St. Lawrence seaway project which was the subject

of some discussion in this House of Commons a number of years ago. I am referring to the matter of the Columbia river draft treaty which has been discussed by two of my colleagues previously during this debate, namely the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
Since this session began a great many indications have been given to the government that many hon. members of this House of Commons were desirous of an opportunity of discussing this question. All that we have been able to do is to attempt to address certain questions to some of the ministers on the orders of the day and in some cases to place some questions on the order paper. Shortly some of us are going to be returning to our home provinces for the Christmas recess. Those of us who come from the province of British Columbia are going to be obliged to return without having the kind of detailed relevant information with respect to this matter which we had anticipated we should be able to secure when we came down here for this session. Those hon. members who, like myself, have not been in this House of Commons for a time had taken at its face value the indication which had been given that this matter would be referred to the external affairs committee for full discussion under appropriate circumstances, where we would have a full opportunity of getting the detailed sort of information which, on a complex matter such as this, can be secured only by having called before it expert witnesses. This opportunity we have not had.
As far as I am concerned, one of the principal reasons why I feel I must rise and take part in this desultory sort of discussion, which is all that we can have on an interim supply motion, is the fact that it has been impossible for us to secure in a responsible manner the sort of information which we had expected the government would make it possible for us to secure. As I speak tonight I note that none of the ministers primarily responsible for this matter are here to take part in such a discussion. A few minutes ago I looked along the treasury benches and realized that the only minister occupying one of those seats was the Postmaster General. While I have a great regard for her-


Mr. Crouse:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -I do not believe she would be the one who would speak for the government on this subject.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; for the last three quarters of an
Interim Supply
hour we have had the Minister of Labour in the house as well as the Postmaster General.


George Clyde Nowlan: And the Minister of Finance.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We now have the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think the hon. member should be factual in his remarks.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Can the ministers not defend themselves?


Mr. Jones:: We have more ministers than the New Democratic party has members.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure that the hon. member had a question of privilege and I think he might have allowed me to finish my sentence before he rose so precipitately. I was about to say that during the last few minutes the Minister of Veterans Affairs and more recently the Minister of Finance had arrived. As far as I am aware, neither of these ministers has been primarily responsible for matters pertaining to the Columbia river treaty. As I say, it is most unfortunate that we have to discuss this kind of subject under these circumstances. That is the only point I had in mind making. I know that all members of the cabinet are busy people and I do not expect that they are going to be here every minute of every day that the house sits. As I was trying to say, in my opinion it is most unfortunate that all we have been able to find out as to what is going on has come from one or two statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that certain informal discussions are taking place. We have been given no real information as to the nature of these discussions. We have been given no information as to the direction in which they are leading.
We have been told that the government of British Columbia is involved in these discussions and that fact gives me real ground for concern in that when we come back to the house on January 21 we may very well once again be faced with one of those faits accom-plis into which the premier of British Columbia seems to be able to manoeuvre this government. We are going to come back here and perhaps be faced at that time with a suggestion that this matter go before the external affairs committee, and when it does we are going to find that yet a new twist has been added to the many twists that have been already given to the development of this project, and the treaty that has been signed. That, Mr. Chairman, is the real cause for concern from my point of view.
While I do not minimize the area of provincial responsibility under the constitution

Interim Supply
in respect of development of this kind, nevertheless in my view this is primarily a Canadian matter. This is not something with respect to which parliament can accept dictation from someone who happens to be the premier of a province. This has not always been the case as far as this house is concerned, nor do I think it should be. In my opinion the least the government would have done was to arrange for this matter to go before the external affairs committee so that at least the members of the house who are concerned about the matter could have been fully informed when they went back to meet their constituents during the recess. If the government had done that, while perhaps saying at the same time that certain discussions were going on, I see no reason why we could not have reached an understanding that any final decision by the house in respect of ratification of the treaty in its present form would be deferred until completion of those discussions and until the external affairs committee had had the benefit of the full results of those discussions.
I think all members of the house are aware that there has been growing and increasingly impressive evidence of concern on the part of many well qualified people with regard to the implications of this treaty. When my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, was discussing this matter earlier, the Minister of Public Works tried to suggest that perhaps he was not fully qualified to understand the treaty. I am not at all sure that the Minister of Public Works is fully qualified to understand the treaty and I certainly do not make any undue claims with regard to my own ability to understand the treaty in all its complexities. Nevertheless the Minister of Public Works must recognize that a great many well qualified people in addition to General McNaughton have expressed grave concern about the treaty.
I am sure that the Minister of Public Works or any other member of the government would hardly attempt at this stage to brush aside lightly the considered opinions of General McNaughton, even though they may not be prepared to accept them in their entirety. As far as I am concerned, I can think of no other Canadian to whose views greater weight should be given in the consideration of what is involved in this treaty. I do not think the statement can be challenged that General McNaughton has been more intimately associated with matters concerning the development of the Columbia river basin, and for a longer period of time, than any other living Canadian. Nevertheless, as I say, other qualified people have been expressing very grave doubts.

All of us in this house who are laymen recognize, I believe, that when it comes to highly complex engineering matters we have to rely on expert opinion. We also recognize that from time to time there may be a division of views among experts as well. But when we see the sort of analysis that was made in the Engineering and Contract Record, to which reference has already been made, and when we see other references, those of us who are attempting to understand the implications of the treaty really have cause to be concerned. As my colleagues have said, on the basis of the evidence we have at hand so far we in this party are completely convinced that the treaty in its present form should not be ratified by parliament. In my view the question of the ratification of this treaty by the parliament of Canada is something which should have priority over any views that may be advanced by the person who may for the time being happen to be in charge of the government of the province of British Columbia.
Now, among other opinions which have recently been expressed in this connection, Mr. Chairman, I find the opinion of a very well known member of a firm of consulting engineers in Vancouver by the name of Mr. Bartholomew. His name is well known in British Columbia. He is known as the head of a firm which has designed large projects not only in Canada but all over the world. I believe his opinions merit the consideration of hon. members of this house. He had this to say:
(1)	It gives United States 25 per cent more downstream firm power than British Columbia receives.
(2)	British Columbia's share of downstream power diminishes from year to year at an alarming rate only controlled by the United States.
(3)	United States downstream power costs the U.S. one fifth, or less, of what British Columbia's share would cost if British Columbia can use it when available, which is doubtful.
(4)	The value to the United States of their downstream power benefits increased greatly and steadily in value.
(5)	The control of water flow in the Columbia river in Canada is handed over completely to the United States.
(6)	The High Arrow dam robs Canada of 400,000 kilowatts (half of Vancouver's total power consumption) , robs British Columbia of forest and agricultural land and destroys an unequalled tourist area and lakes.
(7)	The value of Canadian storage at Mica dam is undervalued in the treaty by over 50 per cent.
(8)	The treaty is essentially for United States benefit only.
So, Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is on the face of it a clear case that this treaty is not in the best interests of Canada or of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, I thought that the decision the development envisaged by this treaty was not in the best interest of Canada had been made by this

parliament a number of years ago. Some of the members of this house will recall that in 1955 we had before us what was known as the international rivers bill. The international rivers bill was occasioned by a proposal to build what is now called the High Arrow dam. In those days it was known as the Kaiser dam. I was a member of the external affairs committee which considered that bill. Those of us who were on that committee at that time had the advantage of hearing a very full and thorough review of what was involved in the development of the whole of the Columbia river basin. We heard at that time a very detailed representation presented on behalf of the government of British Columbia by the attorney general, Mr. Bonner and the then minister of lands and forests, Mr. Sommers.
As some hon. members in this house will recall, we had what amounted almost to a filibuster on the subject in the house. The filibuster was conducted by a group of members in the house who were then under the Social Credit label. I will not associate the present Social Credit group with that filibuster because actually only two of the present Social Credit group were involved in the debate at that time. We heard a lot about the High Arrow, the Low Arrow, Waneta No. 1 and Waneta No. 2. It went on for quite a number of days. I think all hon. members will recall that after a full and detailed examination of the whole Columbia river basin the members of this house, with the exception of those in the Social Credit group, gave as their considered opinion that that kind of development of the Columbia river was not to the advantage of Canada. This bill was passed with the full support of the members of the Liberal party, the Conservative party and those of us who were in the house at the time in the C.C.F. party.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, I do find it a little difficult to reconcile the position now being taken by some Conservatives who were then in the house, and who now occupy leading positions on the treasury benches, with the position they took after a detailed examination of this proposition. They seem to be taking this position now, I would say rather reluctantly, at the behest of the premier of British Columbia. They seemed to be prepared to stand up on the earlier occasion and say to the premier of British Columbia that this same type of development was not in the best interests of Canada.
Some reference was made earlier in the discussion of this subject to the fact that the Minister of Public Works is a signatory of the treaty. I should like to point out, in concluding my remarks this evening that there is another signature on that treaty on behalf of
Business of the House Canada. This signature stands above that of the Minister of Public Works, and is the signature of the Prime Minister. I want to make it quite clear that I feel the person who should stand up in this house and answer for what has happened in connection with the Columbia river treaty is the Prime Minister of Canada. I think all of the evidence surrounding the situation is such, especially if one thinks, for example, of the references that were made by the hon. member for Kootenay West to the speech made in Prince George by the Minister of Public Works, that it points to the fact that responsibility for the situation rests on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. He is the one who should stand up in this house and tell us why he has decided to sell half of British Columbia down the river into the United States.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I am rising at this point not to talk about the Columbia river but to talk about the subject of trade. I should like to start off by asking if I may call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I assume tomorrow we will go on with this debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the same order of business, Mr. Speaker, as I announced last night and as appears on page 2603 of Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion to the minister leading the house? For all of this week we have been seeking, without success, to get some statement from the Minister of Justice regarding certain activities of the R.C.M.P. I want to suggest that if there is to be any co-operation in dealing with this interim supply I hope we might have some such statement tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That sounds like a threat to me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not a threat. I am simply asking the minister to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I would indicate to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that under these circumstances it is the custom of this house that the house leader of the opposition will seek information from the house leader of the government as to the business that is to be forthcoming, and beyond that there are no comments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of-


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest deference, this has been a practice of this house for

Business of the House many years and I do not see at the moment how we can extend the privilege to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam without extending it to any other hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely if we are discussing the business of the house for tomorrow and any party wants to offer their co-operation or suggestion as to how the business should be expedited, they are free to do so. If they are not allowed to do that, then the government must accept some responsibility, and Your Honour too, if the business of the house is not expedited as it might otherwise be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Notwithstanding the apparent comment of hon. gentlemen who have felt otherwise, I think they will recognize that it has been the practice over many years that the house leader of the opposition-


William Arnold Peters: It was the practice to have a Liberal government for all those years too, but we changed it.


Mr. Speaker:: -shall seek information from the house leader of the government. Otherwise any hon. member could rise. I am not trying to lay down any hard and fast lines, but to follow the accustomed practices of this house. If there are to be any negotiations, or suggestions offered, then I think there are means for doing so. But as far as I am aware-and I think hon. members generally would agree with me-that has been the accepted practice-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -as far as the Chair has been aware, and there has been no departure from it.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 14, 1962