1963-07-10

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
ROYAL COMMISSION ON	
BIlING-JALjsM & E'CUL i I i:; Ai KM	
LIBRARY - J liLiOTMiiCiUE	
		 INDEX ISSUED IN A	SEPARATE
COMMISSION ROYALc D'ENQUETE SUR	
bilinguisme a le oicut'*'*	
28902-5-130
MM ' n

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 10, 1963


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the Secretary of State for allowing me to speak first. In order to meet an agreement with the premier of British Columbia I have to observe a time schedule.
The governments of Canada and British Columbia have signed an agreement setting forth in detail the basis on which the development of the Columbia river in Canada will be carried out, when and if satisfactory arrangements are concluded with the United States.
The agreement, dated July 8, 1963, was signed on behalf of Canada by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was signed on behalf of British Columbia by the premier, Hon. W. A. C. Bennett and Hon. R. G. Williston, minister of lands, forests and water resources.
The treaty between Canada and the United States relating to the development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin was signed on January 17, 1961. While it was approved by the United States senate preparatory to ratification by the United States, final action looking toward ratification by Canada was held up following signature because of lack of agreement in Canada concerning certain aspects of the development. In addition to the questions outstanding between the governments of Canada and British Columbia, the Prime Minister indicated to the President of the United States, in their meeting at Hyannis Port, that certain clarifications and adjustments would be necessary in the treaty arrangements between Canada and the United States before ratification could take place.
Resolution of all points of disagreement between the federal and provincial governments was the first stage, and I am happy to say this has now been accomplished.
The agreement, which is being released simultaneously with this announcement, provides in detail for the rights and obligations of the federal government and the provincial government respectively in the execution of the Columbia river development when the
28902-5-130J

necessary modifications to the treaty have been made and its ratification takes place. The agreement provides that the protocol regarding the treaty arrangements, when worked out with the United States, shall form a part of the agreement between Canada and British Columbia.
The agreement contemplates a sale of the Canadian share of downstream power benefits to the United States, subject to the negotiation of a satisfactory price and other suitable terms which will ensure savings in the cost of electric power in British Columbia. The exact period of the sale will be one of the matters for negotiation with the United States. The sale arrangement, and therefore the entire agreement, are entirely contingent upon the negotiation of acceptable terms with the United States. The arrangements for sale, when worked out, will form an integral part of the agreement.
The agreement provides that in accordance with its constitutional position as owner of the resources in question, British Columbia, will have title to the benefits arising out of the development. In turn British Columbia undertakes to carry out all aspects of the construction and operation of the treaty projects and assumes full responsibility for their financing through the use of funds derived in the United States from the sale of the downstream power benefits and from the flood control benefits, together with funds from other sources as required. British Columbia also undertakes to assume financial responsibility for any liability that might arise under the treaty in relation to the United States unless the cause of the liability were directly attributable to Canada.
The agreement provides for the use of Canadian labour and materials to the full extent to which they are procurable consistent with proper economy and expeditious action.
Now that agreement has been reached between the federal and provincial governments, negotiations for modification of the treaty will be undertaken as quickly as possible with the United States. If agreement can be reached on points other than the sale arrangement, discussion will then take place on the terms on which the Canadian downstream power benefits might be sold in the United States. If these matters can be settled satisfactorily all provisions relating to

Columbia River Agreement Signed them, the treaty itself and agreement with British Columbia will then be submitted to parliament for its consideration.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the agreement, in French and English, for the information of the house.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder whether it would meet the wishes of the house, for the convenience of the house and the public, if this agreement were printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: for text of document referred to above, see appendix "A".]


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally very difficult to follow a detailed statement such as the house has just listened to, but certain general remarks can be made. It will have been noticed that the minister emphasized the fact that the sale of downstream benefits is to be subject to securing appropriate terms. Near the end of his remarks the minister again referred to the fact that everything in connection with this agreement is dependant upon the attainment of terms that are mutually satisfactory.
It is clear therefore from what the minister has said that the agreement entered into, while I have not had an opportunity of perusing it, covers mainly the details of operation and the contractual position as between Canada and British Columbia regarding the discharge of Canada's obligations under the treaty. It should be emphasized that the whole problem is still in an uncertain state. While an agreement has been entered into between British Columbia and the government of the Dominion of Canada there are, in fact, matters of detail which will have to be implemented after being determined.
Mention was made of the fact that the treaty was signed on January 17, 1961. I would bring to the attention of the house the fact that when that treaty was signed there was agreement as between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. We signed the treaty on the basis of the arrangements that had been agreed to between the governments of Canada and the province of British Columbia and it was only after the treaty was signed that Premier Bennett of British Columbia determined on a course different from that to which he had earlier agreed through his representative, Hon. Ray Williston.
It is quite apparent from what has been said that the treaty cannot be implemented unless there is a further protocol entered into with the United States. As the minister spoke 

I was impressed by the fact that although he said an agreement had been arrived at, what he said stayed far away from saying that a final agreement had been reached, for there are many terms or changes which will have to be agreed to.
Final agreement with United States will have to cover the terms and conditions of the sale of Canada's share of Columbia power which the treaty secures and which, were it not for this new policy, would be available for use in British Columbia. Indeed, one of the major objectives of the treaty was that downstream benefits would be so much cheaper than power produced elsewhere that a major portion thereof would be returned to British Columbia in the interests of the development of industry within that province.
I think the house and the country should be advised now as to what the position of the government would be with regard to the price to be obtained. There is delightful uncertainty in this regard in the statement made by the minister. There should be also information as to the period during which Canada will forgo its entitlement, and the provisions which have been made for recapture. The house should also be advised at once of the precise nature of any changes in the provisions of the treaty to which the government is prepared to agree in its negotiations with the United States. If the changes are of such insignificance that they would not be submitted to the United States Senate we can only conclude that they are lacking in substance.
We are entitled to an immediate estimate of the time which will elapse before ratification can be effected and construction can begin. Until this information is made available to us no one, I am sure, could possibly express any final opinion on the deal which has been made. What can be said is that great care will have to be exercised to ensure that the real interest, the economic interest, in Canada's future destiny, as well as that of British Columbia in obtaining an abundant flow of low cost power, is not being bartered away for immediate political advantage.
This is one of those things to which reference was made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. He was going to renegotiate the treaty with the United States. What we have now is far removed from a renegotiation of the treaty. What the government is now contemplating are some additional clauses which may be embodied in a protocol, rather than a renegotiation of the treaty itself. The course now being followed-and I think this can be said without fear of controversy-at Mr. Bennett's insistence means a lengthy delay before the treaty can be implemented and
202X

construction can begin. If Premier Bennett had carried out the arrangements he made through Mr. Williston before the treaty was signed, this project would have been under way long since. He scuppered it and made it impossible to proceed without delay with the project as we had hoped. If the original policy had been followed as between Canada, the United States and British Columbia the deals now being made would not have been necessary. Actual construction, with all its consequent advantages in terms of 31 million man hours of employment and the benefits of an immediate supply of low cost power, would now be accruing to the people of British Columbia.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, we are very glad indeed that the time has come when we are able to receive the report which we have just received from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this very important question. The two men who were mentioned in the report, Mr. Williston and the premier of British Columbia, I think it can be said without a doubt are outstanding men in Canada today and are recognized as such. I hear murmurings from hon. members in the official opposition, and well might they murmur in view of the results they produced over the last few years in connection with this treaty.
The people of British Columbia are going to welcome this announcement. I should like to say in connection with the announcement and some of the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition, that the people are looking for action in this matter, and when it comes to playing politics I think it can be readily said and understood by most people in British Columbia, and in fact in other parts of Canada, that they know very well where the politics were being played in this connection.


Mr. Peters:: We sure do.


Bert Raymond Leboe: The hon. gentleman who left the House of Commons, who was removed from a negotiation post, has not gone unnoticed by the people of Canada, certainly not by the people of British Columbia. We are pleased to note from the statement that was made today and from statements made previously that the changes to the treaty itself are going to be of a minor nature. We are all aware of the statement made by the minister in connection with the sale of downstream benefits, and I think this is the important point which has to be considered. As a matter of fact it is the important point. If we are going to have a proper price range for the downstream benefits, surely this has to be negotiated to the best advantage of
10.	1963
Columbia River Agreement Signed Canadians and the people of British Columbia. Therefore I have every confidence, as I think hon. members generally have, in Mr. Williston's ability and also that of the premier of British Columbia in this connection.
As far as the final chapter of this Columbia river treaty is concerned, and its writing, we expect that there will be action taken very shortly in connection with the negotiations with the United States.
I should just like to say in closing that while we talk of great delays in the development of the Columbia river, those who are equipped with the facts know that the Columbia river development has been going on and is still going on, and there has been very little time actually lost through this because of the fact that the British Columbia government has had faith that the proposition would finally reach the stage where the nine or ten million dollars which has been invested will be returned to them in due course.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak as a Canadian with a completely non-partisan approach to this very important question. This most important statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is without a doubt the result of the influence of a genial political engineer who is anxious whenever possible to sooth President Kennedy's feelings, and that master of financial, economic and resource manipulation, the premier of British Columbia, whose policy throughout the years has clearly been demonstrated to be one of discounting the future of British Columbia for the political needs of the present.
One must tread rather lightly, Mr. Speaker, when dealing with a read statement. From long experience I find that when listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs one should not be too definitive until one has had an opportunity to read what he has said, because he makes the impossible appear to be possible by the manner of his delivery, his voice and so on. However, from listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs I judge that there is little change in the terms of the present treaty. It is purely a question of minor changes, which is what we and many other people had feared. However, I thank the minister for tabling the agreement between the federal government and the government of British Columbia. People will have an opportunity to see what it is.
I presume from what I heard the minister say that this government now considers it has passed the ball back to the premier of British Columbia. It is up to him to get the five mills he said he would get from the United States, and it is up to him to raise the money. I noticed also that the minister
2022	HOUSE OF
Columbia River Agreement Signed made reference to the fact that the treaty would be referred to the external affairs committee, but it appears that the substance of the treaty is going to be referred to the external affairs committee after the fact, when there is an agreement with the government of British Columbia and after agreement has been reached with the government of the United States.
Many Canadians are concerned about the outcome of the discussions between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. They are concerned about the developments with respect to the coming renegotiation of the treaty with the government of the United States. Before final dealings with the government of British Columbia and the government of the United States we trust that the federal government will peruse first the speeches made in the house last session by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). Second, we trust it will remember that the Liberal party organization in Kootenay West invited General McNaughton to be their candidate in the last election because, as members told me, they supported his point of view, and the candidate who did run in the last election opposed the treaty and expressed strong criticism of some of its terms. Third, I trust that the government will also remember the newspaper articles written by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano during the last election campaign.
I must remind the minister that the trade union movement in British Columbia has expressed its solid opposition to the terms of the present treaty and its solid support for the proposals made by General McNaughton. I must remind the minister that the advisory board of the farmers' institutes of British Columbia have taken a similar stand, as well as many other organizations and groups. I am not going to take the time of the house to refer to all of them. I just want to reemphasize the rank and file opinion in British Columbia. In addition, the leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia has expressed support for General McNaughton's views and has criticized the present treaty and urged renegotiation and changes in accord with the response expressed by the audience he was addressing.
In addition, the western Canada reclamation association at its annual meeting in Kelowna on June 21-it is an organization composed of organizations in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan-urged the federal government not to sign the Columbia river treaty with the United States, and many delegates expressed in the strongest terms


their support for General McNaughton's statements on this question. Also, only a few days ago the government of Saskatchewan expressed its concern with the terms of the present treaty. I have been told that on the radio this morning the premier of British Columbia used some language when criticizing the government of Saskatchewan that would be used by southerners under other circumstances.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are concerned with developments in respect of this treaty, as well as a substantial number of organizations in British Columbia and other parts of Canada, I urge-


Mr. Thompson:: Speak for yourself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would not be here if I were speaking just for myself. Let me say, in reply to the leader of the Social Credit party, that the only candidate who supported this treaty without criticism was at the bottom of the polls in Kootenay West, and that was the Social Credit candidate.
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the present Columbia treaty be referred to the external affairs committee so that engineers, representatives of labour, farm and other organizations, chambers of commerce and resource committees can present their views and give evidence before any final agreement is reached with the government of British Columbia or renegotiation is undertaken with the government of the United States. I must urge the Prime Minister at this time to remember his promise in writing to numerous organizations and individuals in British Columbia that no Liberal government would come to a final decision with regard to this treaty before the interested parties were consulted.
If this treaty is submitted to the external affairs committee after agreement has been reached with the United States, I say frankly the Prime Minister has not kept the promise he made in writing to these people. We urge submission of this treaty to the external affairs committee before any agreement is reached with the government of the United States so that the Canadian people can be given an opportunity to become acquainted with the facts. The more they know of the facts the more they will realize what a serious situation this presents to all Canadians, and to the people of British Columbia in particular.
There is a precedent for this course, and I will give the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud) credit for establishing it. He has agreed that the north Pacific fisheries treaty will be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries prior to the government coming to a final conclusion on any agreement with the

other countries. I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to accept that precedent established by the Minister of Fisheries and send this treaty to the external affairs committee before any final agreement is reached with the United States. Then the people will know the truth and have the facts. In this way we will arrive at a treaty that will provide jobs for Canadians of this and future generations, that will provide power to be fed into a future national grid, and that will provide the water that will be required to irrigate Canadian soil in the days ahead.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I take no exception to the observations made by-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -two of those who have spoken. However, in view of the comments made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister raising a point
of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Churchill:: State your point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the comments made by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member who has just spoken-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister tells me he made no comments.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must remind the minister that under the rules he is not allowed to make any further statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am coming to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was going to point out that in view of the nature of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I feel that it is fair and in accordance with our traditions and practices that I should be given an opportunity to make a reply.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: An opportunity may be given by unanimous consent, but not otherwise. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest to you with great confidence that the practice in this house is that on motions, when a minister makes a statement, if that statement is replied
Columbia River Agreement Signed to in a controversial manner as was done today by the Leader of the Opposition, then the minister is given an opportunity for a limited reply. This has been the practice, and it is with regard to that I am now rising-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very interested in the reference to the practice, but I should like to see the authorities. However, if the minister has some comment of great importance to make to the house perhaps the house would allow him a minute's indulgence.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to put myself in the wrong position, but this is a vital matter affecting this nation. The Leader of the Opposition has made certain statements-


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not got unanimous consent, and I suggest you tell him to sit down.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: May I
speak to the point of order. It is of course a well recognized practice that when statements are made on motions by a member of the government, short, non-controversial replies are in order from the opposition parties. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a long and controversial reply in which he introduced points that should be answered at this time because they were inaccurately stated. The same situation applies to the hon. member for Kootenay West, who made a long, controversial observation. Under these circumstances surely the spokesman for the government is entitled to reply to the controversial statements made.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: may say a word, Mr. Speaker, on the question of order which has been raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it would seem to me that if the minister were to suggest that he is prepared to refer the agreement which was tabled earlier to the external affairs committee, it is quite possible unanimous consent would be forthcoming. The minister would then have ample opportunity to appear before that committee and make the statement he appears to wish to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is one of the
questions with which I was going to deal, because it was asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition has no right-

Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no right of reply on the part of the minister, irrespective of what comments happen to be made by the leaders of the various parties. This has not been the practice in the past. If this practice is permitted, then we should be permitted a full debate. Perhaps the government will provide an opportunity to have a full debate on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened, naturally, with a great deal of interest and curiosity to the remarks of the different members, including the minister and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps a little too much leeway was given with regard to the comments on the statement made by the minister. The result now is that we are entering upon a debate which should not be done at this time when we are considering motions. May I suggest that perhaps the minister could set the example and that we could proceed to other matters, and that the discussion of these details on motions is not a time for extended or controversial statements.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to interfere or to object in any way to the view you now take, Mr. Speaker, but as this is an important matter I thought it was important for the house to be informed of the government's views with regard to suggestions made. But, since this is the view you take, I simply suggest with great respect that when you are looking at matters of procedure you might look at Hansard during the past four or five years and Your Honour will see many instances in which the present Leader of the Opposition made all sorts of responses to opposition reactions to statements made by his incompetent government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are an expert on incompetence right now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might report to the house on a conference I had with hon. gentlemen opposite about certain suggestions for facilitating the business of the house with a view to getting an adjournment for part of the summer. I think there is agreement-and I will be quite happy to be interrupted and corrected at any stage if I misstate it-among all parties that we are prepared for the rest of this week, and for next week, to forgo the private members'
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
hour and make it available for government business on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. We are also ready to sit at seven o'clock instead of eight o'clock in the evening on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and since there is agreement about this with respect to today and the rest of this week and next week-and I do not go beyond that- I wonder if this might be recorded as an order of the house. When it has been recorded I would just like to say a word about Fridays, but not with a view to having anything recorded.


Mr. Speaker:: Does this suggestion meet with the pleasure of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was one additional matter, Mr. Speaker, unless I missed it at the last minute, and that is that in the hour on Thursday which remains for private members' business, precedence be given to private bills. Was not that agreed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite agreeable to the government if it is agreeable to the house. I think it would happen anyway because there have been no notices of motions transferred, but if that could be understood to be included in the provision originally made I should be happy.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question for clarification. When is this agreement to begin, and will the lost private members' hours be picked up in the fall?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The private members'
hours are just being suspended; therefore they will not interfere with the operation of the rule respecting Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I am afraid the Fridays, under the rule, will be irretrievably lost because that goes on for the whole session, and we cannot re-invent the Fridays, if I may put it that way.


Thomas Miller Bell: When would it begin?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is only to the end of next week, starting today. Now if I may say a word about Fridays for the information of hon. members, it was understood that on Friday next the government would, as was done last Friday, call one of the departments for the consideration of estimates; and while no commitment was made about the matter there was an understanding that an earnest effort would be made on all sides of the house to proceed as we did last Friday and get through one department. No one is committed to that; I want to emphasize that, but there was an undertaking that there would

be an earnest effort made, and of course there will be until six o'clock under the order made today.
It was also agreed that there might be some discussion before six o'clock about the position, with a view to some small extension of the time, if that would be generally agreeable and if it would have the effect that hon. members would hope it might have. But I want to emphasize that this is just a cooperative suggestion, and there is no firm agreement with respect to Fridays.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just with regard to the completing of the estimates of one department in one day, we had that last week. It was at my suggestion. My colleagues cooperated with me in that regard and several of them refrained from speaking, as I did myself. Unfortunately the government claimed it as something they had thought up, and that they were piloting estimates through in double quick time. It was simply a matter on which we offered our fullest co-operation.
We may attempt this again provided there is a good spirit within the house, provided a number of things happen, but we cannot guarantee that in one day another department will be passed. It is most unusual and has not been done in the past. I thought we might try it as an experiment, and to set a good example for our friends opposite for their next term when they are in opposition.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a brief word. First of all may I say that we in this group did agree with everything the Secretary of State says all parties agreed to, and my reason for rising is that actually we agreed to a little more than he indicated.
I	am wondering what has happened to the possibility of these arrangements lasting for a little longer period. There may be a reason that the Secretary of State does not wish to say at this moment, but I also wonder what has happened to the agreement that something would be said as to a target date for the summer recess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I could go so far as to say that I believe it is the firm wish on both sides of the house that if reasonable progress can be made in the business in the month of July, most of us would profit from being somewhere else in the month of August.
I do not think it would be proper, without consultation with my colleagues, to go beyond that, in view of the fact that while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite right in saying his party was willing to go somewhat further than the agreement I stated, there were some reservations about some points elsewhere. I have stated what was the 28902-5-130A
10, 1963	2025
Northwest Territories Commissioner agreement of all four parties and I felt I should not do anything but that, and I do not want to reflect on any party or group in the house.
While I am on my feet I might say that I think the record last week will show I gave the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre full credit for the suggestion that one department should be put through, and I will give him double credit again if he gets another one through next Friday.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that the governor general in council has appointed Mr. B. G. Sivertz as commissioner of the Northwest Territories, replacing Mr. R. G. Robertson whose appointment as Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary of the cabinet was recently announced by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Sivertz's appointment will take effect at noon on Friday next, July 12. It will terminate March 31, 1964, if the legislation now before parliament to create the territories of Mackenzie and Nunassiaq receives the assent of the house. The new commissioner for Mackenzie Territory would thereafter reside in Fort Smith, prospective capital of the territory.
Mr. Robertson has been commissioner of the Northwest Territories for the past 10 years. The advances made in territorial legislation and government during that period reflect his leadership. I am sure that residents of the territories would wish me to express their appreciation for his outstanding service.
Mr. Sivertz has a great many years of experience in northern administration, and is currently the director of the northern administration branch of my department. I am sure that he will ably carry on the tradition of service to the people of the north established by previous commissioners.



FINANCE


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on June 19 I undertook to have inquiries made on the pattern of trading on the Montreal and Toronto stock exchanges during the preceding period. These inquiries have been made by the exchanges in question, and I now propose to table, for the information of hon. members, the exchange of correspondence on this subject between the

Notices of Motions
Clerk oi the Privy Council on the one hand and the presidents of the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges on the other.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION ON BICULTURALISM   TABLING OF PROVINCIAL REPLIES

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 I tabled in the house a copy of the letter I wrote to the premiers of all the provinces on May 15 concerning a royal commission of inquiry on biculturalism and bilingualism. I would now like to table copies, in French and in English, of the answers I have received to my letter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would think that copies of those letters should be made part of Hansard, because they are of general interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these letters be made part of Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For correspondence referred to above, see appendix "B".i



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act, and the several amendments thereto suggested by the chief electoral officer: and to report to the house such proposals relating to the said act as the committee may deem to be advisable.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts, estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and such other matters as may be placed before it, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys, and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing
[Mr. Pearson.)
order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee shall consist of 26 members.
Mr, Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
(Translation):

Mr. Valade: 1.	What is the nature of the wire sent by the mayor of Montreal to the Minister of Public Works on May 12, 1963, concerning the site of the 1967 world fair?
2.	What was the minister's final reply to this wire?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. The Minister of Public Works did not receive a telegram dated May 12, 1963 from the mayor of Montreal.
2.	Not applicable.
(Text):


EDUCATIONAL GRANTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Mather: Has the government given consideration to the advisability of equalizing educational opportunity throughout Canada by granting financial aid to provinces for that purpose?


Mr. Dupuis:: The purpose of the equalization payments under the tax sharing arrangements of 1956 was to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions themselves and to provide a reasonable Canadian level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation and that remains the policy of the present government.


FLOOD EXPENDITURES, INDIAN VILLAGE, AIYANSH, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	How much money, for what purpose, and by whom, has been spent as a result of the flood at the Indian village of Aiyansh, B.C., since the time of that flood?
2.	Was any total amount of money set aside, allocated, or determined as a ceiling of expenditure for the said flood and, if so, what was that amount, and how much is left unexpended?


Mr. Munro:: 1.	Housing	$ 28,665.02
Economic development, saw
mills, boats, etc.	5,717.44
Roads, water supplies, etc.	43,252.32
Repairs to school buildings	23,665.18
Miscellaneous	939.19
Total	$102,239.15

2.	No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could questions 651 to 676 stand.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) tell us when those questions which have been allowed to stand for so long will be answered?


An hon. Member:: As soon as possible.
(Text):
Questions stand.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laiulippe: What are the names, salaries and years of service in the government of all federal government employees, e.g., Post Office Department, public works department, unemployment insurance commission, etc., working in the constituency of Comp-ton-Frontenac?


Yvon Dupuis: This information is not readily available and its compilation would call for undue labour and expense.


AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES EXPENDITURES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the total expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in 1960-61?
2.	In the same period, what was the total expenditure of the Department of Fisheries?
3.	In the same period, what was the per capita expenditure of these departments for (a) farmers <b) fishermen?


Yvon Dupuis: 1. $264,915,215.
2.	$19,195,681.
3.	("Farmers" defined as "self employed workers in agriculture", and "fishermen" as including all who participate in primary fishing operations (catching and landing) on a full time, part time and casual basis): per capita expenditure for (a) farmers was $632; for (b) fishermen, $245, in the period in question.


TARIFF BOARD HEARING ON GAS AND OIL MACHINERY
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the tariff board completed its hearings as to the provisions of the customs tariff related to machinery and equipment used in the mining industry and in the oil and gas industries?
2.	If not, has it completed its hearings with respect to the oil and gas industries?
3. If in the affirmative, has the tariff board rendered or delivered its interim report to the Minister of Finance and to the government?
4. If in the affirmative, has a decision with respect to the recommendations therein contained yet been arrived at and, if not, when is such a decision expected to be announced?


Mr. Benson:: 1. Yes.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by 3.
28902-5-1301A
Questions


PINE FALLS HOSPITAL, MANITOBA
Mr. Slogan: 1.	Has an agreement been reached between the federal department of health and welfare, the provincial department of health of Manitoba and the Manitoba Paper Company regarding the construction of an additional wing at the Pine Falls general hospital for the integration of Indian health services and, if so, what are the cost sharing arrangements?
2.	Was the grant of $400,000, provided for in the 1962-63 estimates, made to the Pine Falls hospital and, if so, on what date?
3.	If the said grant has not been made, is there any reason for the delay in making payment?
4.	Has a contract been called for the construction of this hospital and, if so, what was the amount of each tender and to whom was the contract awarded?
5.	Will construction begin this summer?


Mr. Haidasz:: 1. An agreement has not yet been signed.
2.	and 3. No. Payments of such grants are usually made after the commencement of construction.
4.	and 5. These matters are entirely in the hands of the company.
(Translation):


LA TUQUE, QUE.,  AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Chretien: 1.	In what year was the La Tuque airport built?
2.	By whom was it built?
3.	By whom is it managed at the present time?
4.	Is the Department of Transport responsible for the management of this airport and, if not, does the Department of Transport intend to manage this airport?


Mr. Caniin:: 1. September 5, 1951, to October 31, 1952.
2.	By the Department of Transport for the Department of National Defence.
3.	By the town of La Tuque, Quebec.
4.	No.
(Text):


AMBULANCE SERVICES, QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL, MONTREAL
Mr. Valade: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded a contract for ambulance services for the Queen Mary veterans hospital in Montreal to (a) Metropole Ambulance (b) Emile Fecteau?
2.	If such a contract has been awarded (a) to whom was it awarded (b) what was the amount (c) what are its terms (d) on what basis was it awarded?


Mr. Carter:: 1.	(a) The Department of
Veterans Affairs awarded two such contracts to L'Ambulance Metropole Ltee. The first contract was for the period of April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962 and the second contract from April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1963.
(b)	No such contract was awarded by the Department of Veterans Affairs to Emile Fecteau.

Questions
2.	(a) Each of the contracts referred to in 1 above was awarded to L'Ambulance Metropole Ltee., 8800 St. Michel Blvd., Ville St. Michel, Quebec.
(b)	Each contract was based on the following rates:
(i)	Trips within 3-mile radius from Queen Mary veterans hospital-Flat rate per trip- $10.
(ii)	Additional miles beyond the 3-mile radius-$0.75 per mile.
(iii)	Special treatment trips from Queen Mary veterans hospital to Royal Victoria hospital-Flat rate per trip-$10.
(iv)	Waiting charge for special treatment trips-$5 per hour.
(c)	The terms of each contract called for the provision of 24 hour ambulance service as needed by the Queen Mary veterans hospital, subject to the following specific requirements:
(i)	All toll charges included in the contractual rates.
(ii)	Trained escort to be supplied at no extra charge.
(iii)	Contractor must pick up an orderly or interne at Queen Mary veterans hospital.
(iv)	Ambulance must carry sufficient spare linen to allow for change of linen after transportation of each patient.
(v)	Oxygen cylinders, regulating valve, face mask, and foot operated suction apparatus with catheters to be supplied by contractor.
(vi)	Interior of ambulance to be kept free of dust, dirt, grit, and in a sanitary condition at all times.
(vii)	The contractor to give the Department of Veterans Affairs priority on all calls.
(viii)	The Department of Veterans Affairs does not assume responsibility for any claims for damages arising from this service.
(ix)	The contract may be cancelled at any time by the Department of Veterans Affairs if service is not satisfactory.
(d)	Each contract was awarded on the basis of the lowest tender received.


SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR WINTER CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Valade: Is the government giving consideration to the exemption from the 11 per cent tax on building materials to be used in the construction, repair or renovation of buildings during the winter in order to alleviate unemployment during that period?


Edgar John Benson: This question has now been answered by the statement of the Minister of Finance on Monday evening.


* NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED, MONTREAL
Mr. Valade: 1.	How many unemployed are there at present on the island of Montreal?
2.	What Canadian cities have a higher average of unemployed than Montreal in proportion to their population?
3.	What was the number of unemployed in Montreal in June 1962?
4.	Has the federal government any projects in view other than the construction of the C.B.C. building in the east end, and the world exhibition, in order to alleviate unemployment in Montreal?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Official estimates of unemployment are not available for the island of Montreal.
2	and 3. This information is not available. 4. Projects of various kinds and sizes will be carried out in the Montreal area either by federal departments and agencies or with assistance from them. These will be undertaken for a number of reasons including the alleviation of unemployment.


INTEGRATION OF ARMED FORCES SERVICES
Mr. Matheson: Has any study been conducted by the Department of National Defence respecting the advisability of effecting integration of the following navy, army and air force services:	(a) pay and
accounts (b) supply (c) medical (d) chaplaincy (e) construction engineering and, if so, what were the conclusions of such study?


Mr. Hellyer:: Yes, as follows:
(a)	A study is being conducted into the advisability of integrating pay and pay accounts.
(b)	Single service supply responsibilities have been allocated in many fields, e.g., food, medical supplies, small arms, certain types of ammunition and warfare equipment. Single supply responsibilities include responsibility for design, cataloguing, publications, provision of funds, determination of requirements and in some cases the receipt, issue and disposal of stores. Centralized, co-ordinated procurement is in effect, as well as a large measure of inspection. A study to determine whether commodity groups have sufficient common usage to warrant integration is being conducted.
(c)	The armed forces medical services were combined in 1959 into one unified medical service under an officer designated as the surgeon general.
(d)	Integration of the chaplains services at national defence headquarters and at commands was introduced in 1958. The object was to facilitate policy direction and to provide effective and efficient co-ordination in the organization and administration of the chaplains services.

(e)	A study dealing with the integration of construction engineering facilities and staff is being conducted.


OLD AGE PENSION INCREASE
Mr. Maiher: Is It the government's intention to increase old age pension payments by $10 a month and, if so, will the $10 increase be made to persons on war veterans allowance?


Stanley Haidasz: (a) Any change in the amount payable under the Old Age Security Act will be announced by the government in the usual manner.
(b)	Increases in payments under the Old Age Security Act are always granted to all pensioners.


CANADIAN AID TO CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES
Mr. Matheson: 1,	What, if anything, has the federal government done during the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 to provide external aid for the following commonwealth countries (a) the British West Indies (the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, the Leeward islands including Anquilla and Barbuda and the Windward islands and Barbados) (b) Jamaica (c) British Guiana (d) British Honduras?
2.	Has the federal government selected any area for a major effort in overseas aid during what the United Nations have characterized as "the development decade", and, if so, what area?
Questions
3.	Has Canada heretofore provided any assistance to Caribbean countries in the following directions (a) mapping and soil surveys (b) mineral exploration (c) developing new crops (d) developing new uses for available raw materials (e) finding new fish and marine resources (f) solving power needs and communication problems (g) the provision of experts, and, if so, when and to whom?
4.	What, if anything, has the federal government done to conceptualize, plan or co-ordinate aid to Caribbean countries from (a) universities (b) corporations (c) co-operatives (d) trade unions (e) voluntary societies?


Mr. Stewart:: 1. In each of the years mentioned Canadian external aid in the form of capital projects and technical and educational assistance has been extended to the West Indies Federation, which included Jamaica, at an average annual level of $2 million. British Guiana and British Honduras during these same years have been eligible for assistance under our commonwealth technical assistance program and to each of these countries $50,000 has been allocated annually in recent years. In addition, students from the islands comprising the West Indies Federation as well as from British Guiana and British Honduras have been awarded scholarships in Canadian universities under the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship program.
Capital assistance to the area has included the following major items:
Projects Two cargo passenger vessels for	Recipient	Completioninter-island traffic	-	Delivered 1961Forest inventory survey	Dominica	Completed 1962Vocational school equipment	St. Kitts	Delivered 1960Deep water wharf	St. Vincent	Scheduled completion Nov. 1963University residence hall	Trinidad	Scheduled completion Oct. 1963Port handling equipment	Barbados Grenada Dominica St. Kitts	Delivery in 1963Primary schools	Grenada	In design stage, con-Antigua	struction to commenceDominica	this fall.Port warehouses	St. Lucia	Construction to commenceSt. Kitts	this fall.Drilling and development of	St. Kitts	Started 1962fresh water wells	Nevis	scheduled completionAnguilla Montserrat	September 1963.Construction equipment	British Guiana	Delivered in 1961 and 1962.Technical education equipment	British Guiana	Delivered in 1961 and 1962.Survey and firefighting	British Honduras	Delivered in 1961equipment	and 1962.
Questions
Technical and educational assistance has since 1958. During the same period 41 Cana-included 100 scholars brought to Canada for dian teachers and advisers have been sent courses of study from the West Indies Feder- to the area as follows: ation, British Guiana and British Honduras,
Teachers
Year of Commencing
Assignment	Recipient Country
1958 1960	Trinidad Jamaica
	St. Kitts
1961 1962	St. Lucia St. Vincent British Guiana Jamaica Barbados British Guiana
	Dominica Grenada St. Lucia
1958	Trinidad
1959	Jamaica Trinidad
1960	British Honduras
	Jamaica
	St. Lucia
	Trinidad
1961	British Honduras
1962	British Honduras
Subject
1 vocational education adviser
1	teacher trainer for maths and science
2	teacher trainers
1	shop director
2	vocational instructors 1 teacher trainer 1 teacher trainer for maths 1 teacher of electricity 1 primary teacher trainer 1 teacher trainer
1 lecturer in mechanical engineering 1 instructor in electricity 1 primary teacher trainer 1 teacher of industrial arts 1 primary teacher trainer
Advisers
1 forestry adviser 1 housing adviser 1 geological survey adviser 1 fisheries adviser 1 soil survey adviser 1 statistical adviser 1 harbour management adviser 1 film unit adviser 1 harbour survey adviser 1 broadcasting engineer 1 broadcasting adviser 1 postal adviser 1 legal drafting adviser 1 postal services adviser 1 harbour survey adviser 1 land surveyor
1	mechanical tabulation adviser
2	soil surveyors
1 housing adviser 1 forest adviser
3	instrument men
2.	No area has been specially selected for a major Canadian aid effort although in dollar terms the largest recipients of Canadian assistance have been India and Pakistan.
3.	Answered by reply to question 1.
4.	While the Canadian government cannot direct the form or content of assistance extended by private organizations such as universities, corporations, co-operatives, trade unions and voluntary societies, nevertheless many such organizations have consulted and

received advice from the appropriate federal authorities concerning assistance to the Caribbean area.


GOLF CLUBHOUSE, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 831~-Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):
1.	On what date were tenders called for the construction of a new golf clubhouse at the Cape Breton Highlands national park?

2.	What was the closing date of this tender call?
3.	What were the names and addresses of the firms submitting tenders, and the amounts tendered?
4.	Has a contract been awarded and, if not, for what reason?
Mr. Turner:: 1. Newspaper advertisements appeared on April 5 and April 6, 1963.
2.	May 7, 1963, at 3 p.m.
3.	M. R. Chappell Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $119,275.00; Stephens Construction Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $133,998.00; Maritime Builders Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $139,360.00.
4.	No. While the present clubhouse is not fully adequate, a review of construction priorities has indicated that the limited funds available must be directed to other and more pressing needs in national parks.


CHECK OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS, ROUYN-NORANDA
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue instructed Its income tax officials in Rouyn-Noranda to visit the presbyteries in order to check charitable donations receipts?
2.	Do these officials have the authority to cancel claims submitted by taxpayers?
(Translation):


Mr. Garland:: 1. Income tax officials are authorized to call on people who give out receipts for charitable donations in order to make sure that those receipts are genuine and that the organization issuing them has really received the amounts claimed as deductions for charitable purposes. Under that general authorization, the officials in Rouyn have visited some rectories.
2. Those officials have the power to reject or reduce claims submitted for charitable donations when they have reason to believe that the donations were smaller than the amounts claimed. Taxpayers have the statutory right to appeal when they feel that they have grounds to do so.
(Text):


ROUYN, QUE.  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS AND JOB PLACEMENTS
Mr. Martineau: 1.	How many claims for unemployment insurance benefits have been filed with the unemployment insurance commission office at Rouyn since April 21, 1963?
2.	How many claims have been approved?
3.	How many persons have registered with the placement office at Rouyn since April 21, 1963?
4.	How many persons so registered have found employment through the U.I.C. since April 21, 1963?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. 3,190. (Note) Figures for claims filed and approved are available on a monthly basis only. This answer is therefore based on the April and May reports, the June report has not yet been received.
Questions
2.	2,634. See note in No. 1.
3.	Data are available on a monthly basis only. Total registrations for employment received at the national employment office in Rouyn were 2,133 in April and 1,402 in May, 1963.
4.	Data are not available on how many of those in (3) above were placed; however, total placements effected by the Rouyn office were as follows: April-397; May-685.


FEDERAL INSPECTION OF MEAT
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the department of health of the province of Quebec invited the federal government to assume responsibility for the inspection of meat intended for human consumption in that province?
2.	What is the policy of the government in this respect?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare has not been asked by the province of Quebec to assume any provincial responsibility for the inspection of meat.
2. The food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare inspects abbatoirs, except those under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Agriculture, to determine the sanitary conditions under which meat is produced. The directorate does not conduct ante- or post-mortem inspections of meat; such inspections are conducted variously by the municipalities, provinces and the federal Department of Agriculture.


CANADIAN CLAIM TO ARCTIC ISLANDS
Mr. Groos: 1.	What Is the basis of Canada's claim to sovereignty over the islands in the Arctic archipelago?
2.	Do both the United States and the U.S.S.R.
recognize this claim?


John B. Stewart: 1. Canadian sovereignty over these areas of the Arctic has been established mainly by continuous effective occupation since 1870, when Canada succeeded to the rights of Great Britain and began to provide for the administration of the Canadian Arctic. This sovereignty has remained undisturbed and-but for a dispute with Norway over the Sverdrup islands in 1930, which was subsequently settled in favour of Canada- has remained unchallenged.
Attention is directed to the statement made by the then minister of northern affairs and national resources to the House of Commons special committee on estimates on March 23, 1955. This will be found on page 447 of the proceedings of the special committee.
2. On March 10, 1959, the then secretary of state for external affairs said at page 1822 of Hansard in answer to a similar question

Questions
in the House of Commons posed by the hon. member for Assiniboia, Mr. Argue:
A search of departmental records has failed to disclose any dispute since 1900 between Canada and either the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the United States concerning the ownership of any portion of the Canadian Arctic.
The situation has not changed since March 1959.
SALE OF TRAVELLERS* CHEQUES


Mr. Thompson: 1.	How many firms (other than banks) are engaged in the business of issuing and selling travellers' cheques in Canada?
2.	What supervision is exercised by the federal government over the issue of travellers' cheques by institutions other than banks?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The federal government does not receive any report with respect to persons (other than banks) engaged in the issue and sale of travellers' cheques in Canada.
2. None.


MAIL SERVICE, TORONTO-HUNTSVILLE
Mr. Smith: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for a temporary mail service between Toronto and Huntsville, estimated to start approximately June 24, and, if so, to whom was the contract awarded, and at what price?
2.	Was it awarded to the lowest bidder?


Mr. Denis:: 1. No contract has been awarded but a temporary arrangement has been entered into with James Bruce Nesbitt (Barrie Delivery Service) of Barrie, Ontario, commencing June 24, 1963, at the rate of $19,977 per annum.
2. Yes.


BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL IN STORAGE
Mr. Doucett: 1.	What was the amount of butter the government had in storage as of January 1, 1962?
2.	What was the amount of butter oil the government had in storage as of January 1, 1962?
3.	What was the amount of butter the government had in storage on the first day of each month in 1963?
4.	What was the amount of butter oil the government had in storage on the first day of each month in 1963?


Mr. Hays:: 1. The agricultural stabilization board had 114,585,624 pounds of butter in storage as of January 1, 1962.
2.	The agricultural stabilization board had 54,820,476 pounds of butter oil in storage as of January 1, 1962.
3.	The agricultural stabilization board had in storage the following quantities of butter on the first of each month in 1963: January 1, 120,215,805 pounds; February 1, 110,647,143 pounds; March 1, 99,800,287 pounds; April 1,

90,852,683 pounds; May 1, 88,363,736 pounds; June 1, 91,329,979 pounds; July 1, 104,484,355 pounds.
4.	The agricultural stabilization board had in storage the following quantities of butter oil on the first day of each month in 1963: January 1, 82,008,072 pounds; February 1, 81,937,008 pounds; March 1, 81,882,036 pounds; April 1, 81,702,162 pounds; May 1, 81,702,162 pounds; June 1, 81,645,840 pounds; July 1, 81,598,158 pounds.


FARM MACHINERY IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. Smith: 1.	What was the dollar value of farm machinery exported from Canada to other countries, excluding the United States, in each of the years 1944 to 1962 inclusive?
2.	What was the dollar value of farm machinery imported into Canada from countries, other than the United States, in each of the years 1944 to 1962 inclusive?


Mr. Pepin:: 1 and 2. The dollar value of farm machinery (including tractors) exported from Canada to other countries, excluding the United States, and imported into Canada from countries, other than the United States, in each of the years 1944 to 1962 inclusive:
Year	Exports	Imports1944	$ 7,560,147	$ 79,6121945	11,202,242	304,1591946	14,201,212	566,3441947	18,759,208	797,0881948	23,184,949	2,545,4751949	22,313,261	4,088,7781950	17,150,688	9,059,9531951	22,942,908	7,497,7241952	21,683,648	7,127,5651953	16,194,327	6,358,3371954	23,473,479	6,137,2941955	12,586,084	5,097,8721956	11,876,308	5,348,6781957	10,267,695	7,891,5791958	7,266,677	8,325,3431959	5,082,353	18,880,3861960	5,791,880	18,443,4331961	7,627,733	21,733,4501962	7,804,337	25,588,501


NUCLEAR ARMS AS DEFENCE MEASURE
Mr. Malher: 1.	Is the government aware of the statement by President Kennedy of the United States to the effect that one nuclear bomb can release more explosive power than ten times the amount delivered by all allied air forces in world war II?
2.	Does the government consider that the acquisition of nuclear arms by Canada is a useful defence measure?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. The government is aware of a speech made by the President of the United States from which this statement has been taken out of context.

2. The government considers that the storage of nuclear warheads to be earmarked for certain defensive weapon systems already acquired for the Canadian forces is a useful defence measure.


* REPORTED OVERPRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to reports that U.S. defence officials believe there is a gross overproduction of nuclear weapons?


John B. Stewart: As Canada is not a country which produces nuclear weapons and since such nuclear capable weapons as we have are intended to fulfil defence requirements which are not dependant on future production, any intention on the part of the U.S. government to cut back production on atomic weapons would not have a bearing on the availability of warheads for the weapon systems now held by the Canadian armed forces.


NUMBER OF SUICIDES
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many persons committed suicide in Canada in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?
2.	How many other causes of death outrank suicide, and what are they?
3.	What is the estimated number of attempted suicides in relation to successful suicides?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The following are the numbers of suicides in Canada in: 1959, 1,287; 1960, 1,350; 1961, 1,366; 1962, 1,331.
2.	According to a commonly accepted grouping of causes of death, there were 11 causes in 1962 that outranked suicide. They are: 1st, heart disease; 2nd, cancer; 3rd, vascular lesions affecting central nervous system; 4th, accidents; 5th, pneumonia; 6th, diseases of arteries; 7th, congenital malformations; 8th, diabetes mellitus; 9th, post natal asphyxia and atelectaisis; 10th, nephritis; 11th, birth injuries; 12th, suicide.
3.	For 1960, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 207 convictions for attempted suicide. In that year there were 1,350 deaths due to suicide. The ratio of the first figure to the second is: 0.1533; or 15.3 per cent.


CONSTRUCTION OF PENITENTIARY, SWEETSBURG, QUE.
Mr. Rondeau: In connection with the construction of a penitentiary at Sweetsburg, Quebec (a) what amount has been spent to date on this project (b) what are the names of the firms which were awarded these contracts (c) what are the nominal amounts of these contracts (d) is construction work now suspended and, if so, since when, and for what reasons
Questions
(e) has the project been abandoned (f) will a similar construction project be undertaken in St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville?


Mr. Macdonald:: (a) $92,840.81.
(b)	Contract was awarded to B & M Construction of Sweetsburg on March 8, 1963.
(c)	Contract amount is $362,298.
(d)	No.
(e)	No.
(f)	No.
(Translation):


ROYAL MINT AND CANADIAN BANK NOTE CO.
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Is the Royal Mint in Ottawa an agency of the government of Canada?
2.	What is its function?
3.	What procedure does the Bank of Canada follow in dealing with the Canadian Bank Note Company Ltd.?
4.	Does the Canadian Bank Note Company Ltd. produce paper money for the Bank of Canada?
5.	Does the Canadian Bank Note Company Ltd. produce paper money for its own account and then lend it to the Bank of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The Ottawa mint, established as a branch of the Royal Mint, London, under the (Imperial) Coinage Act, 1870, and opened January 2, 1908, was by 21-22 Geo. V., ch. 48, constituted a branch of the Department of Finance and by the proclamation of November 14, 1931, it has, since December 1, 1931, operated as the Royal Canadian Mint.
2.	The principal functions of the mint are: the execution of domestic and foreign coin; the refining of gold and silver; the acquisition of gold, silver and other metals, payments for which are made on the basis of mint assays; the control, preparation and movement of gold and coin shipments; the safeguarding of mint holdings of monetary metals, including coin and precious metals in various processing stages until finished and issued; the fabrication and engraving of dies for coinage, medals, signatures and official seals; the issue of coin sets to numismatists and the administration of various regulations issued under the terms and provisions of the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, R.S. 1952, ch. 315.
3.	Not a matter of public record.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
(Text):


HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT, LITTLE RIVER, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the Department of Public Works any plans for the further development of the harbour at

Questions
Little River, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, and, if so, when will this work commence, and to what extent?


Hubert Badanai: This will depend on the results of a study being carried out at the present time. The extent and scheduling of any work must await the completion of this study.


TARIFF BOARD DECISION ON EDIBLE OILS
Mr. Danforih: 1.	Has the tariff board given to the Department of Agriculture their ruling on the submission made by the Ontario soya-bean growers association and other interested parties with regard to an increase in Canadian tariffs on imports into Canada of edible oils and, if so, what decision was arrived at by the tariff board?
2.	If the report has not been received, when may it be expected?


Harry William Hays: 1. No.
2. The Department of Agriculture does not expect to receive this report until such time as it is tabled by the Minister of Finance.


SHELBURNE, N.S., PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	When were tenders called for the dominion public building at Shelburne, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has the contract been let?
3.	Is the building to be constructed on the site on King street, Shelburne?


Hubert Badanai: 1. April 17, 1963.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, at the northeast corner of King and Mo watt streets.


BREAKWATER REPAIRS, FELTZ SOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	When were tenders called for breakwater repairs at Feltz South, Lunenburg county, Nova
Scotia?
2.	Has the contract been let?
3.	What is the name of the successful contractor, and the amount of his bid?


Hubert Badanai: 1. April 17, 1963.
2 and 3. Yes, to Naugle's Sand and Gravel Company Limited of West Lawrencetown, N.S., at $45,466.28. However, it has now been decided to postpone construction as it has been determined that the repairs necessary are more extensive than called for in the specifications. The contractor has been advised and has agreed to the termination of the contract.


* SUCCESSION DUTIES COLLECTED, QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: What is the total amount of succession duties collected by the federal government in the province of Quebec during the years 1960-61 and 1961-62?


John Richard Garland: This information is available in government publication, "1962 Taxation Statistics" on page 19.


* PERSONAL INCOME TAX COLLECTED, QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: What is the total amount of personal income tax collected by the federal government in the province of Quebec during the years 1960-61 and 1961-62?


John Richard Garland: This information is available in government publication "1962 Taxation Statistics" on page 18.


* CORPORATION INCOME TAX COLLECTED, QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: What is the total amount of corporation income tax collected by the federal government in the province of Quebec during the years 1960-61 and 1961-62?


John Richard Garland: This information is available in government publication "1962 Taxation Statistics" on page 18.


EXPIRATION OF TERMS, WHEAT BOARD COMMISSIONERS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	When do the present terms of the (a) chief commissioner (b) assistant chief commissioner and (c) commissioners of the Canadian wheat board, expire?
2.	What is the normal age of retirement of personnel appointed to the Canadian wheat board?


Mr. Beer:: 1. Section 3, subsection 3 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act provides the following: "Each commissioner holds office during good behaviour but may be removed for cause at any time by the governor in council, but no commissioner shall hold office beyond the age of seventy years".
2. Under the provisions of the employee retirement plan of the Canadian wheat board of which the commissioners are members, the normal retirement age for male personnel is 65 years but as provided in the Statute, commissioners may continue in office until age 70.


SOVIET BOMBER STRENGTH
Mr. Douglas: 1.	As of January 1 each year from 1957 to 1963, how many Soviet bombers by types, have been estimated capable of making at least a one-way attack on the main industrial areas of southern Canada and the northern United States?
2.	Can each of these Soviet bombers carry H-bombs and, if so, (a) how many H-bombs can each type of Soviet bomber carry (b) what is the estimated total megatonnage of the H-bomb or H-bombs that can be carried by each Soviet bomber of each type?
3.	What percentage of these Soviet bombers is it estimated that the active air defences of NORAD would destroy (a) before they reach their target or bomb release position (b) before they reach the 54th parallel (c) before they reach the 60th parallel (d) before they reach mainland Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1, 2 and 3. Since the information requested is classified it should be appreciated that it would not be in the public interest for the government to answer these questions.


SOVIET INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES
Mr. Douglas: As of January 1, each year from 1957 to 1963, how many Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles have been estimated capable of striking the main industrial areas of southern Canada and the northern United States?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Since the information requested is classified it should be appreciated that it would not be in the public interest for the government to answer this question.


ABSENTEE VOTING
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to amending the Canada Elections Act in order to provide for absentee voting?


Yvon Dupuis: Parliament, not the government, amends the Canada Elections Act. There is a motion on the order paper to authorize the committee on privileges and elections to consider appropriate amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
(Translation):
[Editor's note: The following question was answered by the minister on Monday, July 8.]


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada taken an executive assistant or a special assistant on staff and, if so, what is this person's name, age, place of birth, institutions of education and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm) and initial and present salary with the government?
2.	What length of time has this assistant undertaken to serve the President of the Privy Council and/or what engagement in length of time was given to the assistant by the minister?
3.	In brief, what particular qualities of this assistant led the President of the Privy Council to engage him?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: 1. Yes, the President of the Queen's Privy Council has taken an executive assistant. The position was given to Gerard Brady, 50, born in Quebec city. He received his secondary education in St. Hyacinthe, under direction of Professor Bergeres. He also studied social, economic and political sciences at the University of Montreal and attended the course in journalism at the "Ecole universelle de Paris".
Mr. Brady, who was the founder of the newspaper L'Homme Libre had a career of 20 years in journalism. He was president of the "Association des hebdomadaires de langue frangaise du Canada" and he continues to sit on the board of directors of that associa-
Orders for Returns
tion, which has more than a hundred newspaper members across Canada, as an honorary life director.
He was chairman of the "Canadian Unity Week", a joint project of the "Association des hebdos" and the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association, which from 1947 to 1952 exchanged editorials promoting good relations between ethnic groups in Canada.
Mr. Brady also headed a firm of consultants in public relations, advertising writing, translation and public information known as the "Service d'information Drummond". He was also a C.B.C. commentator for about ten years. In the past few years he held the position of secretary general of the Liberal federation of Quebec. His initial and present salary is $12,000.
2.	During pleasure.
3.	Mr. Brady was hired because of his experience in newspaper and public relations work. We also took into account his knowledge of the problems of binationalism and biculturalism across Canada, his personality and his capacity for discussing matters and problems put to him.
(Text):



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mariineau: In their specifications, is it the practice of the architects of the Department of Public Works or of other departments or crown corporations to insist on hardwoods produced in other countries for furniture and woodwork required by the government or crown corporations and, if so, what are the reasons for this practice?


BANKRUPTCIES, QUEBEC AND CANADA
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What is the total number, the amounts involved, and the nature of bankruptcies in the province of Quebec during the last five years, and who suffered the losses?
2.	What is the total number, the amounts involved, and the nature of bankruptcies in Canada and in each of the other provinces during the last five years, and who suffered the losses?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Return tabled.


FINES IMPOSED UNDER COMBINES ACT
Mr. Orlikow: Since January 1, 1939, have any persons or corporations been fined for infractions of the Combines Investigations Act or section 411 or 412 of the Criminal Code and, if so (a) what are the names of the persons or corporations so fined (b) what was the amount of the fine in each case (c) when was the fine imposed (d) what infractions occasioned the fine?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Return tabled.

Motions for Papers


DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIONS AT RIDEAU CLUB, OTTAWA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many functions were held at the Rideau club by various government departments in the past three years?
2.	Which departments held such functions?


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL SCIENTISTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	What is the national research council definition of a scientist?
2.	According to this definition, how many scientists are there in each department?
3.	What is the age and salary of each?


Mr. Drury:: Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, BERTHIER-MASKINONGE-DELANAUDIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Paul: 1.	What were the total expenditures on public works in the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere during each of the fiscal years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63?
2.	For each of these fiscal years, on what public works projects were expenditures made?
3.	During 1963-64, what is the estimated total expenditure for public works in the above constituency, indicating in each case the nature and the amount of the expenditure?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
WHEAT AGREEMENT WITH RED CHINA Motion No. 26-Mr. Fisher:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the long term agreement signed by the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company covering the period June 1, 1961 to December 19, 1963.
Mr. Sharp:: May I speak to both this and the following motion, which are closely related. These motions relate to an agreement dated April 22, 1961, entered into between the Canadian wheat board and the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, and to contracts pursuant thereto between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company. After discussions with the Canadian wheat board and its advisory committee I am satisfied it would not be in the interest of the board as the selling agency for western wheat to produce either the long term agreement or the contracts entered into pursuant to that agreement. Such agreements and contracts between the board and its customers have never been produced.
There is no objection, however, to making public certain information contained in these documents. Indeed, much of it is already public knowledge and has appeared in the reports of the board and in the public press.

The only information that hon. members have inquired about in the past that does not seem to have become available is the date on which the long term agreement was signed in Peking, April 22, 1961. I was not here at the time, but this reluctance seems to have had something to do with the whereabouts of the former minister of agriculture on that particular day.
I have seen the hon. member and I understand he is prepared to accept production of the following information extracted from the long term agreement and the contracts: 1. The date of the long term agreement; 2. the names of those who signed on behalf of the Canadian wheat board; 3. the minimum and maximum quantities of wheat and barley covered by the long term agreement; 4. the quantities of wheat and barley actually sold under the agreement, and 5. the terms of payment.


Mr. Fisher:: I am pleased to have the information stated by the minister. I wish to point out to the house that these two motions were drafted by the hon. member for Ottawa West some time ago and were voted down in the house. I did not want to push them as far as that, or to take up so much of the time of the house with them, but I thought it was worth while making it possible for hon. members to see that there does seem to be a difference in attitude depending upon where you sit.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to, subject to the reservations made by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Fisher:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all contracts entered into between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company for the sale of grain under the long term agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company.
Mr. Speaker:: With regard to this motion, does the same agreement apply as in the case of the preceding motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Brewin:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all agreements, correspondence or other documents exchanged between the Department of Defence Production or any other representative of the federal government and H. J. Fairfield Company Limited at Owen Sound for the cancellation of any contract or agreement for the supply of army stocks.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government has no objection to the motion, and I am prepared to table the documents as soon as it is agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Herridge:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources and any of the staff of the water resources branch in Ottawa and the representatives of any non-government organization or other persons between January 1, 1961. until July 1, 1963.
He said: I should like to explain that there has been a very satisfactory renegotiation of the terms of this motion as a result of which we have come to a wholly satisfactory agreement as to the correspondence to be produced, without any surrender of sovereign rights, personal honour or dignity. So I am willing that the motion should be dropped.
Motion dropped.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Gregoire:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government, the Minister of Finance, employees of the Department of Finance or of any of its other branches, departments or employees, and any association, individual, organization, public body or group in connection with any protests on the withdrawal of the eleven per cent tax on building material.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The government has no objection to this motion, but it is almost exactly similar to one which was passed last week and to several others which were dealt with last week. It asks for virtually the same correspondence that was asked for by the hon. member for Selkirk. Perhaps it could be understood there would be only one production in response to all these motions so that we would not have to get documents copied over and over again. If there is anything in the hon. gentleman's motion which was not called for in the motion of the hon. member for Selkirk, that would be produced separately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to, subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the same reservation would apply to the other motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the motion is acceptable as it is.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: My question is, does it apply to the subsequent motion standing in the name of the same hon. member?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the subsequent motion stands on its own feet.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Gregoire:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government, the Minister of Finance, employees of the Department of Finance or of any of its other branches, departments or employees, and any association, individual, organization, public body or group in connection with any protests on the withdrawal of the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian shares to non-residents.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Pigeon:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams exchanged between the Department of Transport and the government of Quebec on the acquisition of Soulanges canal.
Mr. Mcllrailh:: There is no objection to this motion subject to the usual reservation as to the consent of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation stated by the minister is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all telegrams, letters and other correspondence exchanged between different members of the Canadian army staffs and the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Defence Production, and their assistant, concerning the construction of the future "manage militaire" of Thetford Mines, P.Q.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I understood the hon. member was prepared to let this motion stand today.


Mr. Langlois:: Until I have had a meeting with the minister in question. I understand there are certain reservations likely to be made.
Motion stands.



GLASSCO COMMISSION STUDIES RESPECTING C.B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry before this house a copy of all studies done by the Glassco commission in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Douglas Mason Fisher: May I move this on behalf of my hon. friend?
(Translation):


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member who has introduced this motion, I suggest that it stand.
(Text):
Motion stands.



CONTRACTS WITH OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, FINANCE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Knowles:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the contracts entered into with Mr. D. C. H. Stanley, Mr. M. P. O'Connell and Mr. G. R. Conway, under treasury board minute T.B. 610618, dated May 2, 1963, and a copy of the contract entered into with Mr. R. J. Anderson, under treasury board minute T.B. 610952, dated May 17, 1963.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
High! Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask him whether the announcement made by U Thant that the United Nations force is to be withdrawn from the Congo by the end of this year means that the situation in that country is so stable that the danger has passed, or does it signify that the U.S.S.R. and other members of the United Nations who have refused to pay their proportionate share of the cost of these peace keeping operations have in fact won their point and established a financial veto?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat had given me notice of his intention to ask a somewhat similar question, and in acknowledging this question from the Leader of the Opposition I wish to let the hon. gentleman know that I have received notice of his intention to ask a question.
As the house is aware, the end of the Katanga secession removed the need for large numbers of United Nations troops in the Congo. In these circumstances it is my understanding that the secretary general, deeply concerned about the heavy drain on United Nations financial resources, hopes to withdraw United Nations forces from the Congo

as soon as possible. The Canadian government both shares his concern and supports his objective in this regard.
With regard to the last portion of the Leader of the Opposition's question, as my hon. friend knows, at the special assembly of the United Nations, arrangements were made for the financial obligations arising out of the peace keeping operations of the United Nations in the Congo and UNEF until the end of 1963. What would have been the situation in respect of the Congo after 1963 but for the financial position in which the United Nations has found itself remain a conjecture. Undoubtedly the situation would have been easier if all member states of the organization had paid up both their normal assessments and what we believe to be their obligations with regard to peace keeping operations. It remains simply to say this, that the operations in the Congo of the peace keeping force of the United Nations, notwithstanding very great difficulties, represents the great utility, the great purpose and the indispensability of the United Nations in situations like this.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Aside from the financial commitments respecting peace keeping operations, my understanding is that the secretary general, U Thant, made a plea yesterday in Geneva for further belt tightening in other operations of the United Nations. A few days ago the minister made a statement to the house which indicated that all the financial commitments of the United Nations for the balance of this year had been arranged for. I wonder whether he could tell us why the secretary general is now making a plea for more belt tightening in other operations of the organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman also gave me notice of his intention to ask this question, and I wish now to reply to it. When I reported to the house on June 25 about developments at the fourth special session of the United Nations general assembly I was referring exclusively to the problems of financing the peace keeping operations in the Middle East and the Congo. The arrangements made at the special session had to do mainly with the problem of finding funds for those operations for the six month period ending December 31, 1963. No progress was made on the problem resulting from the refusal of the Soviet union and certain other states to pay their share of the peace keeping assessments.

The continuation of this undesirable situation, and the heavy burden of these peace keeping expenditures, and the substantial increase in the size of the regular United Nations budget for other administrative costs has prompted the secretary general to make urgent pleas for strict economies in all fields of United Nations activity. In Geneva yesterday he was voicing his worries in relation to programs of economic and social development.
I might say to my hon. friend and to the house that the government of Canada shares fully his concern, and deeply regrets that it is not possible to deal with a peace keeping deficit of some $120 million when the nations of the world find it so easy to find money to provide armaments for defensive and other purposes.



REPORTED USE OF POISON GAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the presence of Canadian personnel with the United Nations force in Yemen and the reported use of poison gas and other chemicals in that area by another country, which is reportedly being investigated by the secretary general, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs bring us up to date on whether or not chemical warfare is being carried on in this area and, if so, are any measures being taken to protect Canadian personnel in the area?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the reports to which my hon. friend directs our attention with regard to the use of poison gas against the local inhabitants in Yemen. These are of course grave charges, and the United Nations has announced that the acting commander of its observer mission has been asked to provide a report on the matter. The Canadian government is, of course, in close day to day contact with those authorities to whom our concern should be directed, through our permanent mission at the United Nations in New York with regard to the functioning of the U.N. observer mission, and particularly the responsibilities and the security of the Canadian personnel involved.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secre-
Inquiries of the Ministry tary of State for External Affairs. Did the former Conservative government agree to the sale of downstream benefits under the Columbia river treaty, thus accepting the propositions of Premier Bennett?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend asked this question. I might add that article 8 of the original treaty negotiated by the right hon. gentleman opposite and his colleague allowed for the possible sale in the United States of undefined portions of Canada's downstream power benefits on conditions and within limits which were initially to be agreed on as soon as possible after the ratification date.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was there any agreement between the British Columbia government and the government of Canada before the Columbia treaty was signed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there was no such agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, and if there had been there would not have been this delay.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his statement in connection with the agreement between British Columbia and the dominion government over the sale of downstream benefits there were two points which were not made clear. Can the minister inform the house how much of Canada's share of the downstream benefits it was agreed would be sold in the United States and for what period was it agreed that these downstream benefits should be sold?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, these are matters that will be involved in the negotiations which I hope will begin very shortly with the United States. My hon. friend, with his great experience as a minister of the crown will appreciate how undesirable it would be at this stage to disclose any of the matters that will be covered by the negotiations between the two governments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has misapprehended my question. I asked him, what was the agreement between Canada and British Columbia on Canada's share of the downstream benefits which may be sold to the United States? Is it 50 per cent of Canada's share or is it 100 per

Inquiries of the Ministry cent? In addition, I should like to know what agreement there was between the province and the dominion as to the period of time for which these benefits should be sold. The minister is no doubt aware that, to date these were the main sticking points so far as British Columbia was concerned.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The agreement, of course, does not deal with the subject matter in the manner and in the context referred to by my hon. friend. The duration of the sale of downstream benefits is obviously a matter for negotiation, and I cannot at this time disclose that information to the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I ask the minister if this is not the very matter that was to be negotiated with British Columbia? If not, what was to be negotiated?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: If my hon. friend will be good enough to look at the agreement, he will see it does not cover that question.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In the talks on the Columbia river treaty between the province of British Columbia and this government, was there any discussion of the increase in the cost of the project as a result of the 4-8-11 per cent sales tax on construction and production materials?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The hon. member may be disappointed in my answer, but the answer is no.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have a question to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his earlier statement today on the Columbia river treaty. My question is this. Is the government prepared to take action to have the present draft treaty on the Columbia river, together with the agreement between Canada and British Columbia which was tabled today, referred to the external affairs committee of this house prior to the resumption of any negotiations with the government of the United States?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, this was one of the questions with which I should have liked to deal earlier, but I am glad to deal with it now. The British Columbia-Can-ada agreement will not be complete until we are able to attach to it a protocol of adjustment in the treaty on the proposed sale, if satisfactory terms can be secured, of the downstream benefits. This agreement will not be complete until these schedules have been agreed upon. Similarly, the treaty will have to be supplemented or amplified by the proposed protocol.
I have already made clear in this house that after the government has had an op-


portunity of viewing the results of the negotiations between its representatives and the government of the United States, and has arrived at a decision as to the treaty, before ratification takes place the treaty and agreement will be submitted to this house for consideration by it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning unemployment insurance coverage for employees in agriculture. Since the minister informed the house yesterday that there is an interdepartmental committee of senior officials engaged in continued study of the Gill commission report, would the minister direct their attention to the problem as to whether ways and means could be found to overcome the administrative and procedural difficulties to which reference was made in the Gill report, in order that farm labour could also benefit from unemployment insurance coverage?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to the hon. member's representations and ask the committee to pay special attention to this problem, if it has not already done so.



EXTENSION OF BENEFITS TO WORKERS IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the answer he gave the hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac on July 8 concerning Canadians working across the border. He said that this matter had been under negotiation for the past 20 years. I would not want to rush things, but would it be possible for the government to have a definite answer or a definite agreement concluded before the next 15 years have gone by?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of his statement to the press yesterday that he is giving consideration to bringing business and industry into closer relationship with the government in the planning of future

budgets, it is also his intention to give consideration to bringing in closer contact with the government organizations such as labour, agriculture, and others who might be affected by such a budget?
Eight Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think the hon. gentleman's suggestion is a very good one. If consultation within the limits of secrecy could be extended to business in the way suggested, it should also be extended to other economic elements such as labour, agriculture, and others.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the resignation of the Ontario representative of the Montreal fair board, and indications from previous information that only a few of the provinces or regions of Canada are represented on this board, whether he is considering taking any steps to broaden the scope of the board and handle what appears to be a unilingual problem on the board.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is presently under consideration.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. According to press reports I understand the minister has been closely associated with "hope" for some time, and I hope he can answer my question. Has the minister made arrangements to have a federal government representative in attendance at the hearings now being held of an inquiry into the production and marketing of milk in Ontario?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have met the Ontario league on several occasions and this matter is under consideration. We will be able to announce the result later.



REPORTED INTENTION TO CONCLUDE WORK AT SASKATCHEWAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the min-
Inquiries of the Ministry ister received a communication from the south Saskatchewan sheep growers association protesting the contemplated closing down of the sheep department at the dominion experimental farm at Swift Current? Rather than ask a supplementary question later, may I ask the minister whether he does not agree that such action, if taken, will be a severe blow to the sheep raising industry of western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put that question on the order paper, please?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious and urgent question. It is also of national importance, as it concerns the whole sheep industry of Canada. In addition, I understand that the contemplated action is going to be taken in the near future. Therefore I submit with deference that it is an urgent question.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek may I say it was felt by the department that the experiment carried on with this particular flock of sheep at the experimental farm at Swift Current had been completed, and it was contemplated that the flock of sheep would be moved to the farm at Manyberries. This matter has not been Anally decided yet and I will consider what the hon. member has said in this regard. The experimental farm at Swift Current is mainly for grasses. The production of sheep in the whole southern part of Saskatchewan has fallen off a great deal, as it has of course in all the prairie provinces, and it is felt that any experimenting with sheep in the future can be carried out better at Manyberries where most of the sheep production takes place.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question. From the minister's own words would he not agree that the sheep industry in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but this is argumentative.
(Translation) :



PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister intend to proclaim a support price for pulpwood, at the request of the U.C.C. and the farmers concerned?
(Text):


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to start over. I could not hear him.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question. Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to recommend the establishment of a support price for pulpwood, as requested by the farmers concerned?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this question be put on the order paper.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, he was asked to repeat the question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think my question was proper and I would be very pleased if the minister would answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question was quite in order, but it should be put on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, actually the hon. member for Ontario asked the Prime Minister the question I wanted to ask and I welcome the Prime Minister's answer. But since you have called on me perhaps I might put a question to the Secretary of State. In order to save a little time on Mondays and Wednesdays, I wonder whether it is not possible to avoid Your Honour having to call the number of every question on the order paper. Did we not for a time have a device whereby the Secretary of State would rise and say that questions numbers so and so were answered and questions numbers so and so were to be made orders for returns? Would the Secretary of State consider the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I welcome any suggestion that would lead to a saving of time, but this was a change made by the committee on procedure when the hon. member was not a member of the house. I regret the change, but it was made. However, if we could have unanimous consent to set up the committee on procedure perhaps we could get a few of these changes, including the admirable change suggested on a number of occasions by the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister, that questions on the orders of the day should be limited to half an hour, to which the official opposition of that time agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since the hon.
gentleman, with his customary disregard of the rules, has brought me into the picture, let me say that hon. gentlemen opposite were the
[Mr. Hays.l
ones who brought about the expansion of the asking of questions in the house. They were the wrongdoers, and now they object to that which they themselves created.


Mr. Chevrier:: What about your disregard of the rules?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition has made this statement, it should be made perfectly clear that the limitation of questions to 30 minutes was agreed to by us when we were in opposition, and was not agreed to by the then prime minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure we do not want to extend the question period beyond four o'clock. The hon. member for-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. It is without any basis in fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Leader of the Opposition has made that statement, perhaps the leaders of the other two parties who were concerned with the negotiations at that time might have something to say on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I apologize for making a suggestion to save time. Obviously such a suggestion only results in our losing time.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of his press conference of yesterday. Will the actual signing of a general bilateral agreement with the United States for the acquisition of nuclear warheads for the Canadian forces be the subject of a public announcement? Will the public be advised of the fact when nuclear warheads have been acquired in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there will be a public announcement when the agreement is signed and all relevant information within the limits of security will be made known to the public. (Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question.

Can he tell the house what steps his department intends to take to prevent the impending slowdown strike of 90 per cent of the letter carriers who are refused the salary boost they have requested?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question is within the province of my colleague the Minister of Finance, who will announce in due time the salary increases for the civil service employees, including the letter carriers.


Rémi Paul: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What stand does the Postmaster General intend to take personally to prevent this strike?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any slowdown will occur, because this government will take the necessary steps before it starts.
(Text):



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have a brief question I should like to address to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence perhaps the associate minister would take it as notice. In the light of statements made by the A.O.C. of the maritime command of the R.C.A.F. recently at a press conference, that there was an urgent need to rebuild two runways at the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside for operational reasons, is it the intention of the government to continue that program which was well under way under the previous government?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will take that question as notice.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I put a question to the Minister of Justice when he was Acting Prime Minister, concerning a request by the St. Lawrence seaway authority asking that the French language be banned in pilotage manoeuvring. I would be most happy if the minister could supply me with an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to answering that question although it was declared
Inquiries of the Ministry out of order yesterday. It is normally the Minister of Transport who deals with such questions, but since it was directed to me during the absence of the Prime Minister, I reply to the hon. member that:
1.	The St. Lawrence seaway authority never asked or sent a request asking that the French language be banned in pilotage manoeuvring.
2.	A verbal inquiry from lawyers acting for organizations or private customers reveals that Mr. R. J. Burnside did not make the statement attributed to him. Confirmation will be made by the minutes of his evidence as soon as they reach the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
(Text):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: I think, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is anxious to reply to a question of mine about winter navigation.


George James McIlraith: On June 26, as appears on page 1608 of Hansard, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked a question concerning winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river. I might answer that the growth of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river to which the hon. member refers is very small in amount and is not directly assisted by departmental icebreakers which may be working in the river for other purposes. These purposes are of long standing, and involve protection of shore property from flooding.
Such commercial traffic as there is has been pioneered by commercial interests and, while any such changes in trading patterns may call for adjustments in the total economy, it is not the intention of this government to initiate action for the improvement of conditions in one area which would have significant adverse effects on other parts of the country. The St. Lawrence seaway authority is not giving consideration to the matter of all-winter use of the seaway.
As to the other part of the question concerning United States congressional action on this matter, I have had no official notice in that connection and have no knowledge of it, other than the reference contained in the newspaper article.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask
a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether, in effect, that statement informs us that the commercial business that has developed into Quebec and Montreal would have been possible without the icebreaker?

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Mcllrailh: No, Mr. Speaker, I was careful not to express it in that way.


Thomas Miller Bell: In respect of the United States investigation concerning winter navigation, will the minister keep the house informed of the position and attitude of the government on this and in fact, if necessary, due to the joint nature of the seaway, insist on our rights to make representations on this important matter?


George James McIlraith: In answer to that request, I think I should point out that the United States action now being taken is to create legislative authority for a study to be made. It is not the setting up of the study itself.
(Translation):



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether it is true, as reported in he Devoir of this morning, that the royal inquiry on biculturalism will be set up next Monday?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we hope to be able to make an announcement on either Friday or Monday. That will depend on the replies we receive by that time from certain individuals who have been asked to serve on the commission.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Does he intend to appoint Messrs. Gerard Pelletier and Andre Laurendeau on that commission?
(Text) :


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which is not in order.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? While we are waiting for all that, would the Prime Minister be ever so kind as to provide us with the French version of Beauchesne, in view of the fact that the English edition of those citations often contain some very special legal terms which French speaking members find particularly hard to understand?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am always happy to try to accommodate the hon. gentleman.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question concerning possible action to postpone C.N.R. run-throughs in western Canada, as appears at page 1976 of Hansard. A similar question was directed to me by the hon. member for Acadia on June 26, and I replied at that time, as shown at page 1606 of Hansard. A related question having to do with this subject matter was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on July 5, and was replied to by my colleague the Minister of Labour on July 8, as appears at page 1929 of Hansard.
There is not much I can add to these answers. Meetings were held in Winnipeg on February 5 and Edmonton on February 14, between C.N.R. management and senior running trades union representatives. There was a further meeting in Winnipeg on May 28 at which detailed plans were outlined for the run-through program. There have been requests to me for postponement of the run-through program in western Canada. However, this is a matter relating to the internal operation of the railway, and therefore the only thing I can do is draw the requests to the attention of the railway management. This I have done.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that, in view of the decision not to intervene announced by the Minister of Transport, there is every likelihood that Canadian National Railways in western Canada will be tied up in mid-August with a wildcat strike?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the premise put forward by the hon. gentleman is not necessarily correct. I am aware of the situation about which my hon. colleague has made a reply, and I am very anxious that the Department of Labour take a responsible course in this situation which involves the relationship between workers and management that is covered by an existing agreement. It is within that context that the Department of Labour would discharge its responsibilities.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As a supplementary question, would the minister consider investigating the true allegiance or true support that the senior members of the railway brotherhood, the running trades, now have in western Canada, because I think this is the crux of the situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that to undertake an investigation to determine the allegiance of union members to their leaders would be an extraordinary activity on the part of the Department of Labour.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-"Fund".
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few moments of the time of the committee to say something about this legislation which potentially can be of such great importance to the maritime provinces and the Atlantic provinces, including of course Newfoundland. Ever since confederation we in the maritime provinces have had the experience of not sharing fully in the prosperity and general development of the economy of our country as a whole.
The fruits of confederation had been disappointing to us for many years, and many representatives from the maritimes, members of all parties in this house, repeatedly brought this situation to the attention of various governments. In fact it was not until six years ago that the special case of the Atlantic provinces was recognized, and special grants were made to the governments of those provinces which made it possible for them to raise the level of services such governments are called upon to provide, and which have many social connotations, as well as providing the environment, the necessary public works, roads, schools, educational institutions and so forth which are the prerequisite for economic development.
The previous government also passed legislation within the last 12 months to set up this development board for the maritime provinces, and I am a bit concerned that so early in the life of this legislation it is being amended. It would have been the course of wisdom to let the board operate under the original legislation to see how effective it would be and then, at a later date, make amendments if any were required in the light of the experience gained. I am sure this board is still only in the embryo stage, but already the legislation concerning it is being amended, even though when experience is gained I feel there will be further amendments necessary.
There are many projects and a great field of activity in which this board can operate,
Atlantic Development Board Act and one of its problems will be to refrain from duplicating work already being done by other organizations or certain departments of government. It will have a very important role to carry out in the field of co-ordinating the efforts which are being made by all organizations, including governments, for the economic development of the maritime provinces, and in this I include projects which are put forward and prepared by private enterprise. This is perhaps the most important field of all.
Having made those few general remarks. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the proposed amendments. I regret very much that the board is being enlarged at this time. The Secretary of State, who is piloting this legislation through the house, uses the very fine-sounding phrase that the board is being strengthened. It does not necessarily follow that the board is being strengthened by being enlarged. What is being done is that we are enlarging the board to provide a membership of 11 rather than five in order that the appointees of the present government will have a majority on the board. I do not think this is necessarily a wise proposal. It has unfortunate political overtones which I for one regret.
The Secretary of State seems to have great faith in the Canadian people accepting his statements at face value, with blind faith. I think their experiences in the past do not justify the Canadian people, or the people in the maritime provinces anyway, in accepting statements from the Secretary of State with this type of unquestioning, blind faith. I would like to see the present members remain on the board until the term of office under which they were appointed has been completed. I would also like to see-if it is necessary, for the reasons given, to enlarge the board-the membership enlarged to nine only. I think a board with this membership would be quite large enough. Boards which have a large membership tend to be unwieldy. It will be difficult to obtain a quorum on occasion, and there are many other difficulties which can be envisaged. Nevertheless we are confronted with this amendment, and until this legislation is passed I suppose the present board is almost in a state of suspended animation and the progress which should be made by the board at the present time is probably not being made until their fate is made known to them.
I have some questions in mind which this legislation brings one to consider. One concerns the setting up of a fund of $100 million for special purposes in the Atlantic provinces. It seems to me that including this provision in the legislation smacks of a concern on the

Atlantic Development Board Act part of the government to fulfil to the letter statements and commitments which were ill-considered and made at random during an election campaign. I think this is the reason for this proposal, rather than the government thinking it is in the best interests of the area concerned.
The party which is now in power made the commitment to set up a special fund; but it does not follow that this is good practice or that it is beneficial to the Atlantic provinces. There is some slight assurance in the statement of the Secretary of State that this amount will be the floor. I think it is difficult for us at this time to look into the future far enough to see the amount of money which may be necessary; this will depend upon the activity of the board and the recommendations they make to the government. But I do think this is a bad principle. If we pass this legislation we are, in effect, voting en bloc $100 million to be administered by a board which is not directly responsible to parliament. This is a new precedent which I think is very unfortunate. After all, one of the basic principles of parliamentary government is that parliament shall have complete control over the voting of public money to be used for public projects. In this connection it has been said, of course, that when the board makes recommendations they will be considered by treasury board; but treasury board is only a committee of the government, and the government is not parliament. It is one of the sacred rights of parliament to carefully scrutinize the voting of supply to the government. I regret this departure from our rights. In effect we are at the present time, if we pass this legislation, voting en bloc $100 million as a minimum for purposes with regard to which we have only a vague conception at the present time. We do not know upon what projects or undertakings the money is to be spent.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question regarding this matter. Will the provisions of the Financial Administration Act apply to moneys spent by the board out of this $100 million fund? In other words, if the board is engaged in some activity which requires the letting of contracts and this sort of thing-perhaps construction-will the manner in which this money is spent be in complete accord with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, in the same way as would be the case with regard to money spent by a department of government? I would like to be assured in regard to this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the committee any longer at the present time. However, 1 see that the Secretary of State has resumed his seat. I knew it was necessary

for him to leave the chamber for a few moments, and therefore I delayed asking this question. I would ask the Secretary of State to clarify a statement he made last evening when closing the debate on second reading. I want to be fair to the hon. gentleman; he may have said something that did not truly reflect what was in his mind. As reported at page 2014 of Hansard, he said this:
I suggest that, for the rest of the consideration, of this bill, we forget whether the previous government, which made a good start in this matter, should get the credit, or whether it should he the present government, which is trying to carry out to the letter what we promised the electors to do, for which we elected 20 members out of 33 members in the Atlantic provinces in the last election.
Then he went on:
Surely if there is to be good faith in public life at all, when you give undertakings to people and they vote for you, you should carry out those undertakings.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State does not imply there that the corollary is also true, that if people do not vote for a party and it is elected to power, they have no obligation to carry out the commitments made. I would like to be assured that the Secretary of State recognizes that if a party is elected, it forms a government for all the people and is responsible to the people who voted against it as well as to those who voted for it. Under the present circumstances, of course, those who did not vote for the present government form a majority of the Canadian people. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State, who is an adopted son of the Atlantic provinces-


Thomas Miller Bell: Orphan.


John Angus MacLean: -appears to recognize the special needs of the maritime provinces, and I would hate to think that the maritime provinces will receive their just rewards only if they knuckle under and guess right as to what government will be next elected to power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to clear up that point right away. I think the hon. gentleman has convicted me of using the language very loosely. I am glad he brought the matter up, because when I was looking at the Hansard record of what I said last night, before I went home, it crossed my mind that this was, to put it mildly, ambiguous. Certainly it was sloppy. What I meant to say was that when a political party gives certain undertakings and, as a result, gets into office, it should carry out those undertakings. That is all I meant, and I think the language, in the loose way we speak colloquially, is capable of bearing that interpretation. However, I admit it is also capable of the interpretation which the hon. member put upon it.

I could not agree with him more completely in saying that once an election is over, and once a government has been established, that government should remember at all times that it is the government of all of the people of Canada, regardless of how they might have chosen to vote in a free country. That is the only way in which we can maintain the kind of institutions to which I believe all of us in this house are devoted.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Last
evening, when this committee rose, I had sent over to the Secretary of State a suggested amendment and I was proceeding to speak, briefly I hope, in connection with certain other amendments which I felt would be good for the bill which is before us, and which would eliminate the general idea which might be prevalent that something is being introduced into the bill which instead of strengthening it is likely to weaken it.
We have a board of five people under arrangements set up by an act of parliament. Now it is proposed there shall be six additions to the board-something which was promised, it is reported, by the Prime Minister-and these people are to be representative of various phases of economic activity. I submit that the government would be accused of attempting to weaken the bill if they placed the members now serving on the board in any inferior position to those it is proposed to appoint. It seems to me the six men should be appointed for the period of time the bill specifies, but that there should be no reduction of the period of time which the original members were appointed to serve. It is only in this way that the government will avoid being accused of trying to dilute the force of the bill rather than strengthen it.
Accordingly, I will send over to the Secretary of State another piece of paper which I should like him to look at. He has complete authority, as he had last night, to impose another name on it if he wishes to do so after consideration. I have already said that I feel clause 20, which is the clause providing that the act shall expire in six years time, or on January 24, 1969, should be deleted. So I will send another proposal over to him.
Last night I made certain statements about the responsibility of government and particularly about the responsibility of parliament about voting money. I am pleased that my colleague who has just spoken has the same feeling as myself in connection with the voting of public money. I do not say this in any partisan spirit, but let me call the attention of the committee to this: not only should we refrain from giving this board or any board the right to dispose of an amount such as $100 million without parliamentary sanction, but in this particular case, as we are
10, 1963	2047
Atlantic Development Board Act operating in a deficit position what we are really doing is proposing to borrow that money and place it at the disposal of a non-elected body. In my opinion that should not be done, and I am going to suggest an amendment in this connection also. I shall send this one over to the Secretary of State, too.
Last evening, the Secretary of State read at some length from the report of the commission on Canada's economic prospects as a basis for his argument that the board should go out of existence in six years time. That commission was, of course, headed by the gentleman who is now Minister of Finance, and I marvel at the hon. gentleman's temerity in presenting this report as an excuse for anything done in this house, because in my opinion the elections of 1957, 1958 and 1962 surely demonstrate that the proposals contained in that report were not acceptable to the people of the maritimes. The Secretary of State suggests that this was the opinion of the chairman of that commission-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of the whole commission.


Hugh John Flemming: All
right-of the whole commission. In spite of that, why should this parliament follow that opinion to the extent of proposing that the board shall function for less than six years before going out of existence? I marvel at the lack of judgment shown by the Secretary of State in proposing such a thing. The commission made certain recommendations. A number of them were not carried out and I do not think they will be carried out by the present government. They suggested that maritimers be helped to move out.


Mr. Robichaud:: No.


Hugh John Flemming: Oh, yes. They suggested they should move. That is the word which is used.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Be frank, read the whole sentence.


Hugh John Flemming: I am
making my own speech and I do not want any help from the hon. member for Gloucester.


John George Diefenbaker: You won't get any.


Hugh John Flemming: The
point is this: The previous government did not want to help the maritimers move out. They wanted to help them stay in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman why every year the previous government was in power the minister of labour came and asked the house to vote large sums of money to be used precisely for the purpose of moving people out of the maritime
2048	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board Act provinces to upper Canada

much larger sums, it seems to me, than were ever voted for this purpose before?


Hugh John Flemming: I have not been a member of this house for very long, certainly not as long as the Secretary of State or the hon. member for Gloucester. I do not think these sums amounted to very much; I think they were just ordinary. But the previous government voted money to build up the Atlantic provinces, and I have no reason to think that the present government are not going to continue to vote the same amounts. I certainly hope they will, and so far I have no reason to think that they will not. But I do not think the so-called Gordon report on Canada's economic prospects should be the determining factor in amending this piece of legislation passed by parliament in December, which would now go out of existence. That is my point, and I submit that it is a valid point and should be considered by the government.
A few minutes ago I said that the government should consider my proposal, and the Secretary of State has proposed an amendment. I think these new appointments should be made. A few minutes ago the Secretary of State rose in his place and spoke about commitments made during an election. I have no doubt that he spoke with sincerity, but I think he should also recognize that governments have a degree of responsibility in carrying out commitments as well. These gentlemen who were appointed should be continued in office for the length of time for which they were appointed, otherwise they will be in an inferior position and I do not think their position would be tenable. They would be in an inferior position to the new appointees, and I think their position would be such that they could not out of respect to themselves continue in office unless they were continued for at least the same length of time as the new appointees. I suggest that they be continued for the full time for which they were appointed.
Last night I was very much interested-


Mr. Lloyd:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? What seems to be the great anxiety about the persons being added as against those already there? Surely everybody knows the names of the present members and what they are capable of performing. The hon. member does not know who will be appointed and-


Hugh John Flemming: If the
hon. gentleman wants to speak when I am through, that is his privilege; but what is his question?


John Edward Lloyd: What is your anxiety? What are you trying to protect by this change? You are making a lot of allusions to what is going to happen, but what are you trying to protect?


Hugh John Flemming: I am
trying to see that the decent thing is done, and that seems to be something which is unknown to some hon. members on the opposite side, although I did not think that applied to the senior member for Halifax. Last night we listened to a speech from the Secretary of State in which I was greatly interested because he mentioned his conception of what the board should do and what it should particularly stand for. He mentioned among other things that it should create a climate, and with that I agree.
Two other things he mentioned, and which I remember at the moment, were power and transportation. When I talk about power I immediately think of the very large potential existing in the province of Newfoundland, in Labrador at Hamilton falls, and of the great plans underway to make that power available to the national grid. When we speak of a national grid, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might say that in my opinion nothing brought more promise to the Atlantic provinces than did the suggestion of a national grid for electricity from one end of the country to the other. When one considers that something like 4 million horsepower is available in Labrador, which I believe is classified under that most desirable heading of firm power, for use by a national grid to supply cheap electrical energy to eastern Canada, for which we have suffered, it seems to me that the Secretary of State is undoubtedly right. We also have the benefit of the experience we have had of the grid which now exists as between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
One hon. member yesterday stood in his place and said that he understood that the savings so far from the grid system which had been established between those two provinces had been in the order of $60 million. I think that was the amount he mentioned; certainly it was an amount of great magnitude. If this figure is anything like correct, then it has been a tremendous success. If the power which is presently about to be developed in the northern part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I understand is something in the order of 4 million horsepower-


John Whitney Pickersgill: About six.


Hugh John Flemming: Then
that makes it all the more desirable-can be put into a national grid, it seems to me that the possibilities of power development become tremendous, and as a consequence industry

will follow that cheap power. That is what we will get in the Atlantic provinces. Undoubtedly the Secretary of State is quite justified in his concept in that regard, and I certainly hope that what he has said will come to pass. A surplus of cheap power will always attract interest and investigation. I understand it is already arranged that a surplus of this power is to be sold to the United States. That is undoubtedly justified because we certainly could not handle an amount of that nature without some guarantee as to what was going to be done with it. I am intrigued very much by the fact that it may be in the not too distant future that work will be done on this very large development.
I should like to refer again to the words of the Secretary of State last evening, because I find myself in an area of disagreement. He said, as reported on page 2013 of Hansard:
I think the Atlantic development hoard is going to be concerned primarily with improving transportation, improving power and other facilities which would make an area more attractive to industry.
That is right and I agree with him; but some further remarks of his certainly do not represent my views at the moment. He went on:
Of the twothat is, the development of smaller business and spending the fund-
-it is the more important. I do believe the fund is also needed because there are projects, as every hon. member can see for himself, that are not undertaken directly for a specific industry. I am not going to attempt to describe what they are because I know what would happen if I did; 1 would be accused of leaving this one or that one out of favouring one, and just get myself into a lot of unnecessary trouble and unnecessary debate.
That brings up the whole question of the consideration of this matter by this board from a regional rather than from a financial point of view. I am sure that his misgivings are justified in that respect because I think that if the board is to be successful it has to approach its duties from a regional point of view with the idea of benefiting the whole region. So I believe that the people who have something to do with it must of necessity forget provincial boundaries. In the final analysis I think it will be better for each province if they adapt themselves to that concept.
At the moment I think I have exhausted everything I wished to express at this time. No doubt the Secretary of State and other members will be speaking further on the bill, but I hope that the amendments that have been suggested with a view, I assure the hon. gentleman, to carrying out his avowed intention of strengthening the board will be
10, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act accepted with the idea in mind that they will strengthen and add something to it.
I said last December that in my opinion this was the most important single step that had been taken in my lifetime for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces. I am still of the same opinion. I am not completely discouraged because of the changes which are being made provided they seem to be made with the idea of really strengthening the board. I do not object to some election commitments being fulfilled as long as in the final analysis they do not impair the efficiency of the board itself. These are my comments at the moment. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the amendments with a certain amount of care.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I did not speak on the resolution stage or on second reading, and since my name has sometimes been closely associated with matters affecting the maritime provinces I might be a little bit afraid that if I did not appear on the record at all it would be assumed I had given tacit approval and consent to the bill. I do not want that misconception to be raised, so for a moment or two I want to speak very briefly on clause 1.
All I need to say is that I agree entirely with what my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, has said with respect to the bill. I think it is unnecessary. If not bad, in my opinion it certainly has very little good in it, and I believe we would have been just as well off if the bill had never been introduced at all. There are political overtones in the bill which certainly suggest to anyone who reads that the motive behind the introduction of the bill, as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said, was perhaps more to deal with the personnel of the board than to accomplish anything for the material benefit of the Atlantic provinces.
I do not like the capital sum named in the bill. One hundred million dollars is not an inconsequential amount but, as the hon. member said, if it is spread over a period of years it amounts to very little. I think I can say very definitely that so far as the political and commercial leaders in all the Atlantic provinces are concerned they would have preferred to see no specific sum whatsoever mentioned. In my view there is a real danger that, having put an amount in the bill, whether it be X dollars of $100 million as set out, it might be looked upon as the old debtor did when he signed another promissory note and, having signed it , said, "Thank God that bill is paid". Having put an amount of $100 million in the bill, I think there is a real danger that when requests are made for consideration of various matters of the greatest importance to the maritime provinces it

Atlantic Development Board Act may be said: You have got the board, you have got $100 million, what more do you want? In my opinion there is a real danger of that attitude developing as a result of the inclusion of a specific amount in the bill or what will, I presume, become an act.
Up to now I believe that generally throughout Canada there has been a very co-operative feeling toward the problems of the Atlantic provinces. I think all of us from that area recognize the fact that Canadians generally have been prepared to deal very fairly-I will not say generously-with the problems that have arisen there and they are still prepared to do so. Speaking for myself and for most of the people in the Atlantic provinces, I believe, may I say we would have preferred to have matters stand as they were and to be able to make our requests, our demands, shall I say, for specific action on specific problems and have them dealt with rather than to have the situation which is going to develop after this bill becomes an act of parliament.
One could go on and belabour the matter. I have almost a pet peeve at times these days and perhaps I could utter this thought. We have had suggestions made about depressed areas in the maritime provinces. Certainly they have not entirely kept pace with developments in Ontario or other parts of Canada, but I think all of us who come from the maritimes are rather proud of the fact that there has been substantial development in that area during the past few years. It has not been dramatic but it has been steady and it has continued.
The mere fact that in my own province of Nova Scotia 11 relatively large corporations have announced their intention to build capital plants there since January of this year, a period of roughly six months and 11 days, which plants in some cases involve the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars, has created a different atmosphere there. There is a different attitude. There is a development there which I think is commendable and which I think the people of Canada sometimes do no realize is taking place.
We have many other problems to solve. I am not saying for a moment that we have arrived at solutions for all of them. There will be requests for consideration with regard to individual facets but, generally speaking, whether in the coalfields, the steel industry or wherever it may be in the Atlantic provinces, there is an atmosphere of development and growth. This has come about because of the co-operation of all parties and all people. I hope it will continue and I hope that the passage of this bill, and making it an act of parliament, which pretends to offer
[Mr. Nowlan.l

$100 million as a solution to our problems, is not going to affect our development and growth.
I want to register my opinion at this time, and I am sure that it is the opinion of every responsible person from the Atlantic area. Undoubtedly, it is government policy to go ahead with this bill. I believe the Secretary of State said the other night that this was one of the pledges made prior to the election. The government is determined to carry out this policy and we are certainly not going to block or attempt to block the bill in any way, shape or form. But I do say we look upon it with some doubts, and we are sure that the people of Canada will not assume that the passage of this bill with the provision of a certain specific amount is a solution to the problems that still have to be dealt with in the Atlantic provinces.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I begin by using that often uttered phrase: I had not intended to speak on this measure. However, I have a good reason for doing so, if one is necessary. I just lost my private member's motion, but I will not inflict upon the house anything that I was going to say on that motion. I do not object to the fact that it has been suspended until later in this session because I am all in favour of any move that will get us out of here this summer.
However, a great many of the members from the Atlantic provinces have spoken at the various stages of this bill, and I feel my silence might be taken as an indication of a lack of interest. I should like therefore, to mention one or two thoughts I have jotted down quickly. I made a small contribution to the debate on this measure when it was first introduced by the previous government. I put forward one or two thoughts about projects that might be undertaken, and I am pleased to note that one project has been undertaken. I refer to the investigation of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. Last night the Secretary of State gave us assurance that there would be no diminution of this investigation. We were pleased to hear that, because it does hold some hope for the ports of Saint John and Halifax.
I disagree slightly with the hon. members for Victoria-Carleton and Digby-Annapolis-Kings, because I am not so excited about these changes in the bill. I really felt that we did not need to give that much attention to the bill when it was originally introduced by the Diefenbaker government, because the thought was there to help the maritimes. We all agree that it is a wonderful thing, and I believe that is the thought that needs emphasizing, that this is a measure introduced by the Conservative government. I think we have lost

sight of that fact, Mr. Chairman. The Liberals, perhaps rightly, are entitled to claim credit for the introduction of family allowances and other measures about which we hear so much. But I think that every schoolboy in the Atlantic provinces will remember that this measure was introduced by the Diefenbaker government. As long as this fact is established firmly in everybody's mind, I do not quarrel with the various amendments that have been made in the original bill.
I have one suggestion that I want to make during the debate on this first clause. I should like to refer to the matter of appointments. I know that some consideration has already been given to this matter, and I know that many members have thoughts on it. I would hope that some person directly connected with the Irving interests in Saint John be included on the board. It may be possible to name Mr. K. C. Irving himself, who is an industrialist who has done ever so much for New Brunswick and the maritimes. I feel that this board should have representation directly from this person or his interests. He has lifted up the economy of southern New Brunswick by his shipbuilding, transportation, oil refinery and other interests, and has always been forward looking in so far as maritime projects are concerned. I merely mention, Mr. Chairman, for consideration by the Secretary of State, who may have responsibility in this matter, that direct representation on this board by the Irving interests be considered. In this way, full advantage may be taken of the known talent available there and the forward thinking that is available.
I do not have anything else that I want to put forward on this clause, except to repeat that I think I will be satisfied if full credit is given to the Conservative government in connection with this matter. They were the ones who started the thinking along these lines originally. I recall that in 1957, when it was decided by the new Conservative government to give financial assistance to Beechwood, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs said that it was going to cause trouble because it was the first time any region had been considered separately. Perhaps this was true, I do not know, but it was that government which brought forward the Beechwood financing plan in conjunction with the then premier of New Brunswick, the present member for Victoria-Carleton. It was accepted by the new government in an honest endeavour to assist an area which needed this type of regional assistance. This is where the matter stands now, and I only hope that the new board will continue the wonderful beginning that was made by the 28902-5-131
10, 1S63
Atlantic Development Board Act Diefenbaker government with its plan to set up a regional Atlantic development board.


Mr. Winch:: May a member of this house from British Columbia, a long distance from the maritimes, be privileged to take about a minute and a half to speak on this measure? All I desire to say is that this bill was introduced in the last parliament by those who now sit in the official opposition. I can see only two differences between that measure and the new bill which is before us. The first one relates to the increase in the size of the board from five to 11 members. I cannot see any reason for the members of the official opposition objecting to that, unless they take the position that they made their appointments on a partisan basis and therefore they do not want to see any change made. If they were not made on a partisan basis, and if they will give to others credit for the honesty they claim for themselves, why hold up this bill any longer?
Then, too, the bill we had before us last year, while good in principle, made no funds available with which the board could function. There is now $100 million available. Why, therefore, if you are willing to give others credit for the honesty and integrity that you claim for yourselves, should this bill be held up by useless talk of a partisan nature? Why do we not get ahead, pass the bill and let the board start functioning?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to state briefly that I agree with the remarks the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has just made.
We have been discussing this bill since yesterday afternoon and we hear representations which are truly irrelevant. One would think that the Conservative members from the maritimes are trying to block the improvements which could be achieved through this bill.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we adopt the bill to allow the people of the maritimes to benefit from the advantages that could ensue from this measure.
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to say a word or two on this bill, but not along the line suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver East who says that the bill is being held up.


Yvon Dupuis: That is true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hear shouts from the government side that that is true, from the people who are the great masters of obstruction. I think they should sit silent while these things are being considered. The bill

Atlantic Development Board Act is not being held up; it is being very carefully considered. Hon. members from the Atlantic provinces have pointed out that there was no need for rushing ahead with amendments to an act which was brought into operation just a few months ago. Without letting the board function and get on with its job, the government which made so many promises, most of which have been unfulfilled up to the present, wants to rush ahead and amend the act before it has been given a proper trial.
Once again, this is undue haste. This is a matter of taking a good look at what the government is attempting to do, and it is not a question of holding up the bill. One of the reasons I rose to speak is that I do not think a bill of this nature should be left solely to the people from the Atlantic provinces, although they are the best qualified to deal with its subject matter. However, there are others of us who are also interested in the development of the Atlantic provinces, as we are in the development of all other areas of Canada. Coming from Manitoba I did not think it was right for the Secretary of State to be the only person from that province to speak on the bill.
There is a community of interest between those of us who live in western Canada and those who live in the Atlantic provinces. We represent great primary producing areas, and over my years in the house I have noticed that community of interest between westerners and those in the Atlantic provinces. We understand each others' problems and difficulties. We in western Canada have had the problem of developing a very large area of the country. Our ancestors certainly passed through a pioneering stage. Ours is a primary producing area and we are familiar with the problem which face the Atlantic provinces, which also form a primary producing area.
In the west we have been pressing forward with industrial development, and the people in the Atlantic provinces are interested in the same type of development. In the west we have been faced with the problem of adverse freight rates which have hindered our industrial growth and so we can appreciate, without much explanation or argument, the problems facing the Atlantic provinces with regard to long freight hauls to central Canada.
It is on the basis of that community of interest that I rise to speak on this bill and to express my regrets that the government is making modifications before the act, passed last winter, has had a chance to be put into operation. That is an unskilful way of carrying on the business of the country. Offhand it is not a question of whether the proposed amendments are necessary or are an improvement. The government has not had experience of the operation of the act to

determine whether amendments are required now or later. It is another example of the government rushing in where angels fear to tread. It has made so many mistakes I suppose we should go ahead and pass everything it brings in front of us, so that it may make more mistakes and get the country in a really confused state of affairs. However,
I suggest that it slow down a little bit and think things through before rushing in with further amendments to other things that have been done.
As the Conservative party we take great pride in the interest which we showed in the Atlantic provinces during our term of office, and we take pride in the bill we introduced last winter, setting up this board. Our predecessors had plenty of opportunity to indicate the same interest in the Atlantic provinces but they failed to do so.
During the years when I was previously sitting in opposition I recall the occasions when my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces rose to put forward the case for those provinces, and time and again I said to them, "Keep it up; you have got to impress the requirements of your area on public opinion". They used to say to me, "We get tired of listening to western members talking about wheat". But, Mr. Chairman, unless western members talk about wheat, freight rates and industrial development they will not get the necessary attention from the central government here in Ottawa. Therefore I told them in those days, "You must do the same; don't be bashful about it". I may say now that they have not been bashful. They have presented their case and presented it well, but the Liberal administration prior to 1957 did not give the attention to the Atlantic provinces that should have been given, and when we took office we took immediate action to see that economic development was given a boost in the Atlantic provinces.
The legislation we introduced last fall and winter for this Atlantic development board was just part of the general interest that the Conservative party has shown in the development of that section of Canada whose people have made such a contribution to the life of the nation. Those of us from western Canada have to acknowledge with gratitude and respect the contribution of those who have come from the Atlantic provinces and settled in the western provinces. Now and again they boast a little bit about the positions which they have occupied in western Canada, positions of importance based on the strength of their education and the force of their intellect, and we gratefully acknowledge-


The Chairman:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I am wondering if he in his remarks is now staying within the four corners of the bill before the house. As I mentioned last night there is certainly some latitude that has to be recognized by the Chair in dealing with a bill on clause 1, but on the other hand the discussion should be limited to the essence of the bill and whatever is contained in it. I would ask the cooperation of the hon. member, and other speakers who may address the committee after him, to try to limit their remarks to the bill itself.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I realize that on the first clause of a bill considerable latitude is permitted and I am grateful you gave me the opportunity to pay my respects to the Atlantic provinces. Having offered my criticism of the government's lack of wisdom in making these modifications to the act, I now want to say that increasing membership of the board from five to 11 is too obviously a partisan trick. It is an assurance that there will be six appointees of the present government to offset the five appointees of last winter. That was too obvious, and it will not be overlooked by the people who live in the Atlantic provinces.
Our second main objection, of course, is the setting of a fixed sum to be made available to the board for distribution among the Atlantic provinces. We think this is an unwise move. Here again, if the government had waited until the board had been given an opportunity to examine all the factors involved and had put forward recommendations as to where the emphasis needs to be laid on the development of the Atlantic provinces, there might have been some wisdom in coming forward and fixing a sum to be made available. But suddenly we get an amendment to this act and $100 million-which sounds a great deal of money until you consider the projects that could be carried out by it when divided among four provinces, and then it does not sound very much at all-is fixed as the amount the board will have to spend on this development. It looks too much like an attempt to pay off some ridiculous promise that was made during an election campaign, and it appears to an outside observer that a ceiling is being set on the amount of money that will be available, which was never the intention of the previous Conservative administration. Our problem was to make it possible to assist the Atlantic provinces and wait for recommendations from the board as to how much financial assistance should be given; consequently we did not set any limit of $100 million on the amount which might eventually be voted by parliament.
28902-5-131i
10, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act
Third, Mr. Chairman, setting up the money aside like this is giving the board more authority than it should have. The authority should rest with parliament. In the control of expenditures in this country parliament should have the supervision it has exercised in the past and now exercises over most of the expenditures made by parliament.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say just these few words with regard to the bill to indicate the interest of our party in the Atlantic provinces; to indicate the interest of people who live elsewhere than in the Atlantic provinces in the problems of that area. My hope is that the present government will stop tinkering with acts that are already on the statute books, and projects that our government introduced for the benefit of various areas of Canada, and will take this as a warning to be very careful with regard to the other matters we introduced in the past-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -which have proven to be highly effective. I warn them against interfering with western Canada in the way they are now interfering with the Atlantic provinces. The bill will probably go through the house this afternoon, up to the third reading stage. However, I think as members of an opposition we are bound to draw attention to some of the mistakes which hon. gentlemen opposite are making.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one or two words on this bill involving amendments to the Atlantic development board. I believe that the Atlantic Development Board Act, without the amendments which are going to be introduced by this bill, was sterile, if I may use that word. I remember raising the objection in the last session of parliament, that no useful function could be performed by the Atlantic development board unless it had some funds with which to do something. For example, there was the Atlantic provinces council, which is commonly referred to as APEC, which could give the government all the advice it needed respecting development in the Atlantic provinces. Also, those branches of the various provincial departments which are concerned with industry could have made, and probably have already made, thorough and exhaustive investigations in this respect and could offer advice to the federal government as to what they should do.
Then there was, of course, the productivity council which was set up to give advice on regional matters to the federal government, and advice on matters involving the whole country. We now have a new department of industry which has regional responsibilities. To now say that the act was good enough before, when there was no money provided to

Atlantic Development Board Act the board with which it could carry out these projects, is in my view rather ridiculous. During the last session of parliament the Conservative government proposed the setting up of another advisory council, and I suggested there were already a multiplicity of such bodies. At least we will now have $100 million appropriated, with which some action can be taken. As far as we in western Canada are concerned-in Alberta in particular-we think this amendment is appropriate; we think something like this should be done. However, we think there should be some teeth in the act, or at least some power given to this board so that if they find, as a result of their studies, that something beneficial can be done, they will have the wherewithal to do it.
The only other point I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the Conservative members seem to be taking great exception to changing the number of board members from five to 11. They say that six persons belonging to the Liberal party will be appointed to the board, and this will satisfy some political pay-off which they are obliged to make. I suggest that even suggesting this is what is going to happen is tantamount to the Conservative party admitting that they put five Conservatives on the board for the same unworthy reason they allege against the present government. I think that now they have admitted doing this, we have had enough of belittling each other's motives.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has anything to say with regard to the amendment contained in clause 2?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word with regard to the amendment suggested in clause 2. I recognize that this will undoubtedly be the most controversial part of the bill. I must say that I think the hon. member from Medicine Hat said better than I could what must run through the mind of every objective person, that those who are suggesting-and no one on this side of the house has suggested it- that primarily partisan appointments would be made, must be speaking from a rather guilty conscience.
The present Prime Minister indicated clearly the kind of people he thought should be on this board. He thought the fishing industry should be represented by someone directly connected with it, which is not the [DOT]case at present. He thought there should be a representative of organized labour, which there is not at present. He thought that someone with a real, definite connection with


agriculture should be on this board, which there is not at present. I think everybody realizes that of all the resources, even including the fishery, the greatest resource of the four Atlantic provinces is the forest resource. There certainly should be at least one representative of the forest industry on this board if it is at all adequately to represent the various sources from which we can expect economic development generally to flow. I admit we thought the number suggested by one of the members of the New Democratic party was a little large. I think my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs was inclined to support the view of the N.D.P. when we were in opposition, and I was inclined to take a more conservative line. But when, in considering this bill, we came to look at the various aspects of the economy of this area, we concluded that they could not all be adequately represented unless there were 11 members.
I repeat: admirable as the present members are, they do not represent a large enough variety of occupations in that area. As to the question whether the terms are to be continued as they were before, I pointed out at the resolution stage that we are not doing what the Conservative government did when they abolished the federal district commission and set up the national capital commission: they just fired everybody. Some hon. members over there talked about decency in these matters. All those people were wiped out at once. It would have been easy for us to have brought in a bill which would have done exactly the same. But we did not think this was a proper thing to do. We thought we should recognize the beginning which had been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I have never said a word from the day this act came into force in criticism of it at all. I wished the board well the day the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, sitting over here, introduced the measure. I wished them well and hoped they would get on with the job.
We felt that if we had done away with the existing board and started over again it would have been regarded as a partisan act. It would not have been worthy of the purpose we had in mind. That is why we decided the present members of the board should continue to hold their positions. But as hon. members have pointed out, this board is to have $100 million of the taxpayers' money to spend, for which the government generally, and myself in particular, have to take responsibility before this parliament. We are entitled to be satisfied that the people to whom we entrust this money are in general harmony with the ideas of the government, which will be held accountable for what is done. So long as we

have the confidence of this parliament we think we are entitled to have such a board- and when we cease to have the confidence of this parliament we shall no longer try to run this government; we shall act in opposition as we did before.
I say again that the present members of the board are to be continued in office by law. They are all eligible for appointment to a second term, and if that harmony which I hope will exist does exist, there is no reason to think it will not be the desire of everyone that they should continue to serve. I have talked to two members of the board and they have not taken the slightest exception to this. It does seem to me-and I am not seeking to impute any motives-that some of the arguments which have been used in this committee are designed to make it impossible for these gentlemen to continue. We are not trying to do this. We are trying to make it possible for them to work harmoniously as members of the board.
But this is the scheme we have seen fit to recommend to parliament. It is the position taken by the government and I do not feel I can recommend that the committee accept an amendment to this clause. I do not take the same view with regard to all the amendments suggested by the hon. gentlemen, but as far as the amendment to clause 2 is concerned, it is not acceptable to the government.


Hugh John Flemming: In order that there may be no lack of understanding of what is embodied in the suggestion, I should like to move:
That subsection 2, subclause (a) be amended to read:
"In the case of the persons who at the coming into force of this act were members of the Atlantic development board their appointment shall be for the period for which they were originally appointed under the Atlantic Development Board Act."
This has nothing whatever to do with additional members of the board, a point which has been laboured by the Secretary of State. Nor has it anything to do with any members who may be appointed later as a consequence of this measure. It simply provides that these members shall continue in office for the length of time for which they were appointed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman puts the amendment, let me say the government has no desire to avoid a vote on this but I do not think it would be his desire to follow strictly the language in which the amendment is written, because what is being done is to substitute something for what is contained in both 4 (2) (a) and 4 (2) (b). What he means to do, I think, is to amend paragraph (2) at the top of page 2, knock out (a) and (b) and put one single provision in their place. In case the amendment carries it
10, 1963	2055
Atlantic Development Board Act would be better, surely, that it should make sense. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would like to have it revised accordingly. As soon as that is done we shall be happy to vote on it.


Hugh John Flemming: The bill
is somewhat confusing because on both pages there are paragraphs (2) and (3). However, as long as we understand the intent of the amendment I do not think we need differ about the precise wording.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman wants to strike out (a) and (b) on page 2 of the bill and substitute the words he suggests.


Hugh John Flemming: I am
prepared to accept that interpretation.
Amendment (Mr. Flemming, Victoria-Carleton) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 62.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Board agent of Her Majesty.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, when I rose previously I asked the Secretary of State about the manner in which contracts would be carried out. I inquired whether they would be drawn in accordance with the Financial Administration Act in the same way as if they were made by a department of government. I would want to be satisfied that we are not granting the board any unusual and perhaps irregular methods of obtaining contracts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman's question would come more properly on clause 16, because all clause 4 does is to make the board an agent of Her Majesty. My hon. friend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who really knows something about the law, has just confirmed to me what I was about to say, and that is that all contracts must be made subject to the approval of the governor in council. That is directly set out in clause 16. I assure the hon. member that the governor in council would not give the board power to make contracts, and could not in fact give the board power to make contracts, on any other basis than that provided by law.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Payments out of consolidated revenue fund.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 6, the object of which is to insert certain words

Atlantic Development Board Act before the words "one hundred million dollars", namely the words "not less than". Section 16 (4) of the act would then read: The total of all amounts that may be paid by the Minister of Finance to the board under subsection (1) and credited to the Atlantic development fund is not less than one hundred million dollars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the clause is put, sir, perhaps I might ask my hon. friend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to say a word about it, because perhaps when he has said a word the hon. member may wonder whether it would be advisable to put his amendment.


Mr. Favreau:: May I make the friendly and humble suggestion to the hon. member that in my respectful view the addition of the words "not less than" may not add to the clause, as such. While it might be clear in his mind, it might cause confusion in the minds of others. This is a clause the beginning of which would, if it were enacted as proposed by the Secretary of State, be permissive in nature and would contain at the end of it, not a provision, but words which would be no more permissive but would be mandatory in nature. It might lead to the impression that the governor in council might authorize by way of a blank cheque, without reference to parliament, more than $100 million.


Hugh John Flemming: It seems to me that if a specific amount is named without qualifying words one way or the other, it will be assumed by future parliaments, officials and others that $100 million is the amount, that it is final and absolute; that the Atlantic provinces have been paid off with $100 million and that ends it. Up to now the Secretary of State has not said-I gave him full marks for this last evening- that this was a minimum amount. He said that he could not bind future parliaments, and I appreciate that point of view.
I would yield however to the greater knowledge of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this matter; if it is going to lead to possible misunderstanding in a legal sense obviously it should not be proceeded with. That is my feeling, but at the same time I should like those within sound of my voice and who read the record to understand that hon. members from the Atlantic provinces here feel that this is a minimum amount. If circumstances should justify a certain recommendation by the Secretary of State to his government, or by a future minister, if there should be one, to any succeeding government, it is to be understood that it was on that basis that this bill was accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can satisfy the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and please

myself a little in doing so. Putting in the words "not less than one hundred million dollars" would, in a strict literal sense, not mean a thing because there is obviously not less than $100 million, because there is $100 million. I know that sounds a little like "Alice in Wonderland" but it is logically correct none the less, as is much of "Alice in Wonderland".
I can assure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and the other hon. members from the Atlantic provinces, and I can promise the other members from the rest of Canada, that if we can usefully spend this $100 million quickly I will fight hard to get more.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That does not mean a thing; you might not make your point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, but it does refute the point made by the other hon. gentleman, and all other hon. gentlemen who objected to a fund at all. At least I have $100 million, once this bill passes, that no austerity program next year, or the year after, or the year after that, can take away. This $100 million will have been voted by parliament and will be available. We cannot have a change of heart next year, which might be possible if, for example, some other circumstance arose. Parliament will have decided that this $100 million is for this purpose, and if it is used well and expeditiously, as I hope it will be, I do not think this parliament or any other parliament would dare refuse more as long as it was being used well to accomplish the purpose we have in mind. We have $100 million, if the house sees fit to accept it now and, as I said, in my view it is a floor.


Hugh John Flemming: In view of the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to this amendment and its possible misunderstandings I propose to withdraw it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not needed; it was never moved.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman I just want to say a word to clarify the position of this party on the question of the fund. It has been argued by some hon. members that the act as it now stands, before amendment, is a sterile thing because it provides no money to be spent. This same argument could be used with regard to every department of government and almost every board that now exists.
There is no sterility about that whatsoever. All it means is that such a board has to come to parliament each year in the usual constitutional manner and have parliament agree to the expenditure of the money proposed in

the estimates for that year. What we are doing in this particular case in effect is passing estimates for the next six years.
I have no objection, nor has any member of this party, to the amount that is proposed. We think it may not be enough. It is not that we have any objection to the present government initiating the expenditure of $100 million for this purpose over the next six years, but rather the manner in which the money is going to be provided. The Secretary of State has said that we are going to enact this provision in legislation and then nobody can renege on it later. That brings up a point. I am not sure that this is good parliamentary practice because, if what he says is true, in effect we are binding future sessions of parliament in the next six years. If that is not so, then it means that what he has said has no validity because any future session of parliament could reduce the amount just as easily as changing the amount of an estimate. There is nothing sacrosanct about the fact that this figure is in the bill.
I may be somewhat out of order, but perhaps the chairman will be lenient I just wanted to clear up one misconception on the part of an hon. member on my left. We have no guilty conscience about the appointments we have made to the board; we think they are fine appointments. But the Secretary of State has argued-and I have forgotten his phrase-that he thought the government had a right to have a board which was a congenial one.


Mr, Pickersgill:: In harmony.


John Angus MacLean: That is the word. The implication there is that the government is going to do the same sort of thing with every other board, because there are boards in existence to which they have not appointed the members. In my view this is not a very valid argument. I am not going to say any more, but I was interested in the Secretary of State exposing to the committee what his chief reference book is with regard to his logic. I could never understand it before. Now I find it is Alice in Wonderland.


Mr. Monleith:: In all his actions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is just one thing I should like to say. The statement of the Secretary of State that if more money is required he will fight for it is completely meaningless. There is such a thing as collective responsibility on the part of government, and all that he has said is that within the cabinet he will put forward a case for more money for the Atlantic provinces. Earlier today my friend to my left talked about the blind faith that people may have in the statements of the Secretary of State.
10, 1963	2057
Atlantic Development Board Act I hope they will not exhibit blind faith in that statement, because it is completely meaningless except as an expression of opinion as to what he might do at some future date.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Duration.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on clause 8. There has been a good deal of exception taken to clause 8. A good deal of exception was taken again today to clause 8 in that it was suggested that we should not have a terminal date on the board. I am not entirely convinced by the arguments that have been made but I think there is a lot in them. I also think there is some likelihood that there might be some misunderstanding among many ordinary people that we were not serious about this matter. I had thought it would be a useful incentive to the board but it certainly is not essential to the legislation. Therefore I am going to ask my colleague, the Solicitor General, to move an amendment along the lines suggested to us by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton to take clause 8 out of the bill and to renumber clause 9 as clause 8.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 8 of Bill C-80 be deleted and that clause 9 be renumbered clause 8.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the bill carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before you leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton for his courtesy in making his amendments available ahead of time so that there would be an opportunity to consider them. It was a great convenience and I think it helped us to get the bill through more quickly.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, may I simply comment that I appreciate the courtesy of the Secretary of State in the statement he has just made. I should also like to say how much I appreciate the action of the committee in allowing the legislation to continue beyond January 24, 1969.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope there is the same harmony on the board as there has been in the house this afternoon.
Bill reported.

Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether we could not have it read to remove from me any temptation to make another speech on Thursday.


Mr. Winkler:: If that were the only reason we would agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now.


Thomas Miller Bell: A non-maritimer objects to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader would like to give
us the order of business for tomorrow and Friday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we will take third reading of the Atlantic development board bill and I will give an undertaking not to speak, if I get an undertaking from all other hon. members that they will reciprocate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No undertakings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, we will take second reading of the economic council bill. I hope that by six o'clock we will have completed second reading of the bill, so we can spend the evening on the resolution preceding the Department of Agriculture bill. I do not imagine we would need a third item for tomorrow, but if we do I will consult with hon. gentlemen about what it should be. On Friday we intend, as I have already indicated privately, to call the estimates of the Department of Transport. We are counting on the same leadership from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and the same co-operation in getting another department through on Friday.


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


[Stage Direction]
This Agreement made this 8th day of July, 1963.
Between THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA,
herein referred to as "Canada",
And	THE GOVERNMENT OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA, herein referred to as "British Columbia",
Whereas a treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin has been signed on the 17th day of January 1961; and
Whereas it is desirable that an agreement be made between Canada and British Columbia concerning implementation of the treaty and disposal of benefits arising thereunder:
Now Therefore this Agreement Witnesseth:
1.	In this agreement "Treaty" means "the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin" signed at Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America on the 17th day of January, 1961, together with any protocol or exchange of notes relating thereto.
2.	All proprietary rights, title and interests arising under the treaty and particularly those with respect to
(a)	downstream power benefits accruing to Canada,
(b)	proceeds from the sale of downstream power benefits in the United States of America.
(c)	moneys payable and electric power accruing to Canada in return for flood control,
(d)	the stand-by transmission services rendered by transmission grids in the United States of America,
(e)	benefits arising in Canada from any dam constructed pursuant to the treaty,
(f)	rights of water diversion granted to Canada by Article XIII of the treaty, and
(g)	moneys paid to Canada by the United States of America in settlement of any claim made by Canada under the treaty which relates in any way to the obligations of British Columbia under this agreement belong to British Columbia absolutely for its own use.
3.	British Columbia shall at its own expense;
28902-5-132
(a)	construct or arrange for the construction of all the dams and operate or arrange for the operation of all of the storages as required by Articles II and IV of the treaty;
(b)	not operate and prevent the operation of any storage in British Columbia in the manner prohibited by Article IV(5) of the treaty;
(c)	prepare and make available for flooding the land in Canada required for the purposes of any dam constructed by the United States of America under Article XII of the treaty;
Cd) not make and prevent the making of any diversion of water prohibited by Article XIII of the treaty;
(e)	carry out or arrange for the carrying out of any variation in operation of any Kootenay river diversion agreed upon pursuant to Article XIII(6) of the treaty;
(f)	abide by and carry out or arrange for the carrying out of any decisions made pursuant to Article XVI of the treaty which relate in any way to the obligations of British Columbia under this agreement;
(g)	pay to Canada, upon demand therefor, all costs incurred by Canada in connection with proceedings under Article XVI of the treaty which relate in any way to the obligations of British Columbia under this agreement;
(h)	carry out or arrange for the carrying out of anything required to be done by Canada under Article XVIIK3) of the treaty;
(i)	carry out and give full force and effect to all conditions, provisions, orders and decisions imposed or made by the permanent engineering board established by the treaty; and
(j)	generally do all those things which constitutionally it is capable of doing to ensure that Canada is not in default under the treaty and not do and so far as it is constitutionally capable prevent any person from doing anything which Canada has under the treaty undertaken to refrain from doing.
4.	(1) It is acknowledged and agreed that Canada has the right and obligation to do all things which the treaty requires Canada to do that British Columbia has not undertaken to do by this agreement.
(2)	Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section Canada shall obtain the concurrence of British Columbia before:
[Stage Direction]
(a)	confirming by exchange of notes any operating plan pursuant to Article IV of the treaty;
(b)	making any election pursuant to Article VI(5) of the treaty relating to payment for flood control;
(c)	agreeing to any variation of entitlement to downstream power benefits pursuant to Article IX of the treaty;
(d)	confirming any electrical co-ordination arrangement made pursuant to the treaty;
(e)	agreeing to any diversion of water by the United States of America pursuant to Article XIII of the treaty;
(f)	agreeing, as provided for in Article XIII(6) of the treaty, to any variation in the use of water diverted by British Columbia pursuant to that article;
(g)	charging the entities designated pursuant to Article XIV of the treaty with any new power or duty; and
(h)	terminating the treaty.
5.	Canada shall, if requested by British Columbia, endeavour to obtain the agreement of the United States of America with respect to:
(a)	any variation of the operation of any dam constructed under Article XII of the treaty;
(b)	any modification of the area of land in Canada required for the purposes of any dam constructed under Article XII of the treaty;
(c)	any diversion of water not provided for by the treaty;
(d)	any new power or duty which British Columbia wishes to impose upon the entities designated under Article XIV of the treaty;
(e)	any direction which British Columbia with the concurrence of Canada wishes given to the permanent engineering board established by the treaty; and
(f)	any proposal relating to the treaty which Canada and British Columbia agree is in the public interest.
6.	(1) Canada shall designate the British Columbia hydro and power authority as the Canadian entity for the purposes of Article XIV of the treaty and British Columbia shall ensure that the British Columbia hydro and power authority fulfills the obligations imposed on the Canadian entity by the treaty.
(2) British Columbia may nominate one of the two persons to be appointed to the permanent engineering board established by the treaty and Canada shall upon such nomination appoint the nominee to that board.
7.	(1) Canada shall do whatever is reasonably possible to ensure compliance with the treaty by the United States of America and shall not waive any default or breach by the United States of America without having consulted British Columbia.
(2)	Canada shall, at the request of British Columbia, present any claim deemed reasonable by Canada arising under the treaty which British Columbia wishes made against the United States of America.
(3)	Canada shall establish any arbitration tribunal necessary to settle differences under the treaty and shall, after consultation with British Columbia, defend or prosecute, as the case may be, all differences submitted to such tribunal or to the international joint commission under the treaty.
8.	(1) British Columbia shall indemnify and save harmless Canada from and in respect to any liability of Canada to the United States of America arising under the treaty.
(2)	British Columbia shall not be required to indemnify Canada pursuant to subsection
(1)	of this section in respect of any liability to the United States of America directly attributable to any action or failure to take action by Canada.
(3)	Canada shall not discharge any liability in respect of which it is indemnified pursuant to subsection (1) of this section without having consulted with British Columbia.
9.	British Columbia shall maintain or arrange for the maintenance of complete accounts and records relating to;
(a)	the discharge of the obligations of British Columbia under this agreement;
(b)	the receipt and ultimate disposal of all moneys derived from the sale in the United States of America of any downstream power benefits arising under the treaty;
(c)	the receipt and ultimate disposal of all moneys and other compensation derived from the provision of flood control under the treaty; and
shall comply with or arrange for compliance with any reasonable request for disclosure of any such account or record made by Canada of the permanent engineering board established by the treaty.
10.	(1) Canada shall transfer to British Columbia the administration and control of any unimproved lands in Canada belonging to Canada which are required for the construction and operation of the dams and storages which British Columbia is obligated by this agreement to construct or operate.
(2)	For the purposes of subsection 1 of this section the expression "lands" does not include lands forming part of an Indian reserve.
11.	(1) As soon as may be convenient after execution of this agreement, Canada shall undertake negotiations with the United States of America with a view to entering into a protocol to the treaty embodying certain matters agreed to by Canada and

British Columbia and Canada shall thereafter with due diligence proceed toward ratification of the treaty.
(2) Any protocol entered into pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall be attached to this agreement as schedule A and shall form part of this agreement.
12.	(1) Canada agrees that the downstream power benefits arising in the United States of America under the treaty may be sold in the United States of America subject to terms that are acceptable to both Canada and British Columbia and that will ensure that the proceeds of the sale will contribute to savings in the cost of electric power in the province of British Columbia.
(2)	Any agreement concluded under subsection 1 of this section with respect to the sale of downstream power benefits shall be attached to this agreement as schedule B and shall form part of the agreement.
(3)	British Columbia will finance the treaty projects by use of the funds derived from the sale of the downstream power benefits arising in the United States of America, from the flood control benefits and from other sources as required, so that Canada shall have no obligation for the financing of these treaty projects.
13.	(1) The construction of the dams and operation of the storages required by the treaty shall be carried out in accordance with all laws in force from time to time whether those of Canada or British Columbia.
(2)	British Columbia shall take whatever steps are necessary to amend or appeal any law, permit or regulation and shall not enact any new law or regulation or issue any permit which may operate to frustrate, hamper or interfere with the carrying out of any undertaking in the territory of Canada provided for by the treaty.
(3)	Canada shall do everything possible to expedite the issue of all licences and permits required under the laws of parliament by either British Columbia or the British Columbia hydro and power authority in order for them to carry out and perform their obligations under this agreement, including schedules A and B.
14.	Canadian labour and material shall be used in all construction or operation of the dams and storages constructed or operated pursuant to this agreement to the full extent to which they are procurable, consistent with proper economy and the expeditious carrying out of the construction and operation and no person shall be discriminated against in the course of the construction and operation by reason of his race, colour, religion or political affiliation.
28902-5-132i
15.	(1) Canada and British Columbia will consult as required on technical and other matters of mutual interest with a view to facilitating the implementation of the treaty, avoiding disputes and carrying out this agreement.
(2)	In particular a liaison committee shall be established consisting of senior representatives of Canada and British Columbia.
(3)	If differences or questions arise or allegations are made as to loss arising out of any action or failure to take action by either Canada or British Columbia which cannot be resolved through consultation they shall be submitted to the Exchequer Court of Canada for decision and that court has jurisdiction to determine the rights and liabilities of either party under this agreement.
(4)	British Columbia shall, in respect of itself, procure the enactment of whatever legislation is necessary to implement subsection 3 of this section.
16.	(1) British Columbia agrees that generators will be installed in the dam at Mica creek as soon as economically feasible.
(2) Subject to the requirements of British Columbia, British Columbia will make available to other provinces of Canada, through a national grid or otherwise, on a first call basis, electric power from the Columbia river and other power developments in the province of British Columbia at prices not higher than those obtainable by British Columbia from time to time from the United States of America for any comparable British Columbia entity electric power exported thereto.
17.	This agreement binds Canada and British Columbia from the date of the agreement and thereafter so long as any obligation or right of either the United States of America or Canada exists under the treaty or any part thereof.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective governments have signed and delivered this agreement,
For the government of Canada on the 8th day of July, 1963

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister
PAUL MARTIN Secretary of State for External Affairs
For the government of British Columbia on the 8th day of July, 1963.
W. A. C. BENNETT Premier and President of the Executive Council
R. WILLISTON Minister of Lands, Forests and
Water Resources


[Stage Direction]
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Office of the Premier Winnipeg
May 16th, 1963.
Dear Prime Minister Pearson:
In the premier's absence I wish to acknowledge your letter of May 15 respecting a proposed inquiry by a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
Your letter will be drawn to the attention of the premier immediately upon his return to the office at the end of next week. In the meantime, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the acting premier, the Honourable Gurney Evans, minister of industry and commerce.
Yours respectfully,
Joan Cameron Secretary to the premier The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND The Premier St. John's
20 May, 1963.
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
I thank you for your letter of May 15, enclosing draft terms of reference of the proposed royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and asking whether the government of Newfoundland would approve appointment of a royal commission.
In the 14 years that Newfoundland has been united with Canada our people have come to appreciate the basic importance to the unity of our country, of good relations between the two founding races of Canada. We share a long land border with the province of Quebec and in Labrador are coming into immediate contact with the problems associated with the bilingual and bicultural character of Canada.
The government of Newfoundland is ready and eager to make a constructive contribution to the solution of these problems; we cordially approve the proposal of a royal commission;
we are quite happy with the draft of the terms of reference; and we are ready to cooperate fully in the work of the commission. Sincerely yours,
J. R. Smallwood
PREMIER'S OFFICE Regina, Saskatchewan
May 21st, 1963.
The Rt. Hon. L. B. Pearson, P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
This will acknowledge your letter dated May 15, 1963, regarding a possible royal commission inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism.
As soon as my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to study and discuss the proposed terms of reference I shall write to you again with our detailed comments.
Yours sincerely,
W. S. Lloyd.
PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL Toronto, Ontario
May 24, 1963.
My dear Prime Minister:
I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 15 in which you invite our views on the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into and report upon the existing state of "bilingualism and biculturalism" in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada.
As a province whose own history and development, from the days of Champlain, Frontenac and LaSalle, has been profoundly influenced and enriched by the sons and daughters of French Canada, along with leaders and peoples of other lineage of bygone days, Ontario has the largest French speaking community outside Quebec. It is natural and logical, therefore, that we should react positively to this all Canadian outlook, and we do so with a good heart.

Please accept, therefore, my assurance on behalf of the government and people of Ontario that this course has our very warm approval, and as the terms of reference, as laid down, have been announced in the press, you will be proceeding on such basis. If the Canadian confederation is to survive and flourish, our partnership must be a true one -in fact, in spirit, and in purpose-and may I say to you that when the proposed commission is finally established, we shall leave nothing undone to facilitate its work in our province.
I am fully persuaded that if we approach these unsolved problems with patience, understanding and good will, if we learn the necessary lessons from our failures and draw upon the wisdom gained from almost a century of experience, we can in the next four years do much to strengthen and ensure the concept of the Canadian confederation so that Canada's centennial will be an occasion of rejoicing and of fulfilment.
With kind personal regards and best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
John P. Robarts
Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.

[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia
Halifax
May 24, 1963.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of May 15 with enclosure regarding the proposed royal commission concerning bilingualism and biculturalism.
I have now had an opportunity to confer with my colleagues concerning your inquiry.
It is, of course, not possible for the government of Nova Scotia to determine whether or not a royal commission is the best approach to this problem across the nation. That, of course, would be a decision for your government to take. I can assure you, however, that if your government decides to appoint such a commission the province of Nova Scotia will offer such a commission every co-operation.
Yours sincerely,
R. L. Stanfield
The Honourable Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
THE PREMIER Fredericton,
May 24th, 1963.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister: -
I have carefully reviewed the terms of reference of the proposed royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and find them very comprehensive and quite adequate. Consequently, the government of New Brunswick endorses the proposal and offers our utmost co-operation.
Yours sincerely,
Louis J. Robiehaud
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec
Quebec, May 27, 1963. Honourable Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa.
Mr. Prime Minister,
I have your letter of May 15 concerning the holding of an inquiry on biculturalism and bilingualism.
I have submitted your letter to my colleague, together with the terms of reference of the royal commission that would conduct the enquiry.
I am pleased to inform you that the government of Quebec favours the holding of such an inquiry, in consultation with the provincial governments, as you suggest.
In that respect, we trust that this commission will be made up in accordance with the principle set out in the preamble to the terms of reference, i.e. "an equal partnership between the two founding races of the Canadian confederation, taking into account the other ethnic groups".
Yours sincerely,
Jean Lesage-
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Edmonton
May 28th, 1963, Right Honorable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
My colleagues and I have given careful consideration to your letter of May 15 and
[Stage Direction]
to the terms of reference for the proposed royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism.	.
In response to your request, we wish to advise that, while we are not opposed to such a study being undertaken, unless the terms of reference are clarified to make more explicit the objectives which it is hoped to achieve we have serious doubts as to its advisability and practical value.
To amplify, in the matter of biculturalism, if the objective is to encourage citizens of all racial and ethnic origins to make their maximum contribution to the development of one over-all Canadian culture embracing the best of all, we feel this would meet with widespread endorsation and support.
If, on the other hand, the objective is to give some form of official recognition to a dual English and French culture, we suggest that this is unrealistic and impracticable and we doubt that it would meet with any widespread public acceptance.
In the matter of bilingualism, if the objective is to encourage Canadian citizens to become fluent in two or more languages, certainly on the part of most Canadians this would be welcomed.
If the purpose is to extend recognition of French as an official language in areas and spheres beyond those in which it was guaranteed official status at the time of confederation, we feel that it would not meet with general public acceptance and the consequences, in our opinion, would impair rather than strengthen Canadian unity.
We offer these observations for your consideration in arriving at a final decision in the matter proposed in your communication.
Very sincerely yours,
E. C. Manning Premier.
PREMIER'S OFFICE Prince Edward Island
May 28, 1963.
Right Honourable L. B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada
My dear Prime Minister:
I have your letter of May 15, regarding an inquiry with the provinces of Canada on bilingualism and biculturalism.
I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter with other members of my cabinet, so I am not in a position to fully advise of their views regarding the most suitable approach to this important question.
Recognizing, however, that the decision of your government favors the formation of a
commission to conduct the studies indicated,
I can assure you that this province will accept your proposal, on the understanding as expressed in your letter that any commitments or recommendations from this commission will not be binding on the government of our province.
Yours sincerely,
W. R. Shaw,
Premier.
Province of Manitoba
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Winnipeg
May 31, 1963.
My dear Prime Minister:
My colleagues and I have studied with care the proposal outlined in your letter of May 15 to inquire into biculturalism and bilingualism in Canada by means of a royal commission.
May I say at once that this question requires full and serious attention by our people and that you may therefore be assured of the full co-operation of the government of Manitoba in the proposed investigation. Indeed I believe that this province may have a unique contribution to make in the search for a wholehearted consensus on national unity and cultural development because of our experience in integrating the contributions of many cultures into Manitoba's basic French-English cultural background.
In expressing agreement with the aim of the proposed royal commission I feel bound, however, to raise the question of whether the problem Canada faces today can be dealt with within these limits. The basic issue appears to me to go beyond the purely cultural relationships of Canadians, and may indeed embrace the intergovernmental framework of the nation, including its fiscal aspect. It would seem that this view has already been placed before your government by some at least of my fellow premiers, including the prime minister of Quebec.
I would hope, therefore, that the appointment of the royal commission would not delay a more fundamental examination of the question. This examination, I suggest, may best be considered by direct federal-provincial discussions, possibly along the lines of the meeting envisaged by your predecessor in his letter of February 4 last to provincial premiers. Manitoba would indeed be happy to join in the search for co-operative federalism, a phrase which well reflects our own policy of full co-operation in the working of our confederation.

In regard to the third point in the suggested terms of reference, I would mention that Manitoba has already taken steps to improve and extend the teaching of French in our public schools. While the educational aspect of bilingualism is of first importance, I doubt that this can usefully be separated from its constitutional implications. It is for this reason that I suggest that, as a matter of procedure, while the royal commission may seek information from the provinces and make recommendations thereon, the consideration of this subject should be a matter for intergovernmental discussion rather than of discussion between the royal commission and provincial governments.
I am taking the liberty of making this letter public as of Monday, the 3rd of June.
Yous sincerely,
Duff Roblin.
The Rt. Hon. L. B. Pearson P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Victoria, British Columbia
May 31st, 1963.
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson, Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir:
In the absence of the premier, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 15, and enclosure, re commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism.
Yours faithfully, (Mrs.) K. R. Mylrea, Secretary to the premier.
PREMIER'S OFFICE Regina,
June 7th, 1963.
The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson,
Office of the Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
With further reference to your letter dated May 15, 1963 regarding a possible royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, I now wish to advise that the province of Saskatchewan will be pleased to take advantage of any opportunities to discuss with the commission problems related to biculturalism.
In the meantime my colleagues and I are discussing ways in which we can best make a contribution to the commission's inquiry and how best to undertake appropriate provincial studies.
Yours sincerely, W. S. Lloyd
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 11, 1963