1964-03-05

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think most hon. members of the house will have heard with sorrow of the passing of our colleague the late member for Saskatoon, Harry Jones. This is one of those occasions, Mr. Speaker, when the house is united, but unhappily united in sadness and in sympathy. Harry Jones has lost the fight for his life which he had been waging for so many long months with great courage. I know I express the feelings of every member of the house, Mr. Speaker, when I pay a sincere tribute to the spirit which he has shown and express our gratitude for the service he has given to his country.
His career in terms of years has been relatively short, but it has been honourable and distinguished both in the contribution he made to public life in his own community and in his membership of this house since 1957, where he has been a highly respected member of the house and an esteemed member of his party.
On the occasion of his passing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I should like to extend our heartfelt sympathy to his bereaved wife and his young family, and to his party comrades in this house.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I feel a distinct sense of deep personal sorrow in the passing of one who has been my friend from his earliest collegiate days. I appreciate very much the words spoken by the right hon. Prime Minister. As he said, Harry Jones was vouchsafed only a few years in this house, seven years in all, but he has left his own memorial in the many activities in which he participated. In the House of Commons he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs, where he had every opportunity as a veteran to show his devotion to the veterans; he was with the NATO parliamentary association in Paris. On two" occasions he represented Canada with distinction as chairman of the delegation to the Atlantic congress, and in his knowledge of international affairs he showed that training which followed his occupancy of such positions as president of the United Nations association of Saskatoon.
As far as this parliament is concerned, illness struck him immediately after the election; he came here on one occasion and spent two weeks or so in the house. With sublime courage and unexampled fortitude he faced death for many months without a murmur and without fear.
The Prime Minister has mentioned his courage. I talked with him, and never once did he lose that sense of humour and the desire to return to the house and take his part, although he knew that the possibility of his doing so was remote. It was only last Monday when, from what he called the serenity of an oxygen tent, he communicated with the Minister of National Defence and with me, with a view to securing action on behalf of the retention of the reserve forces in his city.
On occasions like this, as the Prime Minister said, there are no cleavages or divisions in the House of Commons. Of Harry Jones it could be said that in war and in peace he lived to serve others. Young in years, his service to his country was impressive. I mentioned his sense of humour. To me Harry Jones was the embodiment of the Happy Warrior. He served selflessly and well; indomitable, fearless, and faithful unto death. To have known Harry Jones was to be a better man.
The Prime Minister extended a message of sympathy to his widow and to the children. His widow has shown a noble devotion to him in these long months of his illness and has been a continuing source of strength to him, and I join with the Prime Minister in extending to her, to the four children and to his mother the sympathy of this house in bountiful measure.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, death is always an occasion for sadness, but when somebody is cut off in the flower of his manhood it is an unmitigated tragedy. This was especially true of Harry J ones, who had a real contribution to make to his community and to Canada.
I had the privilege of knowing Harry Jones and his parents for many years. In his passing I feel a sense of deep personal loss. During his years as member of parliament for Saskatoon he impressed everyone with his friendliness and his willingness to be helpful. He served his country well both in peace and in war. We all watched with admiration his courage and cheerfulness as he fought a losing

The Late Harry Jones battle against a fatal illness. The members of the New Democratic party join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the memory of Harry Jones. We extend to his wife and the members of his family our deepest sympathy in their time of bereavement.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of our party I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their expression of sorrow at the passing of a fellow member of the house. At times like this we pause to reflect on the true meaning of life, and we realize that the words which have been spoken by those who knew him best show the type of man that Harry Jones was. We extend to his widow and to his children our deepest sympathy. Likewise, the same feeling of sympathy and understanding is extended to the leader and other members of his party. Death carries its message not to the dead but to the living, and we trust that there may be a source of encouragement and strength for each one of us as we go about our responsibilities even though this experience is a sad one.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we readily add our deepest sympathy to the messages of condolence extended by the right hon. Prime Minister and the leaders of the various parties in this house to the family stricken by this untimely departure.
Still quite young, Mr. Jones could have rendered tremendous services to his country but Providence had decided otherwise. Though in sorrow, we must accept that verdict.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to extend, on behalf of the Ra'lliement Creditistes, our heartfelt sympathy, not only to his family and to his widow, but also to the members of the political party he belonged to.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the virtues of our colleagues in this grand club of friendship are sometimes better appreciated after than during our hours on earth. I should like to pay my tribute to the late Harry Jones, the member for Saskatoon. Western Canada extends from the lakehead at least to the mountains, and in order that those of my colleagues whose roots are in that region may have the opportunity to pay tribute to Harry Jones I have been asked to say on behalf of the Prime Minister that, in association with the Leader of the Opposition, we believe the opportunity can be


provided for those members who can attend his funeral in Saskatoon on Saturday.
Protocol dictates that I, as a western Canadian born person, might be the head of any group making such a trip. I just hope that on this coming Saturday all will be there who possibly can.


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I believe those who have had the honour of serving with and working for the veterans of Canada would want me to join in this expression of sorrow and these words of tribute to our departed member. I do so with sorrow because, while I did not have the opportunity of knowing Harry Jones for a very great length of time, I know something of his work and I have heard a great deal about his sympathy for, and his efforts on behalf of, the veterans of Canada. It is for me, therefore, a duty and an honour to join in this tribute to our departed member.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
DONATIONS IN QUEBEC [Translation]
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, concerning a statement I made in this house, with regard to arbitrary decisions by employees of the income tax division in Quebec, and following the denial by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland).
Mr. Speaker, I want to illustrate the fact by a typical example, which will establish that the Minister of National Revenue would do well to make an inquiry in this matter.
It all started last June, when a taxpayer was told in writing:
After checking, the deduction claimed for charitable donations was changed from $525 to $350.
The thing goes on and a letter is written to the official in charge of the income tax office asking him to inquire into this matter, and more particularly, to ask the taxpayer himself for information thereon. On December 6, 1963, that official answered that an inquiry had been made in that case, and that the amount was established on the basis of that inquiry.
On December 10, that is, four days later, I wrote to the head of the income tax office, telling him among other things:
_I cannot recognize the value of an Inquiry in
the course of which the person concerned was not even consulted.
On January 9, 1964, he answered me:
If, on the other hand, the taxpayer can establish that the amount of $525 indicated on his charity receipt has really been paid in money to parish activities during the taxation year 1962, I shall be pleased to have the necessary adjustments made.

On February 28, 1964, I wrote to the director of taxation at the Quebec office. I said:
In reply to your letter of January 9, 1964, I must say that the taxpayer has actually proved the amounts he contributed as charitable donations, and this by means of the receipts he has sent you and which were signed by honourable and respectable persons.
In this case, it was the parish priest. And I went on:
Should you have any doubts in this respect, your inquiry will not be complete until you have seen the taxpayer himself.
On March 3, 1964, I received from the director of taxation a letter which reads as follows:
After examining the record and studying the correspondence exchanged with you, we can add nothing whatsoever to the information already supplied and the letter that our lawyer, Mr. Paquin, sent you on January 9 last.
Mr. Speaker, this means, therefore, that inquiries are made without interviewing the taxpayer or the interested party. Moreover, this morning I received from the Quebec district taxation office seven letters worded exactly the same and mentioning that an inquiry had been made, whereas no inquiry had been conducted.
In answer to a letter sent to me on December 27 by the Minister of National Revenue, I wrote to him on February 21:
I must tell you that I cannot consider that an inquiry is complete as long as the taxpayer himself has not been questioned on the receipts he provided.
Mr. Speaker, the last letter I should like to put on the record is that of the taxpayer himself, after all the evidence I gave to show the attitude of the civil servants of the Quebec district tax office. It reads:
-I want justice, and I shall obtain justice at any cost.
-you have no right to eliminate a receipt for charitable donation without any inquiry, because the man who addresses you is fully justified, he can produce at any time a statement under oath-
Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the house to the fact that in this particular case as in the seven others to which I have referred and about which I received letters which were written exactly in the same terms, no real inquiry has been made since the taxpayer was not consulted and he even indicated to the minister that he was ready to provide a statement under oath.
That is why I say that such inadequate inquiries are followed by arbitrary decisions which tend to make people apathetic towards the present government and I submit that the Minister of National Revenue should have an investigation made in the Quebec district tax office.
Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to decide whether there is a question of privilege or not. After listening attentively to the hon. member for Lapointe I regret to say I see no prima facie case. His words are in the nature of a grievance more than a question of privilege.
A question of privilege must always affect the rights of the members individually or of the house collectively. There is no shred of evidence to that effect in the statement made by the hon. member. Therefore I do not see any question of privilege, but only a statement of grievance.



MR. HOWARD  REPLY OF MINISTER RESPECTING JURISDICTION OVER INDIANS

['That is quite possible.']
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a question of privilege much more bona fide than that which we have just heard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: These grammarians all around are correcting my grammar. My question of privilege relates to an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as reported at page 552 of Hansard, relating to the transfer of jurisdiction over Indian affairs from the federal government to provincial governments. I quote in part what he said:
I believe I can answer this question today by stating that as there has been no discussion with any province regarding the transfer of jurisdiction over Indians, the government has not found it necessary to adopt a firm position with regard to the matter.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a document which contains the opening statement of Hon. W. S. Lloyd, premier of Saskatchewan, at the federal-provincial conference in November, 1963. Incidentally, this was the only provincial government that made any reference in opening statements to Indian affairs, and on page 18 of the document, under the heading, "Indian-Eskimo Affairs", Mr. Lloyd said as follows:
So far as Indian Canadians themselves are concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder could the hon. member state his question of privilege briefly and succinctly.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the complete statement on the record and then indicate that the question of privilege is that the minister yesterday misled the house, I think inadvertently. In Mr. Lloyd's presentation to the federal-provincial conference of last fall he said:
So far as Indian Canadians themselves are concerned some way must be found to remove the artificial basis of the division in public services

Question of Privilege
between them and all other Canadians. An important legal step in this direction would be the transfer of jurisdiction for Indian affairs from the federal government to the provinces.
Further on Mr. Lloyd makes another reference to that matter, indicating that certain co-operative developments would be greatly facilitated
-if the general objective of an over-all transfer of administration were clearly established and accepted by both federal and provincial governments.
My question of privilege is this. I am sure it was inadvertent, but yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration did not give a clear picture to the house in answer to that particular question.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an essential distinction to be made between the transfer of jurisdiction and the transfer of administration of the Indians.
If there were talks at the last conference between the federal government and the provincial governments, they were for the purpose of discussing the transfer of administration, but whatever statements may have been made by certain federal or provincial representatives, there never were any discussions regarding transfers of jurisdiction, that is no statement regarding the relinquishment, by the central government, of its duties, under the constitution, towards the Indians.
I maintain that the statement made yesterday is consistent with what took place at the conferences.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could answer that contention of the minister by pointing out-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his point, and I think the reply was full and complete.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reply was not full and complete; it was equally as misleading as was the statement yesterday. I merely wanted to point out, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What is the point of order? If it is the start of an argument, this is certainly not the time to make it. The minister has taken responsibility for his reply. I think it is up to the hon. member to accept that reply.


Frank Howard: My point of order is that the minister misquoted me just a moment ago; he misquoted what I read as excerpts from the presentation to the dominion-provincial conference. In the presentation by Hon. Mr. 
Lloyd, the premier of Saskatchewan, in two-separate places he distinctly mentions transfer of jurisdiction-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: -not "administration"; and those are the words the minister used yesterday, "transfer of jurisdiction".



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this question should be directed to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, I direct it to the Prime Minister and they can determine who shall answer. Is the government now in a position to inform the house whether it will comply with the request by the secretary general of the United Nations to provide Canadian troops to the Cyprus peace keeping force? Second, has the president of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, agreed now to accept such a force?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government is not yet in a position to give to the house a definite indication of its intentions. The secretary general of the United Nations, as I mentioned yesterday, has been in consultation with our ambassador, and he has also been in consultation with a number of other countries concerning their possible participation in the Cyprus peace keeping operation in the form of either providing forces or contributing financially. Until these consultations are completed and clarification obtained on a number of points affecting the conditions under which the proposed force would operate, the government will not be in a position to take decisions or bring this matter to parliament for consideration. In the meantime the possibility of a serious deterioration of the situation in Cyprus is being effectively held in check by the large scale British force already on the ground in Cyprus.
With regard to the attitude of the archbishop, the head of the government of Cyprus, I can only say that this question would depend on the countries which would be invited and which would accept the invitation to participate in the force.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister, and I would ask him this question. Is one of the reasons that holds back the government from making a decision the dispute there is between the peoples of two NATO members, as well as the treaty rights in which the United

Kingdom has an interest? Does the government feel that it might be dangerous to follow the course of providing a peace keeping force, in view of the involvement of three NATO nations in the differences?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the right hon. gentleman to permit me not to answer this aspect of his question.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On February 19 the Prime Minister set forth certain conditions under which Canada would be prepared to send forces to join a peace keeping force in Cyprus. May I ask the minister, first, in view of the fact that the resolution which was passed unanimously by the security council of the United Nations seems to meet most of these conditions-particularly the one that we in this party stressed, that the force should be under the aegis of the United Nations-what other conditions are holding up a decision? Second, has the government given any consideration to recommending to the United Nations that in addition to sending a peace keeping force to Cyprus they should move in with economic aid in order to raise the living standards in Cyprus, which seems to be one of the major causes of discontent there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will agree that this is not the moment to give the details of the Canadian position with regard to the matters he has raised. If this matter does come before the house we shall be in a position to deal with the matter involved in my hon. friend's last question. With regard to the other point in his question, I can only say that the nature of the consultations that the secretary general is now having with other countries is a very important consideration in the decision the Canadian government will take in the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the secretary general of the United Nations has communicated directly with him.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the Canadian ambassador at the United Nations several times this morning. The ambassador has been in touch with the secretary general today, and was yesterday. I have not had any direct
Inquiries of the Ministry contact; my communications with the secretary general have been through our permanent delegate to the United Nations, Mr. Paul Tremblay.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister anticipate having such discussions in the immediate future?


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: That is quite possible.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a twofold question to the Minister of Finance.
First, does the minister intend to revise his fiscal policy with regard to Canadians who buy cars at a retail price of over $5,000 and who are not allowed any deduction for depreciation at present-


An hon. Member:: Does this also include General Motors products?


David Réal Caouette: -which is an injustice highly prejudicial to the automobile trade in Canada, even including General Motors products.
Here is the second part of my question. Could the Minister of Finance inform the house whether he also intends to propose amendments to the income tax so as to provide income tax exemptions to adult students who take evening classes in Canadian universities, as requested last October 31 by a student delegation from Sir George Williams and Montreal universities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first question was very long and in my opinion should be put on the order paper; and the second question it seems to me is completely out of order at this time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a proper and correct question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister been having any conferences with dominion, provincial or local organizations of veterans groups with respect to arrangements respecting veterans hospitals in Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I have had one meeting with the national officers of the Royal Canadian Legion. I have also had a meeting with the national council of veterans organizations and another meeting is proposed some time toward the end of next week with delegates from the national offices of all veterans organizations to discuss this question.



DELAY IN RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS OF LAST SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can the minister tell us how it is that three months after the end of the previous session we have not yet received all the French reports and proceedings of the committees that sat during the first session?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and report to the hon. member as soon as I get the information.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. While he is inquiring about the delay in the French translation, could he also inquire about the type setters at the printing bureau being told to remove accents on the names of the French Canadian members and write them in the English manner?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will inquire into this matter also, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ALLEGED FEDERAL INTERFERENCE IN QUEBEC CULTURAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State.
Does the minister agree with the statement made by the Quebec minister for cultural affairs, Mr. Georges Lapalme, in the Quebec legislature, to the effect that Ottawa is taking credit for actions taken by the Quebec department for cultural affairs, and especially the Quebec delegation to Paris?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member be kind enough to repeat the first part of his question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gaspe.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, this is my question. The Quebec minister for cultural affairs stated that Ottawa is taking credit for actions taken by the Quebec department for cultural affairs, especially the Quebec delegation to Paris. Does Ottawa agree with that statement?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries.
Could the minister tell the house whether he intends to issue regulations, in order to reserve a strip of a few miles along the shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence for small scale fishing operations.
If so, would the regulations come into force at the beginning of the next season?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member, I can say that the regulations concerning the operation of trawlers in certain areas where coastal fishing is actively practised are now under consideration so that a decision may be reached, if possible, before the opening of the next fishing season.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is it true that Roy Fabish, who is now an employee of the C.B.C. but was formerly executive assistant to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he was minister of agriculture, is being sent to mainland China by the C.B.C. to be there at the same time as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle? If so, is it proper to use public funds to help publicize a private visit?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: You cannot interfere with the C.B.C.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make inquiries and provide an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISCONTINUATION OF PROGRAM &quot;QUEST&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose on March 2, I am informed that the C.B.C. announced on February 25 that the "Quest" series will come to an end on Tuesday, March 10.



PARTICIPATION OF MINISTER'S WIFE IN TELEVISION PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. I think it is a proper one. Does the Prime Minister consider it proper and advisable that Jeanne Sauve, wife of the Minister of Forestry, should be broadcasting as a paid employee-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: This question was asked earlier in this present session, if I am not mistaken.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I directed this question to the Secretary of State but I never received an answer. That is the main reason I am directing my question now to the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: I must rule that the question is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think it is my privilege to address a question and to receive a proper answer. If the government or the Prime Minister is not ready to answer, the only way to proceed is to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member will promise to do that I will refuse to answer all his questions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so that the minister of defence will not consider that he has been left out I should like to ask him whether he has any observation to make regarding an article which appears in today's Gazette concerning an attempted break-in at the naval supply depot at Ville La Salle. I should like to ask him why nothing was said
Inquiries of the Ministry of this to the other police officers, and whether there is any basis for the statement made by a senior Montreal police department official, who was speaking for the combined R.C.M.P.-Montreal and Quebec police special squad investigating arms thefts in the province, to the effect that it was very regrettable that they had not been informed of the Montreal night raid? Will the minister say whether the same kind of blackout of information which the House of Commons is experiencing applies as well to the police officers in this case?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Naiional Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Ville La Salle police were notified of this incident at 10.20 p.m. on Monday night, but apparently did not relay the information to the Montreal metropolitan police.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the mounted police?
[Later:!


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence in connection with the attempted raid on the naval supply depot at Ville La Salle. When was the minister informed of this raid, and when did he inform the Minister of Justice?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the procedure in these cases is that the primary responsibility for the apprehension of people who attempt illegal break-ins is that of the local police authorities. They were notified promptly in this case, as they have been in other cases. They then get in contact with the provincial police authorities if their assistance is required and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police work in very close association with the local municipal police and lend all support necessary.
I personally was informed of this incident the following day, and I am sure the required information has been passed on to all concerned. I think there was perhaps some delay in relaying the message from the Ville La Salle police to the metropolitan Montreal police, and I think there were some very good reasons for this which I am not at liberty to disclose.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the delay in informing the minister?



BLANDFORD, N.S.-CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL RADIO STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister inform the house when his department plans to call for tenders for the construction of a

Inquiries of the Ministry naval radio station near Blandford, Nova Scotia? Would he also tell us the number of personnel to be stationed in the area when the project is completed? There is a sense of urgency about this question due to the fact that the local school board are contemplating enlarging their school, and they are concerned to provide facilities for the children of naval personnel who may be stationed in the area.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Tenders for the construction of a receiver building at this station have been called to close on the 12tn of this month. It is hoped to call tenders for other buildings, including an administration building, together with associated utilities and services in late summer or early fall, 1964. I can also advise the hon. member that the estimated manpower establishment for this station will be 171 service personnel and 38 civilians.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether he can inform the house if his talks with the tobacco buying companies and the marketing board delegation have now reached a conclusion. If so, can he report to the house in what way the government will be able to assist in rectifying the very serious situation which has developed in southwestern Ontario in the auction selling of the 1963 tobacco crop?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, following the discussions which I had earlier with representatives of the tobacco growers, I met yesterday with a group from the buying companies. Later the two groups met together to discuss the situation. I understand that no specific agreement was reached, but I believe that the joint discussions served the purpose of better acquainting each group with the position of the other, and as a result of the meetings each group is more conscious of its responsibilities.
The involvement of the federal government in the matter of tobacco marketing is with respect to price support. We have, as the house knows, provided a support program this year to assist the industry through a transition period in its marketing procedures. No further action is contemplated by the government at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. The other day the minister stated, in answer to a question which I put to him, that he was meeting the tobacco growers with a view to helping them. May I ask the minister what he intends to do to help them, or does he consider that having brought them together with the buyers for a mutual exchange of information constitutes help?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member asked his question in the first sentence, and that the rest was commentary. May I suggest that we try to compose our questions in as short, direct and concise a manner as possible.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I said to the tobacco growers that I would be very pleased to communicate with the buyers. This is all they asked me to do, and this was accomplished.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: A supplementary question to the minister of health and welfare. Did the minister of health and welfare supply these tobacco growers with booklets concerning the anti-smoking campaign?


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister feel that the present program of assistance would help tobacco producers who have to sell their tobacco at a price far below the average for the grade concerned?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the tobacco growers of Ontario operate under provincial legislation. We have a support price at 47 cents per pound on the average in so far as the tobacco which is sold is concerned. This is operating under the stabilization board, as are many other products. We feel on this side of the house that this is as far as we should go as far as helping the growers is concerned. We realize this is a serious situation. I believe most of the growers feel we have done a great deal more than has been done for many, many years.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: In view of the fact that some of the prices that have been offered range in the neighbourhood of 3 cents to 5 cents per pound, does the minister not feel that something more is needed than a price deficiency payment based on 47 cents per pound; because even if a 3 cent or 4 cent deficiency payment is made the people selling at very low prices would not be helped?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister feel that paying a deficiency payment directly to the producer would help to meet this critical

situation, and are his department and the stabilization board giving serious consideration to such a policy?


Harry William Hays: I should like to suggest here again that this is a provincial responsibility. They operate under provincial legislation, not under federal legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not in connection with deficiency payments.


Harry William Hays: The federal government supports tobacco at 47 cents, and it may be that some hon. members would be interested in the fluctuation of price which always has existed in tobacco. Tobacco sales operate from a low of about 5 cents a pound to 63 cents a pound. Already 117 million pounds of tobacco have been sold. In the same period last year only 73 million pounds had been sold, and return to the farmer this year on the average is 2 cents higher than a year ago.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Could I ask the minister if the figures as to the quantities of tobacco already sold apply only to Ontario production, or are they shared in by growers in the maritimes and Quebec?


Harry William Hays: We are discussing just the Ontario figures.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoit (Danforih):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Perhaps in his absence his parliamentary secretary will answer it. Is the government prepared to make available to the royal commission on the Coffin case such files, documents, letters, papers, opinions, etc. as are in its possession with respect to the Coffin trial and the further events that took place prior to Coffin's execution?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: I will be glad to bring this to the attention of the minister when he returns.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question arises out of a report in yesterday's edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald in which health minister Donahoe of the provincial government is quoted as blaming the federal
20220-37J
Inquiries of the Ministry
government for the shortage of hospital construction funds. My question is, has the province of Nova Scotia claimed all the federal funds available for hospital construction grants under the agreed ceiling? If not, is the minister prepared to satisfy any such claims forwarded by the provincial authority on behalf of hospital construction projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.



FLUORIDATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to compliment her on her new hairdo, and I hope this will give her a new outlook. The question arises out of an article in the February issue of Health magazine which bears the headline "Deputy Ministers of Health in Canada Unanimously Endorse Fluoridation". My question is, in view of the fact that her own deputy minister and other knowledgeable persons in her department have publicly endorsed fluoridation, would the minister now stop vacillating on the subject and say that her department is in favour of fluoridation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even though the intent of the question was probably right, the form of the question was wrong.


Joseph Slogan: I will change the form of the question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if she agrees with the statement of her deputy minister endorsing fluoridation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for______


Joseph Slogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the form is still wrong.


Joseph Slogan: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like to interrupt again, but I fail to see how a supplementary can be based on a question which itself is out of order.


Joseph Slogan: I am asking a new question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare how she reconciles her position in the house with her position as president of the health league of Canada, which is a prime exponent of fluoridation.

Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



&quot;OOKPIK&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. While it may not be one of extreme urgency, I believe it is one of national pride. Why was it not possible to secure Canadian fur for the manufacture of the Eskimo doll Ookpik, which is represented as the symbol of the Canadian Eskimo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not even hear the last part of my own question.


Mr. Speaker:: Acting on your own premise of there being no particular urgency, I suggested it was a question for the order paper.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I can clear this up in a moment, Mr. Speaker. There was a suggestion yesterday that American possum was being used. I think if the hon. member will make some inquiries he will find that this is a generic name for the animal and not the fur at all. I hope the possums are all Canadian.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to call his attention to the fact that on February 24 he said he would look into the matter of whether the government would be introducing legislation similar to that introduced in both houses of the United States congress in respect of a joint financial program for the paving of the Alaska highway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we had better wait to see what happens to the United States legislation. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter to ascertain if I can make a further reply tomorrow.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps it could be taken as notice by the

Solicitor General or the acting minister. I wonder if the Minister of Justice is aware of the circumstances involved in the sale of Pacific Meat Co. Ltd. to another company, and the agreement made by Pacific Meat Co. Ltd. and the principals in the process of that sale that it would no longer engage in meat packing in competition with the business which had bought it out; and whether a study could be made to determine whether there is an infraction of the Combines Investigation Act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to take that question as notice.



PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF IMPORT INTO NEW YORK STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he tell the house whether he intends to protest against the state of New York passing a bill which would be detrimental to the sale of Canadian bread there?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have made the usual representations to the United States authorities on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture which was essentially the same as the one asked by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan).


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the minister perhaps the question can be postponed.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he clarify the rumours about an impending merger of Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Airlines?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to say about rumours.



RELEASE OF CONTRACT BETWEEN T.C.A. AND TRANSAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is neither urgent nor of national importance but relates to the privileges of members of the house. On February 27 the minister said in reply to the hon. member for Regina City that he would provide him with the contract between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir. Is the minister aware that at the previous session starred questions, plain questions and motions for the production of papers concerning this particular matter were denied, at which time he was house leader and his colleague, the President of the Privy Council, was minister of transport? Is the minister aware of this, and would he provide at least two members of the house and probably all members with an explanation of the cavalier way in which he provided this document last week, while the government was not able to provide it to the house last session or to the parliamentary committee which considered this matter in December of 1963?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. gentleman on the speed of his research. It so happens that unbeknown to my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, and unbeknown to the head of T.C.A. the contract was attached to the order in council at the time it was made. Therefore it was a public document, although this was unknown, as I say, to both the gentlemen and they acted in good faith. When I discovered that it was attached to the order in council and therefore was a public document, and when I also learned it had been made public at a hearing of the air transport board in Regina, it did not seem to me I should deny it to any member of the house, and I made it available to the first member who asked me for it, which was the very day I learned these interesting facts. If the hon. member for Regina City has now finished reading it and would send the copy back to me I would be very glad to table it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. The minister indicates that this is the situation, but this does not answer the point that the privileges we thought we had were ignored. This not only applies, Mr. Speaker, to individual members, because the provincial government of Saskatchewan was denied this document for over a year. I suggest we should have an explanation of how this oversight could take place with such vigilance and competent guidance as these departments have.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the explanation is very simple. It was human error, and I doubt that parliament or anyone else will ever end that.


John George Diefenbaker: But the errors seem to be multiplying with this government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ros-thern.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will reserve it until a later date.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Does he intend to hold an inquiry concerning the behaviour of income tax inspectors of the Quebec district office?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that orders of the day is the place to continue the debate that was started earlier this afternoon.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A question as simple as the one I just asked the minister certainly would not give rise to a debate, and only the minister's reply can determine what will happen.
In my opinion, that is one way of avoiding the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I am not mistaken the same question was asked and answered by the minister within the last few days. It is one of the rules of the house that we do not have repetitious questions.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport, as a result of his research, could provide me with an answer to the question I asked him on February 24 regarding the renewal of the contract for the service between Pictou and the Magdalen islands?
578	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under very active discussion at the present time. As the hon. gentleman knows, I think, there are two companies that are interested in this matter, and I hope to be able to give an answer in a very short time.



CALGARY-REGINA-REQUEST FOR IMPROVED SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he a reply ready to the question I asked several days ago about transportation difficulties on the prairies? The minister will remember that he said he was going to look into the matter and report later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked about half a dozen questions and I gave about five answers. Perhaps I could give a sixth one. I had a letter from the president of the C.P.R. in which he said he was looking into the matter.



REQUEST FOR LIMITATION ON TRAIN NOISES WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and although it might not be a proper question for orders of the day I am asking it because I have not been able to find another opportunity for bringing this matter to the attention of the minister.
Will the minister consider an amendment to section 311 of the Railway Act in order to relieve the operators of railway trains from the necessity of continually whistling and ringing bells on trains operating over municipal streets? Railway operators are obliged to do this, and it has created a great nuisance with resultant loss of sleep for many people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a bargain with the hon. gentleman without even consulting my colleagues. If he will give us some parliamentary time to get some government business done, I will be glad to introduce a bill for that purpose.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege. I do not believe the minister has any reason for directing a statement of that kind at me personally or at any other member of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My observations had no personal connotation whatever.


Michael Starr: Since the minister made a remark rather than answer my question, I wonder if he would now give me an answer to the question of whether he will consider the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course when so eminent a privy councillor makes an inquiry, it will be considered.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to answer my question of February 25 concerning the possibility of early action on the matter of collective bargaining in the civil service.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I have an interim report here, and perhaps I could put it on the record rather than table it. It is to this effect. The preparatory committee on collective bargaining was established on July 25, 1963, to study the problems associated with the introduction of collective bargaining and arbitration in the public service, and the need for reforms in the systems of classification and pay applying to civil service and prevailing rate employees. This committee, as my hon. friend knows, has begun its work. It consists of Mr. Heeney as chairman, and members from the senior branches of the civil service, whose names I do not think I need to put on the record.
By the beginning of September, 1963, the preparatory committee had held its first meeting and had acquired a staff of specialists in labour management relations and wage and salary administration. Since that time the committee has held 16 meetings and the first phase of a program of research and investigation has been completed. This has enabled the committee to identify with some precision the many and complex problems referred to it and to develop possible lines of solution. In the course of its work the preparatory committee has sought information and advice from various senior officials in the federal public service and from a number of outside authorities, including officials of provincial governments.
The chairman and members of the staff have had a number of meetings with the principal officers of each of the three service wide organizations of federal public servants in order to obtain their views on some of the major problems under study by the committee. The committee has also received representations from the association of Canadian postal employees, the Canadian Construction

Association and the Canadian Labour Congress. The committee expects to be in a position to report further and more definitively in the course of the next few months.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the statement the Prime Minister made on the second day of the first session of this parliament, that the government was committed to action in this field, does he feel he is going to be able to carry out that commitment in view of the speed this committee is making?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the committee is dealing with a very important, very complex matter. I hope it will operate with all possible speed, as I am sure it will.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate investigation into the charges made today in Toronto by the Minister of Justice to the effect that nothing has caused such strong and deep rooted frustration in Quebec as the position of French Canadians in the federal civil service, especially in departmental headquarters establishments in the national capital?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I have called orders of the day three times now, but if the question is urgent and important of course the hon. member has a right to ask it.


Frank Howard: I will pose my question, Mr. Speaker, and then you will be able to ascertain whether or not it is urgent. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question with regard to the federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs. He said he would take the question as notice and reply today. Is he in a position to reply now?


René Tremblay: I hope tomorrow to be in a position to give a full report to the hon. member.
Columbia River Treaty POWER



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That 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 on January 17, 1961, together with the protocol containing modifications and clarifications to the treaty annexed to an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States signed on January 22, 1964, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to stress the importance of the Columbia river treaty to this country. The Columbia river treaty resolution and the Canada pension plan, in my opinion, are the two most important pieces of legislation to be brought before us this session. Indeed, these two pieces of legislation may be remembered as the most important to be brought before this parliament.
The Columbia river treaty perhaps occupies a special place. This treaty represents a long lasting agreement, one that will run for at least 60 years. Once it has been ratified by the government of this country, it cannot be amended within that period of time. The Canada pension plan can be improved from time to time. This house, therefore, will have to give careful consideration to the passage of this very important resolution.
I should like to deal very briefly with some of the physical magnitudes involved. The southeast corner of British Columbia which is involved in this scheme has an area comparable to the combined area of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It is extremely mountainous and extremely beautiful. It has many resources, including agriculture resources. I should like to go through them in ascending order of magnitude; agriculture, then forestry which is more important, mining which is more important still, and finally water.
The great water resources of the upper Columbia region in Canada are perhaps the greatest resource in that part of British Columbia, indeed that part of Canada. There are the water power aspects of these great water resources. I think most of us will regard as even more important with the passage of time the consumptive use of water, industrial uses, irrigation and the control of water pollution. These values will increase with the passage of time, whereas the power production aspect will diminish in relative terms.
What are we doing by ratifying the Columbia river treaty? We are taking waters

Columbia River Treaty which now flow unharnessed to the sea in vast quantities in the late spring and summer months and which virtually dry up in the winter months. We will eventually, of our own initiative, want to bring this great river in Canada under regulation. We will want to control this great force of nature in our own interests, and what we are doing under the Columbia river treaty is bringing these waters under control earlier than would otherwise be the case.
Downstream of this great upper Columbia area in Canada is an arid land, that of the inland empire of the great desert regions of *Washington and Oregon; and to the east, just over the Rockies, is the semi-arid area of the prairies. We will want to control these waters in the short term for power production and in the longer term for these other consumptive uses, and we are going to control these waters by the moneys provided in the short term by the United States.
The United States is going to pay for the construction of these vast dams, and we have title to the additional power developed downstream in the United States as a result of these dams. In accordance with the treaty, we have a right to one half of this additional power, and this interim arrangement entered into by the present government involves the sale of this additional power in the United States. Physically this is not an export. The water is now flowing into the United States, and it will flow in a regulated fashion as a result of these treaty storage projects.
The additional power developed down there is to be shared fifty-fifty. We have title to half that power. Physically it is made in the United States; it comes off generators in the United States, and we intend to leave it down there for a period of 30 years. As a result of leaving it down there we shall receive a lump sum settlement immediately which permits us to build these great reservoirs in this country, and we postpone the importation back into Canada of United States produced power or, if you like, foreign produced power. We are not exporting energy. As a result of this arrangement we are setting up a system which will permit us to obtain energy from the United States, and we are merely postponing bringing it back into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this into some perspective. This energy which we are leaving in the United States-and which some hon. members opposite would have us bring back right away-in order of magnitude when the dams are completed under the treaty will amount to about 3 per cent of total Canadian production. It will be a relatively small amount in the late sixties, and it

is an amount of energy which will tend to decrease while our own production in Canada will increase.
By the end of this 30 year period the amount of energy which we will have to decide either to bring back to Canada or to leave down there will be the equivalent not of 1 per cent of Canadian total production but .1 per cent, or one one thousandth of the power generated in Canada. Will we, in 30 years time, bring back .1 per cent of the power which we generate ourselves in this country? That is a decision which will face us in 30 years' time. It is a minute fraction of the total power consumption of the Pacific northwest, and the decision as to whether we will bring it back is ours. The dislocation it would cause at the end of 30 years would be infinitesimal.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is another way of putting this postponed importation into perspective, and it is in relation to our other energy exports. Today we export a large volume of natural gas, a wasting resource, into the United States. Through one pipe line alone out of British Columbia there now flows six times as much energy as we are talking about in respect to the postponed repatriation of downstream benefit power. We export a lot of oil from Canada. In fact, at present we export more oil from Canada in one year than we will export, or rather not import, in the form of this downstream benefit power during the whole 30 year period of the treaty. This is an order of magnitude which is immense in relation to the commitment which we are entering into through the Columbia river treaty.
I was much impressed by a statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. As a former premier of the province of Saskatchewan he made many correct and I think laudable decisions, and one of the decisions he made when he was premier of that great province was to permit the export of oil from southern Saskatchewan to the Minneapolis area in the United States. The volume of energy involved in that exportation is large. In amount it is between four and five times as great per year as the downstream benefits which we are talking about postponing bringing back to Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the parliamentary secretary a question?


John (Jack) Davis: I am sorry; I have limited time, and I would like to make a few more points which are factual. I think the hon. member will appreciate that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, I do, but does the parliamentary secretary appreciate the fact that

the oil exported has a sulphur content which could not be removed economically in western Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: It was a medium gravity oil which could not be readily processed in Canada. As I say, I think the hon. member made a correct decision. However, he is inconsistent now in saying that we should not export energy, when he exported many more times as much, and set up a system which will last for many years. It is an exhaustible resource which he exported, while this is an inexhaustible resource.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we should still look at the general backdrop of energy available, and there is an increasing amount of energy available to mankind. The cost of winning energy from mineral resources has been declining rapidly in comparison to the cost of producing other things. Obviously when uranium, thorium and even the hydrogen atom itself are becoming potential sources of commercial energy we should be less concerned with the matter of trade, and embargoes in respect to trade, than we have been in the past. In other words we should be quite happy to sell at a proper price, provided that our own people's needs are covered with respect to power in Canada, and certainly with respect to energy which originates in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have so far talked mostly about power. I would now like to turn to the consumptive uses of water, and I stress that the other consumptive uses of water will be increasingly important relative to the production of energy. This treaty clearly states that we can divert water at any time out of the upper Columbia in Canada to other areas in Canada, such as the prairies, for consumptive purposes. The protocol also deals with this aspect of the treaty, and indeed makes it more clear.
I would like to read into the record again, although it is already in the white paper, the relevant clause. On page 113 of the white paper we read:
Canada and the United States of America are in agreement that article XIII (1) of the treaty provides to each of them a right to divert water for a consumptive use.
This is clear, and I believe unequivocal. I also want to read into the record the definition which appears in the treaty itself in article I, the definition of "consumptive use."
(e) "consumptive use" means use of water for domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes-
So presumably the United States on its part-
Columbia River Treaty


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The parliamentary secretary did not finish that quotation. Will you read the rest of clause (e) of article I?


John (Jack) Davis: I do not have it in front of me, but I believe it excludes the use for the production of electric power.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the important point.


John (Jack) Davis: I agree with the hon. member that that is very important.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is the primary consideration.


John (Jack) Davis: Let us think in terms of the diversion for consumptive purposes of the upper Columbia in southeastern British Columbia into the prairies. I understand that the general elevation of the prairie areas is appreciably higher than the elevation of the mountain trench in which these waters originate. In other words we will have to put an amount of energy into this scheme if we are to get the water on to the prairies for irrigation purposes. This involves the consumption of energy if we want to do that. Even if we dig a tunnel we have to raise the water. We will have to pump the water up many hundreds of feet before dropping it down again.
I think the conclusion of any impartial tribunal looking into this matter would be that this is a consumptive use and not a definition of use for electric power. This can be debated, but I am quite confident in my own mind that the United States may wish to agree, using the same reasoning I have used now. I think this is a reasonable interpretation of our freedom, our ability to divert for consumptive purposes.
I would stress another point and it is this. Hon. members opposite have stressed the fact that we can divert under the boundary waters treaty. They frequently omit to say that we are also liable for damages created downstream in the United States. In the case of this treaty we have a positive affirmation of the right to divert, with no mention of an obligation to compensate downstream United States interests. In other words, it can be argued that we are freer to divert now than we are under the present 1909 boundary waters treaty regime. Hon. members opposite have also dealt rather roughly with me, I think, regarding my being critical of the Columbia river treaty. I have been a critic of the Columbia river treaty, and I have been an outspoken one-I think, to some effect.
The protocol to the Columbia river treaty makes modifications and clarifications to the treaty. These are important modifications and clarifications. I would like to skim briefly

Columbia River Treaty power benefits has been altered from a background period of 20 years to a period of 30 years. The engineers are familiar with this technical jargon. The base period is changed from 1928 to 1948 to 1928 to 1958. However, there is real significance in that; it means that the number of kilowatt hours accepted by the United States as a result of the negotiations over the last few months has been increased by between 14 to 18 per cent. In other words, the admission that these values will exist is now out on the table and we have been able to incorporate it in the over-all settlement.
I should now like to deal very briefly with the other principal criticisms which have been levied at the treaty. The criticisms follow these lines. One is to the effect that we have not through negotiation caused the United States to recognize more downstream benefits; that somewhere hidden behind the scenes are more benefits than have actually been discovered under the present treaty arrangements. The same people who say this are in the same breath saying: "But we should divert immediately, right away". Well, they cannot have it both ways. Either the vested interests of the United States in our managing our downstream water in this way is a major one-and hence the United States has a vested interest in our not diverting this power-or we will not find it difficult to divert.
In the matter of flooding, the treaty projects do not flood as much of Canada as does the projects of the so-called McNaugh-ton plan. They do not flood anything like as much of Canada as does the McNaughton plan. If you take out of the picture both the Mica creek reservoir and the Duncan lake dam, the comparison is of the order of more than two to one. The McNaughton plan flooding in the east Kootenay and in the mountain trench will flood more than twice as much acreage as would be flooded by the high Arrow dam and the tail end of the Libby reservoir, which extends from the United States into Canada. So let us be clear about this: the treaty arrangements do not flood as much of Canada as do the terms of the McNaughton plan.
The critics are also concerned about power rates. They are concerned about the exportation of jobs. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, by getting money substantially interest free from the United States, by creating vast projects soon and providing jobs soon, by reducing the impact on the budget of the B.C. hydro-because these dams are built for nothing-do we not reduce the price of power in British Columbia? We certainly create a great opportunity to reduce the power rates in the province. We have both

advantages-jobs soon and lower power rates in the not too distant future, by the middle 1970's at least. So how can this be an exportation of jobs? I think this is a tremendous device both for creating jobs and for organizing a great water routine on the Columbia at no expense to Canadians.
One of the great problems in exporting power from British Columbia south to Washington and Oregon has been that in Washington and Oregon there are these vast federally-sponsored multi-purpose developments. Money has uniformly been available at 2J per cent interest. The U.S. army corp of engineers has available grants for all the engineering required for these large federal projects. These being the equivalent of our crown corporations, are income tax free and many of these big dams are more than 50 per cent written off against irrigation, flood control, navigation and the like. As a result the lowest power rates in all North America obtain just south of British Columbia, and we will have difficulty exporting into that very low-rate area. But here we have a device which takes advantage of that unique situation where the federal government of the United States has helped the Pacific northwest region of the United States in many ways. In effect, we are taking advantage of the contribution to the U.S. Pacific northwest indirectly because of this treaty, and it is an advantage for British Columbians through the creation of work soon and lower power rates in the future.
Again, the critics are saying that we should use this downstream energy in Canada, and that we should use it immediately. They are saying we should absorb it and that it should take precedence over any other power project built in British Columbia. But what are we doing? If we follow this recommendation we are making Canadian consumers dependent on imports, imports which tend to diminish every year. If any hon. members have looked at any power legislation in the United States they would have found that if any corporation, utility, or the like, intervenes and requests of the President of the United States that an export of power be suspended, it can be suspended by the U.S. federal power commission. So these people are arguing that we should be dependent on energy which conceivably could be cut off at a moment's notice. Therefore, I say that the most exportable power which we have is the downstream benefits in the United States, and that as long as we have a surplus in Canada we should tend to sell those downstream benefits in the United States, and use our own production from these vast projects which we should create on the upper Columbia in Canada for ourselves. This makes
sense.

Columbia River Treaty


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member full examination in the external affairs coma question? Is he suggesting that the President mittee, and that there would be no attempt of the United States could cancel an export on the part of any member or group of mem-order to sell downstream benefits back to bers to stall the treaty indefinitely and to Canada which were guaranteed by an inter- waste the time of parliament in their attempts national treaty?	to do so.


John (Jack) Davis: I think I had better look into that. If the present legislation in the United States is to the effect that the President, or the executive, has this right, I think it would be an open question as to whether in fact the treaty overrules that legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that is true, then this treaty is not worth the paper it is written on.


An hon. Member:: Like the Oregon treaty.


John (Jack) Davis: Critics of the present treaty arrangement also talk about diversions into the Fraser. They have not, until recently at least, had made available to them the cost of this diversion. Canada certainly was not inclined to make this relatively high cost estimate available to everybody. This is a diversion which could conceivably take place in the fullness of time, but let us remember that the diversion of the upper Columbia into the Fraser impinges on fishery interests, is expensive, and presumes massive power development downstream close to Vancouver before it would be economical. As that particular diversion is questionable from an economic point of view, it is at least out of the question in the short run.
Finally, I would like to stress the fact again that this is an immense development. We are entering into commitments that extend at least 60 years into the future. This is an arrangement which will not, in the fullness of time, tie our hands. We have built into this treaty -and certainly this is the case with the addition of the protocol-a position of flexibility. We can evolve our power system and water routing arrangements. We can divert, in the fullness of time, and I think this is very important. But, at the same time, we have pressed ahead.
We have in this treaty the best arrangements which I believe we can make at the present time. We have flexibility. We are proceeding. Many people have asked for action and we have taken action. We have had, in the negotiation of the treaty itself under the previous government, the protocol under the present government, and the sale agreement under the present government, the best possible liaison among several levels of government. We have had excellent co-operation. This is a positive arrangement and I also believe it is a far-seeing arrangement. I certainly would like to think that every member of this house would endorse this treaty after


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time not as an expert in economics, nor as an expert in electrical engineering but as the member for the Kamloops constituency in British Columbia, which is vitally interested in this treaty. I wish to extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) for their very fine presentations and their attitude towards this treaty.
I congratulate them also on the fact that they have given to this house an essential vindication of the treaty which was originally planned by the previous government under the chairmanship of my immediate predecessor, Hon. Davie Fulton. This was the treaty which a year ago was not spoken of particularly highly by the people on the other side of the house today.


Mr. Lambert:: A real flip-flop.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I do not wish at this time, and I do not feel myself actually qualified at this time, to enter upon any argument with regard to the so-called improvements that have been brought down by the present administration and that are mentioned in the protocol. I do want to emphasize, however, the fact that this protocol is the result of having to sell the downstream benefits, and it is also the result of the development of Peace river power which was never considered as a possibility when the original treaty was entered into three years ago. There is no question but that all the surplus power to be created in British Columbia, as the result of Peace river power, and now as a result of the benefits of the new scheme on the Columbia, will have to be dealt with in a businesslike manner.
The sale of these downstream benefits is definitely in order. An important percentage of the economic advantage which is to result from these negotiations has, however, as was mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, been calculated on the basis of a 92-cent dollar. It was just a year ago that this 92-cent dollar was said not to be in the interests of Canada. Indeed, hon. members opposite said it would be brought back to par if they were elected. It has been shown in this protocol that this 8 per cent on the dollar is going to amount to one third of a mill on the electricity rate. This, of course, I do not dispute; I imagine that these figures

Columbia River Treaty are correct. It is interesting, however, to note that probably through some unintentional oversight the 11 per cent tax that has been imposed by the federal government was not included in the estimates. This was mentioned by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstolse (Mr. Fleming) last July in figures he quoted at that time as reported in Hansard of July 30, 1963, on page 2821, and these figures have not been disputed. They show that the 11 per cent tax levied against the construction of these dams would cost the province of British Columbia a minimum of $22 million. I assume from the figures given in the protocol that we will benefit by the 8 per cent dollar to the extent of $20 million. Therefore, British Columbia will be $2 million at least in the red.
If the cost is according to the figures I have just mentioned-and I do not think there is any question about their being correct-we will be able to count the mill rate as being one third less because of this money and we will have to get back to the original amount, probably nearer to two mills.
These are just a few observations. I do not intend to go into details which are completely on the question of economics; I will leave that to persons better qualified to speak on them. Today, the people of Canada, through their representatives in this house, are making a decision which is probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, that this house has had to reach for many, many years. It is as great as or greater than the decision to construct the St. Lawrence seaway. British Columbians and western Canadians in particular are looking forward to the carrying out of this treaty which, properly negotiated and with equitable terms, can mean great things for the future of the west.
It was three years ago that, after 18 years of negotiation, Canada and the United States signed the original treaty for the development of the Columbia river. This treaty, while not granting everything to either side, was mutually satisfactory to both sides. The representatives of the province of British Columbia signified their approval of the treaty as drawn up. In fact, some of the features of the original plan which had been suggested by General McNaughton were withdrawn from the plan so as to gain the approval of the delegates from British Columbia, and I am given to understand that General McNaughton himself did not disagree that under these circumstances the treaty should be concluded.
The treaty as signed in January, 1961, contained many engineering features which, as I have already said, I am not prepared to discuss. They were, however, agreed upon after 18 years of study by the best engineers in both Canada and the United States. These

professional decisions were accepted as the best possible answer, keeping in mind certain objections of the government of British Columbia, which features were eliminated from the program. As already mentioned by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), they involved the question of a diversion which can probably be put into effect at some later date.
The treaty, as we already know, and it is hardly necessary for me to repeat it, included the return of half of the downstream benefits to Canada. This power was to be returned by the Americans to Oliver, British Columbia, free of charge. It would have cost the Americans several million dollars, I understand, for its transmission but now they will not find this necessary because of the new arrangement.
It would be absolutely superfluous on my part to enter into the details of the disagreement that came about following the signing of the treaty when the premier of British Columbia refused to continue with the agreement as signed and went ahead with the development of Peace river power. I will not go into the controversy which followed this decision.
It is essential, however, to realize that those on the government benches today have changed their attitude considerably with regard to the agreement as originally outlined. I do not wish to go into all the statements accredited to some of those on the other side of the house and which have been mentioned by previous speakers. It would be superfluous for me to repeat them, but I am very happy indeed to see that second thoughts are, as usual, better than first thoughts. This has been very well demonstrated with regard to this treaty. I feel that this, is not the time for recrimination. This is not the time for harping on the past, although there are many statements which could be revived today that would probably haunt the people who made them a year ago. In my opinion this is a time to look forward with constructive ideas a time for us to work together to create a glorious future for western Canada.
Canada has a very great decision to make now. Hydro power is still in demand. British Columbia has a large surplus of hydro power and will have a much larger one. It will have a great potential for further development. It will take 10 years at least to complete the three main dams mentioned in this treaty and by that time, with the present progress in research, it is quite possible that nuclear power will be available at competitive prices and the construction of hydro power projects will no longer be necessary.

What does this treaty mean to Canada? In plain ordinary language it means, unfortunately, the flooding of some valuable land in very pleasant areas of British Columbia. Those who know these areas will agree that they are desirable places in which to live. The treaty means the displacement of the residents of these areas, and I appreciate the reluctance of the people there to make this change. I understand that the project means the flooding of about 30,000 acres of land in British Columbia. It means the displacement of 1,600 people and the disruption of some municipal and industrial installations. It means that there is a necessity for a study of the displacement and rehabilitation of these people. It means providing homes, schools and other essentials that will be necessary for the thousands of people who will be involved in the work of constructing these dams. It means arrangements to clear the land for flooding and the removal of timber and other materials in this area. However, I think we all agree that with adequate compensation the re-establishment and resettlement can be carried out to everyone's satisfaction.
What are the advantages offered to Canada in this agreement? Economically Canada will receive approximately $275 million immediately for the sale of downstream power benefits for 30 years. That has already been detailed by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. Other payments will be made toward the construction of further dams until a total of approximately $420 million will have been paid. To put this in language that will be understood by people in the eastern part of Canada, this amount is about the same as the cost for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Just how much all this adds up to depends a great deal on who is doing the figuring and how much interest is included. However, the payments do provide for the construction of the dams, indemnity payments and all those things that go along with them, and will probably allow for the installation of part of the machinery at least at the Mica dam. What does the Mica dam mean? As we have already been told, it is a great power installation. To bring to the attention of people in eastern Canada what it means, I would point out that the four power plants at Niagara Falls produce approximately 2 million kilowatt hours of power while the power production at Mica dam will be just a little less than 2 million kilowatt hours. So the two are comparable, and with the further development of the other nine dams that are possible on the Columbia system the power production can be doubled.
Columbia River Treaty
But these are only some of the advantages of the treaty. We have as well a great impetus here for recreational and industrial development.
As a result of the construction of these dams a chain of lakes about 200 miles long will be created which can be used for recreational purposes, for summer resort purposes and industrial purposes. The development of these lakes will make timber limits available which are at the moment inaccessible. A great lumber industry, therefore, will be created and in addition the tourist industry will be given a great boost.
Do not let us overlook one other fact, and that is that we are going to give a great impetus to labour by the construction of these dams. It is estimated that perhaps between 1,300 and 1,400 people will be continuously involved and there will likely be double that number on many occasions. The other evening the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) referred to the fact that we should begin now to think about the establishment of a Columbia power authority. I know that this does not come within the jurisdiction of the federal government but is completely the responsibility of the provincial government. The fact remains, however, that in order to co-ordinate all the preparations for this work, the establishment of industries that will follow, the tourist attractions and recreational facilities, some over-all organizations should be established to ensure that we get the greatest benefit possible from this wonderful opportunity. While the federal government might not be directly involved, I feel they have an opportunity now to insist upon the establishment of a Columbia power authority immediately upon the signing of this treaty.
The question of water diversion has been dealt with adequately from an engineering point of view by the previous speaker. In so far as the right of diversion is concerned, this right was contained in the original treaty. I agree, as I am sure everyone in this house does, that water is one of the essential things we have in Canada. Just how we can best use the waters of the Columbia river is something I am not qualified to discuss. I believe there is general agreement with the fact that if water is going to be supplied to areas east of the Rockies, great engineering problems will be involved and the economics of such a plan would have to be worked out by the engineers. We would have to decide whether or not diversion from the Kootenay area is economical or whether the diversion should be from the northern watershed into the southern part of the prairies. These are things I do not feel I should discuss at this time.

Columbia River Treaty
In conclusion, I might say that I am pleased to find the government has accepted a detailed plan of the 1961 agreement, in spite of their previous criticisms. I am confident that those of us who originally wished the return of the downstream benefits in the form of cheap power will agree that the Peace river development has made the return of this power superfluous at the moment. I am pleased, too, that a satisfactory arrangement has been made for the economical disposal of this surplus power. I see for Canada, and particularly for British Columbia, a great future as a result of this scheme, a great expansion in our economy, our labour and our recreational facilities as well as our industrial development. I look forward, as I am sure all hon. members do, to an early conclusion of this treaty in the best interests of British Columbia, of western Canada and of our national economy. I hope that we will facilitate the study of this matter by the external affairs committee and then we will be able to say: Let us get on with the job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, wonders never cease, because in one of the important speeches made by the former member for Kamloops in Prince George he said, in addition to many other critical statements, that the sale of the downstream benefits from the Columbia would be utter folly and would make us the laughing stock of the world. Apparently the present member for that constituency takes a different point of view.
I should like at this time to deal briefly with one or two statements made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis). I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult for a sensitive person like me to chastise such a likeable member as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I can tell you honestly that in my own constituency I am considered the kindest and mildest mannered man who ever cut a political throat. I thought the hon. member spoke somewhat like a person who has just come to the penitent bench. He said that this was a good treaty and, in effect, he said that what to him was formerly implicit had now become explicit.
This treaty covers the construction of the Libby dam and high Arrow dam. What did the hon. gentleman say about those dams quite recently? It was not just a matter of the protocol trimming up the agreement because he was in fundamental disagreement with the former treaty. I recall that in a feature article in the Vancouver Sun of February 28, 1963 under the headline "Present Columbia Treaty Ties Canada's Hands", the hon. member said the treaty amounted to

a sell-out of Canadian resources. He was very specific in his opposition to the building of the Libby dam in the state of Montana and the high Arrow dam in British Columbia. I should like to quote what the hon. member said in the article in respect of the Libby dam:
The existence of a $300 million dam at Libby downstream in the U.S., however, would stand in the way of Canda's sovereign right to divert the upper Kootenay. It would constitute a "vested interest" and politically would make it difficult for Canada to recapture these flows for its own use.


John (Jack) Davis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


John (Jack) Davis: Does the hon. member not agree that the improvements in the protocol now make it abundantly clear that we can divert these waters and render the Libby dam useless?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not agree with that at all. The only difference is we will receive more money for selling out Canada. In this special article, the hon. gentleman went on to say:
A new treaty phrased in terms of principles should come first.
I do not think there are principles here.
Approval of individual projects should come next. A procedure which would permit the politically most acceptable and economically most desirable projects to go ahead is the only way out of the present impasse.
He said further:
The high Arrow and Libby storage projects are controversial. Why not postpone action on these projects?
I just cited these few examples from the hon. gentleman's writings during the election period because at that time he had the title, "Chairman of the power policy committee of the Liberal party." The hon. gentleman has made another astounding statement in his speech. If I heard it correctly, he said any clause in this treaty could be nullified by an executive order of the United States. If that is correct then this treaty is not worth the paper it is written on.


John (Jack) Davis: I would like to see that before I comment on it, but I am sure that was not the intent, and I am reasonably sure those were not the words.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman wants to see the blues. Anyway, I wish to say I rise to support this motion, which should have been introduced in the house before the government signed the protocol to the treaty. I must point out that this concerns me very deeply indeed, as the member representing a constituency that is seriously affected.

I speak as a Canadian. I am looking at this from the viewpoint of a Canadian, and I can say none of us in this group is taking a partisan attitude. This treaty has been gone over and debated thoroughly. I am speaking as a lifetime conservationist who has been resident on the Columbia for nearly 58 years, who knows every detail of its geography, every bay and everything connected with its physical features, and as one who has travelled its waters in Indian canoes, dug-outs, on sternwheelers and other small craft. I am the only member of this house who speaks with that knowledge of the district and the river.
I have noticed newspaper headlines reporting the recent visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Columbia, such as:
Martin sees the Columbia for three hours from the air. Martin chats amiably with citizens.
I am sure he was very amiable. Therefore, from experience, Mr. Speaker, I can properly claim to speak with a much greater personal knowledge of the Columbia than does the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think you have got to give that mark to me.
Who are my advisers on the technical aspect of this question? I am sure this will interest the advisers sitting in the galleries, who sometimes snigger at the remarks of the official opposition. My advisers include General McNaughton, eminent engineer with a lifetime of experience and ten years as chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission, and at least a dozen hydro engineers who have had years of practical experience in the planning and building of hydro projects and economic studies connected with hydro systems in Canada.
Who are the minister's advisers? I think he said that no group in Canada opposes this treaty. Certainly no group in Canada does. They are all employed by the government, on consulting firms. I am not blaming the advisers; they have to adjust themselves to government policy.


An hon. Member:: As hon. members do.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the parliamentary secretaries do. They are required to do these things, but again I ask who are the minister's advisers? There is Mr. Gordon Robertson and the staff of the water resources branch who, with all respect to them-they are a nice lot of chaps, you know-have had a relatively short experience, mostly in office work and measuring stream flows, but none in the building of hydro projects. For example, they gave their blessing to the Columbia river treaty in the first instance, saying it was economically sound and justified the cost benefit ratio of the high Arrow dam when the cost of that dam was estimated at $72
Columbia River Treaty million. It has now gone up to $129 million and they still give it their blessing. If it were government policy they would still give it their blessing if it went up to $300 million.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, that delightful young man, Mr. Ritchie, competing with a chap like Mr. Elmer Bennett of the United States, one of the cleverest legal negotiators in United States history. You can understand he would have very little opportunity against a person like that, and just compare Mr. MacNabb of the water resources branch, a nice young fellow with about ten years experience in that branch, competing with General Itchsner of the United States, an army engineer who has devoted his whole life to this type of work.
Who are the Hon. Ray Williston's advisers__
a group of engineers whose estimates on B.C. hydro projects built during the last 15 years have been exceeded by 50 per cent on the average. I shall give the figures later. You cannot blame these people. They have done the best they can under the circumstances, but they have been dealing with some of the cleverest legal and engineering talent in North America, and these people tell us that. I have been annoyed with some of these people when talking to Americans, who said our advisers were a nice lot of chaps but they did not know much about problems of this size. I shall prove this, as they have already said in print, that they have not got all the facts and figures, and whenever they wanted them they went down to the United States and got them there.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs always speaks eloquently, whether he is supporting the cause of nuclear arms for Canada, opposing the admission of red China to the United Nations, or supporting General McNaughton strongly, so long as he was on the opposition side of the house. He is always eloquent and he spoke and read most eloquently on Tuesday night for over two hours, when he delivered a most carefully prepared speech. I just wonder how many members of his staff participated in the preparation of that speech, in an effort to prove his very shaky case for what has been described by some Liberals and Conservatives, including the former minister of justice, as a second best treaty for Canada. In fact the former minister of justice stated on one occasion that General McNaughton was right.
To date, Canada has come out second best in its dealings with the United States in relation to the Columbia river, and we had another illustration of that this afternoon in the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. Article II of the Oregon treaty, which was signed on June 15, 1846, guaranteed to British

Motions for Papers
subjects free access by the river, from the 49th parallel to the sea, for all time. What has happened to that guarantee?
The construction of the Grand Coulee dam was started in 1933 by the United States government and the dam was completed in 1941. The record will prove that the United States government never wrote a line to the government of Canada before commencing the construction of that dam, and violating article II of the Oregon treaty. The record will also prove that successive Conservative and Liberal governments shut their eyes to what was happening. They never made any protest to the government of the United States, and thereby surrendered the strong bargaining rights of British subjects in Canada who had been guaranteed free access by the Columbia to the sea in perpetuity, as laid down in the Oregon treaty. The British government surrendered all territory south of the 49th parallel, and west of the Columbia river to the sea, in return for free access to the sea in perpetuity.
I have had United States officials tell me they were amazed that no government in Canada claimed some damages, and I am quite sure if we had we could have obtained locks in these dams and possibly had a highway built from the international boundary to Revelstoke. As I have a little more to say, Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions for the production of papers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the motions are called I wonder if the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) would agree, since the point at issue in both these motions is precisely the same-although I admit they ask for different papers-and the question we will debate about the opportuneness of producing them is exactly the same in both cases, I wonder would he agree to calling both motions at once or, alternatively, debating the first one and, if a vote is taken on it, then to accept that as a vote on the second one as well? It seems to me this would save the time of the house, and possibly we could dispose of the whole matter by unanimous consent before six o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall accept the suggestion made by
[Mr. Herridge.l
the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and deal with both motions at the same time, though they are not directly related to the same matter and though I was prepared to deal with one only.
In view of the kindness shown by the Minister of Transport, I accept his suggestion. However, it might be advisable, in my opinion, although both motions are discussed at the same time, to vote on each one separately, or rather to discuss both and vote on them one after the other, in view of the fact that they are two different motions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we could have the two votes together, without having a second debate, it would meet the hon. gentleman's wishes. Perhaps we could agree to stay in the chamber after the first vote so we would not have to ring the bells a second time.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to all hon. members of the house that we have the vote on the first motion and it be deemed to apply to and rule the second motion. This would seem to be a more orderly way of proceeding.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: That an order ot the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of the officers of his department and the president or any of the officers or employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines concerning the total or partial construction of a new medium range aircraft for Trans-Canada Air Lines.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter under discussion, that is the motion for the production of documents, letters, correspondence concerning the construction, and in the second motion the purchase of a medium-range aircraft for T.C.A. and asking for the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Transport and any of the officers of T.C.A., was discussed last fall and it aroused the public interest then for several reasons.
We are pleased to see this matter back before the house today. Personally, I do not think that because of the time elapsed, we should forget what happened in the past. We cannot allow those transactions to be made without discussing them. That is why we are glad to have this debate this afternoon, and that is why we have pressed so much to get those documents and that correspondence.
Mr. Speaker, we should have such information, because the member of parliament and quite an important part of the population wish to be informed. This is the best way to proceed and to inform the people, in order

to avoid any useless criticism, mistrust and even contempt, because when certain matters are hidden, the persons concerned have every reason to wonder whether there is a snake in the grass.
I wonder why it is so difficult to obtain the information we wish to have, when we are duly elected as all other members of the house and are responsible to the people for the administration of public affairs.
I wonder also why so many members are not interested to know what goes on within crown corporations.
The issue here is the construction of an aircraft in Canada by T.C.A. However, there is another very important point, in my opinion; it concerns the development of an industry which can contribute to the growth of a modern country, namely the aircraft industry. That, in turn, brings up another subject, the experience that many Canadian technicians would have gained through the production of aircraft in our country.
Economic development is also involved, since new related industries could be set up. Our national pride is at stake because, by building our air carriers ourselves, we would acquire a greater share of our resources and we would be in a better position to renovate, rebuild and improve. The training of technicians is also involved.
We have been thinking for some time about the development of our secondary industries, instead of limiting ourselves to primary industries, because Canada has to rely on the secondary industries of other countries.
If the correspondence, the documents and the experts' report were tabled as we now ask, it would be possible to know why that cannot be. That is why I feel it is important to have information on that point.
Another reason why we feel justified in requesting the production of these documents is that they are closely related to the main problem which faces Canada today.
If-and I repeat "if"-because we have not seen the documents yet-we had had our own aircraft industry, we could have built these airplanes in Canada, whatever the mark, for I believe two companies had offered to come to this country and build a medium range aircraft for T.C.A.
If we had been able to build these planes in Canada, a number of Canadian citizens would have found employment for several years to come. As a matter of fact, 4,000 jobs had been mentioned for the next six years, which means that it would have been a way of reducing unemployment which faces us today. It would have provided jobs for many Canadian workers. It would also have enriched the country as a whole.
Motions for Papers
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that people without jobs in Canada have a right to know why we refuse to build aircraft in this country when it would have been possible to do so. Unemployed people have a right to know why they were not given priority.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I call your attention to the fact that the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe are out of order, since he is dealing with the question on its merits. And even if he were right-which I would hesitate to say-this has nothing to do with the question as to whether or not the requested papers or information should be tabled in this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I said in my last sentence that the unemployed have the right to know why they did not come first, and that is related directly to the matter under consideration, that is if we should get the documents or not.
But I maintain-and that is one of my arguments-that the unemployed were deprived of work when it came to building aircraft in Canada. That is relevant to the matter under study. You must have noticed that I did not go into the problem of unemployment in its entirety but only into one specific aspect, that is if some unemployed have the right to know why they were deprived of work.
Mr. Speaker, I should appreciate it if you would render your decision on this point of order, because I feel that I have presented arguments that allow me to continue my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, another point which shows how important it is for the government to table these papers and for the members to see them is the fact that T.C.A. is a crown corporation, instituted by the Canadian government whose shareholders are the Canadian government or the Minister of Finance.
That corporation could consider the problem from an angle which would be of interest only to itself, but we, in this house, may be able to consider the same problem from a much broader angle which would include other areas while still covering the specific matter of T.C.A. wanted to consider.
Here are some other matters which members could consider besides the arguments advanced by T.C.A., and come to a conclusion which would prove to be better for the general good, than the decision made by T.C.A., which may be better for the corporation's own good.
Since, to my way of thinking, the general interest must come before the interest of the individual and since T.C.A., just like the

Motions for Papers
government, belongs to the people and the government ranks above T.C.A., then it is the duty of the government to consider the problem in its general terms, in order to determine whether the general interest could not have been better served than it has been by T.C.A. in taking into account one single point and in taking the decision it did.
For instance, by taking a broader view of the question and by endeavouring to satisfy the general interest, the members of the government could have considered the effects the purchase of foreign-made aircraft and the building of aircraft in Canada would have on the balance of international payments.
As we know, that is one of the serious problems the Canadian government must face and, if we have to consider the general interest, if we seek the common good, then perhaps we have to take into account the problem of our international payments deficit. It is better then to build aircraft in Canada and reduce the deficit in our international payments, for even if it is a little more expensive to build airplanes here, at least the whole country benefits from the economic standpoint.
Another aspect of the problem which prompts us to favour public interest and give it precedence over private interests is that we might have made savings in other fields. For instance, by employing five or six thousand Canadian workers to build aircraft in this country, instead of buying them practically ready-made from the United States, what amounts of money might we not have saved in unemployment insurance benefits, unemployment assistance benefits and social assistance?
That, Mr. Speaker, is one aspect of the problem that T.C.A. did not take into consideration at all. They had only one objective, which was to consider-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening attentively to the hon. member, but I agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) that he is now dealing with matters beyond the scope of the motion now before the house. I think the debate should be restricted to the motion, which pertains to the production of documents, and not range over such questions as unemployment in Canada, types of aircraft, or anything of that nature whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the second point of order which has been taken. I recognized the validity of the first one, but I thought it might help the situation to be a little generous, perhaps too generous, in interpretation. Now that the second point of order on the same matter has been taken I must tell the hon.

member that he should restrict himself to the precise terms of the motion before the house and not range far and wide, even though his remarks happen to be extremely interesting.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks respecting the point of order. We are at this time discussing the importance or the opportunity of getting certain papers.
I am trying to prove that we are entitled to see those papers and I am trying to do so by saying that members have to look at this matter while taking into consideration the general interest whereas Trans-Canada Air Lines had in mind its own profit alone. And to substantiate my argumentation, my major premise being already set forth, I now shall count up the various areas each member could look at having in mind the common good if he wanted to consider the general argumentation.
That is the big overriding argmnent which proves the importance and necessity of tabling those documents.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) will take the trouble of reading again his philosophy manuals- if he ever did read any-he will agree with me that the best way to prove the necessity and importance of something is to make your point not in specific terms but in generic terms, because the generic always includes the specific. I am now discussing in generic terms, and the specific items, that is the documents we are asking the T.C.A. to table, are included in the general framework of the arguments I am putting forth.
That is why I suggest that I am in order, Mr. Speaker, and that the arguments I advanced up to now should have your consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be through after a last remark. If we had before us the correspondence between the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill, it might influence hon. members' decision.
There is another matter which might have been considered: the purchase of aircraft building material. T.C.A. does not have to consider the point, but hon. members, when they have such decisions to make, should consider the general welfare of our people.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think it might be a good thing to produce those records. When people try to hide something, misgivings are bound to arise; and to provoke misgivings at this time, only tends as proved every day by current events to bring about a general apathy with regard to government.

There is nothing secret in the papers we want to be tabled. If T.C.A. does produce them, neither Fidel Castro in Cuba, nor Nikita Khrushchev in Russia will use them to attack Canada or bring about a revolution in this country.
The president of T.C.A. categorically stated at the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, that the Caravelle aircraft liad been the experts fifth choice. Consequently, there is nothing secret regarding those words, letters, or documents. It is also necessary to produce the record of all that lias been said before. It was suggested-and published in many papers-that Canada was unable to build such an aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, our people should not be led to believe that they are unable to do what others did in the past; it is unsound policy to give them such a feeling of inferiority. If this correspondence is tabled, it will prove that we are able to build such a type of aircraft.
It has also been said that Canadair did not want to build that aircraft, and people wondered what the company really wished or did not wish to do.
Mr. Speaker, what I just said raises another point. Canadair is to a great extent an American company. Does this mean that if we really want to develop our secondary industries we should Canadianize our plants which are controlled by foreign business, because no effort is made there to give employment to our Canadian citizens.
For all these reasons, this correspondence, when produced, will bring some light on this subject. It will show whether we can construct such an aircraft and whether the public good did not call for another decision. It will also show that the common good, when considered as a whole by all members of parliament, can prevail in many cases over private interest, as seen by one crown corporation. This could be useful in the future to take decisions no longer solely in the interest of this or that corporation, but in the interest of Canada as a whole, of the Canadian people and of those who need it.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monfmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this motion for papers.
I think that all members share the view of the hon. member for Lapointe about the unemployment question and the Canadian ownership of industries. Unfortunately, this is not the issue today. The issue is merely to know whether a corporation is to be forced to produce any document relating to any matter of internal management.
Motions for Papers
I respectfully submit that if a precedent is set in this house in forcing a crown corporation to produce certain documents-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe the member for Quebec-Montmorency should take another look at the motion. He would see then that there is no question of forcing a corporation, but that the motion for papers is addressed to the Minister of Transport and not to Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Guy Marcoux: It is a question of interpretation. It is a question of forcing the Minister of Transport to force T.C.A. to produce the documents. In my opinion, it is the same thing.
I believe that this could make a somewhat political corporation of a corporation we want to be a business concern. It would amount to saying that this corporation is unable to manage its own affairs.
Nevertheless, I think that parliament should include in some future bill certain provisions whereby crown corporations would have to answer to parliament under special circumstances but would not be forced to produce documents on any possible subject.


David Réal Caouette: It is not on any possible subject.


Guy Marcoux: It is not on any possible subject now, but it is so every day-*
I think that under certain circumstances parliament should have those corporations answerable to parliament, which, after all, represents the people, and the money that makes up those corporations' deficits comes from the Canadian people. They must therefore be responsible to parliament.
But, in my opinion, we should not vote today for the production of those documents, because that would set a precedent.
In order to remove any doubt from the minds of those who could say that the ones who will vote against this motion are for unemployment and the American companies, I should like to repeat that the issue is neither unemployment nor the American ownership of Canadian companies, but a tabling of documents which could lead to problems in the operation of crown corporations.
That is why I am against these documents being produced.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In view of the hour, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that this matter will come to a vote today, I intend severely to curtail the remarks I had in mind to make.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Such restraint.

Motions for Papers


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you. The question of the production of information pertinent to the internal operation of a crown company or relating to its dealings with private corporations is not a new one either in this country or in England. Periodically, passions aroused by some passing controversy involving the policies or operations of a crown corporation have led members of this honourable house representing specific economic or regional interests adversely affected by such a policy to seek information essentially of a nature internal to the corporation, as has the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) in this motion. Now we do not know, of course, exactly what the information would be if it were revealed, but obviously the principle has long been established-and I will deal with that in a moment-that the question of public interest must be left to the discretion of the government and to the crown corporation.
We have heard from the hon. member for Lapointe the same old arguments as have been put forward in the house on many occasions in the past when an area has been affected by such a decision. I am not going to deal with what the hon. member said as regards employment and the various other considerations which are off the point of this motion, except to say that had he paid sufficient attention in committee I think he would have found that the present plan adopted by T.C.A. provides not only for substantial Canadian content, but that there is every reason to believe there will be more employment provided in Canada by this arrangement than by the arrangement favoured by the hon. member for Lapointe. I say this, particularly in view of the fact that no firm offer had been made as regards the Caravelle.
Perhaps a brief review of the purpose and nature of crown corporations would be in order. When government first ventured into the hitherto hallowed ground of operating commercial enterprises, it was in the field of utilities and largely in areas of the economy which private enterprise would not or could not pursue. Politicians of the day readily perceived that if such business enterprises were carried on as branches of a department of government, with the limitations and interferences of patronage and the inhibitions of departmental regulations, efficiency would be curtailed. To avoid such an undesirable result the crown company or public corporation was devised to overcome the disadvantages I have mentioned and to grant the independence necessary to operate and, in later days, to compete with other companies.
There were other considerations. One was that the nature of the independence of a

crown corporation would make it more readily possible to attract to its rank business executives-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit that when the member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) speaks in such a manner, he refers to the day to day operations of a crown corporation such as T.C.A.
Now, such is not the subject of my motion since it does not mention the "day to day operations" of T.C.A., but only the construction of an aircraft in Canada, and that is not a "day to day operation" of that crown corporation.


Gerald Augustine Regan: On that point of order, as I said earlier, we do not know what the contents of these communications between T.C.A. and the department were and we are, therefore, not in a position to know whether they deal with internal matters and the day to day operation or not. In any case, I certainly feel that the acquisition of materiel and planes is part of the day to day operation of any company.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not finished; I was just speaking on a point of order. May I continue, then.
In many cases employees might have been reluctant to become civil servants or to work for salaries other than those that were competitive with those paid by other companies. This is partly the reason crown companies were set up in these cases. It was early seen that efficiency of operation would be impossible if the day by day transactions and the affairs of a crown company were to be made available through parliament to pressure groups, competitiors, special interests and so on. So parliament, in establishing a crown company, indulges in a self-denying ordinance with regard to its own power, and the interest of the government owned enterprise becomes the public interest to be determined by the government of the day and the crown company on the basis of granting or withholding information.
The question of information being obtainable in parliament was thoroughly examined in this house on April 26, 1920, when Mr. J. H. Sinclair, an opposition member, asked for certain information concerning the internal operation of the Intercolonial Railway. I am not going to read the full excerpts I had intended because of the passage of time, but I will say that the Hon. Mr. Reid, minister of

railways and canals at that time, dealt with the fact that if the price of coal that the Intercolonial Railway was paying in one area became public knowledge then, despite the fact that the type of coal in another area might be of an inferior grade, the pressures on public matters in parliament would probably result in the railway having to pay the full price for coal from another source. I will only read the final remarks of Mr. Reid, as found on page 1655 of Hansard for April 26, 1920:
I want to emphasize the fact that these questions are not in the interest of this corporation, that they are not in the public interest, that they are not in the interest of the Canadian National Railways...I have taken that position: I believe it is right and fair; I believe the people of Canada will not stand to have questions of that kind answered which will have the effect of destroying public ownership in so far as the merchant marine and the Canadian National Railways are concerned. Neither the Canadian Pacific nor any other corporation would give the information that is asked by some members of this house.
Surely this is the test, Mr. Speaker, whether this is the type of information that would be freely given by a private company. Similar situations have risen repeatedly in the house and have been dealt with in a similar manner as recently as in the last two years. However, I am only going to refer to one quotation from Hansard on this subject which is taken from remarks made by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett when he was'prime minister of our nation. They are found on page 690 of Hansard for February 19, 1934 and read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. gentleman to look at this question with some care. It involves the examination of the internal business of the Canadian National Railways. For reasons which this house has asserted and reasserted, it simply means that we would send a letter to the company and ask them to give us this information. As happens in nine out of ten cases of this kind, they would reply that it is not desirable in the public interest or in the conduct of the business of the railway that this question should be answered. We would be in the difficult position of trying to insist that a company functioning as a national railway should be asked to do something which a company functioning as a privately owned railway would not be compelled to do.
I would also refer in passing, Mr. Speaker, to a book entitled "The Public Corporation" published by the Carswell Company Limited and edited by Mr. Freedman, professor of law at the University of Toronto. At page 72 of that book he deals with parliamentary control of public corporations in Canada and he again outlines the fact that it is a question of the public interest as decided by the government of the day and by the crown corporation which determines whether the information should be given to parliament. Indeed, with regard to the province of Saskatchewan, which has had considerable
experience with public corporation, Hon. Allen E. Blakeney, in an article by him found on page 103 of the same book, states the same proposition, that it is a question of the public interest which must be determined by the government itself. I was going to deal with the situation in England but I will not do so because of the time.
I will simply say, Mr. Speaker, that unquestionably the nature of a crown corporation and its responsibility to the government and to parliament is a perplexing one and involves the conflict of interests, as the hon. member for Lapointe has found. On the one hand, there are the demands of independence and the necessity for secrecy of internal matters that I have mentioned, which in the view of some would tend to conflict with the general principle that a government owned agency should be answerable to the government and to parliament in the same manner in which a private corporation is answerable to its shareholders. However, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had this to say in 1934:
We have not yet been able to devise either in this parliament or elsewhere any institution that takes the place of the annual meeting of shareholders that subjects the operations of the directors to the scrutiny and their conduct to the criticism that is possible at annual meetings of shareholders with the directors elected for the purpose of giving effect to their wishes in connection with their enterprise.
Although there seems to be no full answer to the problem pondered by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, nevertheless the audit of the crown corporation, its annual report to parliament, the examination of its expenditures by the public accounts committee and its ultimate responsibility to the government which can, in the event of complete lack of confidence, replace its directors, together grant a more than adequate safeguard for the public.
Trans-Canada Air Lines was incorporated by parliament in 1937 at a time when there were no private aviation interests available to take on the gigantic task of linking the extremities of our great nation into one integrated air service. Of the crown corporation that was set up to handle this task of developing aviation, Hon. C. D. Howe said on March 25, 1937:
I think we are getting the best features of government ownership without the application of direct government operation.
So I say that we need to remain away from direct government operation, and that the course that is suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe would lead directly to that. In conclusion I ask: Does the hon. member for Lapointe really want to cost the taxpayers of Canada more money in the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines? Does he really feel

Motions for Papers
that parliament should run this air line, because this is what his motion would inevitably lead to? Does he feel that parliament should determine who shall be hired and at what hours the planes should fly? I am sure if he does I would disagree with the hon. member, because my connection at Montreal to go on to Halifax would not be at the same hour as the connection he would want to go on to Quebec.
Surely this motion, if granted and used as a precedent in the future, can only lead to the deterioration of this great air line and to the undermining of our whole system of public corporations. So I ask the hon. member to forget his disappointment that the air line did not in this instance decide on a plane that was manufactured in his immediate area, and remember that in other instances Trans-Canada Air Lines has made decisions favourable to his region at the expense of other areas.
In the give and take of our national existence we must all bear our regional disappointments and we must not allow the feelings of the moment to spoil our perspective. On the basis of the precedents in parliament, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the information asked for in this motion should not be produced.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very cruel of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to interject, "Is this your best speaker?" He may not have been the best speaker, but he is obviously one of the best readers we have had in this house for some time and I think he should be congratulated for that alone.
We are going to vote against this motion, Mr. Speaker, but we should like to point out that difficulties arise almost always in matters such as this when the problem centres on the relationship of a crown corporation with a ministry that is in politics. From personal experience I can point to the DeLeuw-Cather report that was prepared for Canadian National Railways in connection with the yards in Toronto. I think of the report that was prepared for the building of the Ste Anne des Monts-Matane railway. I think of the report prepared in connection with the T.C.A. facilities at Winnipeg and their removal. In all these cases what seemed to be a clearcut internal matter relating to the corporation became involved in politics.
I should like to suggest that we have reflected in this particular motion and in motions like it-I know I brought a somewhat similar motion forward in connection with the Toronto study for the C.N.R.-a grey area in which parliament and members of the opposition do not get a fair break. In this particular case I think the arguments put

forward by the hon. member for Lapointe are nonsense and that they were proved nonsensical in the parliamentary committee. But the fact is that there was a mess in connection with the situation involving the transaction of T.C.A. placing an order for a new medium range jet aircraft. This transpired, Mr. Speaker, when the lobbying-


An hon. Member:: You should be reading it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was just considering whether or not I should go into that matter. I did not have time to prepare my speech or have it prepared for me as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) did. These are impromptu remarks. I do not want to go beyond the range of this debate, but perhaps if the hon. member will look at the example provided by the great maritime spokesman from Newfoundland who occupies one of the front benches he will find that impromptu remarks are supposed to be made in this place.
In connection with the lobbying that developed in relation to the Caravelle, and the business of the French embassy and the representatives lobbying


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is completely outside the subject. When he refers to lobbying, he does not know what he is talking about, because the fact has never been proven and has always been denied. Therefore, the hon. member for Port Arthur is insincere by referring to a fact that has never been proven.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that lobbying has never been proven. I think the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) made the point when he not only agreed that there had been lobbying, but he approved of it. He said that there should be more of this done. He wished the Canadian people would do it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think that the hon. member for Port Arthur has just altered the words spoken by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). I was here when he spoke, and the hon. member never referred to lobbying, but he said that any company trying to make sales was perfectly justified in lobbying in the circumstances. What the hon. member for Port Arthur has just said is not the same thing at all.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On this particular matter of the Caravelle, Mr. Speaker, it was quite evident-


Gilles Grégoire: Order; we did not speak of the Caravelle.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says he did not speak about the Caravelle. I should like to make the point that we are concerned with the selection of a new medium range aircraft for Trans-Canada Air Lines. This whole problem becomes a matter for cabinet consideration and I happen to have heard, and seen in the newspapers, that it was a subject for discussion in the Liberal caucus. I believe this. This is the very point I want to make in connection with such a request. Any time a crown corporation becomes involved in its relationships with the ministry to such an extent that its policies become a matter for discussion amongst members in caucus generally, then I feel the government needs to be prepared to tell that crown corporation to come forward with the information. I realize such a procedure would set a very bad precedent, but the fact remains that we were treated most unfairly in this case because those of us who were as interested and as responsible as hon. members on that side of the house were neither privy to the discussions nor to some of the information available to hon. members who sit on that side.
These are the considerations I wanted to put on the record. I sympathize with the hon. member-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: The hon. member has just said that those of us who sit on this side of the house had more information than hon. members on the other side. This statement is unfair and it is untrue. We discussed it in caucus, but we did not have any information that was not available to the rest of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We have had almost more points of order than discussion. I have purposely not heard a few of them, but we are reaching a point where an hon. member who wants to interrupt or give some explanation rises on a point of order, whether or not a point of order is involved. Reference was made to discussions in the Liberal caucus by one member of the opposition. This has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether or not documents should be produced. I wonder if hon. members would stick to the point at issue?
Motions for Papers


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, you say it has nothing whatever to do with the issue, and this seems to me a most peculiar attitude toward the kind of information and opportunities that are available to members. Here we have a crown corporation and we are told it is a tradition, a tradition with which I agree, that the details of its operations or documents that are prepared for its management should not be available to the public or to those who are in politics. The important point is that in this case, and a number of other cases, information and arguments in connection with policy arising out of such a report has been given to members of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense; no.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the very point to which I was referring a few moments ago. Neither the Speaker nor the members of the opposition knows what goes on inside a party caucus, and I think it is quite out of order to refer to it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: They just told us.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: This resolution, Mr. Speaker, presents something of a problem to the members of the opposition. While I am speaking for myself at this particular time, I think hon. members will agree that we should be quite careful about the views we express and the way we vote on this particular motion. At first blush I would think that if this motion were directed at the production of documents and papers having to do with a government department there would be no question at all about our position. I would certainly vote against such a resolution. I think the precedents established in the past are firm in this respect.
However, the motion is framed in this way:
mat an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of the officers of his department and the president or any of the officers or employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines concerning the total or partial construction of a new medium range aircraft for Trans-Canada Air Lines.
This is a crown corporation, a creation of a statute. It is true that the minister does answer in parliament for this particular crown corporation. There are points of similarity between the liaison the minister carries out with the crown corporation and the liaison he carries out with his own department. However, I feel that if we were to reject the motion holus-bolus as it now stands we would be establishing a precedent that might, some time in the future, stand as an impediment if a case were to arise in which documents should be produced.

Motions for Papers
I submit with great deference that cases could arise when there might be correspondence between the minister and a crown corporation which could be susceptible of production and to which no privilege would be attached. I feel a distinction has to be made.
It is true that the minister when dealing with this matter on March 4, as recorded on page 542 of Hansard had this to say:
I would draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that these motions ask for information of internal concern to T.C.A.; therefore they come under the principle that has been accepted by all governments since it was laid down by Mr. Meighen in 1921 with respect to the internal management of crown companies.
Prima facie, I think this might be so, but it does seem to me that there could be correspondence on matters of policy which would not be related to the internal management of the company to which the same blanket protection should not be extended as is extended to correspondence and documents between the minister and his department.
It has just been drawn to my attention by my deskmate that if some minister were to ask the president of the crown corporation to submit himself as a candidate for election at a certain time, this might not necessarily be correspondence which was privileged. This is probably a far fetched way of saying that there could be correspondence, documents or papers, which are not privileged, and so I think there is a distinction to be made.
For this reason I would hesitate to vote against the motion if it is going to be construed-and occasionally history indicates decisions of this house often are reflected in rather unusual situations some time in the future-as being an indication that no correspondence, no documents, no papers at any time between the minister and a crown corporation could ever be produced.
My simple suggestion is that if the minister were to say that all of this correspondence, or any of the correspondence or documents, deals with matters of internal control and internal management then I think the house is bound to accept that answer, and I think there is no doubt the privileged character of documents with regard to interdepartmental matters would prevail, and they should not be produced. But I do suggest that by voting against this as it stands, any hon. member is putting himself in a position where, in a proper and good cause some time in the future, he may be justified in asking for the production of some letters and some correspondence which would not be privileged; and for that reason-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question? Could the hon. gentleman perhaps 
suggest to us what kind of correspondence, because of course this is not between George Mcllraith and Donald Gordon, or Gordon McGregor? This is between the Minister of Transport and the president of T.C.A. in their official capacities. The motion applies only to that, and I just wondered if the hon. gentleman could indicate precisely what kind of correspondence might be produced?
I agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) that there is a grey area all right; but can the hon. gentleman say, that once a motion is made in general terms, as this one is, while perhaps it is just conceivable you might ask for a particular specific document, identifying that document-and there might be some item along the lines the hon. gentleman suggested; can he see any way of framing a general motion that would not destroy that necessary confidentiality between a minister and the head of a crown corporation, which confidentiality must exist if there is to be regular communication between them?


Gerald William Baldwin: I will go this far with the minister, that I think you will basically find great difficulty on the part of the member making a motion; but I think the onus should rest upon the minister, that the minister is in a position, having the files and the documents, to say generally with respect to any record or any document, "I am to be the sole judge of this by reason of the fact it is marked confidential, or by reason of the fact that its character being such it could not be anything else but confidential, and dealing with the internal regulatory affairs of the corporation." Then that is automatically on the prohibited list and should not be produced I think the onus would then rest upon the minister, and I have no doubt in saying I believe the minister has examined this particular file quite closely and that most, possibly all of the correspondence, would come into that description and that it would not be in the public interest to produce it.
My difficulty is that in voting on this motion as it now stands I may find, at some time in the future, I am precluded from bringing up another motion, because I will be met with the argument that here was a general decision of the house which prohibited any type of production at all. This is the attitude I feel compelled to take on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: 
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the two motions moved by the hon. member for Lapointe do not provide for the production of papers or correspondence between T.C.A. and some other private company concerning the DC-9 or the Caravelle. All the motions are asking for is the correspondence between the Minister of Transport and T.C.A. officials.
A moment ago, we heard the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) say that it was not in the public interest to know what use was made of our money, of the product of our taxes. We also heard the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) say that we did not have to vote on those two motions. At voting time, he will only have to do like yesterday and remain glued to his seat.
Mr. Speaker, on those two motions, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a report published in he Devoir, today March 5, 1964, which reads as follows:
The Caravelle and the DC-9; the report will remain secret.
That report originates from Ottawa.
The affair of the Caravelle lived its last moments yesterday in the house, but it did not pass out without one more convulsion.
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (R. Cr., Lapointe) tried the last time to obtain the production of a copy of the report prepared by T.C.A. engineers, experts, technicians or advisers on which the crown corporation based its decision to prefer the U S made intermediate carrier DC-9 to the French made super-B Caravelle. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jack Pickersgill) rejected that request on behalf of the government, Mr. Gregoire asked for a vote. The house supported the government by a vote of 206 to 14, the Social Crediters of the Caouette group voting alone in favour of the motion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerning that report published in he Devoir today is to point out that the press gallery correspondent of that newspaper was certainly asleep yesterday afternoon when the vote was taken, since three Conservative members voted with us, namely the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon) and the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Clancy) -


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: -who voted for motion No. 16 introduced by the hon. member for Lapointe.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
Columbia River Treaty POWER



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That 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 on January 17, 1961, together with the protocol containing modifications and clarifications to the treaty annexed to an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States signed on January 22, 1964, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when we called it five o'clock I had made some observations on that document which I consider to be a political blasphemy against the works of creation, namely the Columbia river treaty. I might say, before proceeding, that I regret the absence this evening, owing to throat trouble, of the greatest living exponent of the art of candid ambiguity, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). I am sure that all of us, regardless of our opinions on this very important matter, wish him an early and complete recovery.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So he can evade more questions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sure that having a throat affliction is a trying disability for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In passing on, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that apparently my previous referral to the letter written by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) has caused considerable comment in Canadian and United States newspapers. In fact, I appeared in a five minute program on the Seattle television stations to explain what this whole thing was about. In order to clear up the matter I want to say that my purpose in bringing this to the attention of the house was to demonstrate the lack of integrity on the part of the Canadian and provincial governments in the admission that false figures were leaked to the Canadian people, and possibly to others, with respect to the estimated costs of the high Arrow dam. I do not know why that was done, but I think it is most unfortunate and will cause a lack of confidence in government statements if it is continued.

Columbia River Treaty At that time I quoted part of the hon. gentleman's letter-the now famous letter- in which he said:
This is a new figure as far as I am concerned. High figures have purposely been "leaked out" by the Canadian and B.C. governments with a view to influencing our negotiations with the United States. Now that the lump sum price settlement has been arrived at, we are in a position to produce more realistic figures-
And so on. What does Mr. Williston say about that? This is most interesting. It created the following comment in the Vancouver Province of February 28:
In Victoria, minister of lands and forests, the Honourable Ray Williston. B.C.'s key man on all Columbia negotiations, emphatically denied that the U.S. was duped into paying too much for power.
I think that statement is correct; you could not dupe them:
He said Herridge's charge is "pretty stupid" and "bad for Canada".
Of course it is stupid if you begin to doubt the integrity of governments, from Mr. Willis-ton's point of view. Then he said:
"No artificially high figures have ever been used either in negotiations or at any other time", Williston said.
There appears to be a complete difference of opinion between the federal and provincial governments. Who is telling the truth; that is what we want to know. Then he said:
Actual costs of the dam and calculations for the sale of downstream benefits were worked out on U.S. computers.
Ah, here the truth is coming out. All these calculations with regard to the Columbia river treaty were made in the United States; they did not do the calculating in Canada. Then he goes on to say:
They knew more about the situation than we did-they have been working on the Columbia for 20 years. You can't leak figures to engineers of the stature of the U.S. team.
Here is the admission by the provincial government that the Americans know more about it than us and that the calculating was done in the United States. No wonder the treaty is in its present terms. There is another important matter. This has brought a reaction from Washington and I have here a most interesting document. This is a statement made in Washington, as reported in the Vancouver Province of February 29. The article says:
Elmer Bennett, former chief U.S. negotiator on the Columbia river treaty, says his delegation was at no time fooled or deceived by Canadian stories or figures dealing with the project.
"We worked from our own figures and from our own engineers", Bennett said Friday night.
Then he went on to say:
As for the Ottawa reports that the Canadian negotiators deliberately leaked high figures on one of the dams, a source close to Bennett said the

American negotiators concluded during early discussions that the Canadians had neither sufficient background nor the engineering experience to provide clearcut figures at the time of the negotiations.
When these people used to tell me these tales about our advisers, I was embarrassed. Now we know from the top negotiator of the United States team-or the former top negotiator-that the Canadians did not have the figures and did not have the experience. This is clear proof that they have taken into camp our well meaning water resources branch. They are a nice bunch of chaps there; they are a likeable lot, but they have been taken into camp. Mr. MacNabb and all the rest of them, and that famous clerk of the privy council, have been taken into camp by the American negotiators. The atmosphere is becoming clearer every day.


Mr. Benson:: Quit joking and let's get
serious.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we are going to seek answers in the external affairs committee. In order that the minister's advisers will have the necessary time to obtain information from their counterparts in the United States prior to the committee hearings, I am going to mention some of the questions to which we shall seek answers when the external affairs committee sits. We want to be fair; we want to give them time to get in touch with Washington so they will have the answers. We want to give them time to put the computers to work in the United States so they can give us the facts.
Let me say, first of all, that the treaty is proof of the lack of planning on the part of the governments of Canada and British Columbia, regardless of all the talk about planning. Let me give a few illustrations. The government of British Columbia promoted the building of a $75 million pulp mill two or three miles below the high Arrow dam. What have they done? They have committed the people of British Columbia to millions of dollars of extra expense-$12 million, at the present time-to instal equipment to take a million board feet of logs per day through this dam. They have committed the people of British Columbia in perpetuity, and fairly so, to pay for the cost of moving these logs through this dam. What a lack of planning. The federal government only last year contributed, through the winter works program, to the rebuilding of an irrigation system in my district. This is as a result of contributions from the federal and the provincial governments. But this system will be flooded out if the high Arrow dam is built. Have you ever seen such evidence of lack of planning, Mr. Speaker? They build new facilities

in the district without any planning, without foreseeing the future, and so on.
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, we want explanations with regard to the protocols and a good many other things. I shall mention a few. We want to know all about the terms of sale, the schedule of downstream benefits to the United States and the schedule of downstream benefits to Canada on which the 30 year sale is based. With reference to protocol 9 we want an explanation of why the 30 year period increases, with regard to energy by 14 per cent to 18 per cent, and capacity by 5 per cent to 7 per cent over 20 years. We want the details of the calculation by projects and by years. With regard to protocol 1, flood control, we want the details of the calculations to arrive at $64.4 million, and of the additional four payments for emergency operations during 60 years from ratification.
Protocol 1, paragraph 1: What is the meaning of the word "related"? That is an ambiguous term and we want to hear the meaning. Paragraph 2: What is the definition of the word "adequately" We want to know what U.S. storages are included in the word "all" and what are the respective capacities to be used for flood control?
Then again, we note that in annex A, flood control, refill will be as requested by the U.S. entity. What jurisdiction has Canada retained over the refill of Canadian reservoirs drawn down (a) for flood control and (b) for power? What provision has been made to make a similar cut in the cost of the storage which is assigned in article IV (2) to U.S. operations and for flood control? These are a few of the technical questions to which we want answers, because as they are in the protocols to the treaty at the present time such are ambiguous.
We also want an assurance that the figures as to cost of the dams are reasonably correct, with the knowledge that the high Arrow dams have been increased from $72 million to $129 million at the present time, and its effect on the cost benefit ratio of storage in the Arrow lakes. The cost of construction of various dams in relation to the estimates provided by Mr. Williston's advisers give us serious grounds for doubt.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that over a number of years the very advisers who advised the government of British Columbia with respect to the cost of these dams also advised the government of British Columbia with respect to the building of the Strathcona dam. The original estimate of that dam was $19 million, the final cost was $35 million. For the Whatshan repairs the original estimate was $86,000 and the final cost was $1,873,000. For the Spillimacheen plant the
Columbia River Treaty original estimate was $1,970,000 and the final cost $2,930,000. For the La Dore generating plant the original estimate was $11,987,000 and the final cost was $19,229,000. For the Ash river generating plant the original estimate was $11,010,000 and the final cost $15,050,000. Some of these increases were caused by inflation and the increase in the cost of living; I am not blaming the engineers entirely. But these are factors which will affect the dams to be constructed under this treaty as well, and we want information about these matters. Already the cost of one dam has gone up from $72 million to $129 million, and we want to be assured that these estimates are accurate.
Many people in the district are concerned about the safety of the high Arrow dam. Well known engineers have expressed their doubts about it. For example, they have not been able to find any rock foundation. They will be holding back a wall of water 78 feet high for 145 miles with sand and gravel foundations, to the dam. There have been letters in the press expressing similar doubts. At the hearings at Castlegar one of the engineers admitted that they have not been able to overcome the problem of underseepage. When one reads of what happened in the United States in recent years we want to be assured that the dam is safe. The members of this committee will want some definite proof of the safety of the dam and a good many people living below the dam will want a definite guarantee that it is safe. We want to know what detailed surveys have been made with respect to the relocation of highways, wharves, and other public facilities, their location, type and cost. No surveys have been made to date; I know that because I have talked to the minister's officials. The committee will seek definite information with respect to the flooding of agricultural and forest lands. No detailed survey has been made. Maps have been looked at and the country flown over, certain estimates have been made, and so on.
Now I want to make a reference to some remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I am sorry he is not here tonight because he is a most well meaning person and is very likeable on television. He referred to the agricultural prospects. I have not the time to read this report I have in my hand, but it is a report made by the Department of Agriculture on June 14, 1960 on the effect of agriculture and the construction of reservoirs on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers between Luxor and Dorr. It refers to the acres of land which are going to be flooded and says:
In comparison to this there are some 300,000 acres of land in the area, above the level of the

Columbia River Treaty
reservoir, which is as potentially arable with irrigation as the 26,000 acres in the reservoir area. If the reservoir water could be provided for irrigation the reservoir, in fact, increases the agricultural potential of the area.
That is a net gain of nearly 300,000 acres of some of the most fertile land in British Columbia, when irrigated. I will have to show this report to the hon. member for Red Deer tomorrow.
We will also seek, Mr. Speaker, some information as to the basis of compensation which is going to be paid to displaced Canadians, should this treaty be ratified. The minister quoted from a statement by Dr. Keenleyside, chairman of the British Columbia hydro, to the effect that it is not a soulless machine and that it will deal generously and sympathetically with each person who has to move his home or business. I can tell you from my own experience that I was once in Ottawa attending the sessions when these power people came along and put in a power line, and slashed a right of way through some of my property, 100 feet wide for quite a distance. Without even asking my permission.
Many of those who are going to be displaced are very concerned with Dr. Keenley-side's approach and at the result of the first expropriation by the British Columbia hydro authority. On February 6, 1961 a delegation from the area to be affected by the high Arrow dam from Revelstoke south went to Victoria to see Dr. Keenleyside. The report of his statement is still vivid in the memory of many Arrow lakes residents. Dr. Keenleyside is reported as telling the delegation "that they should have faith in the people running the country and should accept their decision as being in the best interests of all concerned", as if to say: What a lot of impudent blokes, coming down here protesting they will be flooded out after 50 or 60 years of work.
Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the generous treatment of the owner of the land of the first expropriation. I am hurrying to get as much of this story over as possible in my limited time. First, there was a total acreage involved of 37.95 acres. Second, there were 10 acres of cleared land, house and buildings. Third, the total assessed value was $3,450. Fourth, the amount paid by B.C. hydro and power authority was $4,750, which represents a compensation rate of assessed value plus one third. Compare this with what Mr. Williston said. In our district taxes on agricultural land are usually assessed at 50 to 60 per cent of its market value. On the basis of Mr. Williston's statement the owners to be flooded on the Arrow lakes, the Columbia river and in the Revelstoke area expect to receive not less than six times

the assessed value, plus 25 per cent for the misery and loss of happiness occasioned by this flooding.
What did Mr. Williston have to say about this? He said that there were three reasons why the cost of the high Arrow dam had gone up. One reason was because land values had tripled in the area which was to be flooded in the last two or three years. So on that basis they are quite right in expecting: six times the assessed value, plus 25 per cent for loss of happiness, and so on. That is what they will expect as a minimum, and that is what we are going to work for. That is what the members of my party and other people are working for in British Columbia.
The members of the committee will want to know the effect that the high Arrow dams will have on fishing in the Arrow lakes and in the Columbia river. I quote from a report made by the British Columbia wildlife service, which report was kept secret for some time but I managed to get a copy. This report says:
It may be somewhat of a surprise to those who hold little regard for even the monetary value of this resource that the fishery biologist estimates that the cost of compensating for the loss of spawning grounds alone would through the operation of a fish hatchery of equal capacity cost $531,466 annually, and that the original capital investment would amount to $1,992,997.
The report also says on page 41, "It is doubtful if this loss can be made up through artificial means", referring of course to the loss of spawning grounds.
To summarize on this very important question of recreation facilities, we quote two sentences from this report relating to the sport fishery. On page 41 it states:
Investigations conducted to date indicate that losses to the Arrow lakes fishery through construction of the high Arrow dam will be substantial.
Then, from page 45, under the heading high Arrow dam, the following:
Preliminary surveys indicate that the combination of spawning grounds loss plus reservoir fluctuation will result in severe damage to the sport fishery.
The rod and gun clubs of British Columbia are concerned about this flooding and its effect on fish and wild life. We will want to know about the rights of Canadians who are employed on these projects. I want to bring this aspect to the attention of this house and in particular, of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. I have a document in my hand. It is an agreement, drafted but not signed as yet, between the British Columbia hydro authority and an organization known as the Columbia Hydro Contractors Limited. This draft agreement is intended to cover all the workers who will be employed in the erection of the dams, and the

construction of the generating facilities and transmission facilities on the Columbia river, should that development go ahead. This draft agreement is not the result of a consultation with Canadian citizens. It covers years of work that may be undertaken by Canadian workers and was drafted as the result of a meeting between the officials of the British Columbia hydro authority and a Mr. Keenan, an A.F. of L. official in the building trades section in Washington.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You have no idea what a storm this is creating among some of our Canadian trade unionists in British Columbia. This draft agreement establishes conditions under which Canadian workers will obtian employment on government projects on the Columbia before a man is hired on the job or work is commenced, and we say it is time Canadians were consulted, by public authorities.
During the hearings held by Mr. Paget, water controller, Dr. Keenleyside, under oath, told the people of the Arrow lakes that these projects would supply employment for some 5,000 to 10,000 persons. This has now been reduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin, Essex East) to a maximum of 3,000 with an average of over 1,300. United States citizens and United States contractors are looking forward to participating in the nine year boom. We must remember what happened in connection with the construction of pipe lines across Canada when hundreds of United States citizens entered Canada as landed immigrants, were allowed to obtain employment on the pipe line, and returned to the United States as soon as the projects were completed. We took this up with the minister of immigration. He could do nothing about it, because they were landed immigrants, and this is what is going to happen this time, unless the policy is changed. There are going to be hundreds of United States citizens coming into Canada as landed immigrants and taking employment and then going back to the United States, when the projects are completed.
In addition, there is the device of bringing workers into Canada under the pretext that there is no man here qualified to do the job. I investigated one such case. One company brought a man in as an operator of a particular and unusual piece of equipment. Inside four days he was driving a truck. We were able at that time to get some 25 of these chaps returned to the United States. We want to know if the federal government is going to protect Canadian workers and contractors in this respect. Is the government in British Columbia going to protect Canadian
Columbia River Treaty contractors? I understand that in Saskatchewan years ago Saskatchewan contractors and Canadian contractors got certain preferences when it came to bidding on public projects and we hope the practice to be followed will be along these lines.
Without a doubt the building of the high Arrow dam will create pollution problems. Municipalities, rod and gun clubs and organizations of that type along the Columbia river are concerned with this problem, and they have made recommendations to the government of British Columbia urging that this matter be given serious consideration. This question is causing a great deal of concern in places such as Castlegar and Kinnaird and persons lower down the river. They are concerned about pollution caused by the construction of the dam and the throwing into the water of tremendous quantities of soil and other materials, and by the influx of workers and others.
We are very concerned about the loss of fish and wildlife, and the proper clearing of the basin. Rod and gun clubs of British Columbia are very anxious that these basins be cleared completely, that all vegetation be removed and stumps be cut down to ground level, otherwise during the drawdown we shall have a most unsightly, unsafe and unsanitary condition. They have not yet been able to get a clear and complete statement from Mr. Williston in British Columbia. However, many are working to this end. I trust everything will be done that can possibly be done to minimize the effect of flooding on the recreational facilities of the district. When I say "recreational facilities", Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that on the Arrow lakes alone 50 miles of beaches will be flooded by the high Arrow dam-50 miles of the most beautiful sandy beaches in Canada.
As I have said before, there is great opposition to this treaty from engineers, from trade unions in British Columbia, and from many other organizations. Trade unions are taking an interest in this question in British Columbia and farmers organizations and other organizations as well as many other people are objecting to the long term sale of the cheapest power in British Columbia to the United States, while the British Columbia consumer uses the more expensive Peace river power. In the second place, they are objecting to this unfair competition from United States industry and consequent loss of employment for Canadians; third, to the gift of water to the United States which will be required for irrigation of Canadian soil, and fourth, to this unnecessary destruction of public and private investments in farm, forest lands and industry. They are also objecting, as I said before, to the destruction

Columbia River Treaty of 50 miles of sandy beaches and damage to recreational facilities. This is one of the greatest inland park areas in Canada, 145 miles of beautiful country providing excellent boating, excellent sport fishing and excellent hunting. They also object to the near destruction of our sport fishing in the Columbia river and to the loss of Canadian control of the Columbia river under article II of the boundary waters treaty.
I see my time has nearly expired. Beyond all our plans and programs, conservation is ultimately of the spirit, an ideal of those people who cherish their past and believe in their future, and are not seeking a quick dollar. Our civilization would be changed by its infidelity to this ideal as surely as by the loss of its democratic institutions, its system of jurisprudence or its arts and culture. In our continued search for the abundant life for all associated with beauty, we must demonstrate both our love for our land, forests and waters, and our sense of responsibility for future generations. If we do not, our haste to promote so-called progress at the expense of future economics, will result in ugliness and unhappiness in Canada for the generations who are to come.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the house for allowing me to conclude. We cannot afford developments in our country where expediency tramples on esthetics and the decisions of government are made only for the present. This treaty in my opinion and in the opinion of this group violates all concepts of sound conservation policy and for this reason we oppose it and will seek to secure its amendment.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated for a few moments-


Mr. Dinsdale:: Another penitent.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -in order to give hon. members on the other side the opportunity to ask the question: Which side are you on? However, inasmuch as they have not asked that question I want to say categorically that I am in favour of this treaty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -as it is amended by the protocol and by the provision for sale which will pay for the entire construction costs. It is a little more difficult for a politician to change his mind after having been apprised of the facts. A statesman, on the other hand, has less difficulty.


An hon. Member:: It must have been a real struggle for you.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It will be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that when I sat on the other side of the house I rose many times in an effort to have the matter brought before the house-


Mr. Winkler:: Give us your views.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -so that information of the type we now have available would be available for members to study in order that they could come to some conclusion. I was interested this afternoon in listening to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). There was a time when he and I collaborated in our ignorance in an endeavour to get the facts.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Now you are all alone.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In an endeavour to obtain the facts we proceeded to have people come to us and give us their impressions. On one such occasion I recall that General McNaughton gave me the information that the hon. member gave us this afternoon with respect to the incapacity of our negotiators. If hon. members will read Hansard I think they will find I put this very proposition forward in almost the identical words. It was strange for me, after having met the so-called young and inexperienced technicians and engineers, to find that they were a fairly knowledgeable group-


Erik Nielsen: Like General McNaughton.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -and that they could even be compared to the hon. member for Kootenay West. You can imagine my chagrin when I discovered they were as knowledgeable as myself with regard to the facts about the Columbia river. I also had the pleasure of meeting the negotiators from the United States, and while I found them to be relatively intelligent people they did not stand as far above the Canadian negotiators as might have been expected. It might be of interest to the hon. member for Kootenay West to know that in order to make the teams a little more evenly matched General Itchsner was withdrawn and sent to Afghanistan to build a dam there and General Apsley took over. I believe the great and intelligent Mr. Bennett from the United States of course did not take part in the renegotiations and discussions respecting the protocol. Having regard to these facts, we were probably not too far out of balance.


Erik Nielsen: Tell us what you think of our negotiating team now.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I want to pay tribute to General McNaughton. There is no question that he put up a strong and intelligent fight in

order to force the United States administration, not necessarily their negotiators, to concede that we were entitled to a return on downstream benefits. As far back as 1955 at the suggestion of General McNaughton we introduced a measure known as the International River Improvements Act. The purpose was to stop the construction of a low head dam on the Arrow lakes. The construction of this dam would have jeopardized the general's over-all argument that we had to develop the Columbia on a more orderly basis, and at the same time it gave support to a very effective weapon, the threat of diverting the Columbia into the Fraser river.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised a question about the leaking of figures that would have prejudiced the negotiations. I am sure that if the figures respecting the diversion of the Columbia into the Fraser had been leaked out they would have jeopardized our position in the negotiations to a far greater extent and have favoured the American negotiators.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question?
West" Byrne: The hon' member for Kootenay


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would prefer to continue my speech and if the hon. member wishes to ask a question at the end I will be happy to answer.


An hon. Member:: We will have the funny bits later.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Did you yourself ask for renegotiation?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Negotiations were requested, certainly.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Renegotiation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: To get back to the diversion into the Fraser, General McNaughton did make use of that weapon. The hon. member for Kootenay West said that we duped the Americans, but he did use it as a lever to obtain the 50 per cent return. For this I give him high marks, and certainly he did an excellent job up to this point.


Mr.   Kindi@: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Kootenay West has said that we were completely unfair in that we leaked figures that would have affected the negotiations. He feels concerned that we have duped the Americans. On the other hand, he endeavoured to tell 20220-39
Columbia River Treaty us that we were completely inadequate in our negotiating and that the other people were far superior. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. I noticed that on several occasions in his very emotional speech he was extremely inconsistent, and this was only one of his major inconsistencies. While the hon. member is older in years and has lived on the Columbia for many years, I have lived on the Kootenay, one of the main tributaries of the Columbia, for quite a number of years-at least 40.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Come on now, you are older than that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should not like to reveal my age. However, 40 will be sufficient.
Apparently the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) would be quite happy to flood vast areas of the east Kootenays as long as we leave his cabbage patch alone in the west Kootenays. I sympathize with west Kootenay people, but I have a responsibility to my constituents in Kootenay East. The flooding that would take place as a result of the so-called McNaughton plan would cover something in the neighbourhood of 90,000 acres in Kootenay East. 1 am sure I am unable to use the descriptive phrases the hon. member for Kootenay West used in connection with this broad valley, nevertheless the beauty of that area is unsurpassed We would have 90,000 acres flooded as opposed to the 20,000 or 22,000 acres that would be flooded as a result of the high Arrow dam.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, 67,000 acres.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It must be remembered that in Kootenay East we have one of the greatest wildlife preserves in all British Columbia. People come from all parts of the United States, all parts of British Columbia including Kootenay West, to hunt and fish in the east Kootenays.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is not what you said at election time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The treaty plan would flood about 42 miles in the east Kootenays, and unquestionably this would flood some of the winter grazing areas of this wildlife. However, the McNaughton plan would flood an area about four times as large, so this would do much more harm to the wildlife of the area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the hon. member not know these things when he was supporting the McNaughton plan?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member would just contain himself for a few minutes, he could ask questions later.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has said that this vast amount of storage we are

Columbia River Treaty going to have in Kootenay East, which would be of no real use in so far as power is concerned, is going to be made available to irrigate the uplands. Well, I have travelled over the uplands of Kootenay East and I know them as well as the hon. member. The water will still be there, but at a slightly lower level under the treaty plan, and we will have power at a very reduced rate. The pump perhaps would have to lift the water another 40 feet or 50 feet to irrigate these uplands, but that land will still be there.
In so far as communications are concerned in Kootenay East, I should like to remind the hon. member for Kootenay West that at the moment all the freight from Kootenay West which is destined for the west coast is being hauled back to Kootenay East instead of following that railway line which clings to the crags on its way to the coast. This freight is hauled through the lush valleys of the east Kootenays for 150 miles along a railway line which is absolutely flat. One diesel unit will haul 120 to 150 freight cars over that 150 miles of track. Now, the McNaughton plan would result in the flooding of that 150 miles of railway, so it would be rendered useless or would have to be relocated.
In addition, there would be 50 miles of highway only recently completed which would be either rendered useless or would require the construction of huge floating bridges of the type we have in the Okanagan, and we would require two or three of them. In all probability, this 50 miles of highway which is of trans-Canada standard, would have to be abandoned.
Now, I cannot say that I have travelled up and down the Okanagan lakes by boat or on foot, as I presume the hon. member for Kootenay West has done. However, I did fly over them and if there are 50 miles of beaches on the Arrow lakes I missed that very pleasant sight. We did see a number of deltas. I would remind the hon. member for Kootenay West that on one delta, Arrow park, there is a substantial community. I understand that 60 per cent of the people in Arrow park signed a petition in favour of this treaty and requested us to get on with the job. I am not denying that there may be 50 miles of beautiful beaches, but the part I saw appeared to be rocky, and the rocks seemed to go right down into the water. Any increase in the water level in that area would simply mean that the water would go up higher on the rocks.
I should like to take the hon. member on a trip through the east Kootenays and he would see the fine tourist areas and the wonderful tourist attractions we have in the Wasi lake area. People come from all parts of North America to visit in our constituency.


If the hon. member went up the valley to Columbia lake he would find an area of great tourist attraction. Then, too, there is lake Windermere, an area in which millions of dollars have been spent. This is not a fjord in the rocks such as the Arrow lakes are. The locks surrounding this lake have been completely sold out. We have a highway of trans-Canada standards leading from Calgary to lake Windermere. Since that highway was completed it is almost impossible to estimate the amount of money that has been spent in developing lake Windermere as a summer home for tourists.
The tourist industry in Kootenay East brings in a revenue in the millions of dollars and it could eventually reach the tens of millions. I do not want to belittle the hon. member's lower Arrow lakes, but he must admit that he does not have any direct means of communication with large cities and it is likely to be some years before these communication links would be developed as they are in Kootenay East.
What are some of the benefits to the east and west Kootenays as a result of the decision to build the Libby dam?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Carry on.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member would like to read in Hansard the speech I made last year, after I have completed this one, then he will see I shall have spoken for 80 minutes on this subject, which is something of a record for me. No more than 17,000 acres of land will be flooded in the east Kootenay district as a result of the Libby dam.
At this point I want to tell the hon. member for Kootenay West that there are also people in the east Kootenay region who will be dislocated and who will have to be rehabilitated. They have been waiting for 20 years for a decision to be made. In that period they have been unable to develop their farms, and from year to year have been waiting for a decision to be made with regard to the Libby project. They now tell me they are very happy a decision has been made, and they will be looking forward to compensation based on a 20 year delay. I am sure this will be forthcoming, and I shall endeavour to see that they are properly and effectively compensated.
Very little rail or road relocation will be required. Certainly those who live on the west side, in the area near the boundary, will be cut off from their natural market, but they too should expect compensation for the loss in value of their land.
The Creston flats are many square miles of land and contain some of the best soil on the North American continent. Due to floods that usually come every 10 years the people there suffer the danger of losing their entire

crops and buildings. The Libby dam will provide flood control for the area, and I am sure will enhance the land values by some 50 per cent, or even higher. The people in Creston have been waiting many years for this development.
Due to the misinformation, or rather lack of information which my hon. friend from Kootenay West and I suffered from last year, we were given the impression that the downstream benefits on the lower Kootenay would be marginal. However the Libby project will now firm up 200,000 kilowatts of energy on the lower Kootenay for the plants presently operated by the West Kootenay Power and Light Company. We were also told that these plants were rather old and antiquated. However, last spring I took the trouble to go over to the west Kootenay and visit them.
All five plants appeared to be operating efficiently. Of course, with my limited knowledge I could only determine this by observation but I did see two men sitting in the control room of the lower plant, operating at least four plants. To me it appeared quite an efficient operation, and as I say the Libby project will firm up 200,000 kilowatts of power which may be provided at a cost of less than two mills.
The entire development of the east and west Kootenays depends on the availability of low cost power. No one should know this tkan the hon. member for Kootenay West The steel industry, the smelters and the fertilizer industry should all expand greatly I do not hesitate to predict that within the next three or four years we shall have a completely integrated steel industry m the Kootenay area, based on low cost power from present installations, and future power available as a result of the construction of the Libby dam. I am also certain there will be vast development in the pulp and paper industry in both regions.
While the Pend Oreille system is not a part of the Columbia treaty as such, it is a part of the Columbia river basin. If hon members would take the trouble to look at the map which appears in the white paper they would see that in the Pend Oreille system one of its tributaries rises in the east Kootenay near Fernie, flows down into Montana, into the Pend Oreille system through Idaho, and back into Canada about 14 miles from its confluence with the Columbia river.
I am bringing this matter to the attention of the house, and in particular of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-who made what I consider something of an intemperate speech last evening-that one of the benefits we receive from United States storage, 20220-39J
Columbia River Treaty without being required to pay any downstream benefits to the American system, is that it will provide five and a half million acre feet on the Pend Oreille system.
The West Kootenay Power Company built a dam on this river, near where it enters the Columbia river and, as a result, is in a position to generate 320,000 kilowatts of power. There is also available what is known as the seven mile site, where an additional 320,000 kilowatts may be developed. All of this power depends on the storage in the United States. Of course the storage was not provided in the United States for our purposes, but the very fact that it exists puts the Canadian producer in a position to generate some 640,000 kilowatts of power at no more, and perhaps less than, two mills per kilowatt.
I was not going to make much reference to the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), but I do feel it was an emotional and somewhat intemperate speech designed to stir up animosity between the United States and Canada. It seems to me there are two groups of people opposed to making a deal with the Americans; they are the far right wing and the left. Any deal with the-


Mr. Orlikow:: What does Harvey say about it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would classify Harvey as a member of the left wing.


David Orlikow: But what does Harvey say about it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to complete my statement. Both groups seem to be under the impression that any deal with the Yankees is a bad deal.
I am not in conformity with those sentiments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You were last year.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We have a good deal here. It is in no way a sell-out, as some hon. members have classified it.


David Orlikow: What did you think last year?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I noted an article written by Mrs. Davidson in the Calgary Albertan the other day, who said it was worse than a sell-out; it was a give-away. I do not know just how to interpret those phrases; I do not know whether a give-away is worse than a sell-out, or a sell-out is worse than a giveaway. I do not believe either one of those expressions applies in this instance. We have a good treaty. We have one that is going to-


Erik Nielsen: It is the same treaty.

Columbia River Treaty


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -bring great industrial advancement to western Canada. It is going to redound to the prosperity oi every living soul in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat? He used to be a keen supporter of the McNaughton plan, and tonight he has outlined all the defects of the McNaughton plan.
I want to ask him when he observed these defects. Was it when he was made parliamentary secretary?


An hon. Member:: It was when he heard Byrne's speech.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Effectively, Mr. Speaker, that could be my answer; but the truth is that I have never said categorically that we must have the McNaughton plan. To do so would have meant political extinction for me in the east Kootenays.


Norman Platt Lambert: Oh, so it is political expediency.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have never been an outstanding exponent of the McNaughton plan. However, like my hon. friend from west Kootenay I was wallowing in ignorance. It appears he is still there, but I have been enlightened by the facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for MacLeod (Mr. Kindt).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for MacLeod.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Lake Windermere Valley Echo of January 17, 1963.
The headline of this newspaper reads:
Columbia in doubt! Jim Byrne believes McNaughton plan best.
I want to know why the hon. member has since then changed his views.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Quite obviously the hon. member was either not in the house or was not paying any attention to what I said. I have given my reasons for having become assured that this is a good treaty and that we should get on with it immediately. I would also tell my hon. friend that it is a statesman who can change his mind; it is only a politician, such as himself perhaps, who cannot.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have just one brief question for the hon. member, who said he would answer a question after he had finished his remarks. I was going to ask the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), but there is another question I shall ask.. Is the hon.


member still of the view that the Canadian team of negotiators, including Mr. Robertson and Mr. Ritchie, was as poorly informed and as weak as he stated on December 13, 1962 as reported on page 2642 of Hansard?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member also was apparently not listening to my speech; he was just waiting for an opportunity to ask me a question. I explained this quite thoroughly.
I said that I was given the same type of information as was the hon. member for Kootenay West, namely that these people were not sufficiently intelligent to negotiate on our behalf. But I now believe them to be quite capable and intelligent men-almost as intelligent as the hon. member.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer this question? Was he not acquainted with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) before he became a parliamentary secretary, or was he not on speaking terms with him?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), as I recall it, had nothing to do with the early negotiations to which we are referring.


Norman Platt Lambert: He was a great expert on the plan.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member another question? As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, could he tell me what is the present attitude of the British Columbia unions to this current treaty?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is the attitude of any pressure group, such as the N.D.P., or the unions which have been influenced by a great deal of propaganda from the socialists. But their attitude is not going to change my mind. If I have become convinced that this is a good treaty and should go forward, I will not be pressured by anyone.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had an opportunity of listening to the premier of Newfoundland speak from time to time may have heard him use those famous lines from the old Methodist hymnary, "While the light still holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return". I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the speech that has just been concluded, and speeches from hon. members opposite during the course of this debate, and, as someone has already remarked; I think it was my hon. friend from west Kootenay, it sounds as though a good many of them have just come from the penitents bench, although in the manner of the previous speaker I detect that he has not made a complete turnabout.


Erik Nielsen: He is not contrite enough.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, there is not that note of contrition one would expect from someone who had made a complete turn-about with regard to his stand on this particular matter. As a matter of fact, I am reminded of the chap who was asked by his spiritual counsellor for a death-bed repentance, and he said, "Well now, taking all things into consideration, I do not think this is a time to be making bad friends of anyone". I think this was the sort of conversion demonstrated by the previous speaker. If I may express it in political terms, perhaps this is one of those occasions when the politician, or, as he used the word, statesman, finds some of his friends are for the measure and some of his friends are against the measure, but as far as he is concerned there is no equivocation at all: he is for his friends. It is going to be difficult, I am sure, to find which way the hon. member is facing with regard to this important issue.
As far as the minister for external affairs is concerned, I thought there was complete contrition two days ago when he introduced this measure in the House of Commons. He has completely accepted the position of the former government, which had the initial privilege and responsibility of negotiating this treaty. I thought it reflected his new role of high statesmanship when he went out of his way to pay that compliment to the former administration. Of course, anyone who faces the facts would inevitably have come to the conclusion that the obstructionist attitude which was taken just a little over a year ago by some of the speakers on the other side was taken for other than factual reasons.
Unfortunately we have not seen any turnabout-face so far as the attitude of the members to my left is concerned. I refer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and also the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). As has been indicated, some rather harsh statements were made with reference to this treaty. I admit at the outset that it is not a perfect treaty, but I would say it is a good treaty. No treaty devised by any group of men could be the perfect treaty, particularly when you are negotiating in the complex area not only of interprovincial relations but also of international relations. However, I think a fair and honest appraisal will reach the conclusion that it is a good treaty.
I am not speaking tonight by way of any personal apology or vindication. Unfortunately I had no opportunity to take part in the negotiations as such, a fact which I regret very much in that I assumed responsibility for northern affairs after the negotiations were completed. However. I did have access
Columbia River Treaty to the minutes of the meetings taken during negotiations. Unfortunately, it is not possible to place these minutes before the house; even if the federal government gave consent I am sure we would have difficulty getting the concurrence of the provincial government. Only history will reveal the actual nature of the long tedious and complex negotiations which made it possible to come to this rather unique agreement.
I should like to refute some of the notions which have been presented to this house by spokesmen that the Canadian negotiators were not competent to deal with the slick American traders. Some of the men who had the most responsibility, perhaps the most difficult role in the negotiations, were and are connected with the water resources branch of the national resources department. It is true that some of them are quite young. On the other hand, some of them are not so young. I refer to the director of that branch, Tom Patterson. He is still young in spirit, but not as young in years as he once was. I came to appreciate their competence in this field largely because of the responsibility which devolved upon me of answering the numerous queries which were presented on the Columbia treaty, answers which required detailed and complex mathematical computations. I was always impressed by the courtesy and knowledge of these officials who carried the burden and the responsibility of providing the expert data for those on the political level responsible for carrying out the negotiations.
It may be true, as the hon. member for Kootenay West said, that none of these men had paddled down the Kootenay river in a canoe. Their association with the river is not a sentimental one, but I suggest that it does not necessarily mean that they are incompetent to judge the engineering aspects of this project merely because they have not paddled down the Kootenay river. Neither should they be despised because of their youth. I am reminded of the wise retort given by a young man with responsibilities much beyond his years. One who was older complained that he had been in this particular area for 30 years, having acquired his knowledge during that 30 years. The wise answer came back: "Yes, it is quite true; you have had one year's experience 30 times, while I have only had one year's experience five times". So it does not necessarily mean that because you have not been exposed to a given situation for a long period of time you are not competent to judge from a professional standpoint.
The points I want to bring into this discussion, Mr. Speaker, are not directly related to the Columbia river treaty itself, although

Columbia River Treaty they have a very close bearing to it. I want to point out that this Columbia treaty was not negotiated or considered as an isolated project. As a matter oi fact, it was a part of a broad program of development upon which the previous administration embarked. In order successfully to conclude a treaty it was necessary to break through several rather important new areas of activity. As I have already pointed out, this is the first major breakthrough in the field of international co-operation and the development of a resource mutually owned by two neighbouring friendly countries.
Furthermore, this sort of economic development is in tune, I think, with the broader trading and economic patterns which have unfolded in the revolutionary events of the post war world. Canada was a frontier society up until fairly recent times. I am surprised that my friends from Kootenay West and Burnaby-Coquitlam stick to the frontier concept of resource development in Canada. It is true that up until fairly recently it was thought that our resources were to be conserved from the standpoint of preservation rather than exploitation and development. This treaty will provide for an economic development of a renewable resource. Water is a vital renewable resource. It is constantly flowing away to the sea, and if we do not develop and exploit it now it will be lost forever. This confirms the notion I have always had so far as parties with a doctrinaire viewpoint towards economic theories is concerned; they cannot get outside the confines of the dogma of a particular concept.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What about your friends out in Kootenay West?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am referring to the official attitude taken by those who negotiated this treaty on behalf of the former administration.


An hon. Member:: What did the former minister of justice say?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Another major breakthrough in this resource area-and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has been a leader in this regard-is the idea of the multiple use and wise management of renewable resources, and the conservation by means of greater use in the interests of economic development. The hon. member was one of the great supporters of the resources for tomorrow conference, where these concepts were put so clearly before the people of Canada. As has already been pointed out by other speakers, the Columbia river project is an excellent example of the multiple use of a renewable resource.
The treaty is going to make it possible to use this body of water for the benefit of a


large segment of the population of North America. It is part of the water resource which is becoming increasingly scarce because we have failed to maintain the resource wisely. I have a figure here which was taken from the Christian Science Monitor the other day, so it is up to date, which says 326 million cubic miles of water is available to man in the ocean, in the air, and in the continents. Less than 1 per cent of this huge amount of water is available as fresh water for use by man. It is high time we began to develop and use these water resources for the best economic purposes. Multiple uses have been mentioned-industrial, domestic and recreational.
I agreed with the previous speaker when he referred to the great tourist potential when we wisely use our water resources. The tourist industry has only been recognized in recent years, but in the province of British Columbia it is now a major industry, and there is no reason at all why this development could not become a major factor in the further promotion of the tourist industry.
Growing out of the Columbia river development as an integral part of it, are other major projects in the field of energy. Energy is one of Canada's basic resources. It is basic to the industrial and economic life of this nation, and we have only in recent times recognized that we must develop comprehensive policies, co-ordinated policies, and we must develop rationalized policies with regard to our rich energy resources in Canada.
Only 25 per cent of Canada's hydroelectric potential has been harnessed up to the present time, and yet, with only 25 per cent of our hydro potential harnessed we have been moving rapidly into the area of the thermal production of power, involving the use of coal, gas, and oil, which are all non-renewable resources. Experts tell us that 25 years from now, a quarter of a century from now, these resources will be in short supply because of the rising demand of the human population. There must be planning development of energy resources to ensure their most economical national use, and their most effective contribution to industrial development. The Columbia river project, I submit, is a long step forward in this direction.
The establishment of the national energy board was a major step forward. The establishment of this board in 1958 and the enunciation of the policy of the export of power was a major step forward. I believe it was Right Hon. Mackenzie King who, during the 1920's following the difficulties of world war I, laid down the hard and fast rule that power would never again be exported from Canada. It was only within the past few years that we

got away from that rigid idea, which had long ago become outmoded because of the tremendous changes that had taken place since that time.
The export of power, of course, was logical in view of the fact that we now export gas and oil and our non-renewable resources. As was pointed out yesterday the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is in favour of the export of oil, and had the responsibility for this when he was the premier of the province of Saskatchewan.
There has to be some progress made in two other areas of power development in Canada if we are going to move forward in the broad approach that was conceived by the former administration. We have to make progress in establishing a national power grid. It is now being demonstrated that the long distance transmission of high voltage power is technically possible. At the present time there is a study under way by technical experts in Canada to look into the technical problems that still stand in the way of the realization of the establishment of an interconnected power grid. Only by a national power grid can we bring into play, while it is still economically feasible, the power resources of the north, for example; or the power that will be generated in areas such as Hamilton falls. This has the most enthusiastic support of the Canadian electrical association because we have already been guilty of wastage of these resources by overdevelopment in various regions of Canada, in order to meet the peak load problem, and also because of our failure to develop the hydro potential before we developed the thermal power potential of this country.
The grid system actually is already under way in Canada, but it must move faster, it must have the enthusiastic support which is now being given to the Columbia river project by the new government. There must be support for these other projects which are part of the comprehensive plan of national development.
It was in 1958 that the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act was passed by this parliament. That act might be regarded as the beginning of the regional plan which will eventually usher in the national power grid that has been under discussion in past months. Just as an example of the sort of savings that are possible by this type of power integration, up to 1962 the expenditures for power under the act in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have amounted to some $10.3 million, but the savings that had accrued from that expenditure up to that point represented a saving of $26 million. This saving will be multiplied many times when the national power grid is in operation.
Columbia River Treaty
The maritime system is the only fully integrated power grid in operation up to the present time, and I hope that it is the forerunner of the larger scheme that is so urgently needed in Canada. I can give some statistics as to the degree that the technical difficulties have been met. There are already experimental transmission lines in Ontario and Quebec. For example, in Ontario there is a line of some 450 kilovolts, that is, 450,000 volts which runs all the way from northern Ontario to Toronto. Quebec has a 300,000 volt line from Bersimis to Montreal, some 390 miles, and the Soviets have even made a greater technical breakthrough than we have in Canada. The distances that must be covered by long distance transmission in a national power grid run up to 1,100 and 1,200 miles in the case of the Hamilton power development and the Nelson river development.
I should like to refer briefly to the Nelson river power development which again is a vital part of this whole national concept. We were pleased to hear the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) make the statement in the house yesterday in tabling the report on the first stage of the technical study on the potential of the Nelson river, that the report was entirely positive. He pointed out that it was economically feasible to develop the huge power potential on this northern Manitoba river and, by means of a system of long distance gridding, transport the power to the Toronto market or to the market in the northern part of the United States.
I bring these matters to the attention of the government and the house to emphasize that it is not enough to stop with the Columbia. I agree that this is a major breakthrough and a significant economic development. I agree with the hon. members who have supported the viewpoint of the former administration which they once vehemently criticized in the house. The Liberals have seen the light. They have been converted from obstructionists. They have adopted the vision of the former administration.


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Could the hon. member tell me in what way the Liberal group in this house obstructed the Columbia river treaty? It was never before the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time enough to deal with that question but my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), will.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It was not before the house. I asked to have it brought before the house.



$12 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Columbia River Treaty
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We work as a team on this side and I am going to pass the ball to him to answer that question. We have got the Liberals converted from obstructionism. All that is necessary now is to convert them to activists. To get action out of a Liberal government is almost impossible to conceive-


Erik Nielsen: Sixty days of blazing action.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -although I have the greatest faith and confidence in my fellow humans. If the government is able to understand this concept of national development they must move forward on the broad front I have outlined tonight. Questions have been raised concerning some of the criticisms and comments with respect to the qualifications of the Canadian experts who were responsible for the data that led to the decision to sign the treaty, but I am sure that when the treaty goes before the external affairs committee all these matters can be dealt with there, face to face with the experts. It is impossible to deal with them on a personal basis in the house. I am sure that the more questions that are asked and the more information that is revealed in the standing committee, the more the decision of the former government that this was a basically sound and good program for Canada will be vindicated.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence by taking up the theme referred to by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, and particularly with reference to the remarks made earlier this afternoon and this evening by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in his attack on a number of persons who were involved in the preparation of this treaty. I think it is well known that these very able and respected public servants are not in a position where they can defend themselves. They are not in a position where they can reply to the attacks and the demeaning remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Erik Nielsen: Should you not say that to Kootenay East?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
David Orlikow: Did General McNaughton change his mind? Is that what the hon. member is suggesting?
Columbia River Treaty


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No; if the hon. member for Winnipeg North wants to listen, I shall be glad to tell him.


David Orlikow: I am trying to listen, but it does not help very much.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The criticism made by General McNaughton in 1963 in the International Journal was, in the opinion of this government, very fundamental and sound. Steps were taken in the protocol to obviate the difficulties which the obscurity of the wording in the treaty had created.
I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members subparagraph 2 of paragraph 7 of the protocol which indicates the extent to which Canada has assured to it control of the flood storage within our own boundaries. The question at issue referred to by the hon. member was as to whether or not by delivering the operating control plans of the United States entity, Canada would be in a position to continue controlling the manner in which the Mica creek reservoir was used, and therefore the manner in which we could maximize power generation in Canada. This objection was specifically met by the protocol. I refer to subparagraph 2 of paragraph 7:
The hydroelectric operating plans, which will be based on step 1 of the studies referred to in paragraph 7 of annex B of the treaty, will provide a reservoir-balance relationship for each month for the whole of the Canadian storage committed rather than a separate relationship for each of the three Canadian storages. Subject to compliance with any detailed operating plan agreed to by the entities as permitted by article XIV (2) (k) of the treaty-
-which relates to subsequent operating plans over which Canada has a veto-
-the manner of operation which will achieve the specific storage or release of storage called for in a hydroelectric operating plan consistent with optimum storage use will be at the discretion of the Canadian entity.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, the effect of the provision of the protocol is that the Canadian entity retains the right to decide how that storage will be held as a whole within Canada and retains the right to decide how it will be released in accordance with the monthly operating plan of the United States. This confers a substantial benefit and makes it possible to operate Mica creek for maximum generation at the site and at the site of the dams at Downey creek and Revelstoke when they are constructed, and gives us the opportunity to reregulate that same water when it reaches the high Arrow dam. It might be useful to point out to the house the function of the high Arrow dam in this connection. There has been a great deal of criticism by General McNaughton and by others, which has been echoed by members of the New Democratic party in this house, that a great

Columbia River Treaty deal of the storage control area is very close to the Canadian border. I should like to point out that this is for the express purpose of making certain that at the highest head in Canada, that is at Mica creek, the storage which will be held behind the dam can be operated solely and exclusively, subject to the minimal provision for flood control, for the benefit of maximum Canadian power generation. The high Arrow dam is to provide a means of reregulating the flow of the waters for the people across the border in accordance with the treaty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But that is not what the United States engineers say.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would advise the hon. member for Kootenay West, if he is going to participate in this particularly interesting but particularly complicated discussion, that he should read the protocol and, what may be more difficult for him, try to understand its contents.
Turning again to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as reported on page 497 of Hansard, I find he makes reference to the restriction of the Canadian right to operate these storages in view of the obligation to deliver to the United States flood control, that is control against those critical situations when there will be flooding and risk of damage downstream. I would bring to the attention of the house the fact that the problems involved in this regard have been specifically met by the terms of paragraph 1 of the protocol. As the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) pointed out this afternoon, the rather obscure terms of the treaty with regard to these provisions have been defined more closely by the protocol. There is provision for flood control by Canada only after a number of eventualities: First, only after a certain flood level of historically determined proportions has been reached. Second, only after all United States storages in the entire Columbia basin have been used for the purpose of restraining the flood. Third, by subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of the protocol the Canadian entity has the right of approval of the United States flood control, and in the absence of agreement there is a provision for a form of arbitration through the permanent engineering board.
Then, I should like to call attention to the statement of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as recorded on page 497 of Hansard to the effect that the Libby dam in the United States will be controlled by the United States. He says that if it feels it would be to its disadvantage, then it does not have to vary the operation. I point out, Mr. Speaker, first that the operation of the Libby dam will be specifically subject to a long-standing order of the
[Mr. Macdonald.)
international joint commission in respect of the level of the water at Kootenay lake. This particular order restricts both Canada and the United States in altering the level of Kootenay lake, and it is of particular value to Canada in this particular instance because it restricts specifically the extent to which the United States can vary or have exceptionally high peaks in flood release.
Then, the protocol by paragraph 5 expressly stipulates that the Libby dam is to be co-ordinated in its operation for the purpose of achieving the additional maximum power generation at the west Kootenay plant of 200,000 kilowatt years per annum.
Once again, at page 497 of Hansard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam commits an error which I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West might have drawn to his attention, because it is purely an error in geography. The hon. member makes reference to a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) in respect of diversion of the Kootenay into the Columbia and then goes on to say:
This, again, is a matter of giving a legal right which has little or no value because since the Americans are the upstream nation in the case of the Kootenay, and since they will be operating a dam at the Libby, they will have the right to determine how much water would come into Canada-
I would point out that the diversion in question is the diversion to the headwaters of the Columbia river upstream from Libby and in this particular case Canada is the upstream country, so that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) does not appear to have realized that.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam at page 498 of Hansard for Tuesday, March 3, remarks which have already been dealt with by a number of other speakers on both sides of the house, who pointed out that the hon. member had asserted that the McNaughton plan would flood less land. I would remind the house again, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) did this afternoon, that the McNaughton plan would flood twice as much land as will the plan for development of the basin, provided for by the treaty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are talking about it in terms of agricultural land.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We get a lot of useful advice from the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who was passing on advice the other night to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He apparently passed to him a copy of the "Engineering and Contract Record", from which the hon. member

read, as recorded at the bottom of page 498 of Hansard, and when questioned as to the date of that he replied:
My colleague tells me it is September, 1963.
The document in question is actually September, 1962, and perhaps this typifies better than anything else the information on which the hon. member bases his speeches.
He referred to an article by Mr. James Ripley, who made the following statement:
The present treaty places three of the four major dams (high Arrow. Libby, and Duncan) virtually on the American border where they are absolutely useless for any purpose except regulating U.S. flows.
As I have pointed out, this is quite clearly wrong. In the first place the Libby dam has a contributing effect on the west Kootenay plants by adding 200,000 kilowatt years per annum to the West Kootenay plants. Second, I would point out that the treaty and the engineering plans for Duncan lake provide for additional at-site power there. Third, I would point out that, in addition to the Libby operation, the Duncan lake operation will add additional power benefits to the west Kootenay plants.
The article by Mr. Ripley continues:
We cannot produce a kilowatt of at-site power for Canada at any of these dams.
I think, however, I have pointed out the fallacy of that.
The fourth dam (Mica) will produce some power but will always sacrifice part of its potential output because the treaty says it must be operated primarily for U.S. regulation.
I would point out that the changes made in the operating provisions with respect to the watershed will permit Canada to operate the entire storage as a whole, and permit Canada to maximize the entire operation at Mica and reregulate the water flow at the high Arrow dam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Better read annex A.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You had better read annex A, and had better read the protocol as well.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam went on like some bright-eyed sorcerer's apprentice, bouncing from watershed to watershed, from the Fraser to the Columbia, and to the Saskatchewan, and pointing out how he was going to use the same water flow from the Columbia river for mutually exclusive purposes.
He pointed out that he was backing the McNaughton plan, but I wonder if he realizes that the plan more commonly associated with General McNaughton provides for the construction of dams at Bull river, Luxor and 20220-401
Columbia River Treaty Dorr, and also provides for the diversion of 15 million acre feet from Revelstoke canyon to the Fraser headwaters.
I would point out that the recent reports of the B.C. Engineering Company, recently tabled in the house, established the cost of the McNaughton plan as in excess of $2 billion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Read it again. You have a lot to learn. It also pointed out that it envisages a grave risk of destroying the Fraser fishery. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had a great deal to say about the creation of jobs in the British Columbia area. I wonder what his supporters in the lower mainland area and lower Fraser valley think of the cavalier way in which he casts away Canada's $50 million fishing industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You had better stay in Toronto, my boy.


An hon. Member:: You better go back to Saskatchewan.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would be lucky if they even let him stay there, after that. At the same time the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam seems to talk about creating downstream benefits on the Columbia river, that is, to permit the flow to continue on down the Columbia river, the mainstream of the Columbia river, in lieu of the downstream benefits. He also laid great stress on diversion for irrigation purposes and power production on the prairies, particularly at the South Saskatchewan dam.
I would point out to the house that a necessary corollary for irrigation purposes is a loss in power benefits to British Columbia, in two ways. The first is because of the extra power needed to pump the water over the great divide on to the eastern slopes of the Rockies, and second because the five million acre feet or so that has been estimated for this purpose would result in a net loss of power, by reason of the lower generation at Mica creek.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Should we not sell it to our fellow Canadians before we sell it to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not if we get as much for it as this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Don't take that off the record.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made some reference to the fact that he was critical of the observation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in saying that we would have the right to

Columbia River Treaty divert water across the Rockies tor irrigation purposes. I would just like to remind the house, and in particular the hon. member, of some of the practical facts involved in so-called diversion for irrigation on the prairies.
As he is perhaps aware, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, over which at one time he apparently had some control-perhaps they are not telling him much now-had a study made for it by the Crippen-Wright engineering firm in March, 1962, on the possible use of eastern and western slope flows for irrigation on the prairies. These were the plans proposed by Crippen-Wright, in their order of priority: 1. That the North Saskatchewan and Clearwater rivers could be diverted to the extent of over 1,900,000 acre feet, at a cost of 40 cents per acre foot. 2. That the diversion of the Athabasca into the North Saskatchewan would provide an additional 4,500,000 acre feet at a cost of $1.60 per acre foot. 3. The diversion of the Peace river into the North Saskatchewan, which would allow 19 million acre feet at a cost per acre foot of $2.70. 4. The diversion of the upper Fraser into the Athabasca, and hence by the system previously discussed, down into the South Saskatchewan, giving 1,090,000 acre feet at a cost of $3.10 per acre foot, and the fifth alternative, in the order of priorities, and which would be ten times as expensive as the first scheme, was the proposed diversion from the Columbia river of 5,430,000 acre feet at a cost of $4.60 per acre foot.
The hon. member insisted that we talk in realities. I shall make the same reply to him. Let us talk about realities on the question of diversion flows for irrigation on the prairies.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference to a report by an American consulting firm, which was hired by the state of Washington, and which deals with the advantages which the Americans see as coming from this treaty.


Erik Nielsen: Ten o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That will give you a chance to have more notes prepared for tomorrow morning.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It will give you a chance to read the protocol.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting house leader if he would outline the business for tomorrow, and such part of next week as he knows about?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate. When it is concluded we will take up the resolutions pertaining to the setting up of the committees. First we will deal with the setting up of the special committee on procedure; second, the committee relating to defence matters; third, the committee on drugs, insecticides, pesticides and other noxious substances, and fourth the committee on consumer credit. Then we will take the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions, and then the resolution relating to the appointment of an additional judge of the exchequer court, under the Judges Act.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 6, 1964