1964-03-09

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a personal question of privilege affecting all western members and all new Canadians in western Canada. My point of privilege arises from remarks made by Mr. Rene Levesque, Quebec natural resources minister, as reported in the Star-Phoenix of March 7, who claimed that new Canadians had turned the western provinces into a second rate melting pot. In other words, by saying this he divided citizens of Canada into first class people and second class people.
Such remarks, Mr. Speaker, are not uncommon in the world, and history is witness that such opinions as that expressed by Mr. Levesque have resulted in persecutions and civil wars, and have brought about dictatorships in the world by distinguishing between so-called first class people and second class people. Is that what Mr. Levesque wants to happen in Canada, an uprising and a class war?
Mr. Levesque, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the provincial Liberal party of Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us stick to the point of privilege.


Reynold Rapp: My point of privilege is that as a westerner and a new Canadian I take these remarks as a personal insult, and I must say that had he been a member of my party he would have deserved expulsion and a good punch in the nose.



MR. GREGOIRE-STATEMENTS BY FINANCE MINISTER RESPECTING DEBT CHARGES

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege, a good question of privilege. So that I will be fully understood by the Minister of Finance I will try to state my question of privilege in English, and in doing so I should like to ask for the clemency of members of the house.
My question of privilege arises out of the estimates for the year 1964-65 and the statement made in the house by the Minister of Finance. I quote from page 451 of Hansard of Tuesday, March 3, 1964, the English edition:
For example, the public debt charges, which are statutory, are shown in 1964-65 at some $157 million more than the amount included in the main estimates for 1963-64 In fact, Mr. Speaker, the increase anticipated in 1964-65 over the expected actual expenditure in 1963-64 is about $52 million. This indicates a serious underestimate in the amount presented to parliament in the 1963-64 estimates.
If hon. members will take a sheet of paper and a pencil they will understand the figures I am about to point out. In 1963-64 the estimate for public debt charges was $881 million. In 1964-65 the same charges are $1,037 million. The Minister of Finance says that the real increase is $52 million. The difference between $1,037 million and $881 million leaves about $156 million. Less the real increase of $52 million, that means that the underestimate for the previous year is about $104 million. If we add the increase of $104 million to the previous estimates for 1963-64 of $881 million, that means that the charges on the public debt in 1963-64 actually cost us $985 million. If we subtract the same amount of $104 million from the present figure in the 1964-65 estimates of $1,037 million that means that the cost of the debt in 1964-65 will be $933 million. This means, Mr. Speaker, not an increase but a decrease of $52 million in the actual amount of interest on the public debt.
This is impossible, Mr. Speaker; first, because there has been no reimbursement of the debt; second, because there has been a deficit of many hundreds of millions of dollars; third, because the minister said in his statement there was an increase of $52 million. This means that the actual figures for the cost in 1964-65 will be, first, the amount estimated in 1963-64, $881 million, plus the underestimation for this year of $104 million, plus the surplus in the estimates for 1964-65 amounting to $52 million. These figures total the exact cost of the debt charges in 1964-65, namely $1,037 million.
I believe that the procedure employed by the Minister of Finance was completely irregular and wrong. The Minister of Finance presented his estimates for 1964-65 on March 3. On March 6, he presented supplementary estimates-


Mr. Winch:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is an hon. member, on a question of privilege, permitted to make his budget speech before the budget has been introduced?

Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is dealing with a rather complicated matter. As I understand it, he is making two points; one, that the figures given to the house were materially wrong and, if not by intention, certainly they are misleading; second, that the procedure adopted was wrong. If I understood the hon. member correctly he was just coming to his conclusion.


Gilles Grégoire: As I have said, this procedure was wrong. The minister presented supplementary estimates for 1963-64, after he had presented his estimates for 1964-65. If there were errors or underestimates for 1963-64, those underestimations should have been taken care of in the supplementary estimates for 1963-64. The minister had the opportunity to do so when he presented supplementary estimates E.
For these reasons, and this is my question of privilege, I believe the minister presented wrong figures and that a wrong statement accompanied his estimates for 1964-65. He used the wrong procedure to present this underestimation, and in this way is concealing the real facts relating to the cost of the debt to the public. He has been trying to hide the real situation in relation to the debt and the interest we are paying on the debt of the country. I think that to be fair to the Minister of Finance, before requesting his resignation we should give him an opportunity to explain these procedures and these figures.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe has been kind enough to defer his request for my resignation, so perhaps I might put him straight on his figures. The original estimates of the debt charges for 1963-64, as recorded in the main estimates for that year, were prepared by the previous government in the fall of 1962 and were tabled by me in May of 1963. These estimates showed that the interest on the debt for the current fiscal year was estimated at $878 million.
If the hon. member will refer to page 128 of the main estimates for 1964-65 he will see that the figure I have just mentioned, $878 million, as the estimated debt charges for 1963-64. He will also see, indented in lighter type, the present estimates of the debt charges for the year 1963-64, amounting to $983 million. He will also see the estimated debt charges for 1964-65 are shown at $1,035 million.
This, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, means that in fact the difference-


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order I think, with deference, Your Honour should have ruled as to whether or not the submissions made by the hon. member for
(Mr. Winch.]
Lapointe contain an actual question of privilege; because it seems to me that the opportunity has been given, either intentionally or unintentionally, for the Minister of Finance to make a further statement on the presentation of supplementary estimates, which is not the customary procedure in this house. I do not see that there was any question of privilege at all in the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, and the Minister of Finance should not be taking advantage of such opportunities to make a subsequent submission. If there is a point of privilege now, sir, then there was a point of privilege a week ago, and the explanation should have been made a week ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the importance of the charges made by the hon. member for Lapointe in this house-and in order to make those charges he had to speak perhaps a little longer than is customary, but dealing with questions of complicated finance sometimes that is advisable-it seemed to me only right that the Minister of Finance should have the opportunity of replying.
I have not much difficulty in ruling on the so-called question of privilege raised by the hon. member, but in view of the charges I thought it only right and fair that the Minister of Finance, who is one of the more important ministers in the administration, definitely should be called upon to answer and reply to charges of that nature.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was pointing out, the difference between the original estimates for 1963-64 and the estimates for 1964-65 showed or purported to show an increase of $157 million. Of this $105 million, as is quite clearly shown in the blue book on page 128, was due to an underestimate for 1963-64. The difference between $157 million and $105 million, namely $52 million, represents our best estimate of the increase in the debt charges for the coming year 1964-65. I hope that is clear so far as the figures are concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Then I do not know whether I can help the hon. gentleman any more. I think the figures are reasonably clear to the rest of us.
As to the way in which this matter was brought to the attention of the house, I think perhaps my hon. friend is under a misapprehension that the amount of the debt charges, which are statutory and which are authorized under part IV of the Financial Administration Act, needs to be presented to the house for approval in the form of estimates or supplementary estimates. I would remind him that they are included in these estimates for the

information of hon. members, but authority for the payment of the interest rests in the Financial Administration Act.
When this error was brought to my attention late last fall it seemed to me that two things were necessary; first, that we should change the basis of calculating or estimating the debt charges for the future. As I said the other day, this is being done; second, that we should bring this difference or error in connection with the 1963-64 estimates to the attention of hon. members at the very first opportunity. I think the proper time and place to have done this was when the main estimates were tabled on March 3 of this year.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If you would like a ruling on your question of privilege, I think it is in the nature of a grievance; but in view of the importance of the matter raised I considered that an explanation was in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could the minister tell us what will be the present and actual cost of interest on the public debt for 1963-64, and also for 1964-65? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I referred the hon. member to page 128 of the blue book. If he will refer to it he will find that the estimated cost of the debt charges for 196364 is $983,436,894; and he will also see that the estimate for the year 1964-65 is $1,035 million.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer to the question I asked, and I raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have very great doubt that the original question is proper at this time. Surely the hon. member could refer to the book, or at least put a written question on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Pursuant to the statement made by the minister as to my question of privilege, at the beginning of the sitting, I still hold that the Minister of Finance has deceived the house with the figures he has mentioned and the statement he has made while introducing his estimates for the coming year.
National Defence


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the views of the hon. member, but this is taking the form of a debate. It is a matter of opinion as between the hon. member and the Minister of Finance, and is certainly not the type of question that should be asked at this time of day.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I wish to table P.C. 1963/315 of February 26, 1963, to which order in council is attached the contract between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir.


Mr. Pigeon:: Have you copies in both French and English?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are lots of copies.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Last week a number of hon. gentlemen, including the hon. member for Ville-neuve and the hon. member for Simcoe East, asked about radar stations. I should now like to make a short statement in this connection.
A review has been made of the early radar warning lines in order to ascertain whether economies could be made without reducing the over-all effectiveness of the system. As a result of this review, and following consultation with United States and NORAD authorities, it has been decided to close down four radar stations of the R.C.A.F.'s Pine Tree radar line; R.C.A.F. stations Edgar, Ontario; St. Sylvestre and Parent, Quebec, and Beaverbank, Nova Scotia.
Pine Tree radar stations were established as a joint venture with the United States, and negotiations have now been completed to coordinate the details of the deactivation.
Some units of the Pine Tree line in eastern Canada, which were among the first to be completed, became operational in 1952. Radar equipment was not as powerful or reliable as it is today, and the stations were constructed relatively close together. However, the detection and tracking capabilities of radar stations have improved, through automation and other means, to the extent that it is now possible to reduce the density of radar sites in eastern Canada.
Approximately 700 military and 300 civilian manpower positions will be affected by the closing of the four radar bases. It is intended to reassign service personnel to help alleviate

National Defence
current shortages in other R.C.A.F. high priority programs. Additionally, the Department of National Defence will collaborate with other departments of the government in an attempt to alleviate any hardship that might be caused to civilian employees of these radar stations.
It is intended to close down the bases as rapidly as possible, and closure is expected to be generally completed this summer. An annual saving of some $6 million in operating and maintenance costs currently associated with the four stations will be realized.
A number of air defence radar stations in the United States were closed out last year, as were doppler stations in Canada forming part of the D.E.W. line. Earlier this year the deactivation of part of the mid-Canada line, built and maintained by Canada, was announced.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the announcement made earlier by the Minister of National Defence.
Could the minister tell us whether steps will be taken, following the closing down of the radar station at Parent, in order to find suitable employment elsewhere for civilian as well as military personnel, and to pay their moving expenses?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is a question for the order paper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I had better take that question as notice.



THE BUDGET


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to inform the house that barring unforeseen contingencies I hope to introduce the budget on Monday evening, March 16.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee at its next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rates for first class mail

and for all newspapers and periodicals other than those published more frequently than weekly; to establish a minimum rate of one half cent per copy to each separate address for all publications other than those to which local delivery rates apply or that have postage free privileges; to make the four cent a pound postage on specimen copies of publications subject to either the local delivery rate or the minimum rate, whichever is applicable and to extend to certain cultural and technical publications the privileges now granted to newspapers and periodicals devoted to religion, the sciences or agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 17
Mr. Matheson:: What research has been conducted by the national research council with a view to discovering new uses for butterfat, and if any, when, and with what result?


Mr. Drury:: The national research council has not done any research to discover new uses for butterfat.


CAFETERIA, CHATEAU LAURIER HOTEL, OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 25
Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	What has been the total cost of the closing of the cafeteria in the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa, and the substitution therefor of L'Au-berge, with a breakdown showing (a) the cost of reconstruction, repairs, renovation; (b) equipment; (c) all other expenditures?
2.	What was the total number of staff employed directly by the cafeteria, and what is the total number of staff presently employed in L'Auberge?
3.	What was the maximum accommodation for patrons of the cafeteria, and what is the maximum accommodation for patrons of L'Auberge?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Because of a continuing decline in patronage, and the public demand for a restaurant with a distinctive decor and atmosphere; an extensive refurbishing program for the cafeteria, upon which no rehabilitation work had been done in 30 years, has been carried out and the "L'Auberge" restaurant constructed at a total capital cost of approximately $171,000 made up as follows: (a) cost of reconstruction-$153,000; (b) and (c) cost of equipment-$18,000. As a result revenues from the cafeteria have increased by more than 75 per cent over those of the same period last year.
2.	Number of staff employed in cafeteria: 30.
Number of staff employed in "L'Auberge": 55.
The larger number of persons required in the operation of "L'Auberge" is caused by

the provision of table service as opposed to self service in the cafeteria.
3.	Seating accommodation in cafeteria: 200.
Present seating accommodation in "L'Au-berge": 170.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Are there government grants available for training teachers to work amongst Indians and Eskimos and, if so, what is the amount provided in the estimates, and how many people can be trained?
2.	How many employees are there working for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in isolated areas and, of these, how many are Eskimos?
3.	How many employees are there working for the Indian affairs branch as Indian agents, placement officers, research officers, etc., and, of these, how many are Indians?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: 1. Yes; the government of the Northwest Territories provides grants and loans to any high school graduate of the Northwest Territories who wishes to attend university or a teacher training school and can qualify for admission. While these grants are not restricted to teachers in training, some of the students will undoubtedly choose careers in teaching in the Northwest Territories. In addition, teachers now on strength are granted leave with pay for special training courses, and in service training programs are arranged.
Since grants are provided under a program which is not limited to teachers, and in service training is a part of normal administration activities, there is no way of isolating the number of teachers or potential teachers involved, or the specific cost.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration provides grants to Indian students to take teacher training courses. There is no limit to the number of Indian students who may take such courses, provided they have the necessary entrance qualifications. There are, at present, 123 Indians teaching in Indian schools or 8J per cent of the total teaching staff.
2.	The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has 872 people employed in the north; many of these are Eskimos, but no breakdown of employees by ethnic origin is maintained.
3.	There are 2,391 employees working for the Indian affairs branch at headquarters and in the field as administrative officers, Indian superintendents, teachers, placement officers, research officers, social workers, clerks, etc., and of these, 280 are Indians.
Questions
r	PURPOSE OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the registration proposed for all Canadians been considered solely for social security purposes, or is it tied up in any way with the emergency measures organization and compulsory military service?
2.	Will this information be provided to other government departments and particularly the R.C.M.P.?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The proposed registration of all Canadians has no connection with the current planning activities of the emergency measures organization. It has been developed solely in connection with social security programs.
2. The Glassco commission in its report, referring to the multiplicity of numbering systems within the government stated that a numbering system that could be used to identify individuals for all purposes would contribute significantly to improved efficiency both in the government and outside. No consideration has been given to providing information for other than social security purposes.


EXPENDITURES ON STAFF IN RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: What amount of money was placed in the estimates in the last three years for research programs by the national research council and the defence research board for the payment of staff for the research programs and of this amount, how much was actually spent?	.


Maurice Lamontagne: The answer in so far as
national research council is concerned is as follows:
Fiscal Salaries included years in estimates
1960-	61	$12,671,7541961-	62	14,245,4811962-	63	14,646,274
Salary expenditure $13,477,759 (1) 14,780,927 (1) 15,568,393 (1)
(1) Included in these expenditures are costs of salary revisions etc. for which funds were provided by allotment from the general salaries vote-Department of Finance.
The answer in so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned is as follows:
In the last three years for which complete expenditure figures are available, the following amounts of money were placed in the defence research board estimates for payment of staff for research programs:	1960-61,
$14,299,735;	1961-62,	$14,942,000;	1962-63,

During these years the following amounts were actually spent for this purpose: 1960-61, $14,479,590;	1961-62,	$15,028,758;	1962-63,


$15,303,959. HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions
The additional funds required to meet these expenditures were made available from other sources within the defence research board allotment of funds.

Mr. Valade: 1.	What is the amount of the weekly fee or salary paid to Miss Michele Tisseyre as hostess of the program "Aujourd'hui" on the C.B.C. French television network?
2.	How does this fee or salary compare with those paid to the president of C.B.C. and to the Prime Minister of Canada?


Mr. Stewart:: 1 and 2. I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it has not been customary to require the corporation to disclose the amount of fees paid to individuals as it could affect the corporation in the competitive business in which it is engaged.


* IMMIGRATION OFFICES IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE
Mr. Pigeon: What amounts are allocated by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to its immigration offices in (a) England (b) France, in order to stimulate immigration to Canada?


Mr. Badanai:: Canadian immigration offices have been established in Europe to service spontaneous and sponsored applications received from or on behalf of prospective immigrants and to promote and encourage immigration to Canada to the extent permitted by the host country. These two functions are carried out by the same personnel and are interrelated to a considerable degree. For example, field trips by our officers abroad, which represent a considerable expense, involve the counselling of individual migrants and the dissemination of information about conditions in Canada. For this reason it is not practicable to distinguish in our overall operational costs those expenditures solely attributable to promotional activities. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm was furnished with information relating to the total operational costs of immigration activities in France and the United Kingdom on December 4, 1963 at page 5410 of Hansard and has been acquainted with the fact that the department hopes to open additional offices in France, if the necessary arrangements can be made with the French authorities.


WELFARE SERVICES TO INDIANS
Mr. Webster: 1.	Does the federal government have any agreements with the provinces under which welfare departments of provincial governments provide welfare services for Indians on reserves and, if so, to what extent are such services provided?
2.	Does the federal government have an agreement with the provincial government of British

Columbia relating to social welfare services among the Indians in the Fort Nelson area, and, if so, what are the terms of such agreement?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
(a)	An agreement between the federal government and the province of Manitoba provides for the extension of child welfare services to the reserves within the area of jurisdiction of the children's aid society of western Manitoba, (b) Child welfare services are available to all reserves in Ontario through an over-all agreement between the federal government and the provincial government and the children's aid societies, (c) An agreement between the government of Nova Scotia and the federal government allows for the extension of child welfare services to all reserves in Nova Scotia, (d) The federal and Yukon Territorial governments have an agreement whereby the territorial government assumes responsibility for the administration of child welfare services and the federal government makes an annual financial contribution toward the administrative costs.
2. Yes, by agreement between the federal government and the government of the province of British Columbia, the province provides welfare assistance to Indians who are living off reserves. The costs of assistance to Indians who have lived less than a year on a self supporting basis in a non-Indian community are refunded by the federal government. It is also provincial policy to extend child welfare services to Indians and non-Indians, though there is no formal agreement on this with the province. Both the agreement on welfare assistance and the informal arrangements on child welfare services apply in the Fort Nelson area. In practice, however, these services are affected by the availability of provincial staff and the thoroughness with which they can cover a large geographic area.
Under the national welfare grants program of the Department of National Health and Welfare the British Columbia department of social welfare submitted a project in 1963-64 to extend child welfare services administered by its district office at Fort St. John. This particular office also serves the Alaska highway on which Fort Nelson is situated. It provides services for the entire population including Indians, in Fort Nelson and the surrounding area.
Expenditures under this project have been approved up to $13,002.50 in 1963-64 with similar expenditures to be made in future years. These expenditures will be shared equally by the federal and provincial governments. Under this project the provincial government expects to survey the area in terms of staff needs to meet the variety of

social problems in the community, the development of resources to meet children's needs, and planning for foster children which involves both the adoption and home finding programs of the provincial welfare department.


TOBACCO EXPORTS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What was the total volume and value of tobacco sales by Canada for each year of the last three years to (a) Japan (b) Bulgaria, and (c) Israel?
2.	What was the market price in relation to the price received from each such sale?
3.	During the last three years, to what other countries did Canada sell tobacco and for what amounts?
4.	From what provinces did the export tobacco come and what was the quantity and value in each case?
5.	With what Canadian companies did the government deal in negotiating such export contracts?
Questions
6.	At present, are there negotiations under way for similar sales?
7.	Did Canada send a commercial mission to various countries during the last two years with a view to promoting the sale of this Canadian product and, if so (a) who were the members of that mission (b) what countries did it visit (c) was a report of results published (d) were the tobacco producers of the province of Quebec represented on the delegation?
8.	If no such mission was established, is it the intention of the government to form a commercial mission to study markets for Canadian tobacco exports?

Answer: 1 and 2. During the past three years tobacco was not exported to Japan, Bulgaria or Israel.
3.	See statement attached.
4.	There are no statistics on the province or provinces in which exported tobacco was produced.
3. Exports of unmanufactured tobacco products, by countries, for the years 1961 to 1963:
Tobacco Bright Virginia flue cured (Class 180-05)
Country
United Kingdom	
Ireland	
Malta	
Austria	
Belgium and Luxembourg...
Denmark	
Finland	
Germany West	
Netherlands	
Norway	
Portugal	
Sweden	
Switzerland	
Cyprus	
Sierra Leone	
Hong Kong	
Malaya and Singapore	
Pakistan	
Portuguese Asia	
Australia	
United States Oceania....
British Guiana	
Chile	
British Honduras	
Barbados	
Jamaica	
Leeward and Windward Is..
Trinidad and Tobago	
United States	
Totals
1961	1962	1963
Lb.
33,632,327 47,792
412,713 242,901 33,314 553,748 26,146 88
72,306
10,450
628,700
14,387
83,700
597,330
2,697
688,660
335,855
37,383,884
s
24,839,338
25,821
138,784 163,958 18,297 294,177 4,238 66
22,596
2,299
594,504
8,527
58,071 425,907 2,049 509,273 129,492

Lb.
34,467,125
58,580
574,759
77,372
151,399
5,375,070
1,124,009
148,710
48,292
89,798
34,233
166,944 34,180 17,984
972,927
18,919
144,111
9,004 120,150 686,930 5,621 988,656 1,489,051
46,803,824

26,033,123
38,495
196,322
54,161
65,581
3,235,832
483,577
102,421
17,143
43,270
14,278
36,912
20,622
13,308
977,574
4,919
85,414
3,772
87,710
486,655
4,211
700,988
857,247

Lb.
27,813,600 77,587 834 934 774,775 572,395 52,634 2,498,935 742,292 345,266 121,597 375,410 10,800 35,100 74,250 380,594 143,272
1,819
492,898
86,632
9,002
90,450
429,600
2,698
36,000
422,674
35,592,048
23,281,506 49,734 645 535 246,851 363,098 32,533 1,275,628 319,820 236,520 76,267 235,065 9,192 30,890 52,962 81,787 86,764
479,346
52,031
3,313
67,414
306,847
2,050
25,596
202,858

672	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Tobacco Burley (Class 180-15)	1961	1962	1963	Lb.	*	Lb.	$	Lb.	$Country United Kingdom	
Belgium and Luxembourg... Denmark	
Germany West	
Netherlands	
Norway	
Portugal	
Sweden	
Portuguese Africa n.e.s	
Hong Kong	
United States	109,457 21,344 67,875 150,187 115,804 2,701 51,508 2,709	76,645 9,111 38,797 97,288 60,218 1,688 20,934 1,693	849,420 4,980 50,400 1,600 232,000 104,612 213,720 4,782 6,376 1,599	565,717 2,951 38,717 992 137,622 71,735 116,369 4,113 4,086 1,199	794,318 8,697 1,318,520 5,333 91,473 44,800	505,671 5,332 745,741 3,390 54,091 24,404Totals	521,585	$306,374	1,469,489	$943,501	2,263,141	*1,338,629Tobacco unmanufactured n.e.s. (Class 180-99)	Country United Kingdom	
Belgium and Luxembourg... Denmark	
France	
Germany West	
Netherlands	
Norway	
Australia	
Leeward and Windward Is.. United States	30,181 2,206 994 2,446 13,004 22,893 1,100 89,216	16,107 1,004 596 1,835 1,625 38,101 502 13,388	103,317 8,315 66 205 13,234 500 225,158	29,941 2,977 50 100 21,981 234 61,656	907,335 3,914 278,283 141,207 123,488	61,006 1,526 44,675 112,313 29,664Totals	162,040	$ 73,158	350,795	*116,939	1,454,227	*249,1845.	The Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers' marketing board, Tillsonburg, Ontario, recently made sales of Canadian tobacco to Bulgaria, Israel, and Japan.6.	This is a question that can only be answered by those Canadian companies or organizations which may or may not be negotiating for additional export sales of Canadian tobacco.7.	The Department of Trade and Commerce sponsored a tobacco trade mission which visited western and eastern Europe and the Middle East in October, 1963 for the purpose of promoting the sale of stocks of Hue-cured tobacco held by the Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing board.(a)	The members of that trade mission were: Messrs. George Demeyere, chairman, Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers' marketing board, Tillsonburg, Ontario; Jesse Gray, president and general manager, Delta Leaf Tobacco Company Limited, Kingsville, Ontario; George McCague, chairman, Ontario farm products marketing board, Ontario department of agriculture, Toronto; Lea Vickery, superintendent, experimental farm, Canada Department of Agriculture, Delhi, Ontario; and Austin Stanton, chief, plant products division, Department of Trade and Commerce.
[Mr. Latullppe.l
(b)	The countries visited by the mission
were:	Poland, Russia, Austria, Bulgaria,
Egypt, Israel, Italy and France.
(c)	A press release indicating the results of the mission was issued following the return of the mission and additional detailed information has been provided to interested tobacco companies in Canada.
(d)	A representative of the tobacco producers industry of the province of Quebec was not included in the trade mission since the primary purpose of the mission was to find new markets for surplus flue-cured tobacco held by the Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing board.
8.	See number seven.


*C.B.C.-INTERVIEW WITH RALPH GINSBURG
Mr. Winch: 1.	Did the C.B.C.-T.V. carry on Sunday, February 9 an interview with Ralph Ginsburg of New York, publisher of Etos magazine and other magazines and, if so (a) is this the same Ralph Ginsburg who was convicted in Philadelphia on 28 counts for pornographic material appearing in Eros and his other magazines (b) what explanation of policy does the C.B.C. give for utilizing national time on the Canadian government owned radio and T.V. network to interview a person convicted of publicizing pornographic material?

2.	What is the total estimated cost of putting on said interview including (a) actual interview itself (b) productions-T.V. time on all stations (c) transmission (telephone or telegraph wire cable-* micro-wave) ?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	No, not on Sunday, February 9. However, the corporation did carry an interview with Mr. Ralph Ginsburg and others on Sunday, February 23. Also appearing in the program were Mr. Charles Keating, national chairman of the United States citizens' committee for decent literature; Mr. John Pemberton a director of the Amercian civil liberties union, and Mr. Ephraim London, a lawyer of New York city.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	This program segment discussed questions of freedom of the press and freedom of speech which result from the banning of certain kinds of literature. The issue is considered to be one of legitimate interest to the public.
2.	(a, b and c). It is considered to be not in the public interest to require the corporation to give such information as it could affect the corporation in the competitive business in which it is engaged.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You don't believe that. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, and I do so in view of the answer I got to question No. 89 this afternoon. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks it is fit and proper that Ralph Ginsburg, convicted on 28 counts concerning the publication of pornographic material in the United States, should have been permitted to appear on a C.B.C. program, and that the House of Commons should be denied information as to how much was paid him, as a promoter of perversion, by the C.B.C. which is financed by the people of Canada?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that it has been quite usual and has been accepted-at least up until now-by all hon. members of the house that it is not correct to require the C.B.C. to reveal the amount which it has to pay to have guests on its programs.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister answer my first question? Does he think it is fit and proper for the C.B.C. to have on a national
Questions
broadcast in Canada a man convicted on 28 counts covering pornographic material in the United States?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have already answered that question several days ago.


GRANTS UNDER FITNESS AND SPORTS ACT
Mr. Addison: 1.	How much of the $2 million available in the fiscal year 1963-1964 for physical fitness grants under the Fitness and Amateur Sports Act has been allocated by the federal government?
2.	What is the total allocation to each province and how much has each province made application for?
3.	What individuals and organizations have received grants and how much in each case?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. The $2,000,000 was allocated as follows:
Grants to provinces	$1,000,000
Federal expenditures on grants to national associations, aid for post graduate studies, fitness research and technical information services, $1,000,000.
2.
	Allocation	Total requested by each province
	for 1963-64	for 1963-64 (1)
	$	$
Newfoundland	49,680	26,745Prince Edward Island	38,311	22,321,81Nova Scotia	58,300	36,493.98New Brunswick	53,959	43,488.36Quebec	202,597	Ontario	233,081	104,841.84Manitoba	64,203	Saskatchewan	64,047	21,240Alberta	77,789	30,912.22British Columbia	86,816	29,487.48Northwest Territories	35,749	7,922.09Yukon	35,468	15,911.21Total	$1,000,000	$339,363.99 (1)
(1) The amounts in this column represent the cost of the projects submitted by the provinces as at February 28, 1964. It is expected that applications for additional funds will be received from the provinces and processed before the end of the current fiscal year.
3. Research program-grants to universities, 1963-64:
Amount of grant
University of Montreal	$ 8,000
University	of	Western	Ontario	1,500University	of	Ottawa	7,875University	of	Saskatchewan	25,000University	of	Alberta	13,000Total	$55,375
Questions
Grants to national agencies, associations, and organizations, April 1, 1963-February 28, 1964:
Amount of grant
Amateur Athletic Union of Canada $46,365
Association Canadienne des Centres
de Loisirs	20,000
Boy Scouts of Canada	5,465
Calgary Olympic Development Association	15,000
Canadian Amateur Hockey Association	25,000
Canadian Amateur	Ski Association 30,215
Canadian Amateur Speedskating Association	5,175
Canadian Amateur Sports Federation 10,000 Canadian Amateur Swimming Association	11,738
Canadian Archery	Association	2,000
Canadian Association of Amateur
Oarsmen	10,884
Canadian Association for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation	20,000
Canadian Badminton Association	6,200
Canadian Canoe Association	8,078
Canadian Field Hockey Association	3,000
Canadian Figure Skating Association	4,300
Canadian Women's Field Hockey Association	2,500
Canadian Intercollegiate Athletic
Union	22,000
Canadian Ladies' Gold Association	3,842
Canadian Lawn Bowling Council	2,800
Canadian Lawn Tennis Association	20,000
Canadian Olympic Association	76,000
Canadian Ski Patrol System	5,950
Canadian Snowshoers' Union	1,328
Canadian Table Tennis Association	4,770
Canadian Volleyball Association	7,568
Canadian Yachting Association	11,000
Canadian Youth Hostels Association	15,000
Canadian Golf Association	5,767
Royal Canadian Legion	49,400
Royal Lifesaving Society of Canada	10,000
The National Council of Y.M.CA.'s	6,428
University of Ottawa	7,831
Total	$475,604
Scholarship and fellowship program 1963-1964
1. Post graduate scholarships (a) master's level: (i) summer courses	
Armour, J. D. H.	$ 600
Armstrong, Mrs. R.	110
Barclay, J. K.	600
Berridge, Miss M. E.	600
Carson, Miss A. M.	800
Craig, Miss P. R.	700
Daniel, J. V. 	600
Durocher, R.	900
Enger, A. M.	600
Fairbanks, L. S.	650
Fournier, L. J.	1,000
Fracas, G. M.	600
Gray, G. E.	700
Green, S. A.	700
Holmes, A. W.	800
Houghton, M. R.	800
Laithwaite, A. B.	800
Minardi, G.	700
Sinclair, G. D.	600
Slater, M. B.	700
Spence, D. E.	600
Tiidus, A.	700
(ii) Full academic year at $2,000 each
A. P. Bakogeorge, W. W. Bolon-chuk, Miss M. C. Buron, J. A. Day, Mary Foster, W. G. Gibson, R. G. Glassford, R. C. Goode, D. Hayes, D. M. Kadatz, B. A. Kerr, Keith Kerr, W. W. MacGillivary, N. J. Mackenzie, F. Massicotte, F. McHugh, V. R. Messier, R. Meynard, Miss D. I. Miller, A. Noble, R. Piau, G. S. Shaw, J. P. Stothart, A. W. Taylor, C. Veilleux, E. H. Vidruk, R.C. Watson.
(b)	Doctorate level:
(i) summer courses
Affleck, A. F.	$ 700
Dewar, J.	1,000
Eaton, J. D.	1,000
Eynon, R. B.	700
Leicester, J. B.	1,000
Macintosh, D. D.	800
Mendryk, S.	800
Owen, W.	800
Robidas, R. A.	900
Watt, N. S.	600
Wearring, G. A.	600
Wilkinson, R. E.	900
(ii) Full academic year each	at $2,000
Miss P. L. Austin, J. D.	Burgess,
J. A. Dempsey, J. W. Frater, J. R.	
Mitchell, G. Pennington, Dumais.	Miss L.
2. Senior research fellowships (12 months)	
Banister, E. W.	$4,500
Cunningham, D. A.	4,689
Hodgson, J. L.	4,662
LeLacheur, L. M.	1,500
Levitt, Philip	4,500
Morford, W. R.	4,567.50
Richardson, J. R.	4,500
Taylor, Bryce	4,500
Zauhar, J.	4,500
54,000
9,800
14,000
37,918.50

3.	Special fellowships	5,322.54
Plante, Lucien Howell, M. L. VanVliet, M. L.
Total


$1,420 1.951.27 1.951.27 $135,901.04 EXPENDITURES ON PUBLICITY MEDIA, INDUSTRY AND DEFENCE PRODUCTION
Mr. Smilh: Has an estimate been made of the anticipated expenditure to be made on booklets, pamphlets, advertising and other publicity media by the information division of the Department of Industry and Defence Production and, if so, what is the total estimated expenditure for such purposes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The 1964-65 defence production estimates provide $30,000 for such purposes. Of this, $10,000 is to cover the cost of national advertising, indicating to industry and other suppliers the location of field offices responsible for federal government procurement. The other $20,000 is for the industry services branch to publicize the advantages to foreign manufacturers of manufacturing in Canada.
The 1964-65 Department of Industry estimates provide $154,700 for such purposes. This is summarized as follows:-
Exhibits and displays	$ 95,700
Film strips	35,000
Advertising	24,000


* OLDER WORKERS EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many workers over the age of 45 have been placed in employment as a result of the program by which their salaries are supplemented to a maximum of $75 monthly, out of public funds?
Questions
2.	To February 1, what was the total of public funds paid as salary supplements under the plan?
3.	What was the total expenditure authorized to publicize the program in (a) radio (b) television (e) newspapers (d) magazines (e) pamphlets and brochures (f) other publicity media?


Mr. Byrne:: 1. 468 were employed as at January 31, 1964.
2.	Nil. Incentive payments could not be made until three months after the program went into effect on November 1, 1963.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) $58,101; (c) $96,342.50; (d) $13,204.24; (e) $4,711; (f) $27,152.26. Total, $199,511.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, QUEBEC
Mr. Ricard: What are the names of the places in the province of Quebec where post offices were or will be built during the 1963-1964 fiscal year?


Mr. Deschaielets:: Contracts awarded in 1962-63 and carried out during the financial year 1963-64:
Grand Mere, federal building; Baie des Sables, post office; Pont Rouge, post office; St. Agapit, post office; St. Jean de Dieu, post office; Luceville, post office; Ste. Croix, post office; Hebertville Station, post office; Magog, federal building; L'Epiphanie, post office; Notre Dame du Nord, federal building; Rox-boro, post office.
Contracts awarded in 1963-64:
St. Francois du Lac, post office; Grandes Bergeronnes, post office; Isle Verte, post office; St. Timothee, post office; St. Alexis des Monts, post office; Lavaltrie, post office; Chambly, post office; St. Prime, post office; Albanel, post office; Cap St. Ignace, post office; Montreal (Hochelaga), postal station; Beauceville East, post office; Rawdon, post office; Hebertville Station, post office; St. Zacharie, post office.


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, CHAPAIS, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Does the government Intend to build an important airport at Chapais, in the county of Cha-pleau and, if so, when will construction commence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are no immediate plans for airport construction at Chapais. There have been no developments in this connection since the municipality was informed in 1961 of the basis of policy upon which the federal government participates in cost-sharing airport projects and within which it is understood this particular project would fall.
Questions


LAKE LA SARRE, QUE.  WHARF
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works own a wharf at lake La Sarre (Manee) and, if so (a) when was this wharf built (b) for whom and for what purpose was it built?
2.	Does the department own an access road to this
lake?	.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Yes, (a) in 1949-1950;
(b)	it serves as a wharf for the public, aircraft and boats.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, LAKE ST. JOHN, QUE.
Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John): Does the Department of Public Works intend to undertake projects in the constituency of Lake St. John and, if so, what are the value and details of such projects?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, as follows:
Alma, alterations to the post office. Estimated costs: $6,000.
Delisle, building of a retaining wall, urban development and surfacing. Estimated costs: $5,000.
Hebertville Station, urban development. Estimated costs: $300.
Maritime work: St. Gedeon, removal of reefs. Estimated costs: $2,000; Baie Moise, repairs to wharf. Estimated costs: $1,200.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION APPEALS
Mr. Coates: How many appeals have been lodged by applicants in civil service competitions since March 1, 1963, and how many of the appeals have been upheld?


Maurice Lamontagne: During the period from March 1, 1963 to February 29, 1964 inclusive, there were 808 appeals against selection for promotion or transfer. In 153 of these cases the commission decided to uphold the appeal and to have the candidates re-examined and re-rated by completely new rating boards.


TORQUAY, SASK., POST OFFICE
Mr. Souiham: Has the federal Department of Public Works in conjunction with officials of the Post Office Department, considered the necessity of a new post office in the village of Torquay, Saskatchewan and, if so, will they give this project high priority for the 1964-65 winter works program?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This project was considered under the department's 1962-63 winter works program. However, the post office at Torquay was reclassified to revenue status [Mr. Pickersgill.l
and the postmaster became responsible for his own accommodation under the terms of his employment.


PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION OF EMBASSIES ABROAD
Mr. Lamberi: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works make periodic inspections of the buildings and grounds of Canadian embassies abroad and, if so, on what
basis?
2.	What inspections have been made in the last five years of embassy facilities in Paris, Bonn, Copenhagen, Rome and Brussels, and by whom?
3.	As a result of such inspections, what effective maintenance was carried out and by whom?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: 1. With the exception of the offices of the Canadian high commissioner in Canada House in London, England, the Department of Public Works does not carry out periodic inspections of the buildings and grounds of Canadian embassies abroad. This is normally done by members of the staff of the supplies and properties division of the Department of External Affairs. From time to time when the pressure of work has precluded such inspections being carried out by external affairs, and when specific or urgent problems have arisen, this department has not hesitated to call upon the Department of Public Works for assistance. For example the chief architect of the Department of Public Works inspected a number of missions in the Far East in the summer of 1963 at the request of external affairs.
2.	(a) Paris. The government owned offices and the government owned official residence are inspected frequently by Mr. A. Monette, external affairs departmental architect, who has his office in the Canadian embassy in that city.
(b)	Bonn. The office, a rented property, was inspected by Mr. J. A. Zoubie, a technical officer in the Department of External Affairs. The official residence, a rented property, was inspected by Mr. W. C. Jaquith, a technical officer in the Department of External Affairs.
(c)	Copenhagen. The offices (rented property) and the government owned official residence were inspected by Mr. A. Monette, external affairs departmental architect.
(d)	Rome. The government owned offices were inspected by Mr. A. Monette, external affairs departmental architect. The official residence, a rented property, was inspected by Mr. W. C. Jaquith, a technical officer in the Department of External Affairs.
(e)	Brussels. The government owned offices and the government owned official residence are inspected at regular intervals by Mr. A. Monette, external affairs departmental architect.

Questions
3.	(a) Paris. Contracts for cleaning, the maintenance of the grounds, heating systems and elevators of the offices and the official residence are let each year after tenders have been called by the embassy. Acoustic tile has been installed in various reception or meeting areas, windows have been weather stripped and a phased program of redecoration is being carried out in the office building. The official residence has been completely redecorated by the lowest of three tenderers.
(b)	Bonn. *A phased program of redecoration is being carried out in the office building, floors have been repaired and linoleum replaced where necessary. The heating system has been converted to oil with the cost being borne equally by the owner and the embassy. The official residence has been redecorated.
(c)	Copenhagen. *Minor repairs only have been necessary in these offices which are located in a building which is only four years old.
The exterior of the official residence has been repointed and redecorated, the plumbing and electrical systems and the roof have been repaired after tenders were called.
(d)	Rome. The walls and floors of the offices were strengthened to carry the weight of safes, file cabinets etc., water tanks were replaced, doors and tile floors were repaired, a new switchboard was installed, minor repairs were carried out on the heating system, the plumbing system and the roof and part of the interior was redecorated-all under contract. *Only minor repairs were carried out at the official residence.
(e)	Brussels. The exterior of the office building was repointed, the windows repaired and redecorated. The third floor and part of the basement was repartitioned and redecorated. The wiring of the building was replaced and the floors and flooring repaired or replaced, all under contract. The residence is a new building completed in 1963 and maintenance costs are therefore at a minimum. A contract has been let for maintenance of the grounds.
*This denotes leased properties. Considerable difficulty is experienced in persuading owners to maintain them in a manner
acceptable to the department. Only after all means of persuasion are exhausted does the department undertake to carry maintenance on these properties.


FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS, CHICOUTIMI COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Coie (Chicoutimi): 1.	What was the number of federal civil servants in the county of Chicoutimi in 1962 and 1963, including permanent servicemen and civilians?
2.	What is the total amount of the wages or salaries received by those persons during the years 1962 and 1963?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. With regard to the Department of Trade and Commerce, statistics branch, there were 269 federal employees coming under the Civil Service Act, as of September 30, 1962. No figures are available with regard to part-time employees coming under the act and federal employees who do not come under the Civil Service Act. The figures to September 1963 are not available yet.
2.	Figures are not available by ridings. On September 30, 1962, there were, in the urban district of Chicoutimi-Jonquiere, 172 full-time employees coming under the Civil Service Act; their salaries for the month totalled $61,865. They are included in the 269 above-mentioned employees.
With regard to the Department of National Defence.
1 and 2.
Year	Employees	Civil Servants	Salaries Wages1962	960	248	$5,038,7641963	986	229	$5,212,251[Text]	C.M.H.C. LOANS, CHICOUTIMI	COUNTY, QUE.


Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): 1.	What are the number and the amounts of the mortgage loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the county of Chicoutimi, during the years 1962 and 1963?
2.	How many of these houses were repossessed?


Mr. Garland:: 1.


NHA LOANS APPROVED IN THE COUNTY OF CHICOUTIMI - 1962 AND 1963
[Stage Direction]
Approved Lenders	CMHC	Total
Year	Loans Units Amount Loans Units Amount Loans Units Amount
[Stage Direction]
1962	
40	40	455,179	215	218	2,373,128	255	258	2,828,3071963	
38	53	540,624	194	196	2,222,956	232	249	2,763,580
2. None. 20220-44
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. MacRae: 1.	Are there any units of the nuclear detection and reporting system (NUDETS) presently being constructed in Canada and, if so, who is constructing these units and at what locations are they being constructed?
2.	What is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of these units?
3.	What is their purpose?
Answer: 1. No units are presently being constructed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The NUDET reporting posts are designed to determine the location of ground zero of a nuclear explosion, the height of the burst and approximate yield of the weapon.


NAVAL VESSEL REFIT, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is the government giving consideration to the allocation of a naval vessel for refit to the North Sydney marine railway at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, to alleviate the unemployment existing at this yard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Last year three contracts were allocated to this yard and it is the intention of the government to keep the yard actively in mind for future work, although there does not appear to be any naval refit immediately available for the North Sydney marine railway.


INVESTIGATION INTO MACTAQUAC PROJECT, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Flemming (Victoria-: Carleton):
What is the extent of the investigation, if any, made by the Atlantic development board regarding the Mactaquac project on the Saint John river in New Brunswick before public announcement of a $20,000,000 grant was made to assist in the cost of construction?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The problem of power supply and demand in the Atlantic region has been the subject of discussion and study since the inception of the board. On April 3, 1963, the New Brunswick electric power commission presented a submission for Atlantic development board consideration and implementation. Hydro development, and Mactaquac in particular, were suggested on page 6, of this brief.
"In this regard, engineering studies are now at the stage where early construction could get started on the Mactaquac hydro site on the Saint John river, about 12 miles above Fredericton. The full development of this site would cost approximately $109 million, with a total capacity of 408,000 k.w."
The development was actively studied by staff members, with progress reports to the board, from the receipt of the submission

until December 31, 1963, when a memorandum was prepared for cabinet. Several visits (5) were made by staff members to Fredericton for discussions with provincial officials, and visits (3) were made to Ottawa by provincial officials, accompanied by their engineering consultants.
The project was also discussed with officials of the relevant federal departments and agencies.


PURCHASE OP GAS COMPANY SHARES BY MINING COMPANIES
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or any of his officials examined allegations that a number of gold mining companies' have purchased some 313,000 shares of Northern Ontario Natural Gas Company Limited, out of the company's 1,508,000 outstanding shares?
2.	If so, has it been determined whether any of the said mining companies had been receiving subsidies from the government of Canada under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act?
3.	If so, to what extent have such companies made purchases of N.O.N.G. stock?
4.	What is the total of the subsidies under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act paid to such companies in the calendar years 1962, 1963 and 1964 to date?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. No examination has been made of the acquisition of shares of the Northern Ontario Natural Gas Company Limited by any other company, because such transactions do not fall within the field of knowledge or responsibility of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The Northern Ontario Natural Gas Company Limited is a public company incorporated under an Ontario charter, and the department has no authority to examine its records.
2.	Information required from gold mine operators receiving assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is restricted to that pertaining to the production of gold and the costs attributable to such production.
3.	No information.
4.	Companies have not been identified. However the amount of assistance paid to eligible gold mine operators for each calendar year is published in the annual report to parliament on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


BUTTER STORAGE, QUEBEC
Mr. Langlois: 1.	What amount has the government spent under the 12 cent per pound butter subsidy since March 31, 1963, in the constituency of Megantic?
2.	Has the Department of Agriculture received any requests from the constituency of Megantic concerning the building of refrigerated warehouses for butter surpluses and, if so (a) from whom (b) on what date?
3.	At October 31, 1963, how many pounds of butter, indicating value and carrying charges, were

stored in the constituency of (a) Megantic (b) Compton-Frontenac (c) Sherbrooke (d) Beauce?
4.	What individuals or private firms have such warehouses and (a) what is the annual rent (b) since when, in each case (c) has the rent been raised in the past five years and, if so, by how much in each case?


Mr. Hays:: 1. $186,452.
2.	No.
3.	(b) and (c). At October 31, 1963, 6,160,384 pounds of butter were stored in the constituencies of Compton-Frontenac and Sherbrooke. The value of this butter is $3,430,632 and the storage charges per month amount to $11,786.79.
(a)	and (d). As at October 31, 1963, no butter was stored in the constituencies of Megantic and Beauce.
4.	Societe Cooperative Agricole, Lac Megantic, Metropolitan (Thompson & Alex), Eastern Townships Produce Co., W. Lowney Company, Lansdowne Storage Company.
(a)	Storage charges are 13 cents per box per month for the first eight months plus handling charges which are included in the first month's storage, and 10 cents per box per month for the ninth and subsequent months.
(b)	Societe Cooperative Agricole-1961; Metropolitan Storage-1963; Eastern Townships Produce Co.-1961; W. Lowney Company -1963; Lansdowne Storage Company-1963.
(c)	No.


MINING COMPANIES, MEGANTIC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Langlois: 1.	How many mining firms or companies operated in Megantic in 1963?
2.	What assistance did the federal government grant each of these companies, and under what program?
3.	What firms or companies hold mining properties in Megantic?
4.	What revenue did the federal government receive from those companies during the past five years?


William Moore Benidickson: 1. The records of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys show that eight mining companies operated mines in the electoral district of Megantic in 1963.
2. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys did not provide assistance to any individual company in Megantic in 1963. However, two programs were carried out which will be of benefit to mining companies on the whole.
The mineral processing division, mines branch, carried out a research project on milled asbestos fibre for the entire asbestos industry in 1963 and this program is continuing.
As part of the study of mineral deposits of the Appalachian region, the geological survey 20220-44i
Questions
of Canada had an officer working in the eastern townships during part of 1963. Further work of this nature, which will assist the entire mining industry in the area, is planned.
3.	The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys does not maintain records on the ownership of claims or mining properties in the various provinces. The Quebec department of natural resources, which has jurisdiction over mineral exploration and development in the province, would have complete records on the firms or companies which hold mining properties in the electoral district of Megantic.
4.	Any revenue obtained by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys from the mines in Megantic would result from the sale of maps or publications. As records of such sales are not kept for individual companies, it is impossible to ascertain the amount of revenue secured from such sales to mining companies in the Megantic area for the past five years.


PRINTING OF BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Loney: 
Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Only one printing of the Canadian Bill of Rights, in illuminated parchment form, was undertaken, consisting of 15,000 copies in English and 5,000 copies in French.
2. (a) No monthly record is kept of individual sales of Canadian government publications. (b) The entire stock of 20,000 copies, in illuminated parchment form, was disposed of to the public, except as mentioned in (c) below, (c) A few copies remain, in illuminated parchment form, which are kept in reserve for special requests and are not put up for sale.
The bill of rights, chapter 44, 8-9 Elizabeth II, 1960, is at all times available to meet the public demand.


POST OFFICE SITE, MESSINES, QUE.
Mr. Martineau: 1.	Does the government intend to build a post office at Messines, in Gatineau county?
2.	If so, has the building site been either purchased or definitely chosen?
3.	Who is the owner of the land involved?
4.	What was the purchase price?

Questions
5.	Is this land located in the middle of the village?
6.	Are there other sites available in the middle of the village?
7.	Were these other sites considered?
8.	Who recommended that the government buy this land?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No.
2 to 8. Not applicable.


C.M.H.C. LOAN APPLICATIONS, MEGANTIC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Langlois: How many requests for loans did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation receive from the constituency of Megantic in 1962 and 1963, under the National Housing Act, and of that total how many did the corporation authorize and what was their total value?


John Richard Garland: 


NET NHA LOANS APPROVED IN THE COUNTY OF MEGANTIC
[Stage Direction]
Approved Lenders	CMHC	Total
Year	Loans Units Amount Loans Units Amount Loans Units Amount
Of	0>
<5
«S>
w
1962	
12	12	130,146	27	27	'	273,480	39	39	403,6261963	
9	9	105,020	27	27	299,706	36	36	404,726
Note: Information on loan applications, as distinct from loan approvals, is not available.

Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Department of Labour make a proposal to radio stations across Canada as part of their stay at school program that would provide 12 paid one minute radio messages if the radio stations in question were willing to make public service messages available during the same period of time?
2.	Was the same proposal made to daily and weekly newspapers across Canada?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Yes. It should be noted that orders for these paid messages have been placed with all radio stations in Canada.
2. No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Has any consideration been given by the government to a location for a national defence headquarters building and, if so, with what result?
2.	If not, when may it be expected that such consideration will be undertaken?
Answer: 1 and 2. Consideration has been given to a location for a new national defence headquarters building. The matter is still under active consideration and no decision has been taken.


TRANSFER OF EQUIPMENT, T.C.A. TO TRANSAIR
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In arranging for the transfer of the Winnipeg to Calgary run (commonly known as the milk run), from T.C.A. to TransAir Company, what equipment, planes and other equipment, was transferred from T.C.A. to TransAir?
2.	What was the value of this equipment?

3.	How much did TransAir pay to T.C.A. for this equipment?
4.	Did T.C.A. require TransAir to make any commitment with regard to continuing the run before the arrangements were completed and, if so (a) what were these commitments (b) have these commitments been met (c) if not, in what way have they been varied (d) did T.C.A. approve these changes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to this question is to be found in order in council P.C. 1963315 tabled today, to which is appended a copy of the agreement between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir Limited relating to the southern prairie and Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert air services.


FARM CREDIT LOAN APPLICATIONS, MEGANTIC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Langlois: 1.	How many applications for agricultural loans were received from Megantic constituency in 1961 and 1962, and of these how many were approved and what was the total value of those loans?
2.	Since the last amendment to the Farm Credit Act (a) how many loans were approved for the county of Megantic (b) what is the total value of such loans (c) how many applications were received from farmers in that county (d) how many applications were refused (e) how many applications are still pending?


Harry William Hays: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that they do not maintain statistical records on a constituency basis. However, in the municipal county of Megantic and part of Frontenac, which approximately coincides with the constituency of Megantic, the information is as follows:

1. Fiscal Year	Megantic	Frontenac
1961-62		
Applications	0	2Approvals	0	0Total amount	of	loans	Nil	Nil1962-63	Applications	25	19Approvals	11	14Total amount of	loans	$133,000	$149,2002. Since the last	amendment to	the FarmCredit Act there have been:	Megantic'	Frontenac	Total(a) 17	9	26(b) $199,500	$82,100	$281,600(c) 27	17	44(d) 6	8	14(e) *4	0	4
*Four applications received after December, 1963.
Questions
looking into the matter I find that it is an almost impossible task to provide these details. In the first place, refund records in importa-i tions are not segregated according to commodities. Any one refund claim may, for instance, relate to a variety of commodities. To obtain this information would require reviewing all refund claims and related customs entries since July 8 and selecting from each of them the commodities in which the hon. gentleman is interested. This, you will appreciate, would be a formidable task. A further difficulty arises in that these refund claims are first submitted to our customs port offices across the country where they can be rejected or accepted. Many of those rejected in the first instance may reappear if the reason for rejection has been a technical one, such as lack of supporting evidence, et cetera. Even if the detail regarding refund claims on importations were available, it would not give a total picture because of the deductions or credits taken by domestic manufacturers.
^REFUNDS OF TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many applications have been received to date by the Department of National Revenue for refunds of sales tax on purchases of building materials and production machinery covering the period June 13, to July 8, 1963, which sales taxes were paid on the basis of an 11 per cent rate rather than 4 per cent?
2.	How many of these applications have been processed and refunds made?
3.	How many have been turned down?
4.	What is the total amount of such refunds made to date?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition is in four parts and I should like to reply as follows. I would like to point out first that the 11 per cent tax on building materials and production machinery in effect between June 13 and July 8, 1963, was not payable to national revenue until July 31 in respect of sales made from June 14 to June 30, and not payable until August 31 in the case of sales made between July 1 and July 8. Domestic manufacturers and licensed wholesalers, therefore did not need to claim for a refund from the department but made refunds or issued credits on their own initiative or at the request of their customers. These credits are audited by the department in the normal course of operations.
In the case of importations, the 11 per cent tax having been payable at the time of importations, refunds were claimed from the department by the importers for the difference in rate following the July 8 amendment to the resolution.
I should like to be able to provide specific answers to the balance of the question, but on


AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the various categories of officials included in the area development agency of the Department of Industry?
2.	How many of each category?
3.	Is it the intention to set up regional or provincial offices of the area development agency and, if so, how many will be set up and where?
4.	How many personnel will constitute each office and what are their categories?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The present plan of organization for the area development agency of the Department of Industry includes a commissioner, a deputy commissioner, 14 area development officers, five incentives officers, and three planning and programming officers.
2.	See answer to question 1.
3.	Not at present time.
4.	See answer to question 3.


UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION, PICTOU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Industry to direct the efforts of the area development agency to the unemployment situation in the constituency of Pictou?
2.	If not, will the minister take appropriate steps to have officials of the agency visit the area and interview the Pictou county research and development commission and other organizations in the


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes, to the extent that Pictou county is in the New Glasgow national employment service local office area which is one of the 35 designated areas to which the area development agency primarily will be directing its efforts.

Questions
2. The agency will be expected to work with all interested governmental and private groups which can assist in the economic development of the area.


PENITENTIARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUMHELLER, ALTA.
Mr. Woolliams: Has the contract for the building of the minimum security institution (penitentiary) at Drumheller, Alberta been let and, if so (a) who is the appointed architect (b) who will supervise the work (c) have engineers been appointed for the project and who are they (d) on what date will the building commence?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No. (a), (b), (c) and (d)- not applicable.


DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Howard: Since January X, 1962 has any person been disqualified pursuant to the Canada Elections A.ct from voting at any election and, if so, what is, with respect to each such person (a) the name, address and occupation (b) the infraction which resulted in the said disqualification (c) the other penalties, if any, imposed (d) the date upon which the said disqualification came into effect and its duration?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the chief electoral officer:
1.	(a) James Douglas MacFarlane, 1570 Stavebank road, Port Credit, Ontario, editor in chief, (b) Premature publication of purported result of an advance poll contrary to section 106 (1) of the Canada Elections Act.
(c)	Fined $350 or in default of payment, ten days imprisonment, (d) Convicted May 9, 1963. Given to May 23, 1963 to pay the fine. Duration five years from date of conviction.
2.	(a) Aurele Gratton, 82 Maurice, Hull, Quebec, general manager and publisher, (b) Premature publication of purported result of an advance poll contrary to sction 106 (1) of the Canada Elections Act. (c) Fined $100 and costs or in default of payment, ten days in county jail, (d) Judgment dated September 5, 1963. Duration five years from date of conviction.
3.	Gerard Morin, 161 Sherbrooke, Hull, Quebec, reporter, (b) Premature publication of purported result of an advance poll contrary to section 106 (1) of the Canada Elections Act. (c) Fined $100 and costs or in default of payment, ten days in county jail.
(d)	Judgment dated September 5, 1963. Duration five years from date of conviction.


CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO PIERRE GRAVEL OR BERNARD CLOUTIER
Mr. Marcoux: Has the Canada council made a grant to either Pierre Gravel or Bernard Cloutier and, if so (a)

when was each such grant made (b) how much was each such grant, and (c) for what purpose was each such grant made?


Maurice Lamontagne: It is the policy of the Canada council not to reveal the names of those who apply for scholarships, but only of those who obtain scholarships. The names of beneficiaries are published in press releases at the end of each competition and again at the end of each year in the annual report of the Canada council. As the names of Messrs. Bernard Cloutier and Pierre Gravel do not appear in any of the annual reports of the council, it must be concluded that they never received scholarships from that agency.


THOMAS MAHER, NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Loney: 1.	Is Mr. Thomas Maher of Quebec city still chairman of the national gallery and, if not, when was he removed as such?
2.	Is Mr. Thomas Maher, as of the date hereof, a member of the board of trustees?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. No. Mr. Jean Raymond of Montreal was appointed chairman of the board of trustees of the national gallery effective January 10, 1964.
2. Yes.


WITHDRAWAL OF ARMS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have any arms and ammunition recently been withdrawn from any military units in the province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	Has Prince Edward Island or any part thereof been declared a sensitve area by the Department of National Defence and, if so, what reasons prompted such a designation?
Answer: 1. A limited amount of ammunition was withdrawn from one militia unit.
2. No.


*POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ROBERVAL COUNTY
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many post offices were built in Roberval county during the year 1962, and (a) where was each built (b) what was the cost of construction of each?
2.	How many post offices were built in Roberval county during the year 1963, and (a) where was each built (b) what was the cost of construction of each?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the answer is nil to question 1 (a) and (b), as well as to question 2 (a) and (b).


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Lessard (Lake SI.: John):
What are the names, biographies, present occupation and residence of each of the members of the economic council and the duration of their appointment?
Return tabled.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am getting ahead of myself. It is customary at this time to call on the Leader of the Opposition as one of the officers of the house. Orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Danforth rose before you called orders of the day. He wishes to move a motion under standing order 26, and this is the time to do it, unless the Leader of the Opposition has a motion in the same category.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want at this time to move a motion, and I understand that this is the appropriate place to do it. I might say that a similar motion is being moved at this time in the Ontario legislature by my provincial colleague, Stephen Lewis.
I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster, the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the critical shortage of hospital beds and hospital accommodation in metropolitan Toronto.
This is a matter of national significance, Mr. Speaker, and I would appreciate being heard on the question of urgency. You were good enough to indicate that one of the tests for a motion of this type is that it be of national significance. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this serious and critical situation in metropolitan Toronto is a matter that affects every member of the house.
The reason I say this is that because of the degree of specialization in the metro hospitals, patients are treated from every part of Canada and from every part of North America. Therefore any critical shortage in staff or facilities of the Toronto hospitals vitally affects the constituencies of members of this house and the people in them.
Hospital Bed Shortage
As far as urgency is concerned, about which I suggest there can be absolutely no question, at the present time doctors and hospitals in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto are being forced to turn away people who urgently need treatment. People with cancer or any other disease of that type have to wait as much as six months for a bed. Not very long ago because a young child could not get into one hospital, the child died in the middle of Bloor street viaduct while in transit to another hospital. At any given time there are over 7,000 people waiting for operations of one kind or another. So the matter of urgency and criticalness of debate seems to be without question.
The other test is whether an opportunity will be available to debate this question at some other time. I suggest there is no such other opportunity. The throne speech debate is no longer before us; the government has forecast a series of legislative measures which will keep us tied up for the next two or three weeks, so there does not seem to me to be an opportunity to debate this topic. We have tried to raise the matter on orders of the day. We have tried to raise it on the order paper. Delegations have visited the minister. I am sure representations have come from Toronto members on the government side, either privately or in caucus, but we are still getting the same old brush-off.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of critical national importance. It affects not only the community from which I come but the people in all constituencies right across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: I am called upon to decide whether the motion to adjourn the house should be granted under standing order 26. Generally speaking the rules are, of course, that the subject should be national in scope and of urgent necessity for consideration, and that the opportunity for debate is not just around the corner. In the present case I ask the question, is the matter of a shortage of hospital beds and hospital accommodation generally speaking a federal matter?
Adjournment under standing order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the federal government. Looking at the request quickly, from a procedural point of view I would say that what is contemplated by standing order 26 is an occurrence of a very sudden emergency. If hon. members refer to citation 100 (8) of Beauchesne they will see that this general matter has been discussed many, many years ago. May I also add that the adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts

Inquiries of the Ministry of the country. My authority for this is citation 100 (5) of Beauchesne.
Therefore with the greatest regret I am unable, as I see it, to accept the request of the hon. member for Danforth.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada yet given an answer to the secretary general of the United Nations regarding the provision of a force for Cyprus? If so, what is the answer? If there has been no determination made yet, is the reason for the delay the prohibitive cost that would have to be borne by the various nations making contributions? Is the fact that the United Nations itself is not going to pay for any portion of the peace keeping machinery, and that the rule has been established that each nation making a contribution to the force will have to pay the cost itself, not something that will weaken the United Nations in its peace keeping operations and, indeed, will place the United Nations in the position of being subject to the veto of every nation which refuses to contribute?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, in answer to this question I would say that the arrangements for the necessary financing of the peace keeping operation are not in the present circumstances an obstacle to action on our part. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that this peace keeping operation would be more truly in keeping with the United Nations if the financing of the operation were borne by the United Nations itself. However, the financial situation of the United Nations is such that the financing of this peace keeping operation is not possible, just as it was not possible in the case of the establishment of the observation mission in the Yemen.
The situation with regard to the proposed establishment of an international force continues to be the subject of intensive consultations among Canada, the secretary general and the proposed participants. The fact that the emergency in Cyprus primarily involves two communities, makes it essential that any outside forces which may be committed as part of the United Nations peace keeping force should have a very clear idea of their powers and responsibilities, as well as a full assurance of the co-operation of the two communities.

It is for this reason that each country which has been approached for a force contribution has sought clarification of a number of fundamental points concerning the role of the force in these difficult circumstances. These points are being discussed at this very moment at the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has stated that financial considerations are not the reason. Will he tell the house what the other considerations are? What are the interpretations as to power and responsibilities? They seem to be very clearly set out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In response I would say they are not clearly set out. The resolution of the security council is in very general terms, and the powers given to the secretary general are likewise in very general terms. These are now being discussed with the proposed participants. One of the countries invited has definitely refused to participate. Two of the other countries, that does not include Canada, have laid down important financial considerations. The terms of reference of the force have not yet been established, and there are other factors requiring clarification to make the force an effective body in preserving the peace in an area where peace is now being preserved by 7,000 British troops, the total number that would be encompassed by the proposed international force.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister stated as part of Canada's observations in this connection, that under no circumstances will Canada's force be in Cyprus for a longer period than a matter of months?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the resolution itself provides for a limitation of three months. I suspect, of course, that in the light of events, this would be open to review, but a limited period of three months is provided in the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: That still does not
answer the question. Did Canada agree to supply troops for a lesser period than three months? Was that discussed?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That was never discussed at any time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to give Canada a distinctive national flag before dispatching Canadian troops to Cyprus in order to avoid

incidents which occurred in 1956 during the Suez crisis, when Canadian troops were mistaken for those of a foreign country?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I do not believe there will be any difficulty in recognizing a Canadian contingent if one is sent under United Nations auspices to Cyprus.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. During his recent visit to Paris did the Prime Minister discuss with President de Gaulle the possibility of the establishment by the French government, or the acquiesence of the French government in the establishment, of a high powered radio station on St. Pierre or Miquelon, off the coast of Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not discuss that matter or any matter related to it.


Stuart A. Fleming: As a
supplementary question, has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the articles on the subject which appeared in Le Monde of February 13 and in Le Figaro of February 16, as well as the debates in the French senate on November 25 last, especially with reference to remarks attributed to the minister of cultural affairs of the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to any such reports, but I shall be glad to look into the reports mentioned by my hon. friend.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the Minister without Portfolio speaking in Renfrew when he attacked the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for, to use his own words, "featuring talks by a small band of separatists and extremists"? I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the Minister without Portfolio was speaking for the government on this occasion. Second, is the Prime Minister prepared to assure the house that he as Prime Minister will protect the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation against
Inquiries of the Ministry critics who seem to forget that its function is to be a public forum for free discussion and for the free expression of views, even those with which we may not necessarily agree?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the press report. I have not had an opportunity yet to discuss with my colleague what he actually said. I propose to do that as soon as possible, and I can give my hon. friend the assurance that this government will be glad and privileged to protect the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in all its legitimate activities.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister seemingly believes in cabinet solidarity, can he inform the house whether he intends to take any action with regard to the statements of purported policy made by the minister?


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State?
In view of the recent wailings of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) who claimed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was giving on its network too much publicity to persons of secondary importance, could the Secretary of State tell us if steps are being taken so that the C.B.C. will allow the Minister without Portfolio broadcasting time in keeping with his personality?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to have my hon. friend invited.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, and is further to my question of February 25 last. I wish to ask him whether the board of broadcast governors are prepared to hold a public hearing in Toronto prior to station CJBC being converted into a French station.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say I do not yet have the answer to that question.

Inquiries of the Ministry



PROGRAM &quot;INQUIRY&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. The Montreal Gazette on Saturday quoted Hon. Rene Levesque as saying that his debate with Douglas Fisher, M.P., would be subject to "supervision" by Mr. Fisher and himself. The debate is being broadcast by the C.B.C. tonight. Does this mean the C.B.C. is permitting the participants to edit their program?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question. I understood that this was to be a special program this evening in the series called "Inquiry".



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. According to this morning's Le Devoir, Her Majesty is going to wait for advice from Ottawa before undertaking her trip in the province of Quebec. Is the government in receipt of a request from the Queen asking for advice on that matter? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the Queen of Canada receives her constitutional advice from the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I am entirely in agreement with what the Prime Minister said in answer to the question as to the constitutional position of the Queen. There is no mistake about that. I would, however, like to ask him this question. In his position as the Queen's Prime Minister in Canada, was an invitation extended to Her Majesty to visit both Prince Edward Island and Quebec? If so, when was that invitation extended by the Prime Minister in his position as constitutional adviser and was it accepted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it has already been announced in the house. I am not familiar at the moment with what day it was, but it has been announced in the house, I believe, that the invitation was extended. I will look that up and confirm it. I am sure that the announcement has been made in the appropriate way.
[Mr. Lamontagne.)


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to table the correspondence exchanged between the premiers of the two provinces involved, with regard to the visit of the Queen of Canada to the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. I am not sure whether there was any correspondence. The matter was brought up at the dominion-provincial conference, and the two provincial premiers gave their approval to the invitation in question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sf. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Minister of Labour, I will put my question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the house what is on the agenda or what matters are being discussed at the federal-provincial conference on labour now in progress? Can he also tell us what stand the federal government is taking with regard to provincial and civil rights in that field?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these discussions are taking place at the moment, and it would be quite improper for me to comment on discussions with the provinces which are going on now.



YUKON-STEPS TO MEET EXPECTED UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram from the Whitehorse chamber of commerce referring to the critical unemployment situation which is shaping up in the Yukon as a result of the withdrawal of army personnel, and referring specifically to the construction of the Whitehorse terminal building to proceed this summer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall having received any such telegram, but I will look into the matter at once.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister made any inquiries why the multicultural community of Kootenay West was declared a sensitive area? Is he going to have this nonsense stopped among such peace loving people?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the preamble, I can now inform the hon. member that no seizures actually took place. The commanding officer of the 24th field regiment R.C.A. in Trail did, during the first week of February, arrange with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the bolts from all rifles and the .22 ammunition to be stored in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police vault. As the hon. member knows, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police station is situated in close proximity to the field regiment armoury and is under 24 hour guard. Both the bolts and the ammunition are readily available to the militia when required for training.
I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that the outraged electors of the hon. member do not keep him very well informed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the minister aware of the telegrams he has received from the outraged electors of Kootenay West and particularly from Trail?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not received any to my knowledge.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent announcement to the effect that the government intends to spend $300,000 more in order to boost immigration from Great Britain, could the government inform the house whether it proposes to spend as much in other countries so as to urge other nationals than Englishmen to come and settle in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was an answer given to a question a few moments ago which dealt in part with this matter, I believe, and when the appropriate opportunity is presented during the
Inquiries of the Ministry discussion of the estimates, I am sure there will be opportunity to discuss the whole matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the incitement throughout Canada to breaches of the peace caused by the hate propaganda of a 19-year old metropolitan Toronto youth, according to the Toronto Telegram of March 6 last, will the minister consider calling a conference with the attorneys general of the provinces to consider what immediate steps should be taken to stop his activities and those of others like him?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: May I first answer this question by saying that this question of hate literature is under very active and serious consideration both by me and my departmental officers. I should like to add that tomorrow I have a meeting with representatives of some of the Canadian ethnic groups, and on Thursday I have a meeting with representatives of the Canadian Jewish congress. I think I will be in a better position to advise on the matter after that.



JOHN WASYLENCHUK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice concerning Mr. John Wasylenchuk of Burnaby, B.C. who, hon. members will recall, was turned over to United States authorities last December in a manner which I contended at that time was illegal. The minister's predecessor, on both December 19 and December 20 last, promised that he would give consideration to supplying this man with legal counsel and making it possible for witnesses to attend the trial when this man was tried at Seattle. I want to ask the minister now whether any arrangements have been made to supply the necessary legal counsel, and to make arrangements for the transportation of witnesses.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, so far as the question of appointing legal counsel is concerned, this matter has now been settled because in fact the court at Seattle has appointed experienced counsel to defend Wasylenchuk. Hon. Mr. Chevrier undertook to afford defence counsel certain assistance by way of making certain inquiries,

Inquiries of the Ministry and this is being done. No arrangements have been made with respect to financial assistance for the calling of witnesses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that all the United States court has supplied is a free legal aid counsel, and not the man's own counsel in Vancouver, will the government reconsider this matter and make his own counsel available? I would also like to ask the minister whether Sergeant Nuttal, formerly of the R.C.M.P., will be taken to Seattle, since he is the only witness who claims Wasylenchuk was with him in Burnaby at the time the bank robbery and murder were committed in Seattle.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the supplementary question as notice. I shall inquire further and give an answer as early as I can.



BRANTFORD, ONT.-REPORTED THEFT OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Justice. Can either of them confirm or deny that a raid took place at a store in Brantford early this morning, when a supply of arms and ammunition was taken? If so, have they had time to do anything about it?


Guy Favreau: I am not in a position to give any information to the house on this report, because I have not yet seen it.



SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD SUGGESTED NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO FIRST PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. Has the Prime Minister received a letter from Mr. Alexander Malcolmson proposing projects for honouring the sesquicentennial of the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald? Will he indicate the government's plan for this historic anniversary, with particular reference to the suggestion that Earnscliffe be acquired and established as a permanent national memorial to our first prime minister?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have received a letter from the gentleman in question concerning this matter of honouring Sir John A. Macdonald in this way. The whole question is now under consideration, and meanwhile the centennial commissioner, Mr. John


Fisher, has already been in touch with Mr. Malcolmson by correspondence.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The former minister, in a speech at Winnipeg last year, said that an Indian claims commission would be established. Is it the intention of the present minister to carry out this commitment? If so, can he inform the house when we may expect some action?


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. In view of the assurances we have been given that the legislation respecting the Canada pension plan would be dealt with soon, can we be given assurance that the announcement of the presentation of the budget will not interfere with the early introduction of the pension legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We still have every hope of beginning consideration at least on this very important Canada pension plan legislation before the Easter recess.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: In view of the mounting criticism of the location in Cornwall of the women's penitentiary to serve all Canada, will the Minister of Justice say whether the government will reconsider this decision?


Guy Favreau: I believe I answered a question on this matter a few days ago. I must say, however, that in view of the various questions raised by hon. members in this house I am having

the file brought before me and will be reviewing the file. I will not be in a position to answer too soon.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Slralhcona):: Will the minister of northern affairs say whether it is true that the government has recently called for tenders for the supply of approximately 140 houses for Eskimos to be delivered at Waterways?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member not think-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The urgency for asking this question now rather than putting it on the order paper relates to the importance of the delivery at Waterways. This means that the material will certainly be carried by government transport, which is very expensive, and private industry will not have a chance to carry it. I think we can save the government a little on this deal if we can point out the error of their ways.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose the minister is taking the question as notice.



CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD FROM YUKON TO ARCTIC COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. On Wednesday last I asked the hon. gentleman if he would make a full statement to the house with respect to the government's development road policy, particularly with regard to the 400 mile road to be constructed in the Yukon through to the Arctic coast. At that time the hon. gentleman said he would take the question as notice, and I am wondering if he is now in a position to give an answer.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am certain the hon. gentleman will agree that transportation in the general area he has in mind is a multi-pronged affair involving better facilities for transportation by water on the Mackenzie and improved transportation by air, through the development of landing fields, as well as by road. I am sure, too, the hon. member is aware that the present road goes to a point just below the Arctic circle; to Chapman lake, I think. Surveys have been made in the area in accordance with the policy established by the previous government, which we hope
Inquiries of the Ministry we can realize, with a view to getting a road substantially to the Arctic by 1970, which was the target date.
Three different suggestions have been made. The first is the extension of the present road beyond Chapman. Another is that the route should follow the Mackenzie river. The third is that it should run in the direction of McKay lake. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon, and particularly the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, will appreciate that the prospect of a highway right through to the Arctic is an ambition likely to fall short of realization in the face of the difficulties presented by the fantastic delta of the Mackenzie river. Nevertheless, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government is working in this direction, and we hope to develop properties, mineral claims and oil discoveries, as we go along. This too will help determine the particular direction in which a move will be made.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
As a result of the international racket of plane tickets, can the minister tell us whether himself or his department has been invited to join in an investigation carried by the members of the International Air Transport Association?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I had better make inquiries before answering the question.



INQUIRY AS TO EASTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulty that those of us who live a considerable distance from Ottawa have in making travel arrangements, particularly over holiday periods, could the Prime Minister indicate to the house what day or days the government proposes that the house should not sit during the Easter period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of hon. members in this matter, but I wonder if I could reply to my hon. friend and other hon. members on Wednesday, when our Easter recess program will have been decided.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. During a week-end trip to Saskatoon I noticed many grain cars standing empty at shipping points near that city. Can the minister advise the house why these cars are not being filled with wheat and moved forward to seaboard for overseas shipments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to inform the hon. gentleman. I shall make inquiries, and if it is an important matter I shall give an answer.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can he say whether consideration is being given to amending legislation covering the control of sporting firearms and ammunition?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, neither my department nor, so far as I am aware, any other department has given any consideration to imposing limitations which will restrict the right of any citizen in a lawful manner to own or use firearms for such purposes as hunting and recreation, subject to two minor exceptions.
These are that in connection with a study now being made of the firearms sections in my department, consideration is being given, in the ordinary way, to suggestions that the age limits relating to the possession of firearms by juveniles be raised, and that a registrar should, in certain cases, be authorized to refuse registration of a pistol or a revolver, thus making continued possession illegal on the part of the applicant. No conclusions have yet been reached as to whether any such amendments should be proposed.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: A question addressed to me by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception on Friday was taken as notice by my colleague the Acting Minister of Fisheries, the Solicitor General. In reply, I am sorry to have to confirm the

report to the effect that one sealer, Mr. Conrad Longuepe, drowned while hunting seals on drifting ice off the Magdalen islands on Saturday last. May I be allowed to offer condolences to members of his family.
With reference to helicopters or other planes, we have definite reports of serious damage to and, in some cases, complete loss of a number of aircraft. I am advised that Department of Transport and Royal Canadian Air Force representatives are now on the Magdalen islands in order that proper action may be taken to control the movement of planes and helicopters used in the present seal hunt.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Ont.):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that at the present time active consideration is being given in the United States to ways and means of curbing imports of cattle, hogs and other meat products into that country, can the minister inform the house whether he is fully aware of these developments, and whether his department is developing any policy or taking any steps at all to safeguard Canadian interests in this important regard?


Harry William Hays: Yes, I am very familiar with the meat situation in the United States. We are watching it very closely. We are thankful that the price of cattle in Canada is about 3 cents higher than it is in the United States. We are also pleased that consumption is up 18 per cent on top grades compared with last June. Otherwise we would be in a great deal of difficulty.


Harold Warren Danforth: Would the minister indicate whether his department is taking any steps at all to see that our interests in marketing in the United States, when the price does go down in this country, are being safeguarded?


Harry William Hays: Yes, all departments are watching this very closely.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Is Canada a party to the agreement which the United States has made with New Zealand and Australia respecting the import of beef, frozen beef particularly, to North America?


Harry William Hays: Canada can still move live cattle across to the United States. The movement of our exports to the United States as far as beef is concerned has always been on the hoof.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Since he stated during the week end that the Canadian constitution no longer meets our present requirements and it should be amended, would he tell the house what amendments should be made in his opinion?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think this is the proper time at which to enter upon a debate on such an important and interesting subject.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES DIXON-SPEAS REPORT    REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the requests which some of us are receiving for copies of the abridged version of the Dixon-Speas report-I am referring to requests from people who were part of the Manitoba delegations which came down here-would the minister find ways of making available more copies than the one he tabled last Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will try to do that. The supply of copies is limited, but I will see what can be done.



ALLEGED DUMPING OF COD FILLETS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries on a matter which is of immediate importance to British Columbia. I should like to ask him what action he has taken to deal with the present situation in which fishing companies in the United States south of British Columbia are now exporting cod fillets on a dumping basis into British Columbia, at prices which cannot be met by our own Canadian fishermen?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is a matter which, I think, pertains to another department.
Columbia River Treaty POWER



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 6, 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.
John George Diefenbaker: There remains but little to be dealt with after the debate which has gone on, as it has, for several days. I would point out that, though we are engaged in a debate on a resolution that the treaty under consideration be referred to the standing committee on external affairs, the committee in question has, as yet, not been set up or constituted in any way.
I am sure the house listened with great interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin, Essex East) as he reviewed the situation connected with this treaty-how, at his very best, in mellifluous words, he paid tribute to the Conservative party as the government of the day which brought this treaty about. Indeed, if I may say so, Orpheus, with all his legendary powers, with all his ability to charm the birds off the trees by the sweetness of his remarks, would surely have paid a tribute in that connection to the Secretary of State for External Affairs had he been able to look down from above.
He gave us a great deal of credit. The treaty which we executed received the imprimatur of his approval. Indeed it was difficult to understand why there had been the criticism of past days, after the eulogy that was delivered on the former government and its actions in this connection. Following his course, I intend to refer to the signing of the treaty and also to some statements made at that time by the representatives for Canada, which should be on the record.
As was said over and over again, the treaty was signed on January 17, 1961. At that time I said it represented a major advance in co-operation by the two nations without the sacrifice of the rights, the sovereignty or otherwise of either country, and was indeed a landmark in responsible joint action by nations for their economic betterment. I would point out immediately that when we signed

Columbia River Treaty the treaty there had never been any indication that Premier Bennett of British Columbia was not in agreement with its terms. It was only after signature had been given to the treaty that he, for the first time, raised certain objections in that connection. I recall that on September 16, 1961, some months thereafter, he said-and I quote-that Ottawa was ready to sacrifice British Columbia. From the beginning he wanted the downstream power sold in the United States. He wanted that for his own purposes, although at no time while the negotiations were going on was there any question whatsoever of the unacceptability of that treaty to the province of British Columbia.
You have heard, sir, from various hon. members from British Columbia. You have heard from the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton), and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby). Each and all have set out, not only their own views but also those of the people they represent. It comes as a great surprise to me that the members of the government should today be so eulogistic of the treaty which only a few short months ago represented, they said, a loss of Canadian sovereignty. I intend to refer to some of those statements and to point out the fact that either they were sincere during two election campaigns, and are not today; or they are today, and they were not then. They had spokesmen on this matter. There was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis). He is an expert-


An hon. Member:: On what?


John George Diefenbaker: -on the question of power; an outstanding young man. But it is hard to understand how one so expert could have been so wrong in 1961 when he entered the field of journalism through articles written in the Vancouver Sun. I intend to refer at some length to his remarks in that connection, because the other day as I listened to him I could only conclude that, with all his expertness, he found almost insurmountable difficulty in explaining the unexplainable position which he now takes as compared with the stand he took in 1961. A moment ago I said that at the time the treaty was signed a statement was made at the signing ceremony in Washington. In that statement I said this:
This is the first time that anywhere in the world an arrangement has been made between governments by which the operation of large water storages in one country produces vast benefits in another which are shared by both countries. The program envisaged under the treaty is based on skilled engineering and resourceful collaboration. The negotiating teams, under Mr. Elmer Bennett for the United States and Hon. E. D. Fulton for

Canada, have secured agreement on difficult and complex problems in a comparatively short time. Their task was performed with patience and in a spirit of compromise but without sacrifice or impairment of the independence and sovereignty of their respective countries.
Now, sir, those were our views then. They are our views now. I find it difficult to understand, however, the change of attitude on the part of those who sit opposite. I was greatly impressed, as I always am, by the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has the power of analysis and the embroidery of beautiful words. He performed his task with his accustomed finesse. However, I was surprised at the degree of commendation that we in the opposition, the former government of the day, rather belatedly received at his hands on behalf of the government. Indeed, as I listened to his speech and read it afterwards I could only conclude that after the vilification of two election campaigns we now have the vindication of the government of today in the course which we followed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That has not been unusual since the present government came into office. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the rewards of public life. As one who is dean of the House of Commons, he spoke with authority. He pointed out that this treaty was one that would be looked back on in the years ahead with his approval and the approval of the government. No greater tribute has ever been paid to the former government than was contained in the words he used. Sir, I pointed out a moment ago that it was not always so. Changes have taken place. A few short months ago they referred to the treaty as a deception. They referred to us as though we had obtained it under false pretences. They indicated their view that it was not a legitimate treaty which protected Canada's rights. Never was illegitimacy so briskly legitimized by any subsequent government as has taken place here.
A year and a half ago this treaty baby was unwanted, and now those who sit opposite, having put certain little declarations in the protocol, now claim the unwanted foundling as of their own paternity, and welcome it with great rejoicing. They touched it up a little-and I am going to refer to the touching up operation, because that is all it was. Then they decided that they would allow for the sale of the downstream benefits in the United States, and I shall deal with that during the course of my remarks.
Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when they said that General McNaughton was right; that General McNaughton's criticisms, which were made months after the treaty was executed,

were well based? Now what do they say of General McNaughton? I recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), when he was on this side, wanting to adjourn the house a year ago because General McNaughton had said that the treaty had sold Canada down the river. What do they say of him today? Someone has said that he is a nice old fellow who does not know what he is talking about. A year or a year and a half ago the Liberal opposition were undertaking to bring about a new treaty which would embody the McNaughton views. Sir, never has there been so great a transition in the thinking of a political party as that which has been revealed by those who today sit on the treasury benches. They all had different views a year or so ago, but that is not unusual. This is a cabinet of dissenting views. We have had an example here today, where one minister expressed himself in the house. Instead of it being the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), a man learned in the law, it was the minister of defence. He made a speech over the week end in which he decided on the amendment of the constitution. He said that something had to be done, that it had to be reshaped, revised and rewritten. He was not talking about raids on this occasion; this provided a welcome relief from his own department.
Then what about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Another minister, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis), made a speech in which he said that the C.B.C. should mend its ways and stop helping separatism. When the question is asked today whether he is speaking for the government, the answer is certainly one of uncertainty. Then the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) goes to Winnipeg and says:
Sauve: Ce n'est pas par une legislation que nous sauverons l'unite du pays.
Then he proceeded to give his views. What a conglomeration of uncertainty sits opposite, with ministers speaking everywhere in a cacophony of voices and ideas.
But this is not new. This is what happened in connection with the treaty which we entered into with the United States when the election campaigns were on. It was said that Canada's rights were not protected. It was said that we had lost the right to divert the water from the Kootenay. It was said that the precedent had been set and created for other waters beside those of the Columbia covered by the agreement. And so it went on.
I now intend to refer first to the protocol and then to the various criticisms which were made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I point out immediately that the Columbia treaty was part and parcel of a policy which the former government wanted for national development. This was one of the great objectives of the
Columbia River Treaty former administration. For years the Columbia had been a football. For years its development had been considered, but it was not until we took office and until 1961 that an agreement was secured. We wanted to bring about in this nation a national grid whereby our electric power would be made available to other parts of the country. To that end we convened a conference to start preparations in consultation with the provinces. Today wherever developments are taking place, including the Peace river power project, we will have available the necessary power for such a grid if and when all the provinces will agree, as they did at that meeting, with the exception of the province of Quebec. We want to see power developed in all parts of Canada. We want to export wherever there is a surplus of power which has been certified by the national energy board. Indeed, we made provision for export of excess power in 1962 and changed the policy that existed in our country for a period of more than 50 years. We want to see power development in every part of Canada. We want to see the great resources of the Yukon river developed as a project for our country. We want to see the Nelson river harnessed. Only on Friday last in the legislature of Manitoba there was tabled a report which set out the tremendous potentialities that are to be found there. These were all part and parcel of our plans and ideas.
One of the developments which has been spoken of as a potentially great one is that of the Hamilton falls project in the province of Quebec. Within the last week or so doubts have been cast as to whether power produced by hydro can meet the competition of power produced by atomic energy. I read in the Vancouver Sun, which I am sure the parliamentary secretary will regard as an appropriate newspaper from which to quote, for he has become one of its correspondents, that-
*-Eastern Canada's biggest hydroelectric project is now in jeopardy because of competition from nuclear power.
Then the article goes on to refer to the $1 billion Hamilton falls project which would supply vast quantities of Labrador's hydroelectric power to Newfoundland, Quebec and New York state. Then it says:
The American market is crucial to the scheme's success. And now Westinghouse says it can supply New York with nuclear power for six mills, two mills less than the estimated cost of power from Labrador.
Since the Westinghouse offer was received, New York power officials have delayed signing the Labrador agreement.
In other words, action to assure these developments should be proceeded with at the earliest possible date.

Columbia River Treaty
What were the changes in the treaty, Mr. Speaker? There were no changes in the treaty. Had there been any substantial change this would not be a protocol to the treaty which is now placed before us, but the treaty would have had to be given once more consideration by the United States senate.
I am going to refer to the changes, though they are of little importance, of little consequence. They do not alter the purport and the objective of the treaty. My friends of the N.D.P. say it would be impossible to take any of the waters of the Kootenay in the years ahead, should we on the Saskatchewan river or elsewhere require them. I do not so interpret the treaty. I do not so interpret the expression "consumptive uses", an expression which, had it not been interpreted in the press release that was issued by the Department of External Affairs, would have left no doubt that it included the use of power. However, an interpretation has been given to it by the government of Canada and that interpretation in the years ahead will certainly be used adversely against us.
They say that we sacrificed Canadian sovereignty. This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the government of which I had the honour to be the head was ever charged with bending to the demands of the United States government. We protected Canada's sovereignty. That was the essence of the arguments that were used against us, that we were anti-American when in fact we were proCanadian.
We want to preserve our Canadian waters. We started this in the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project in the province of Saskatchewan. We must take action in this connection. We must assure that the profligate use of Canada's waters, which 20 or 30 years ago appeared to be beyond waste, ceases, and that these waters are preserved for future generations. We are rich in many resources, but I believe our greatest asset is our water resource. As I said a moment ago, we have been profligate in its use. Conservation of water is a necessity for Canadian growth. Water tables are diminishing. We can already see the day when our water resources will have been reduced to a point where they will not meet Canadian needs of the future. The United States already sees itself as an importer of water from Canada. Last year a United States senator stated that the day was not far distant when it would be necessary to import water from Canada.
I interpolate at this point to say that Canadians today need to know about these resources. A dominion-provincial survey should be made of our waters to the end that, in co-operation with the provinces, we will arrive at plans that will assure that these

water resources shall be available for future generations. In the province of Saskatchewan action has been taken in this connection by a bill now before the legislature of Saskatchewan entitled "the water resources bill". However, we need more than that. We need action taken nationally, so that these waters will be preserved in their purity and so that waste shall be prevented under law. As part of our national plan of development we brought into effect legislation to encourage anti-pollution measures.
I said a moment ago that the Columbia was one of the plans we had in mind in respect of the development of this nation. What happened? As soon as we had the signatures of the United States and Canada affixed to the treaty Premier Bennett stepped in. He did not want to have 50 per cent of the downstream benefits brought back to Canada. We felt that they should be brought back, in that they would provide British Columbia with low cost power, or lower cost power than would otherwise have been the case. Now they are being sold. It is not for me to condemn the decision in that connection. The people of British Columbia had an election and they determined that was what they wanted done. They wanted the downstream benefits sold in the United States. That does not alter our view that a mistake has been made, but it also bears out that what is being done today under the protocol carries out not only the views of Premier Bennett and his government but also the views of the people of the province of British Columbia, as expressed in an election campaign.
What is this? A treaty? I say it is a series of explanatory notes. These are cascades of words indicating that changes have been made and improvements brought about whereas in general, with the exception of the downstream benefits, there is little or no change. Let me read the summary which appears on page 4 of the press release issued by the Department of External Affairs on January 22 last.
Among improvements through the protocol to the treaty are:
(a)	New procedures for Canadian participation in determining the need for any flood control requested by the United States...
(b)	Reaffirmation in positive terms of Canada's right to make any diversions of Columbia basin water required for consumptive needs such as irrigation and municipal uses.
You do not need interpretation of what is clear. This is simply stating that what was decided, was decided.
(c)	Clarification of Canada's right to continue in perpetuity any diversions of Kootenay river water-
That required no clarification, except that the Liberal party felt that there was something wrong here, and I will deal with that at some length.

(d)	Confirmation of Canadian control over the detailed operation of the Canadian treaty storage for power purposes.
What was confirmed? What was confirmed was what appeared in the treaty. It does not need confirmation, but for the purpose of pretending that vast changes had been made these words were inserted in the press release.
(e)	An increase in Canada's downstream energy benefits by 14 to 18 per cent by using a longer period of streamflow in benefit calculations.
(f)	A clear statement that the treaty does not establish any principle or precedent that applies to any waters other than those of the Columbia river basin-
Who said it did? It was those people sitting over there who said it. No confirmation or clarification was needed. The treaty said that it was made with reference to the Columbia. It did not say that this would be a precedent from now on, but they had to put that statement in there and in the protocol to give the pretence that they were making a change. Then the press release goes on to say:
The total effect of the improvements through the protocol is to establish a better balance between essentially Canadian interests and the interests of the Columbia river basin as a whole.
What does that mumbo-jumbo mean? It is simply words. They know that the treaty was not changed in any particular to such an extent as to require reconsideration by the United States senate.
Then, having criticized this treaty with all the abandon of the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis), joined in by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), they had to produce something. They produced the protocol, which is nothing more nor less than an explanation of that which required no explanation, plus the two changes to which I have made reference.
Let me read part of the protocol. Here is something classic, and it ends up this way:
Canada and the United States of America are in agreement that article XIII, subsection 1 of the treaty provides to each of them a right to divert water for a consumptive use.
Why wouldn't they be in agreement; that is what is provided?
Then, another part of the protocol reads as follows:
Any diversion of water from the Kootenay river when once instituted under the provisions of article XIII of the treaty is not subject to any limitation as to time.
It never was. However, this was uttered in such stentorian tones for the purpose of indicating the vast changes that have taken place. There are pages of stuff like that, and it finally ends up by saying this:
Columbia River Treaty
Canada and the United States of America are in agreement that the treaty does not establish any general principle or precedent applicable to waters, other than those of the Columbia basin-
Who said it did? These people sitting over there, in order to pretend that they were bringing about tremendous changes, had their interpretation of what the treaty said placed in the protocol. It has been a wonderful exercise in pretence. They had to do something like this. They said the treaty was wrong. They said we sold out Canada. They said we did not protect the interests of our nation. Well, having said that, there was nothing that they could do but produce the protocol to bolster up their pretence.
I intend now to refer in general to some of the things that were stated by those who today sit opposite. It has been very interesting. It is most revealing. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and those associated with him have taken a stand which, whether I agree with it or not, represents consistency. They took a stand, an understandable one from their point of view. But what of these people who sit opposite today and who wrap themselves in the garments of treaty-making perfection? What of them; what did they say? There has been a complete disregard in that protocol, and in the support they give the treaty today, of the pledged word of the Prime Minister. He said there would be renegotiation of the treaty. There has not been any renegotiation of the treaty. I will refer to the definition of renegotiation as it came from the lips of one who speaks with that authority that lies only with the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. It was he who led the Prime Minister along the garden path.
It was beneficial to take the stand that we had sold out Canada. This stand got them votes in British Columbia. Now they beat a retreat from the stand that they took, and in beating that retreat they put up a smoke screen in the form of a protocol. They say, see what great changes we have wrought in our name. This is just an example of the unctuous way in which they speak of this treaty, of the cynical manner in which they have broken their promises. They pretend now that changes were made. I know it is a dangerous thing to disagree with an expert, but when the expert enters the field of writing and writes down in detail his views, then has to swallow them afterwards, this certainly become a difficult task in political digestion. This is what his position is. Let me read from what he wrote. I ask the house to realize that I do not want to read excerpts from the statement because this would not give a true picture. However, I do not want to clutter the record with all that he said. If

Columbia River Treaty at any time the hon. member wants to rise and suggest to me that I have left out anything that is beneficial to him, I shall certainly include it.
I should like to refer to an article entitled "Present Columbia River Treaty Ties Canada's Hands", written by the Liberal member of parliament for Coast-Capilano. There is a reference to his qualifications, and they are great. He headed the Liberal party's committee on power and energy during the last parliament, and he also headed the Prime Minister along the road that caused him to say the treaty into which we had entered was detrimental to Canada. Let us read a few excerpts from this article as an indication of the author's attitude. There are five principal points, and this is No. 1:
The present Columbia river treaty is not good enough. It amounts to a sell-out of our Canadian resources.
If it did, does the protocol not do the same when it approves of the treaty? Then, the article goes on:
This embarrassing treaty must therefore be renegotiated-renegotiated in such a way as to make low cost power available to us as consumers in British Columbia.
In what way does the low cost power become available through renegotiation? What does he mean by "renegotiation"? I will define what he means by "renegotiation". The hon. member refers to the framework of a new treaty, and a little later in the article says that a new treaty, phrased in terms of principle should come first. Apparently what was meant by "renegotiation", was a new treaty. This is what he said.
Let me read some of the statements in this article:
We must act quickly to make a new agreement with the Americans on the Columbia, an agreement which would be more flexible, which would permit an early start on agreed projects and a delay of the more controversial ones.
Is there anything in the protocol that delays the more controversial ones? Is there anything in the protocol that bears out those words concerning what was going to take place? I have looked. He said that both countries could benefit under the new terms. Where are the new terms?
I quote:
The United States, which seeks flood control plus improved power development, could get early, major benefits by an altered schedule of works on the Canadian side.
Where is that change that he said was necessary if Canada's hands were not to be tied?
Under such new terms, the Mica dam would be the best project with which to begin.
That is what he said. Are we going to start on the Mica project? I would be glad to hear.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.j
Let me go on from there. I am reading everything because I do not want any portion of these words to be lost for posterity. He says:
Apart from the economic benefits such a priority offers us, Mica is also without political handicaps.
This is the first time I have ever heard of a dam that had political handicaps, but this is one dam that has. He believed that if B.C. was worth a dam it was worth a good one. That was the attitude taken. I now want to read these words:
It would appear to be completely acceptable in Washington, Ottawa and Victoria. As to the present Columbia treaty, there can be no doubt that it ties Canada's hands.
Just picture Canada's hands tied. But now we are going to approve of the treaty because the Liberal government says it is a good treaty, even though the hands are tied just as they were. It was nonsense when he said that, and, he must have known it.
Then he said:
It would flood thousands of acres of Canadian territory and it could prevent Canada from diverting the upper Kootenay into the Columbia and the Columbia into the Fraser river systems. A good deal of scenery would be ruined and Canada might be obliged to hold back flood waters which would otherwise destroy property and endanger lives in the United States.
Aren't we going to do that now? At that time they were arguing about how much the potential flood damage would be, but that is the same situation now under the protocol.
He was going to save this nation from the awful mistakes made by the Conservative government. How he saved it was to carry out the treaty and make some declarations in a protocol, which is one of explanation, in addition of course to the sale of the downstream benefits.
Then he said:
The Columbia river treaty, in its present form, gives us $64 million as a lump sum, all-time settlement for flood control.
Does he get any more under the protocol? He said we sold out Canada when we agreed to $64 million, but now we have a treaty that they are approving, and a protocol which does not change that.
Who was deceiving whom in 1961 when the Liberal party in British Columbia pretended it was going to do something with the treaty, and said it was wrong? Let me read on:
Economically speaking, the Columbia river treaty is a poor deal for Canada.
That is what he said, speaking for the Liberal party, as the chairman of the Liberal party committee; and he is the adviser of the Prime Minister today. Now they are going

to carry it out; and I ask, who was kidding whom back in 1961 during the election campaign?
We are obliged to build three storage dams costing around $400 million. The United States has to invest only $100 million in generating facilities and flood control payments to Canada. Yet the additional energy produced in the United States is split on a fifty-fifty basis.
What change is made to meet that criticism? Was that simply political deception to be practised on the people of British Columbia, or was he speaking then with the authority he has as a great engineer and economist?
Obviously Canada's share of this downstream benefit energy will cost us at least four times as much as it does the Americans.
Have they changed that? Has that been altered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: It still costs us the same, yet we are asked to approve of that which the hon. gentleman in 1961 said was a sell-out of Canada. He then went on and said:
There is only one way of rescuing the treaty, from a short term economic point of view. That is to sell most, or all, of Canada's downstream power entitlement to the United States for cash at a price, say, of five mills per kilowatt hour.


Mr. Davis:: That is what we did.


John George Diefenbaker: We endeavoured to bring about the sale, and we had all the negotiations done in that connection. That represented something that would have been achieved under the treaty in any event.
Then he went on to say:
Why, then, should Canada accept a once-and-for-all settlement for this service?
Isn't it doing it now, under the treaty and the protocol? What did the hon. gentleman mean when he wrote these words? Was he speaking with sincerity then, or has he seen the light in the change from the opposition benches to the near treasury benches? Then he said:
Why accept a lump sum payment of $64 million and be obliged to prevent flooding in the United States forever?
So that there would be no mistake that the "forever" meant forever-eternal and everlasting-it was put in italics. What change has been made in that connection? Are we not today forever accepting $64 million for flood control?
Sir, this article that I read from was used all over British Columbia to give the people an understanding of what Liberalism stood for. Then he went on:
Surely it would be much better, from a long-run point of view, to have the value of this service re-assessed year after year (as is the case with the power benefits) and flood control payments made on an annual basis.
Columbia River Treaty Why did they not do it? There is not one alteration in this connection, yet they said we had committed the unpardonable offence of selling out Canada.
Then he said what we should do:
One comprehensive plan to develop the resources of the upper Columbia in Canada has been adopted and written into the treaty. Others are possible.
What are they? Well, he said there was General McNaughton's plan:
General McNaughton, for instance, believes that Canada should immediately divert the flood waters of the upper Kootenay through Canal Flats into the Columbia. This water would then be regulated by building an additional storage reservoir in the vicinity of lake Windermere.
By stating that he gave his tacit approval to it, although he did say:
Such a plan would accomplish several things:
1-	Definitely establish Canada's right to divert waters flowing in Canada-
We have that. We had that right and it is now reinforced by the interpretation of the treaty itself.
2-	Produce more on-site power in Canada.
3-	Increase Canada's claim on downstream benefit energy generated in the United States;
Did they increase the claim? Did they do what they said should be done? Of course they did not.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We did.


John George Diefenbaker: One wonders why one with such a knowledge of the subject should have participated in producing what-for want of a better expression-I will call a figment plan, a figment plan to get votes.
He went on to say:
No doubt the McNaughton plan would produce more power in Canada. It does, however, run into several obstacles:
1-	The present government in British Columbia is opposed to any flooding in the lake Windermere area:
2-	The United States is opposed to the scheme because it would make the expensive Libby project in Montana uneconomical; and
3-	A major departure from the present treaty is involved.
Then he uttered these immortal words:
Probably the best course, from a practical point of view, is to proceed a step at a time.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: That is the way
we got results.


Erik Nielsen: Side steps.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say this would be comic if it were not for the fact the people of British Columbia believed that this represented the view of Liberalism. It was designed to delude them, and it succeeded. Now, having served its purpose the government embraces that which it ridiculed and condemned. I will read on as to what "renegotiate" means.

Columbia River Treaty Bather than try to settle all the problems of the Columbia at once, Canada and the United States should agree on certain principles.
Well, I do not know what those principles are. But they got lost, too, along with the other Liberal principles in connection with this stand.


An hon. Member:: What principles?


John George Diefenbaker: It goes on:
Thus, proceeding one project at a time and within the framework of a new treaty the way could be clear for action.
What happened to all this? I am sure the hon. gentleman who wrote this really meant it-that he did not have any improper object in view. Of course, getting votes is not improper unless it is based on delusion. So this was true when he said it in 1961-and I direct my attention to him rather than to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin, Essex East) because he is the expert- he is the man upon whom the leader of the Liberal party relied when he followed the same course. Was it true, then, when, speaking of this, he said:
Presumably, the Mica Creek project could go ahead first. It is not controversial. Neither is Duncan lake. They together, could supply 90 per cent of the downstream power benefits and 99 per cent of the flood control benefits recognized under the present treaty. The high Arrow and Libby storage projects are in a different category. They are controversial.
Why not postpone action on these projects for the time being?
Are they doing so? Was the advice taken? Was it meant when it was given? Then the article goes on:
The treaty-a new treaty phrased in terms of principles-should come first.
This great principle, Mr. Speaker, has no part in the protocol to this treaty. Then he goes on to say:
Approval of individual projects should come next.
A procedure which would permit the politically most acceptable and the economically most desirable projects to go ahead is the only way out of the present impasse.
He did not think of a protocol, then. That way was the only way out of the impasse. Then he goes on to say:
Various details remain to be cleared up. However, Canadians must remember that time is not all on their side.
If we do nothing, the United States will eventually utilize most of the flows of the Columbia. Our country, being slower to develop, will be unable to prevent this unless, that is, we take co-operative action.
Sir, I have quoted at length for the purpose of showing that those opposite who today embrace this treaty and say it is a good treaty were criticizing it when they were in opposition with all the bitterness at their command. I say, and I emphasize this, 
that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) headed the Liberal party's committee on power during the last parliament. He was not alone, though. He got the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) lined up with him. He got them all lined up. Today we see the very reverse of that which he suggested was the proper course to follow. As I say, the Prime Minister fell in with this, too. He gave an interview on British Columbia television stations on February 16, 1962. Here is what the record of that interview says:
Interviewer:	Mr. Pearson, you have called
for renegotiation on the Columbia treaty. What evidence do you have that the treaty can be renegotiated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It's either a question of renegotiating or letting the treaty lapse. Surely, the former would be a good thing for the Canadian government to initiate, because the American government is not likely to do it, to initiate renegotiation of a treaty which in its present form I think is too favourable to the United States.
Well, it is in the same form as it was. It is unchanged. What impudence to pretend to the people that changes would take place- to delude, to deceive and then to desert the principles which were enunciated as being the principles of the Liberal party. The report continues-and this is the right hon. gentleman speaking:
I think there are two respects in which the treaty could be renegotiated. One, there should be an alteration in the time schedule of the construction of the dams, which I think is too favourable to the United States.
Is there a change? The answer is no; yet the leader of the Liberal party said this is what he had in mind. Then, he went on:
The Mica creek dam or the Arrow lakes dam should be postponed.
Are they to be? Never in all my years in public life have I seen the like of solemn promises shamelessly broken, as they have been broken in connection with this issue- broken by those who sit opposite and reap the benefit-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In Kootenay West, too, and to Canadians generally.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read on.
I can also assure you that before the treaty was signed, we would have made an agreement with the government of British Columbia and not relied entirely on a verbal understanding that it was satisfactory.
I am glad the Prime Minister said that, because that is what happened. We took the pledged word of Mr. Bennett and his ministers beforehand and had not put it into black and white. And we found out, after we had the treaty signed, that their views had changed. Then the question asked in the interview was this:

The Liberal leader in British Columbia has suggested among other things that the Mica dam be dropped? Do you agree with this proposal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe that the time schedule should be changed; and either the Mica dam or the Arrow lakes dam should be postponed. I wouldn't like to give an opinion as to which of these postponements should take place without getting the most expert advice, engineering advice and other kinds of advice that was available. I would certainly postpone one of them. That's not quite the same as dropping it unless by dropping it you mean dropping it for the time being, which is perhaps what was meant.
All these statements are certainly classics when placed alongside the article written by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. Then the right hon. gentleman ends by saying:
Mr. Diefenbaker has said there will be no discussion of the treaty with a view to ratification until differences are solved between the provincial and the federal governments. A spokesman of the American government was reported as saying this morning that if ratification does not take place shortly, the treaty will lapse-that's a paraphrase of what he said. Therefore it's a matter of first importance to get ahead with this business in a way which will be satisfactory not only to the two countries, but to the province and the federal governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The leader of the Liberal party was mentioned a few moments ago. He went around the provinces. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said General A. G. L. McNaughton was offered a nomination in west Kootenay. Well, he had had experience as a candidate. But he was offered nomination. What would have happened if he had run? Simply that he would have been carrying on this subterfuge, practised by those hon. gentlemen opposite, to which I have already made reference.
Here is what Mr. Perreault said. I will read from this article in the Revelstoke Review of May 4, 1961. It is headed "Government Policy on Dams Scored by Perreault".
Mr. Perreault said the government never gave even a few minutes to the delegates from this district protesting the high Arrow dam and these gentlemen had to be content with discussing their problems with the parties in opposition. Mr. Perreault made it perfectly clear that the Liberal party in B.C. wants the Columbia developed as soon as possible and that it wants the plan proposed by General A. G. L. MacNaughton, not the high Arrow, which is only the Kaiser dam under a new name.
He went around the province saying, "Elect the Liberal candidates". The Revelstoke Review of May 4, 1961, again, was in keeping with that which I have already read into the record. I could go on. There is the Financial Post setting out in 1962 what would happen. The headline of the article in this newspaper of July 14, 1962, reads:
Columbia plan may burst wide open. How Liberals and N.D.P. may smash the treaty.
Columbia River Treaty


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Our allies have deserted us.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the most interesting thing, Mr. Speaker. All this indicates that what we have before us today is simply a retreat from the false representations that were made by the Liberal party in the elections of 1962 and 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Churchill:: The same old bunch.


John George Diefenbaker: They deceived the public. But not the beneficent Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure he would not have said any of these things if he had been given the opportunity.


Mr. Lamberi:: He didn't know anything about it.


John George Diefenbaker: He would not have spoken on the subject at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He would not have committed himself.


John George Diefenbaker: That is why, as he brings the matter before the house, he is able to speak in such a kindly way. We appreciate the commendation he has given us. We thank him for stating clearly that we brought this treaty into being. We also thank him for the change in Liberal thinking.


Erik Nielsen: Lead kindly light.


John George Diefenbaker: For that Which was regarded as a sell-out to the United States when we entered into it, it has become, in the words of the minister, the greatest advance in Canada's history. I wish I could have been present when the members of the cabinet discussed this matter. They got the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) and said to him, "Now, look here. Do you think you can swallow yourself?" And he said, "Just give me a chance and I will show you what can be done". I listened to him the other day. I like to hear him. He is a very able speaker; he speaks with cogency, ability and forcefulness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: But you will notice that I did not add "wisdom", because he could not be right both times. He could not be right in 1961, if he was right in what he said in the House of Commons in 1964. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by making one other reference just for the record. This is regarding General McNaughton. General McNaughton occupied the position of chairman of the Canadian board for a period of ten years. He negotiated the agreement. I was not present for those discussions but I do have a statement given

Columbia River Treaty by Hon. Mr. Fulton in which he said-this was following General McNaughton's attack in April of 1962-the following:
General McNaughton's second thoughts about the treaty go far beyond anything he expressed at the time. He was one of the experts who advised us throughout the negotiations and at no time did he advise against the signature of the treaty as finally worked out.
On the day that I made my formal report to the government of Canada, as chairman of the Canadian negotiators, I had a formal meeting with our technical advisers. General McNaughton was one of those present. I put to them all the question as to whether they agreed that I should recommend the treaty to the government of Canada for signature. All agreed that the treaty should be recommended. General McNaughton did not oppose the recommendation.
At this time I said there were two questions we had to ask ourselves: First, did the treaty represent net advantage to Canada, and second, did it represent advantages that we could not get without the treaty? I said that unless the answers to both these questions were definitely in the affirmative then it should not be recommended. All present agreed with this approach.
I then put the direct question referred to above, with the result stated.
Anyone is entitled to second thoughts-
I think that would be grasped by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano:
__but on a matter as important as this, involving
the signature of a solemn treaty, the time to express them is when they can be made effective. There was over a week between my formal recommendation and the actual date of signature. General McNaughton did not dissent or oppose the recommendation. He did not change his position
Then, sir, he made the statement that he had been let out. Well, I want to keep the record clear on that. From 1956 on, when the present government was previously in office, all appointments were renewed annually. In 1952 General McNaughton became 65, the ordinary retiring age. He continued in that position. When he became 75 years of age and the question arose as to reappointment, I quote the words of the Hon. Howard Green, a man who was at all times most careful in anything he said. He said:
Since 1956, all appointments to the Canadian section of the international joint commission have been renewed annually... Ever since 1952 (when the Honourable L. B. Pearson was secretary of state for external affairs) when General McNaughton reached the age of 65, provision was made for his continuation in the public service by means of an annual extension prior to his birthday. .. The last extension was one for two months after General McNaughton reached his 75th birthday to permit him to attend the 50th anniversary meeting of the commission.
In no way, according to Mr. Fulton, was there at any time any disagreement. He had his views, but when faced with the question as to whether the treaty, on the basis of the terms which we entered into, should be signed there was no objection on his part.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
Sir, I need not say more than that we are going to support this treaty being sent to the committee on external affairs. We now are able to say that the treaty has the approval, the warm commendation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the support of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that means so much to us. Having that support and the support of all hon. members opposite, we can certainly say that when we signed the treaty we builded better than we knew.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of the private members' business which appears on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



WATER RESOURCES


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division, composed of representatives of the ten provinces, within the framework of the proposed national resources council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate, and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces; in addition, to further the study of water pollution control problems of a national character.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as far as the House of Commons is concerned it appears that this has been pretty much of a water week. I trust however that in discussing this motion this afternoon hon. members on the government side will not get into as much hot water as they have on the previous subject under discussion. Our party has always been very concerned with the conservation, development and proper use of natural resources, and on that account for a good number of years I moved a resolution in this house which was in the following terms:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation, with the view to the establishment of a nationwide policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
I introduced that resolution every year for seven or eight years, and there was always general agreement in principle to it, but it was usually killed by time. It was talked out by government members-indeed, by members on both sides of the house, with the exception of the members of this party. I was very curious, Mr. Speaker, to find out why this was so. Everybody would appear to support the principle and purpose of the motion, yet it was talked out repeatedly year after year.

Finally I found out the reason, and I should like to quote from what Mr. Lesage had to say, when he was minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, on the motion to which I have just made reference. As reported at page 1565 of Hansard for February 27, 1956, I said of Mr. Lesage- I always like to quote myself when I find I have been correct and have accomplished something:
When speaking on my resolution last year the minister gave three reasons for not agreeing to accept it. While he supported the principles of conservation in general, he gave these three reasons for not being able to accept the resolution. First, he said that the prime responsibility for conservation of resources rests with the provincial governments. Second, he said that the suggestion for federal action should come from the provincial governments. Third, he had grave doubts as to the success of a conference called to deal with all renewable natural resources.
Now, Mr. Speaker, no doubt the change in the government of Quebec which came about with the defeat of the Duplessis regime and the election of the Liberal party in Quebec provided a more favourable climate for the consideration of such a resolution. I think that is quite true, and on that account, and-because I give credit where it is due- on account of the particular interest in natural resources of the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), the former Progressive Conservative government called the well-known conference on resources for tomorrow which lasted from October 23 to 28, 1961. I might say in this connection that there was very thorough preparation for this conference. There were three years of preparation before it was called, because I was kept informed from week to week as to just what was being done in this regard, and I think those responsible for the preparation deserve credit on that account.
The conference was held and it was a great success. People interested in all aspects of renewable natural resources were at the conference. Many worth-while papers were read. Lengthy discussions were held, and as a result of the conference several valuable reports were issued which I trust all hon. members have on their office shelves, because they are well worth referring to when one is considering the question of natural resources. Then the council of resource ministers was established as a result of this conference, a staff provided, and they are now operating. The objectives of the Canadian council of resource ministers were outlined, with which objectives I think all hon. members of the house would agree in principle.
Now I want to deal with one or two reports made by this council. In the January 20220-45
Water Pollution Control bulletin issued by the Canadian council of resource ministers the following appears:
Research team studies resource agreements.
The secretariat of the Canadian council of resource ministers has commenced a thorough review of legislation, programs and agreements affecting Canada's renewable resources.
That is all to the good.
The review is under the direction of Dr. William E. Haviland, 39, of Montreal, economist with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. Dr. Haviland has been granted a leave of absence from the association to co-ordinate the review activities at secretariat headquarters. The results of the review are to be submitted to the next plenary session of the council, in Charlottetown, P.E.I., this spring.
Dr. Haviland will be in charge of a research group that will study agreements directly related to renewable resources-water, land, fish, forests and wildlife-as well as agreements bearing on the multipurpose use of resources, including recreation and regional development. Members of the research team will conduct a series of meetings and interviews with government officials across the country.
The project, which was one of the main recommendations to emerge from the 1961 resources for tomorrow conference, was formally approved by the council meeting in Montreal last November.
The review will follow the principles laid down by the council. The ministers, in endorsing a review of existing agreements, also favoured the study and analysis of any new proposed programs on renewable resources. They recognized that where the federal government is party to such resource programs with one or more provincial governments, reference to the council was particularly important. They also saw an advantage in having interprovincial resource agreements submitted to the council, thus enabling the council to fulfil its desired advisory and consultative role.
Under the review, each resource agreement will be thoroughly analysed, covering such facets as the history and nature of the program, legislation, jurisdictional problems, participation of governments in preliminary studies and planning, as well as in the implementation of the agreements. Other aspects will be the application of cost-benefit analysis, education and information problems. The review team will also identify areas where new agreements might be desirable and will make specific recommendations.
What a different climate and atmosphere with respect to the joint consideration of the development of resources between the federal and the provincial governments; and that is all to the good.
Now I want to quote briefly from bulletin No. 2 for February, 1964.
Water crisis grows: Major study planned.
The crisis grows. Wells in southwestern Ontario have run dry. Drought lingers for yet another year in southeastern Alberta. The great rivers, the St. Lawrence, the Ottawa, the North Saskatchewan, the Saint John, and the great lakes, as well continue as giant receptacles for man's foul discharges. Canada's precious resource is threatened.
Across the border, ocean salt water pours into the lowering water tables supplying the city of Baltimore. New York city is forced to ration its water when the supply all but runs out. Deserts of the world now hide the remains of civilizations that disappeared with their vanishing water resource. There is world-wide concern.

Water Pollution Control
Canada, despite the fact that it is blessed with one quarter of the world's fresh water supply, finds her stocks which are readily available to her people, being rapidly depleted through neglect, mismanagement and lack of knowledge. The senior governments are now preparing to meet the situation. The first step will be to acquire complete knowledge of the water resource, the very basis of proper management of water as a vital element of the human environment.
Knowing of the purposes of the Canadian council of resource ministers and its particular interest at this time in the state of our water pollution problems, I think that my motion is most appropriate in purpose and in timing. The need for action to deal with the problem of pollution is known. It is known all across Canada by intelligent people who have given any consideration to the question. It is also known to the people of Kootenay West who are becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility of the pollution of the Kootenay and Columbia rivers because of the increase of population, the increased discharge of sewage into these rivers and the undoubtedly extensive pollution that will occur from the building of the high Arrow dam on the Arrow lakes if it is ever built.
Time and time again when you pick up the newspapers you find references to this question. In the Globe and Mail of June 27, 1963 there is an article headed "More Suds" which reads in part as follows:
Is the froth caused by detergents' refusal to break down in sewage treatment just unsightly, or is it a major factor in pollution?
In the Globe and Mail of June 29, 1963 there is an article headed "A Shocking Forecast", reading in part as follows:
A shocking forecast of the pollution threatening the streams and rivers in this area has been made by the metropolitan regions conservation authority.
In the Globe and Mail of May 29, 1963 another article appears headed "Welland River Study Seeks Way to Control Pollution and Erosion". Then there was a very interesting article in the Globe and Mail of May 18,	1963, headed "Ontario's Squandered
Water", reading in part as follows:
The province has plenty of water but industrial and civic pollution leaves much of it not fit to use.
In my own local paper I read this headline: "Association of Kootenay Municipalities Delegates Have Hot Debate on Pollution". I also read an article on a later meeting in which the pollution control program of British Columbia with respect to our own district is being criticized, and there is evidence of demands for co-operation between all levels of government.
The problem is thoroughly known so there is no necessity for me to give further illustrations of the crying need. I propose this

motion because effective action to meet this long standing and growing problem depends on a number of things. First of all, I have moved this motion in its present terms because we in this party believe that effective action depends on co-operative action between all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. Very little has been done in that respect to date. The problem requires cooperation between government research institutions and university research institutions to find out the facts and how we should deal with the problem. It needs the co-ordination of the administrative services of all levels of government and all other agencies established by other organizations and people to deal with this question. It needs a clear definition of the objectives that we seek to meet the problem in Canada as a whole. It also needs a good education program.
While people are generally concerned about the problem if they come into direct contact with and are immediately affected by some particular type of pollution, there are many people who are unaware of the hazard it presents to health and happiness in Canada at this time. We also require publicity. I have always been one who believes that the value of our natural resources and the necessity to conserve them should be taught in our schools. Our children should be brought up from at least the senior grades of the elementary schools and right through the high schools to appreciate what we have in Canada, so far as natural resources are concerned, and our responsibility for their proper conservation and development. This will require satisfactory press releases and articles in magazines. I also suggest there should be action on the part of those persons in governments responsible for health and welfare. I am very glad to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) is listening to me carefully because such persons should take every opportunity to inform the people of what governments are doing about the problem, and of the need for co-operation between all levels of government and on the part of the people themselves.
I am not going to speak at length. I want to give other members an opportunity to speak on this motion because I know there are a number on both sides of the house who are interested. In my opinion the passing of this motion this afternoon would indicate that this house recognizes the need for co-operative action now. Second, it would demonstrate to the Canadian council of resource ministers our concern, and that we are looking to them to take action along the lines proposed in this motion. Third, I think it would provide an opportunity for the participation in the very near future of all levels of government

and, as I have said before, all research institutions and all administrative bodies, and the people of Canada, working together to tackle a problem that grows worse daily.


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise to speak to the motion introduced again this year by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in the same terms as the motion he introduced last year which I believe was debated on July 8, 1963. I might say at the outset that, although the government side has great sympathy with the subject matter of the motion, we cannot accept it in its present terms. However, I believe what I will have to say in the few short words I want to contribute to this debate will perhaps satisfy the hon. member and other hon. members of the house.
In my opinion the resolution as worded involves a certain infringement of provincial jurisdiction. In addition, it refers to a proposed national resources council, when at the moment we have a Canadian resource ministers council in existence, and I would think that the hon. member would not want to create another board or contribute to a proliferation of government bodies when, as I understood from his own words, he would be quite happy if the matter of pollution were referred to the Canadian resource ministers council.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. member know that my motion is based on a recommendation made by the resources for tomorrow conference?


John Napier Turner: I am quite aware that the resources for tomorrow conference in 1961 proposed that an intergovernmental study be made of pollution. All I am saying in answer to the hon. member is that there exists today a permanent secretariat under the Canadian resource ministers council which, in our view, has the necessary staff and the necessary qualifications to initiate a study of the matter of water pollution, and that we need not set up a new board to do it.
I believe all hon. members of the house share with the hon. member his feeling that the pollution of our water, of our air and even of our soil is everybody's business today, and that it knows no municipal boundaries or provincial boundaries. Without going into some of the facts that are disturbing more and more people, I might say that a recent study contained in a magazine entitled "Civic 20220-45J
Water Pollution Control Administration" outlined a number of alarming facts. It appears that the great lakes, with the possible exception of certain parts of lake Superior, are already polluted, and that includes the St. Lawrence river as well. The Ottawa river is polluted from this national capital right down to the point where it joins with the St. Lawrence. The Red river, especially in its lower reaches, also is heavily polluted. Many of the waters surrounding Vancouver island and the waters about the city of Vancouver such as English bay right out to Spanish banks, are also polluted.
Domestic sewage and industrial wastes are the two main causes of pollution that have been added recently to new agricultural wastes in the form of pesticides which may one day constitute just as serious a menace to the people of this country. It may be of interest to the house to know that in the United States today industrial wastes from the food processing industry and from the pulp and paper industry have added more to the pollution problem than all the domestic sewage in the United States. I imagine the same situation obtains in Canada.
It has been estimated, too, that only 20 per cent of Canadian municipalities have adequate sewage treatment schemes. I would say that the seriousness of the problem, certainly in some areas of the country, has reach-reached proportions that are beyond the range of the municipal level and, in certain cases, even beyond the range of the provincial level, when we talk about industrial wastes which are dumped into interprovincial rivers. Despite the efforts of certain industrial and private organizations to control pollution, the complexity of the various situations in which water pollution is found, the conflicts in jurisdiction, the conflict between the public and private sectors in the use of water, have made this problem difficult to solve.
We have also had unfortunate situations in which provinces, dealing with their interprovincial rivers, have considered the selfinterest of the province rather than the interest of a neighbouring province. These competing self-interests have not been reconciled. Perhaps the principal reason public moneys have not been directed in sufficient amounts to meet this problem is that, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said, we have until recently been faced' with public apathy over the hazards to the men, women and children of this country, which come from the continued pollution of our natural waters.
What the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources proposes to do is to refer the whole subject matter of pollution to the Canadian council of resource ministers. He intends to write a personal letter to each of

Water Pollution Control the ten provincial ministers of natural resources suggesting that the question of pollution be given to the permanent secretariat of this council now functioning in Montreal. The suggestion will be that pollution be put on the agenda for the next plenary session of the Canadian council of resource ministers which is to be held, as the house knows, in Prince Edward Island on June 22 and 23 of this year.
Now, that being so, perhaps I might just outline why we feel this is the proper body to study the subject, and why it is a good idea. The hon. member for Kootenay West brought the house up to date on what the permanent secretariat of the Canadian resource ministers council has been doing. It is a new co-operative body composed of the ten provincial representatives and of the federal government, and is an example in practice of co-operative federalism. The purpose of this body is to study the varied problems relating to Canada's multiple use resources, based on the principle of equal participation between the ten provinces and the federal government. The chairmanship of this organization is on a rotating basis. The chairman this year is the Hon. Rene Levesque, who is minister of natural resources in the province of Quebec. When the chairmanship changes hands in the spring of this year it will go to Mr. Rossiter of Prince Edward Island, and subsequently to Mr. Williston of British Columbia. The council, and its permanent secretariat, already have terms of reference wide enough to cover the study of pollution. The council, and the secretariat, are to provide for a continuing examination of resource agreements and to serve as a forum for the continual exchange of views in respect of resource development policies, and programs to stimulate public interest in the multiple use resources; to organize meetings and conferences on renewable resources. It is, as well, a clearing house of information and a centre of information.
There are certain advantages I will suggest to the house in having this matter of pollution referred immediately to the Canadian council of resource ministers. The first is that this is a unique forum whereby discussions at the plenary session are at the ministerial level. The ministers responsible to their provinces and the federal Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources are in a position to make decisions and implement them at the policy level. This is the forum, because of this ministerial representation, in which to develop more consistent water pollution control legislation, consistent from one end of the country to the other. In this way, we will not have various provincial acts at loggerheads with each other.

Since pollution and the use of water resources is, except in so far as it relates to interprovincial rivers, a provincial matter, the federal government as an equal partner with the provinces in the council is in a position, through the council, to suggest a means of co-ordinating a water resources program for the entire country. I say, too, that this Canadian council of resource ministers, which is in its infancy as the hon. member for Kootenay West will appreciate, and has as its sole concrete work at the moment the review of resource agreements across the country, needs a subject of immediate public interest in order to capture public imagination. The subject of pollution would do that. I would think that if the ministers for the provinces accept the suggestion of my minister and put this matter of pollution on the agenda for the June meeting, the objective the house would want to achieve, of getting a pollution policy for the whole country, to protect our people from the contamination of our waters, our air and our soil, would be achieved.


Mr. Jean-Louis Frenelte (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay the house too long on the problem involved in the motion now before us, since, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said a while ago, a similar resolution has been talked out in the past.
Of course, the introduction of this motion raises an important problem because water pollution is getting worse all the time as our population and industry keep growing.
It is undeniable that water pollution is a particularly important problem, and I should like, if I may, to discuss in particular the region I represent and which is traversed, from one end to the other, by the St. Lawrence river whose waters are certainly polluted to a more and more alarming degree. Although it is a fact that water pollution comes under the jurisdiction of the various provincial governments and more particularly under the jurisdiction of the health departments of those governments, it must be recognized that in the province of Quebec, these last few years, that problem has received more careful consideration and the municipalities are getting more and more specific instructions from the various organizations of the health department. Those who do not obey the instructions given by the health department are even penalized. However, after investigations made in that area, it must be recognized that the problem is still there and that it is getting worse.
Although the motion by the hon. member for Kootenay West proceeds from a good intention, I wonder, like the hon. member for

St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), whether this matter does not mainly concern provincial authorities. But I shall go no further than the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George by approving the last part of the resolution which means, in short, that the federal government should set up a body to direct or co-ordinate steps taken by the various provincial governments concerning this problem.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George referred to the Canadian resource ministers council of which he said was clearly the body to be concerned with this problem. But here again, I wonder whether that council does not have too much jurisdiction or too wide terms of reference to be concerned precisely with the very specific problem of water pollution. This is where I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West who advocates the setting up of a body with the very specific authority to study the water pollution problem. That body might come under the Canadian resource ministers council, which would still be there to guide the work of the provincial governments on that increasingly crucial problem.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few observations I wanted to make following the comments we heard on this problem and personally, I think this motion has been deferred too often and that the house should deal with it seriously by taking a final decision on the setting up of a body whose specific purpose would be to study, in co-operation with the provinces, this problem of water pollution and to seek an effective solution.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this motion which is most important as it deals with a timely topic. I want to congratulate the hon. member who moved it.
I wonder if it would not be advisable for the government to hold a federal-provincial conference on that matter, not only to stir up public opinion but also to set up some kind of an agency which would come under the authority and jurisdiction of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing).
I feel that is a question of national emergency. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is ideally suited to work in that direction, in co-operation with the provinces and industry.
The minister, being an agronomist, knows how important water and soil resources are. Water is our greatest natural resource.
The federal government, with full and complete jurisdiction over navigable waters, such as the St. Lawrence river, should take
Water Pollution Control action in order to ensure without delay that all waterways under its jurisdiction are clean. It should be strict with public bodies and industries which are instrumental in the pollution of waters coming under federal jurisdiction.
Just to mention one case among many, I shall refer to the island of Montreal. That island is surrounded by polluted waters. If you take a walk on the shores of the St. Lawrence river, near Montreal, either on the north or on the south shore, you will see that the waters are polluted by the surrounding municipalities and the rivers entering the St. Lawrence such as the Ottawa river. Such conditions are not good for fishing or swimming, and that applies in particular to the waters surrounding the island of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the world's fair will be held in a few years in Montreal and on the islands which lie in the St. Lawrence river. The federal government should take strong action as soon as possible so that the waters surrounding the island of Montreal may become clear and clean again.
To talk again only about the island of Montreal, the numerous oil refineries located there spent tens of millions of dollars to remedy the situation but, in spite of that, in the summer there are always oil slicks on the waters of the St. Lawrence river. They can be seen along both banks of the river.
Furthermore, ships which throw garbage and oil residue in the St. Lawrence should be strongly dealt with by the Department of Transport.
I think the federal government should set an example by taking strong steps in this regard. The world's fair will be held in Montreal and it is up to the Canadian government to deal with this matter quickly.
Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
I have every confidence that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will recognize the urgency of this problem and will attempt, in co-operation with the provinces, to remove this evil, and all the more, as I said earlier, since he is an agronomist and in that capacity, he is aware more than any other member in this house of the disastrous influence and consequences of polluted waters on aquatic and other animal life, as well as on human life.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West on his initiative and I hope that the government will take those steps which are urgently needed in that connection.

Water Pollution Control
IT ext]


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Carlier-La-salle):: First, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on his determination, on his insistence, in bringing back to the house time and again suggestions for coping with the pollution problems of Canada. The notice of motion brought down by this private member is, of course, in precisely the same words as it was last year when this issue was debated on July 8, 1963.
The hon. member believes that we need to create another division or department to control pollution. He has also felt, in the past, that amending the Criminal Code by providing for heavier fines would solve most of the pollution problems which face us in this country. He may be right. However, I feel we already have enough divisions, department and boards, both international, federal and provincial which are geared to the study and control of pollution and which have sufficient information with regard to pollution. I feel, also, that we already have many laws concerning pollution. I do not intend to go once again into the details of these propositions by naming the various departments or citing the laws, because I did so in the course of the debate on the same motion last year and I believe it would be wasting the time of the house to repeat what is already on record in Hansard. However, if any hon. members are interested they can find this information on page 1945 of Hansard, volume two, of the 1963 session.
The problem of pollution, Mr. Speaker, is the concern of every Canadian and it should be on the list of priorities here, in the House of Commons. Canada is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and one of our main resources is our fresh water supply. The great lakes system is the largest body of fresh water in the world. We have in Canada, in our midst, one quarter of the world's fresh water supply. Yet despite the many laws and acts which have been passed by parliament, by provincial governments and other authorities to prohibit pollution, we have allowed, and are still allowing, the wholesale pollution of our beautiful lakes and rivers.
In this connection, I was amazed by what I read in an article published in the December 1963 edition of the Reader's Digest under the heading "Valencia's Tribunal of Waters". Valencia is the third largest city in Spain, and this court was created, it is suggested, around the year 960 during the Arab occupation by the caliphs, to administer the ancient Arab laws concerning water. There is no written clause in any law or constitution in Spain which warrants the existence of such a court. The tribunal has existed for over

1,000 years, from generation to generation, by the sanction of tradition. The court, which is the oldest in Europe, meets every Thursday in the open air, outside the cathedral, to pass judgment on anyone found guilty of polluting or misusing the waters of the river Turia and its eight irrigation canals.
The people of this area have been concerned about their precious water supply for over 1,000 years. From the verdict of their court there is no appeal. Those summoned before the tribunal include builders, businessmen, municipal officers and farmers. For example, a soft drink distributor is fined $150 for letting into a canal the water in which his bottles have been washed. Mayors of municipalities are summoned if any of their citizens use the canals for sewage disposal. A soap factory is fined $650 for contaminating a canal with its residue; a farmer is fined for allowing his cattle to pass through the water; another for allowing cuttings from trees to float down it, or for washing vegetables in it, and so on. Yet the cost of running this court amounts to no more than $550 a year.
Here in Canada we have many laws concerning pollution, but no one dares to take the guilty to court for fear of incurring heavy costs

the costs occasioned by appeal after appeal, which no individual can afford. Both federal and provincial authorities have failed to enforce the laws which come under their jurisdiction. The guilty parties in Canada are, for the most part, municipalities and industries and, as for taking them to court, it should be understood that in many cases they have received permission from health departments of their respective provinces to dump untreated sewage and effluent into our streams.
In his motion which we are debating today, the hon. member for Kootenay West has asked for the creation of a water pollution control division. I would again point out to the house that, in my view, we do not need another division or department to tell us that the Ottawa river, lake St. Louis or the waters around the island of Montreal are polluted. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you as I did on July 8 last, that the solution of the pollution problem involves strictly financial considerations. I suggest that this government should offer to share jointly in the provision of funds to deal with it on the basis of one third to be paid by the government of Canada, one third by provincial governments and one third by municipal governments. As to industrial pollution along our rivers, the arrangements should be on the basis of one third to be paid by the gov-one third from provincial funds and one third from industry itself. Only as a result

of a serious program of financial responsibility will we be able to make our rivers clean again, and I suggest that the present government take up this matter at the provincial conference to be held this April and, also, that consideration of pollution problems be given priority at the meetings of the Canadian council of resource ministers to be held on June 22 and 23 of this year.
As to the motion itself, I cannot agree with the suggestion that another division or department be formed. I do feel, however, as does the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) that the secretariat and the staff of the resource ministers council should be the body responsible for collecting and evaluating all information from across Canada and for working in co-operation with the national research council to develop scientific methods of purification. The members of the resource ministers council are cabinet ministers in their respective governments and it is they, in turn, who should make the proper decisions on policy governing the introduction of new laws, financial responsibility and financial participation. I was happy to hear from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that the minister intends to take action in this regard.
The Ottawa river which, mainly as a result of pollution by industrial waste and municipal sewage is, I believe, the most polluted river in Canada, is an interprovincial river. For this reason its condition is the responsibility of the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, the federal government, the various municipal governments and of the industries along its banks. These polluted Ottawa waters empty into the clear St. Lawrence river at lake St. Louis, adding seriously to pollution there. Of course, many of the municipalities on the island of Montreal, including the city of Montreal, dump untreated raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, also adding seriously to the pollution there. The oxygen content of the water thereby is depleted, in consequence of which all aquatic life and waterfowl are harmed. Human health and human life are eventually affected because these conditions give rise to contagious diseases and infection. In other words, this pollution eventually affects both human life and wildlife. It causes the discontinuation of the operation of beaches and park recreational facilities on river shores, and forces many municipalities, associations, and private citizens to build swimming pools which are, at times, detrimental to health when they become overcrowded or when not operated properly.
What I cannot comprehend is the fact that the newspapers will build up news to headline proportions regarding many unimportant
Water Pollution Control questions and answers dealt with in this house or will give some Canadian demagogue, who is rocking his own boat and trying to convince the population that there is a storm out at sea, a million dollars' worth of publicity about nothing. Yet when we speak and try to do something about this most important issue, pollution, which is a problem of health, a problem which touches our supply of fresh water which is necessary to life, a problem which touches every Canadian, the newspapers of this country usually remain silent. In fact, during the question and answer period the press gallery is full to capacity, but as we now talk about pollution there is only one member of the press in the gallery.


Harold Edward Winch: How many are there on your side of the house?


An hon. Member:: As many as are on your side.


Raymond Rock: I wonder how the newspapers are going to answer to the millions of visitors who will come to Canada during our centennial year in 1967. That will be the year in which we will open our doors and show the people of the world our country, our scientific achievements, our beautiful Rockies, the Laurentian mountains, our trans-Canada highway, our great airports, our industrial might, our education and scientific facilities, our national research centre, the Place des Arts in Montreal, our seaway, our waterways, etc.
When these visitors visit the world fair at Montreal and ask the tourist bureau where they can go for a day's picnic at a beach on the St. Lawrence river, the tourist bureau will have to inform them that there are no adjacent picnic and beach facilities along the St. Lawrence or on the island of Montreal because our lakes and rivers are detrimental to health due to pollution. However, if they insist upon finding picnic grounds with beach facilities, the tourist bureau will have to inform them that the only places available in the immediate area are those of lake Champlain at Plattsburgh, U.S.A. The tourists from all over the world who will visit our country during the centennial year will wonder why a country as great as Canada, which has a very high standard of living, a high standard of education, technical knowledge and industrial might, cannot solve the problems of pollution. Mr. Speaker, most of us know that our lakes and rivers are polluted; we need no special board to tell us this. What we do need is a financial arrangement among federal, provincial and municipal authorities, and industry, to provide the funds necessary to bring about a solution to this problem.
7Q8

Water Pollution Control


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that it is not my intention to talk out this motion. However, I do want to say'-and I appreciate the opportunity of saying it-that I am not so much interested in the technicalities of responsibility here, and as to whether it is the water pollution control division or some other agency that is charged with responsibility in this connection. It is the principle involved that is important. May I say it is my sincere belief that the majority of the people of Canada do not recognize the seriousness of the situation. They see their lakes, creeks and rivers and they think the water flows forever. Perhaps it does. But I do believe that the members of the House of Commons should be cognizant of the seriousness of the situation, because although the waters may flow, the important thing is, what is the freshness of the water for human consumption and for industry?
I had the privilege of being a member of the Canadian delegation at the NATO parliamentary conference in 1961 and I was honoured by being named a member of the special committee on scientific and technical matters. I have never forgotten the three days I spent on that committee. What was one of the major matters that was brought to our attention and discussed? It was the matter of fresh water. We, on the scientific and technical committee, were told in Paris in 1961 that in 25 years there would be a major problem throughout the world, and especially on the North American continent, with regard to the supply of fresh water.
Two European countries and the United States in particular were concerned about this problem, so much so that the United States delegate informed us that within the next 25 years his country would be facing the most serious crisis they have ever faced if they could not find an adequate supply of fresh water. This situation has arisen because water is being polluted, not only by humans but by industry itself. You can have all the water flowing that you wish, but unless it is fresh industry cannot function, nor can human life. That is why in Paris in 1961 the United States said they would make available to every country in the world all their studies on how to make fresh water out of ocean water. So far no country has found a method to do this which is reasonable in price. It is all very well for my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to introduce this motion year after year. He reintroduces this principle and expounds his concern-which, by the way, is the concern of the greatest scientists in the world and of the majority of governments in the world-regarding what

will happen to fresh water in the next quarter of a century. But it is not good enough for this House of Commons to be kind, to agree and say, "Let us refer it somewhere." Sir, the time has come-as a matter of fact, it is now long past-when we should be doing something about solving the problem of the pollution of our waters in Canada because, as was said in a previous debate, in a few years water on this continent will be worth more than gold. Now is the time for us to take care of this problem.
I sincerely hope that hon. members will not deal with technicalities and will not worry about which body should consider this problem, but will support this session in the House of Commons the principle that we recognize the problem and are going to do something about eliminating the pollution of our waters, so that those who come after us shall have fresh water, as had those who went before us. Most certainly our forefathers had better water than we have.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: No, it is not; there are 30 seconds left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired and the house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



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.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the speech this afternoon of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) I became convinced that little more need be said about the Columbia river treaty at this time. I feel sure that the fervent and eloquent manner in which he quoted from past Liberal speeches and statements will

have accomplished two things. First of all, I feel sure that it will have convinced the right hon. gentleman and his followers they were in gross error in having signed the treaty in the first place. In the second place, I feel sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), having heard quoted in such a very eloquent manner the statements and speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), will undoubtedly have come to the conclusion that he should not ask the house at this time to pass this motion in its present form. I feel sure that when he rises he will be asking this house to agree to an amendment to the resolution which will ask him, as our Secretary of State for External Affairs, to proceed immediately to seek a renegotiation of the treaty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should remind the house that if the minister speaks now he concludes the debate.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, before the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) speaks may I have a few moments. I agree with my colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that perhaps not too much more need be said about the treaty, but there are one or two facts which should be placed on the record first-at least, I presume they must be considered as facts.
The other night we had quite an argument in this chamber as to the relative importance of the areas which were to be flooded by the two proposals which have been under consideration by the members of the house. I have in my hand a memorandum with respect to the effect on agriculture of the construction of reservoirs on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers between Luxor and Dorr, produced by the Department of Agriculture on July 14, 1960. It says:
The building of a reservoir on the Kootenay and Columbia rivers from Luxor south to the Dorr damsite would flood some 91,000 acres of land. Of this 24,000 acres, if reclaimed, is arable without irrigation, but only some 2,800 acres of river bottom soil, all in the Kootenay basin, are used at present, primarily for the production of tame hay in association with summer cattle grazing on the uplands. About 40 farmers are involved. The remainder of the 24,000 acres would require very costly reclamation to make it usable.
There are also some 26,000 acres of land in the flooded area with some agricultural potential if irrigation could be provided. The availability and cost of utilizing water from the Kootenay, however, makes this virtually impractical for the low priced crops which could be raised in the area.
In comparison to this there are some 300,000 acres of land in the area, above the level of the reservoir, which is as potentially arable with irrigation as
Columbia River Treaty
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.
If the building of the reservoir resulted in the control of flooding of the Columbia above Luxor an additional 20,000 to 30,000 acres of arable land in the Columbia flats, which cannot now be used because of flooding, could be made available.
So that would seem in the opinion of the Department of Agriculture at least to settle that particular argument.
I also have in my hand a letter from a retired colonel from the U.S. army corps of engineers, who incidentally and rather interestingly is a member of the Order of the British Empire. He writes from Sacramento in California because he spent a very large part of his youth in the Arrow lake country, and some of his maturity too. He says that since he was raised on the Arrow lakes he might like to comment on the provisions of this proposed treaty, and he writes:
My analysis was made on the basis of the proposed terms of the treaty as published in the Nelson Daily News, the federal power commission News Digest, and the California-Pacific northwest interconnection stage 1 progress report.
There are two compelling reasons for additional storage on the upper Columbia river, one based on engineering economics, the other political. Additional storage to firm power capacity on the lower Columbia is popular and there appears to be a growing conviction in the minds of top level Canadian and United States officials that such storage dams are right and economic, per se, just because many are economic, and because they are a step towards the large, the glamorous and the spectacular.
From the engineering economic viewpoint, the upper storage may be right and proper if the economic benefits are equal to, or greater than, the costs. If not, they cannot be justified. There may be occasions (and this appears to be one) where political expediency will magnify marginal benefits out of all proportion to their worth, in an effort to justify an otherwise uneconomic international agreement. However, the success or failure of such magnification does not prove or disprove economic justification, it merely serves to obscure engineering economics. If successful and if the costs are carefully hidden the success may add some glamour to giant storage systems and power pools, while the property owners along the Arrow lakes take the beating. Also, the public will be denied the right to enjoy one of the most scenic and most beautiful natural lakes yet untouched by a questionable economic power philosophy.
This letter is signed by Lieutenant Colonel George Anthony of the United States army, a registered professional engineer writing from Sacramento in California. He can have no particular axe to grind, except the axe of one who has lived in the Arrow lakes country and regrets to see it being destroyed under terms which he as a professional engineer does not think are justified.
In looking over the debate of the other night I was interested in the suggestions which were made by various members as to what could be done under the terms of this

Columbia River Treaty treaty. One that rather startled me was the suggestion by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) that this treaty when ratified may be of such a precarious nature that the President of the United States can knock a piece out of it when he feels like it under terms of United States legislation.
Another thing that has come out in this debate without doubt, and this is what makes it such an interesting if rather ironic debate, is that this treaty is an embarrassment to the present government and an embarrassment to the official opposition. Only one man in this house has made the slightest attempt to get them off the hook, and that was the bad boy of the Conservative party cast into outer darkness by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), the former minister of national defence. Certainly no member of the house has a better and more well deserved reputation for frankness, and the hon. member for Calgary North told the house quite bluntly and frankly that he knew, as did the government and as did the official opposition, that this was the second best treaty and that the only reason it was signed was that the premier of British Columbia held a gun to the heads of two successive governments.
I am at a loss to understand why Conservative and Liberal members of the house continue to fight a losing battle with logic, shall I say, to make out that a poor treaty is a good one, but apparently they are afraid of the premier of British Columbia. I suppose we British Columbians may stick our chests out and say that our premier has kept the government scared in the same way he had the former government scared; but I think this is a very serious matter. Anyone who knows anything about the international rivers act knows that while the federal government can stop a provincial government from doing something it considers is not in the national interest, it is quite incapable of making that provincial government adopt what is in its opinion a more suitable scheme. Mr. Bennett in his characteristic manner took full advantage of this situation and said in effect to each government in Ottawa: The Columbia will be developed on our terms or it will not be developed at all, and they both turned tail and ran.
I suggest that when we are looking for instances in which the government of Canada has been submitting to provincial pressures and when we are asked to consider a certain provincial government as being separatist and out to destroy confederation, perhaps it would do no harm if sometimes we would turn our eyes westward instead of eastward.

This particular treaty now before the house is a fine example of that. As I say, I am at a loss to understand why the present government and the official opposition have been willing to sit here day after day, under an imputation either of dishonesty or imbecility, instead of pointing the finger directly at the man who is responsible for the situation. I hope that in the hearings before the committee we shall be able to make very clear who is the prime culprit in this affair. I am afraid that neither the Liberal government nor the former Conservative government can be exonerated from cowardice, but certainly I think we shall be able to exonerate them from dishonesty and treachery with regard to the national welfare by placing the blame where it should so rightly be placed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must again remind the house that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaks now he will close the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I think I should observe that we have had four days of useful discussion on a matter which was referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) as one of the most important brought before this house in recent years.
In commenting within the limits of the time at my disposal on some of the points that have been made on the treaty, the protocol and related documents, I should at once speak eulogistically of those public servants of our country who over a period of many years have contributed so much to the consideration and the finalization of this matter. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made what I thought were unnecessary, disparaging remarks about certain public servants in Canada. In fairness to the hon. gentleman, he did try to correct the impression which in the initial stages he had created. But lest there be any doubt, I should like to say that I am sure all of us, wherever we sit in this house, would not regard it as part of our assignment in the espousal of any cause, to include, in criticism of the administration, any acts of any of our public servants.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It may be necessary on occasion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend that in this case Canada was never better served by the officials in the office of the Privy Council, in the Department of External Affairs, the engineers in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the officials of the Department of Justice, others in the government service of

Canada, and public servants from the province of British Columbia, all of whom dedicated themselves with commendable zeal to the prosecution of the matters assigned to them by their respective governments. I have more confidence in the officials of our country than apparently has the hon. gentleman, who should try to overcome the illusion that all Americans are ten feet high and that their Canadian counterparts are dwarfs.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked a number of questions. He asked for the details of the calculations used to arrive at the figure of $64.4 million for flood control, and the additional four payments for emergency operations during the 60 years from ratification. I simply ask my hon. friend to read pages 143 and 150 of the white paper where he will find the calculations for which he has asked, and others as well. The white paper was supplied to the membership of the house before the debate began in order to refresh the minds of hon. members on some of the important facts involved in this complicated and important project.
The speaker who just took his seat referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). The hon. member for Calgary North made a serious study of this matter as a member of one of the cabinet committees in the former administration. I disagree with the hon. gentleman when he says that this is the second best possible deal that Canada could have obtained, but I do agree with the hon. member when he says that it was important to bear in mind the wishes of the province, the owner of the resource, as a consideration in the decision that the government of Canada was to reach in its negotiations with the government of the United States.
I believe that this is not the second best deal that we could reach. This is the best deal which, after a period of protracted negotiation, we could arrive at with the United States. I prefer to remind the hon. gentleman of what the hon. member for Calgary North said in concluding his observations. He said, as found on page 644 of Hansard:
Instead of spending a great deal of time now dealing with what the advantages of the Mc-Naughton plan were, I think we would be much better off to address ourselves to the realities of the situation and deal with the only plan on which it was possible to get agreement.
I believe that is the point which all of us might well bear in mind as we give consideration to this important matter.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the membership of this house believes that the treaty, the protocol, the agreement with the province of British Columbia and the conditions of sale, represent an equitable deal for both countries and constitutes a project 20220-46i
Columbia River Treaty worthy of the name and honour of this country. It is a project which takes into account our national interests, and takes into account also the needs of our neighbours. It is a project which takes into account the availability of power now and for the future, and the means by which this great Columbia river can be harnessed for the purpose of providing energy to the people of Canada as well as to the people of the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Put that the other way around.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "Put that the other way around". I would be glad to put it that way, too. I find that often, if you are prepared to recognize that others have rights as well as yourself, you are apt to get a far better agreement. This is one of the reasons we were able to conclude an agreement with the United States, after a long period of negotiation.
I have sought to deal with this matter objectively. I gave credit to all who have had anything to do with the project. I made the observation, and I repeat it, that the treaty signed by the former government in January, 1961, was basically a good treaty. And what we have done is to make it a better treaty. The evidence of this fact is embodied in the protocol and in the other supporting documents.
Now, when the right hon. gentleman spoke this afternoon he spent most of his time attacking the protocol. He attacked its alleged insufficiency. He pointed out that it did not do as much as its authors suggested. This was his argument as well as the argument of some other hon. members of his party who have supported generally the position he has taken, but who have affirmed that they are going to support the protocol as well as the treaty. Most of the right hon. gentleman's remarks today, however, were levelled at one particular member of this house, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And against government policy before the election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say this, that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, who was a very valuable member of the negotiating team-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Williston says he was not on the team.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -has rendered very distinguished service to Canada during the negotiations conducted since this government came into office. The right hon. gentleman may be interested in his discarded opinions. I must say that I feel, in singling out the hon. member for Coast-Capilano for

Columbia River Treaty special criticism today, the right hon. gentleman merely affirmed the real contribution this hon. member made to this problem generally. In doing so he also affirmed by implication, his support, as announced at the end of his speech, for the treaty, for the protocol, for the supporting documents and for the efforts of the present administration to reach a successful conclusion in the negotiations with the United States.
Today the right hon. gentleman asked us what was new in the present government's action? He said he thought the treaty was a good one but that the protocol did not represent the kind of improvements which warranted the characterizations of it by its protagonists. The right hon. gentleman forgot today, however, to recognize that the main accomplishment of the new government was to get things moving again last May, after they had been more or less stalled since the signing of the treaty in 1961. I affirm again the contribution made by the previous administration in this matter. I have not withdrawn what I said in the initial stage, and I do not withdraw it tonight. I think that what the former government did was commendable. What we did was to improve the former government's efforts through the addition of the protocol, which we were able to conclude in agreement with the United States.
One of the reasons for the improvement has not been noted by the right hon. gentleman. The fact is, we are now discussing a proposal to send the treaty and the protocol to the external affairs committee for examination. This represents a great achievement of the present administration. This is something that was not done by the former government. I say, with some respect, it is clear from all the evidence that the administration that signed the treaty in 1961 was apparently divided within itself on the question of whether or not the treaty should be pressed. It is clear that there must also have been a sharp division of opinion between the former government and the government of British Columbia, although today the right hon. gentleman said that when he signed the treaty he understood there was acquiescence by British Columbia in what the federal government was going to do.
Why there was no agreement concluded between the former government and the government of British Columbia, in a formal sense, it is difficult to understand. One of the first things we did when we undertook to try to bring about some improvement in the treaty was to get a clear, unambiguous agreement with the government of British Columbia. The fact that we were successful in doing this is shown by the two instruments which are now

part of the record of this house, contained in the white paper. We were able to get an agreement that set out the obligations of British Columbia to Canada, the obligations of Canada to the United States, the obligations which British Columbia would covenant to assume in respect of the covenants which Canada entered into with the United States. This agreement was stated in clear and unambiguous terms so that when we were dealing with the United States we knew exactly where we stood with the province of British Columbia. This is one thing that does represent an improvement in what this administration has accomplished as compared with the course followed by the previous administration headed by the right hon. gentleman.
The completion of precise and firm agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments prepared the way for the final negotiations with the United States and ultimately, we hope and believe, for ratification of the treaty. There was no indication whatever that the previous government was contemplating, or could make, the kind of arrangement with the province of British Columbia which was essential for progress in this matter. That is clear.
What is the situation before us now? We were able to conclude a protocol with the United States and we were able to get an agreement from the United States as to the compensation to be paid for the sale of the downstream power benefits. What is new in what this government has done? We were able to get a covenant from the United States in the form of a treaty obligation to pay to Canada for the benefit of British Columbia a sum of money that will more than take care of the total cost of all the three storages, and that will provide a surplus in addition to the amount required for the payment of the cost of the storages.
In addition, we were able to be assured that, as a result, there could be generated at one of the dams, at Mica, power available to Canadian consumers in British Columbia at a rate that will compare with that available anywhere in Canada. Those are some of the new features which are the result of the successful negotiations by the present administration with the government of the United States.


Stuart A. Fleming: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs permit a question? If the government of the United States or the United States authority is to make a lump sum payment for the downstream power, and this payment is to be made into the foreign exchange counter fund and is locked up in long term investment, and in order to pay money to the

province of British Columbia to meet the expenses of building dams the government of Canada will have to borrow money-I assume at a substantial interest rate-how then will there be an accumulation of interest and an accumulation in the capital fund to that level which the minister says will be attained?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a question we will go into very carefully in the committee. My hon. friend has asked me a question, and though he has taken me off the main nature of my reply, I should like to tell him that the lump sum will be paid to Canada in United States dollars, and Canada will add these funds to its exchange resources.
The United States funds will then be invested in U.S. short or medium term government securities, as is the custom with foreign exchange reserves, and will be held by Canada in this form until needed. To suit the convenience of the U.S. balance of payments, the securities in question will be nonmarketable. U.S. government securities of a rather longer maturity than is usual, but will be reasily redeemable in cash as and when needed by Canada.
Canada will pay to British Columbia the corresponding amount of the lump sum payment, in Canadian dollars. Such funds will be paid from the consolidated revenue fund, as in the case for any other addition to Canadian exchange resources. The result will be that British Columbia will receive the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. payment almost simultaneously with the payment by the U.S. The actual transfer through the banking system in Canada may take several weeks to complete, in view of the large amount involved. That is the answer to my hon. friend's question.
There is no doubt about it that we have a project that will enable us to develop the Columbia river as a result of an agreement made with the United States, under which that country will pay for the cost of the storages, thus making it possible for British Columbia to supply power at Mica at 1.5 mills, a rate that is comparable with almost any other resource in terms of this particular form of energy available to Canada.
That is what the protocol, in part does. Yet the right hon. gentleman says that all we have done was to provide certain minor clarifications to a treaty which we admit was basically sound. Not only have we taken a treaty that was basically sound and given it effectiveness, but we have been able to arrive at a clear agreement with the province of British Columbia concerning our respective obligations.
When the right hon. gentleman signed the treaty in 1961 he had no idea as to price.
Columbia River Treaty He had no idea as to what compensation was going to be paid to British Columbia for the sale of the downstream benefits. He had no idea what was going to be the convenant or contractual arrangement between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. One may well ask how any government would enter into a treaty with another sovereign power unless there were clear understandings on these very points.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman said that the protocol which we concluded did not really cover fundamental considerations. When we get into the committee stage we will be able to examine this statement of the right hon. gentleman. We will be able to examine the protocol. We will be able to see whether or not the modifications and the clarifications that we achieved were in Canada's interest. I am sure that the protocol negotiated by this government, in close and constructive co-operation with the province of British Columbia, has provided a more satisfactory basis for proceeding with the arrangements with the United States.
I have already set out the main points of the protocol on pages 473 to 476 of Hansard for March 3. An examination of that protocol will reveal that we were able to reach with the United States not merely clarifications, not merely adjustments or modifications and improvements. The fact emerges that the treaty with the protocol provides a better basis than existed before for going ahead with ratification.
For example, no one will deny, on examination, that the power benefits contemplated by the treaty have been improved by very substantial amounts as a direct result of points established in the protocol. The change in the stream flow basis has increased Canada's energy benefits by about 18 per cent. The provision regarding pumping requirements at Grand Coulee has added between 5 per cent and 7 per cent to Canada's capacity credit.
The provisions in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the protocol regarding operation of storages in Canada and at Libby certainly produce a much better situation from Canada's point of view than most of the earlier critics had thought was possible on the basis of the provisions of the treaty itself.
On flood control many of the more serious critics of the original treaty had deplored the high degree of control apparently given to the United States without any checks or restraints. The protocol gives Canada a substantial voice in flood control and it also establishes objective standards for determining when additional flood control can be called for. These are all real improvements.

Columbia River Treaty
Several of the points in the treaty which had provoked criticisms among the lawyers have been straightened out in the protocol. This is particularly true concerning the matter of precedents, diversions and the status of the boundary waters treaty.
Today, the right hon. gentleman asked what the protocol had done with regard to the right of diversion. He said the protocol had simply confirmed what was already in the treaty with regard to the right of diversions for consumptive uses to assist the prairie lands in terms of necessary irrigation.
I do not deny that this is a fact, but to state it in the way in which the right hon. gentleman stated it is to give a wrong impression. There was thought to be some ambiguity in article XIII(l) of the treaty as to the right of diversion for consumptive use. Lawyers might interpret that clause in different ways. Some would say it did not give an absolute right in terms of consumptive use as seemingly was intended in article XIII of the treaty signed by the right hon. gentleman. I was one of those who did not share that view. I thought the article was clear. But there were some who thought that was not the situation. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) was among them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is not clear now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says it is not clear yet. I can only say that the right hon. gentleman today plainly established that it is now clear, because the right of diversion is acknowledged to be one of the essential features of the protocol which was agreed upon between the present government and the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was always there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
John George Diefenbaker: Don't you think they had that in mind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The right hon. gentleman finds that amusing. If we had waited much longer we might have lost the opportunity of getting this unearned increment for the good of British Columbia and for the good of Canada, while at the same time promoting friendly relations with our neighbour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Giving the country away.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman says: "Giving the country away". The only person in this house who is giving the country away is the hon. member himself, whose lack of confidence in this project represents a failure on his part to appreciate the opportunity which lies before British

Columbia and Canada in making a satisfactory arrangement with the United States which would encourage them to pay for storage which in turn will give us cheap power and enable us to take advantage of the mighty Columbia river, a benefit which we would have lost but for this treaty and the protocol which has been signed.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) the other day-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member mind waiting until the end of my speech, because I am limited in time?


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will deal with it.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, in what I thought was a most thoughtful speech on the disposition of the power which will result from the undertaking, said as reported at page 491 of Hansard:
We are going to sell power which we are told will be available at a cost of approximately 1.5 mills. That is the lowest cost power, I suspect, in the whole of Canada, let alone British Columbia, and we are going to see all of it in the United States. Why?
This was the question asked by the hon. gentleman and, as I say, he made one of the most thoughtful speeches of this debate. I should like to point out to him that the power which Canada will have available at less than 1.5 mills is not the power which is to be sold to the United States. That is the power which is to be developed at Mica-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Delivered in Vancouver.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing in any of the documents before the house to suggest the sale of that power. The power which is being proposed for sale is the downstream benefits produced at United States generators. That is the power for which Canada will be paid $274.8 million.
I am paying some attention to the remarks made by the hon. member because I think this is a very important point and one which is of real interest to the people of British Columbia. He said, further:
I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know whether they are going to get this Peace river power, which is supposed to make these downstream benefits surplus, at the same cost as the downstream benefits. Or are they going to be asked to pay 10, 12, or 14 mills for it? We want to know on what basis the government of Canada agreed with the government of British Columbia that this power is surplus to requirements.
That is a very pertinent statement which the hon. gentleman has made. I would point out to him that the cost of power from the
Columbia River Treaty Peace as estimated in 1961 by consulting engineering firms from the United Kingdom ranged between 4.2 and 4.4 mills per kilowatt hour. Since then, savings have been realized at the project and perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that the final price might be in the neighbourhood of four mills. What would be the cost to Canada of the downstream benefits if they were returned to Canada and sold at a price which would permit the generation of 1.5 mill power at Mica, as does the present proposal? To do that, the revenues from the sale in Canada of these downstream benefits would, in a 30 year period, have to provide for all the capital costs of the treaty storage dams, half the cost of generators at Mica, the stand-by transmission charge imposed by the treaty, and the cost of transmitting the downstream benefits from Oliver to British Columbia loads. I would note that if the power were brought back to Canada we would have no guarantee as to the amount we would get. Under the present arrangement we have a guaranteed payment and we know exactly where we stand.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) had something to say by way of criticism of the treaty. He implied that the value of the treaty would be limited to a saving in the cost of Mica generation of $16 million a year up to the year 2003. An examination of the facts alone makes it clear that this is only part of the value which Canada will receive. Not only will there in addition be a later saving at Mica of $13 million a year after the year 2003, but the whole scheme will be worth many times that amount to Canada, as was indicated in the statement I gave the other day. The $16 million represents merely the annual savings, not the full value, which will be achieved at Mica alone in each of the first 30 years. The structures that will exist and the services that will be provided to Canada, both on the Columbia and the Kootenay river, will be worth an incalculable amount over the remaining years of the treaty and subsequently.
The hon. gentleman said, as is reported at page 495 of Hansard:
-even If we get $16 million a year of benefit, that will not begin to compensate Canada for the payments that will have to be made, to people who are dispossessed from their homes and places of business, for communities that are flooded, to say nothing of the fact that it will not begin to pay for the loss of the productivity of thousands of acres of land which will be flooded in perpetuity.
I can only assume that the criticism of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in this regard concerns only the Arrow lake dam, as the other two treaty projects are included in the sequence 9A plan which he indicated

Columbia River Treaty he supports. With regard to the Arrow lake dam, over 40 per cent of the estimated total cost of the project involves expenditures on the reservoir area itself and includes such items as were referred to by the hon. member. Therefore the cost of such items is not an extra cost which will offset the advantages of the treaty.
My hon. friend went on to point out that there was an implication that the treaty would supply cheap power to the United States. For any sales agreement there must, of course, be some advantage both to the purchaser and to the seller. However, the power being purchased by the United States utilities is being purchased at a price higher than present Pacific northwest power rates. It should further be noted that the power purchased is of a diminishing quantity and therefore of less value than a continuing amount. It is also of an unknown quantity as the actual benefits received will depend upon future conditions.
The hon. gentleman said that as a result of this treaty we would find that our aluminum industry would leave British Columbia. That is not the situation indicated by the energy requirements of the aluminum industry in the Pacific northwest United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is what the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe said would happen if we sold our downstream benefits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us just see what the hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 497 of Hansard:
The aluminum industry in the northwestern United States has only been held back by a lack of abundant cheap power-
I have looked at the report of the Bonneville power administration for 1963, and that report says that "beginning with 1958 some of the aluminum plants curtailed their firm power loads". The report says, further, that in fact such curtailments in 1958 through 1963 cost the Bonneville power administration $5,500,000 in loss of revenues. As of June 30, 1963, these aluminum plants were operating at about 65 per cent of their interruptible power capacity. So there is nothing to warrant or justify the statement made by the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the minister that his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I simply say, Mr. Speaker, in closing and by way of reply, that this protocol represents a good and equitable deal for Canada. It is something that is welcomed and supported by the province of British Columbia. We have taken a treaty which was not accompanied by an agreement between the province of British Columbia

and the former government of Canada, and we have made it into a better treaty, into a better arrangement for British Columbia and for Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that the time allotted to the minister has expired, so unless the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house there is no question of his asking a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wonder if the minister would answer a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is not unanimous consent. I must therefore put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The refusal was from the government side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This matter is in the hands of the house. If there is agreement, the question may be asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are agreed that the hon. member should be permitted to ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for intervening. Did I understand the minister to say that 40 per cent of the $129 million, which is the cost of the high Arrow dam, will be spent on compensation and rehabilitation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. gentleman will read what I said he will see that I did not refer to compensation at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, it was so difficult to understand at the time. I have one more question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister quoted 1.4 mill power at Mica, did he mean that was power delivered in Vancouver? There is a difference, you know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say 1.4; I said 1.5.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is that delivered in Vancouver?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?
Some hen. Members: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Paul Joseph James Martin: That a special committee be appointed to continue, with Mr. Speaker, the consideration of procedure and organization of this house, begun by a special committee at the past session, for the purpose of suggesting any changes that would assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business and would strengthen parliament and make it more effective; that the committee have power to send for persons and papers; that it report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house; and that it consist, in addition to Mr. Speaker, of 14 members to be designated at a later date.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of
the house to adopt the said motion?


Gilles Grégoire: Adopted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not going to say something in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that it is desirable that there should be a special committee of the house established for the consideration of the procedure and organization of this house.
Hon. members on all sides are anxious to see parliament function in the most efficient manner possible, and we will want to examine our procedures and our rules to see whether these cannot be devised in a way to render more efficient our daily work in this house. I think it will be generally agreed that the way in which we can give consideration to this question is by the establishment of a committee in which the various points of view of the respective parties can be stated, all designed to render more efficient our operations and procedures. I think the remarks which have already been made by the right hon. gentleman on another occasion in this connection could be taken as supporting in principle what I have said, and the quicker this committee can get to work the more advantageous, I am sure, will be the result.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the minister would have seen fit to give the house and the country some suggestions and ideas for the achievement of that purpose which he set out with such unusual brevity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was trying to give the house an example of what I had in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could use the words of the scriptures-"Almost thou persuadest me"-but I feel I ought to place
Procedure Committee
before the house some suggestions additional to those to which the minister alluded when he referred to the views I had expressed on another occasion.
I think we all compliment the Speaker on the manner in which he has acted in bringing about this select committee on procedure and organization. After all, changes in the rules of parliament have become necessary with changing times. If one reads what Burke said in the 1780's he can only conclude that parliament would never change, because he said that the instrument of parliament in its practices of that day was perfect. Again, at the time of the reform acts of 1832 the attitude of the Duke of Wellington was that the status quo should be maintained and that no changes should take place or were necessary. I think that we as a parliament have a responsibility to place before the people of Canada as a whole the fact that, while we do not always operate with the efficiency of a dictatorship, parliament maintains and assures freedom. It can never be as effective as a dictatorship in getting things done, but so long as there is a free parliament so long will freedom be maintained. Our responsibility is to ensure that this institution shall not deteriorate in the opinion of the public, much less decay because of the failure on our part to bring parliamentary procedure up to date.
The rules are generally the same as they have been for generations. There is only one change which I noticed in the parliamentary rules of 1791 and 1792 over what they are today, and that is the rule that provided that if any member failed to be in his place in the house the Speaker, on noticing his absence, would bring the absence to the attention of the sheriff who would forthwith bring that member before parliament to answer to the Speaker for his failure to be present. That rule it was found necessary to alter with the passing dates, but by and large parliamentary procedure represents the wisdom of generations and is designed, as the minister said, to bring about a full and purposeful discussion of the matters before us.
While we are all for modernizing the rules, such modernization must have full regard to the rights of minorities. Rules are designed to assure not only effectiveness in parliamentary debate but also the preservation of the rights of minorities against the power of majorities. We must ensure that freedom of discussion is not reduced unnecessarily. Having once headed a government I know very well that a government always feels that the opposition is practising obstruction; but it must be very clearly understood that in any modification of the rules recommended by the committee there shall not be any diminution in the acknowledged right of the house

Procedure Committee
to discuss fully, to criticize if it will, but above all to give the fullest consideration to measures which are brought in.
I think a reform is necessary in many of our rules. We are judged by the people as a whole by what we do here and the manner in which we discharge public business. Therefore, in the improvement of the effectiveness of our techniques we should do everything we can to make those changes which are necessary without sacrifice of the rights of parliament. Above everything else we must be careful that in any reform we introduce we do not make the cabinet more powerful than it is today. Certainly the trend in the last 40 years has been to an ever-strengthening cabinet at the expense of an ever-weakening parliament.
I have a number of suggestions, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to make in this connection. They do not begin to exhaust the matters which might come before the committee, but I think the government could do a great deal to assist the organization of business if more legislation were initiated in the Senate.
Now with regard to this house, I think that with six supply motions available in each session, with the exception of the first, which would last two days, the others might be restricted to one day. For after all, in the course of one day on a motion to go into supply there would be available to all parts of the house the opportunity to debate the amendment.
I think we should add to the time of sittings. I know this is not very popular but you cannot always be popular if you want to get effectiveness and efficiency. I should like to see the time of sittings added to, and in particular that we would sit between six and eight o'clock.
At that time private members' hour could be effective. As it is today the house starts at 2.30. Following the question period we have an hour and a half or so on matters of government business and then we go into private members' hour between five and six. Would there be any interference with private members if a similar provision were brought in as exists in the British house today? Between six and eight o'clock many members speak. Others are away having their dinner. To assure that no unfair advantage is taken of the government there is agreement that during that period of time no divisions will take place and no votes will be called. If we followed this suggestion we would gain many hours of the time of parliament for government business while not in any way sacrificing the rights of private members.
Next, there is the question of whether or not debate should take place on resolutions.

I know the purpose of debate on resolutions. The avowed purpose is that information shall be made available, but by and large I would see no great loss if there were no debate at the resolution stage.
Next, we come to the question of the government's responsibility in connection with questions. Some of the answers we have been receiving lately have been anything but complete, anything but informative, and their major quality has been the concealment of any information. We had an example of that today in the question I asked regarding refunds of the excess paid by some importers into Canada over and above 4 per cent and up to 11 per cent following the change that was made on July 8 in the budget resolutions. There is no reason why we should not be entitled to the fullest information.
We have had the same thing in the last few days from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer)-evasion, concealment, information denied to the house to which it is entitled, but which the Minister of National Defence has denied in the most cavalier manner. Again, in regard to the answering of questions I would point out, as the United Kingdom is referred to as an example of what should be done, that unstarred questions are answered in three days in the United Kingdom house. When answers are given that are not proper and are considered by the member who asked the question as being insufficient, the member has the right by notice in that behalf to raise any objection at the automatic adjournment hour of ten o'clock.
I mention this because there are some who are saying that the question period in this house is taking too long. In the United Kingdom they have an hour each day for questions, with the exception of Friday. There have been occasions in this session and in the past two or three sessions when that period of time has been exceeded in this house. If there is to be any fixing of a set period of time for the question period, members must at the same time have the right to raise the question of the inadequacy of answers or any other matter at adjournment time.
That happens in the parliament at Westminster. Adjournment takes place at ten o'clock. Some member has not received full information and he raises the question in the manner provided by the rules. Then there is up to half an hour's discussion on whatever the question is that is brought forward for consideration, following notice. All members do not have to be present. As a matter of fact, there are often only four or five or six or eight members. No quorum is required. The press gallery is not present to the same

degree that it normally is, but somehow or other the information that comes out in that half hour does occupy a considerable degree of importance in the dispatches from parliament.
I should also like to suggest that when we are talking about making parliament more efficient we should also consider making members more efficient. The library is a place that should be visited and its services utilized. Certainly there is a shortage of research facilities in our parliament. Anyone who visits Westminster will find that even while the house is in session there are often more members in the library than there are in the chamber. Whether that prevails in Ottawa I should not like to say, but I simply point out that good members must have that knowledge and research available to them that the library provides.
I should like consideration given to one other matter. In the past I have frequently stated that I was not entirely favourable to the desirability of an ombudsman. Events in the last year or two, as well as further study, have convinced me that this is something that should be given early consideration. The office might easily be established on an experimental basis to ascertain whether or not the benefits that are claimed will flow from the establishment of such an office would in fact be as indicated by its proponents.
There are many other suggestions that could be made but I am not going to do so at this hour. I do feel that no committee is of more importance than the committee on rules. The members have worked in cooperation. Many changes have been brought about. The period for debates has been limited. The time of speeches has been considerably reduced. All these objectives that have been obtained have been desirable. Further changes should be made, but only when those changes are entirely consonant with the effectiveness of the house being maintained and the rights of the minority secured.
We are judged, as I said a moment ago, by the people of our country. They ask for efficiency in the operation of this institution. They have that right. We want to assure that they shall have it, but at the same time we must maintain the sovereignty of the members of the house and the rights of each member, whatever position he may occupy in the house. I know of no better definition of parliament than that given by Quintin Hogg who recently gave up his peerage which came to him involuntarily some years ago.
In his work on parliament entitled, "The Purpose of Parliament", he says this:
Parliament resembles rather an ancient family mansion which has been lived in continuously for
Procedure Committee
a period of centuries, and has served the needs of those that have dwelt therein by constantly modifying and adding to its conveniences from generation to generation.
Later on, he says:
The whole has served the family well for generations of happy and vigorous life, but it baffles the planner to reduce its form to any single conception.
To those who live in it, it is a priceless possession not to be exchanged for anything more meritricious and unified. But those who are familiar with its history are sometimes apt to lose themselves in its winding corridors and to be surprised and trapped by floors built at different times and on separate levels.
This is the parliament of the United Kingdom and our parliament as well which has been built on the plan of Westminister and changed to meet Canadian needs. It has been altered by those who have preceded us. One of the greatest contributions made to parliament was made by a French Canadian who died just 100 years ago. I refer to Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, the man who gave our country responsible government, a man whose courage and dedication to his people were exemplified by his stand in favour of the use of the French language in parliament at a time when only English was officially permitted. We would do well in this year of the one hundredth anniversary of his passing if our country paid tribute to one of the great leaders who gave so much to parliament and who, in his relationship with Baldwin, showed that understanding, that tolerance and that co-operative attitude that characterized the thinking which is the only basis for harmonious government in this country.
I welcome the setting up of this committee and hope that it will, at an early date, bring in preliminary recommendations. It has the benefit of the visit of the Speaker to the United Kingdom parliament. It has, as well, received the co-operation of the Speaker at Westminister and all the law clerks of the crown there. Suggestions were offered in the memorandum handed out to all members. I hope that in consequence not only of the committee meetings in past years, but as well any further information that has been secured, this committee will be able to bring in a series of suggestions that will make the House of Commons more effective, and more efficient in the discharge of business, and will, at the same time, maintain and scrupulously assure the freedom of the house and of the individual members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of the New Democratic party are in support of this motion to reappoint the special committee on procedure, which sat for a while during the closing weeks of the last session. I may say also that we are

Procedure Committee
a party to the all-party agreement to try and set this committee up with the least possible debate. I believe the understanding is that we can do it with one speaker from each party. I believe it is the hope of all of us that we may be able to complete this item of business before ten o'clock tonight, and I shall certainly do my best to keep my remarks short so that others can also speak and so that this goal can be achieved.
A motion of this nature, Mr. Speaker, does present one with the temptation to speak about the greatness of the institution of parliament, its greatness in the past and the greatness we feel it can achieve in our own time. However, I suspect that it is the view of members generally, and perhaps it is the view of those who are watching us, that what is wanted at this time is not a series of such speeches but rather that we turn the job over to the special committee and ask it to get down to work and come up with some suggestions that may help us to improve the job we do here on behalf of the Canadian people.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said, in addition to the work of the committee during the last session, we now have the advantage of Mr. Speaker's trip to the United Kingdom and the memorandum that has been prepared as a result of that visit. I think that we can very quickly get down to a real job of work. I hope that we will have the courage to look at our rules and our procedures, and suggest any overhauling where we feel it can improve our practices without doing violence to some of the things to which the Leader of the Opposition has just referred. I agree with him that we must not, in our desire to streamline things, to speed things up, lose any of that wisdom of the generations which is enshrined in our parliamentary procedure.
I feel that if we look at our procedures very carefully, even with the courage and the willingness to make drastic changes, we will discover that there is value, that there is reason to many if not most of the practices that we have in this parliament. The question period is something that comes in for a great deal of discussion, and suggestions are made as to ways in which it might be shortened. Let us not lose sight of the fact that this is probably one of the most important aspects of our parliamentary procedure. It is one of the things we have in our system here, and that they have at Westminster, which we think is an improvement over what they have in some other countries. It may be that even though it is tedious, even though the press gallery at times may find it a bit long, it may be that this is one of the periods in

parliament where problems that are of concern to the Canadian people are dealt with in the way we should be dealing with them.
Comments are sometimes made, too, about lengthy debates, about the amount of speaking that goes on in parliament. Let us not forget that discussion is the purpose of parliament. Parliament is not the government. Parliament is not the place where the bills that get passed are drafted or where the major decisions are made. This is the job of the government of the day. It is the proposals of the government that are brought before parliament, which in effect is a national forum, where 265 men and women discuss these proposals on behalf of the 20 million Canadians. Parliament is the place where we discuss the things that are of importance and are of concern to the people of Canada, and to do this is our duty. There may be times, Mr. Speaker, when it is parliament's job to talk, when it is parliament's job to discuss the matters that are before us, even at length. I think any judgments that are made upon the job we do here ought to be made on the basis of that kind of understanding as to what our function is.
Even though I am prepared to defend these various phases of our parliamentary procedure I will not take the time to discuss all of them. I will not go into the whole business of the throne speech, the budget debate, the supply motions and grievance procedures. They all have roots in history, roots in certain needs, and I think they have to be protected. At the same time I feel we must have the courage to find ways and means of making changes so that we can better apportion our time.
Our goal should not be just to shorten the session so that we can get away from Ottawa. Our goal should be that we do not waste our time on unimportant things and thus not have sufficient time to deal with important things. Therefore I hope the aim of the committee this session will be to do a job that will help parliament perform its function better, in the years that lie ahead.
The Leader of the Opposition has suggested a number of changes he thinks should be made. These should be considered, but I do not think it would be consistent with my offer to try to get this motion through tonight if I were to go into details of that kind. May I simply suggest that there will be an opportunity to look at all these proposed changes in the committee on procedure, and I hope we shall do a thorough job in that committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to say. It has been said before, and I suppose it has been said in every debate on parliamentary procedure that we have had

over the decades. It is that the rules cannot do it all. In the final analysis it depends upon the members. It depends on how we respect the rules and how we observe them. It depends, as a matter of fact, on an old fashioned word-discipline.
I have just as many examples in my mind as the Leader of the Opposition, and others, of faults on the government side; but there are faults on our side too, and if we are serious in our desire to improve the procedures of parliament we have to face up to the need for greater self-discipline on the part of us all.
The question period is a good example. I am very reluctant to agree to any suggestion that the question period be shortened by rule, because it seems to me that immediately that happens some important questions will not get asked by some members because they happen to belong to minor parties down at the end of the chamber. Yet something like that will come, unless we do much more to discipline ourselves as to questions we ask. The question period is important and should be used for the asking of important and urgent questions concerned with the problems of our people back home, but it is up to us to practice some self discipline in this; and the same thing applies to length of debate.
In suggesting what can be done by way of self discipline I am putting first things that ought to be done by opposition members, but it would not be natural for me to do this without suggesting something that can be done by the government side.
In the last day or so we have had an example of something on the government side which causes difficulty in the business of the house. A couple of weeks ago, in response to a question, we had an announcement from the government side as to what the priority of business would be for the weeks ensuing from the day the announcement was made. As a matter of fact the announcement was made on February 28, and about nine items were listed. We have taken the first item and disposed of it. We are now on the second item. So far so good; but today we had something interposed in that list which was not mentioned earlier, namely the budget.
If the budget is proposed I suppose there flows from that the budget debate, which takes six days, and then what happens to the items in that list that were given to us as the business of the house? Hon. members know that I have a particular interest, which is shared by many others, in the Canada pension plan. It was No. 8 on the list. We could anticipate that it would come on at a certain point, but now something else has come in ahead of it. The possibility of getting the debate on the Canada pension plan, which
Procedure Committee
we were assured we would get before the Easter recess, now grows very slim.
This is an example of poor discipline on the part of the government that is just as inimical to the procedures of parliament as is poor discipline on the part of opposition members in asking questions. If we are going to accept the proposition that we will improve parliament by practising some self discipline, then I suggest it applies to both sides of the house.
I shall not tonight develop what I suggested the other day, and I also had an opportunity to write a few words about the subject, but this same quality is one that it would be well for our observers in the press gallery to follow. Again I extend an invitation to the gallery to criticize us, as is their duty, but also to join with us in this effort to discover what the standards are that we should be living up to, and to help us to try and live up to those standards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that some hon. members applaud whenever one suggests that the press should improve, but I think they should also applaud the suggestion that we should make improvements ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When one does not get the applause where he wants it, apparently the way to get it is to ask for it.
I want to give one example, which I think proves my contention that changing the rules will not by itself do the job. I have lost track of the number of committees on rules and procedure over the past 20 years or so, on which I have had the privilege of being a member, but I think those hon. members who have been around here for that length of time will agree with me that the committee which made its report in 1955 did one of the best jobs of overhauling the rules of the house that has been done in recent decades.
It was a committee which met on and off for two or three years. It had excellent advice and guidance. A great deal of work was done. I remember some of the people who served on that committee who are not here now, such as Hon. Walter Harris and the former member for Kamloops, now Hon. E. Davie Fulton, and others of that calibre. We did a good job and we brought in a pretty complete overhaul of the rules, in so far as one can overhaul the rules of an on-going institution such as parliament. The proposals we made were brought in with unanimity.
As I say, the result was that we made a pretty substantial change in the rules of the

Procedure Committee
house, and we did one of the best jobs ever done in this field. That was in 1955, and I need only mention the year to indicate to hon. members what is in my mind. The next year was 1956, and we might as well not have had any rules at all when one recalls what happened in 1956.
I am trying to be fair and objective about this. Everyone knows what I think of the government's performance in 1956 in the pipe line debate. Everyone knows what happened to the rules in that period, but it is also true that we on the opposition side of the house, in our determination to use every device available to us to try and thwart what we thought the government was doing by way of violence to the procedure, deliberately extended the question period.
I do not think there is any question about that. It became a means of warfare, a means of counter attack because of what the government was doing. That was 1956; but the problem created by what had to be done then is still with us. Therefore I say that although a good job was done in revising the rules in 1955, the very next year produced a situation in which the government of the day paid scant heed to the rules, and in which the opposition had to find ways and means to try to prevent the government from doing the harm it was out to do. The result is that it has taken a long while since then to try and get parliament back on the rails.
I want to see the rules improved. I want to see changes made. I want to see time saved, in the sense that I want to see it apportioned better. I think the committee we are appointing can do a job for parliament and a job for Canada, but even after that is done the real success of the task of improving parliament rests upon the hon. members who are here.
It rests upon us on both sides, in all parties, and I urge that we accept this as a challenge. The people of Canada do not need to pick another 265 people to do this job. If they throw us all out and elect another 265 they will get average Canadians, just as they have got here now. I think we have the stuff in us. I believe we have in us, we who are here, the interest in parliament, both in its greatness in the past and in its possibilities today, to do the job. So this is my plea, that we get the committee set up as quickly as we can, that we call upon it to do a job to improve the rules, but that we, the 265 members who are here, should resolve to exercise a sense of responsibility, and a sense of discipline to try to make this parliament the place it ought to be.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to speak very briefly on this motion to set up a committee, with Mr. Speaker, for

the consideration of the procedure and organization of this house.
I wish to say on behalf of the Social Credit party that even the wording of this resolution speaks well for something which we in this party believe ought to be done, that is, continuing committees from one session to the next within the same parliament.
We can think back to last December. We remember the rush there was in a number of the standing committees to complete their work and make some kind of recommendation to the house before prorogation so that all the work they had done would not be lost. The words of the resolution are, in part; "That a special committee be appointed to continue, with Mr. Speaker-" and so on. That, in itself, is significant. I think there are a number of other committees which should be continuing committees from one session to the next. One that comes to mind first of all is the committee on privileges and elections. We had the task last session of reviewing many aspects of the Canada Elections Act. In addition, there were a number of other matters referred to that committee by the house, and there was definitely a great rush to try to get some kind of recommendation together so that all the work which had been done would not be lost.
When one goes back through the debates over the years he finds, almost every year, a large section of the index to Hansard devoted to procedure. I think this is natural, because with each passing year we find there are changes which are necessary in order to modernize the procedure and organization of this parliament.
We hear a great deal of criticism to the effect that parliament wastes a lot of time. I think there may be some validity to this contention. But I also feel that parliament is the place where questions of policy ought to be discussed; it is a place where there needs to be a great deal of discussion in order that the opinions of those who represent Canadians from one coast to another may be gathered together. Even though one might not agree with some of the things hon. members are saying, or when the subject is unfamiliar to us-for example, representatives from British Columbia or Newfoundland may be speaking on matters which are of little interest to members from other parts of the country-I think we should respect the right of these people. After all, they are representatives of the Canadian electors, and have the right and duty to bring these matters before parliament. I do not at all think it is a waste of time, as has been suggested by some critics.
Along with many other hon. members I deplore repetition and abuse of the rules. I

feel as strongly about this as anyone. But there still remains the right of members to express their opinions here on the floor of the house. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that perhaps the debate on the resolution stage preceding money bills could be eliminated. I have noticed that there is, at times at least, a great deal of repetition, that the same views are expressed on the resolution stage and then on the first clause of the bill when it comes up before the committee of the whole. Perhaps the resolution stage could be eliminated.
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the house. It has to do with want of confidence motions. I think it would constitute a great improvement to the debates in this house if the amendments to supply motions, in particular, but also to the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and at the end of the budget debate, could mean what they say-in other words, if the effect of passing them would, in fact, bring about the situation envisaged by the literal wording of the amendments. I do not want to be misunderstood. I think it is necessary for a want of confidence motion to be moved at the outset of each session. This is, of course, what is done at the end of the debate on the address. I think an amendment should say what it means. It should express a want of confidence in the government, if that is the intention. As things are, by saying, for example, that the sales tax should be rescinded, we create, through the press, in the minds of people throughout this great country of Canada, the delusion that this is what the debate is about, though in fact every one of the members here knows that if the amendment were supported it would certainly not rescind the sales tax, even though those words form part of the amendment. I think it would be well for us to define more carefully the effect which such motions, or amendments, would have if they were passed.
I also believe that more matters could and should be referred to the standing committees early in the session. We had a very bad experience last year when five or six standing committees that I can think of were meeting, not once or twice but, sometimes, three times a day during the last few days of the session in an attempt to complete their recommendations before parliament prorogued. It was physically impossible for members to attend to the duties they had assumed in these committees and at the same time be present in the house. Some means must be found of bringing about an improvement in this situation, whether it is done by changing the rules or whether it is done through some change of attitude or discipline on the part of the members of the opposition, as well as
Procedure Committee
on the part of government supporters. We know that in the past, whether under Conservative or Liberal administration, there were delays in setting up these committees, delays which brought about the confusion and rush at the end of the session. I think it would constitute a great improvement if the committees were set up as soon as possible so that they could get their work under way. There are a number of standing committees to which references could usefully be made right now.
There has been some discussion about the question period which takes place each day when orders of the day are called. I am one of those who believe that this is one of the most useful periods of the entire day. I think there is some need for greater discipline on the part of members of the opposition in asking questions and, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I think some criticism can properly be directed at hon. members on the treasury benches for skirting around some of these questions and giving incomplete answers-or, in some cases, replies which are not answers at all. I believe in this respect that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition might be a good one, namely that we might follow the example of Westminster and limit the time during which questions could be asked to, perhaps, 30 minutes. Then, if members were not satisfied with the answers, at the hour of adjournment they could proceed further. I think this could be tried on a trial and approval basis in the first instance, and if it proved satisfactory we would have additional time during the day to proceed with government business.
I agree with most of the things said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) respecting discipline. I think that, no matter how good the rules may be when they are written or rewritten, unless there is discipline and respect for the purpose and function of parliament by members of the opposition and members of the government, particularly of the treasury benches, we will not have any really satisfactory results. I think, too, we could lengthen the hours of sitting. One or two suggestions were made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this regard. Perhaps, also, we could sit in the mornings more often than we do at the present time. With regard to lengthening the number of sitting hours, there should be some means of allowing members to get back more often to the people they represent so they may spend more time in their constituencies and thereby more accurately reflect the opinions of those people who in fact sent them here to express those

Consumer Credit Committee opinions. The Australian parliament has, I think, some good ideas in this respect. I think they sit for three weeks and then adjourn for one week. We would not have to shorten the number of sitting hours; we could lengthen those hours so that perhaps we could sit as many hours in three weeks as we do now in four weeks. I make this suggestion because I think it is extremely important that members from constituencies as far away as mine-and there are some who are still further away, who represent constituencies as far distant as 2,000 to 2,500 miles-should have time to go back and talk to their constituents so they may in fact more accurately represent them in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to add the support of my party to the resolution dealing with the setting up of this committee. I hope the committee will get under way as quickly as possible and will report back to the house with recommendations which will in fact expedite and improve the operation of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since the motion is intended to expedite the proceedings of this house, I wish to be the first one to set an example and to state that the recommendations which we have to make will be submitted to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, we support the establishment of the committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General) moved:: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon the problem of consumer credit, more particularly but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, to inquire into and report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto:
That the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received and taken by the joint committee on consumer credit at the past session be referred to the said committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses and to report from time to time and to

print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That a special committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into and report upon (a) the hazards of food contamination from insecticides, pesticides, and other noxious substances; and (b) the safety and cost of drugs, begun by a special committee at the past session;
That the committee consist of 24 members to be designated later by the house;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, records, and to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable;
That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee at the past session be referred to the said committee and be made a part of the records thereof;
That the provisions of standing orders 66 and 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask that it be called ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't waste time.


Gilles Grégoire: It is one minute to ten.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that I call it ten o'clock?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting house leader whether he would now outline the business for the

balance of this week and not go beyond Friday, because although we had some intimation of the business that is in the minds of the government, we would like to have further discussion before anything is definitely announced, other than the announcement that was made today by the Minister of Finance. If we could be informed of the business for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday I think we would be satisfied.
Business of the House Mr. MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go on with the second reading of Bill No. C-72, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions, and when that is concluded we will go along with other government notices. On Friday it will be interim supply and further supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 10, 1964