1964-03-06

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates "E" for the financial year ending March 31, 1964, was presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The practice of submitting final supplementary estimates at the end of each fiscal year is traditional. These final supplementary estimates E for 1963-64, amounting to $240,884,747 in budgetary expenditures and $56,980,601 in loans, investments and advances, contain the usual miscellaneous adjustments of previous estimates for the current year and certain more substantial items which it has become customary to include in final supplementaries.
As usual, the losses experienced in operations under the Agricultural Commodities Stabilization Act, the Agricultural Products Board Act, the fishermen's indemnity plans and by Canadian National Railways are reported in these supplementary estimates. Farm Credit Corporation and prairie farm emergency fund losses are new items of this sort in these supplementary estimates.
Attention is drawn to three items in the final supplementary estimates for 1963-64. The first is agricultural vote 172e entitled "Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board, including loss resulting from revaluation of inventory as at March 31, 1964". The sum of $122.2 million is requested for this purpose. Had this item been calculated on the same basis as in previous years, only $73.8 million would be requested. The additional $48.4 million shown for this item represents the loss inherent in the present inventory of butter solids, butter oil and pork had it been sold at the market prices prevailing on January 31, 1964. This change of method of calculation of loss is designed to reflect more accurately the current position of the program.
In the budget last June I stated that the government intended to deal with the accumulated actuarial deficiencies in the various superannuation accounts. We now propose
that as a general policy the deficiencies existing prior to the commencement of this current fiscal year shall be written off to net debt, which constitutes in effect an adjustment of prior years' accounts and does not enter into the accounts of the current year. The deficiencies created by general pay increases made this year, which the law requires to be charged to this year's expenditure, will of course be so charged. Deficiencies arising from pay increases this year which are not general in scope and therefore not covered by the existing law will be charged to expenditures over a five year period commencing in the next fiscal year. In future the deficiencies arising from pay increases, whether of a general or cyclical character or otherwise, will be charged against expenditures over a five year period commencing in the year in which the increases are authorized.
In accordance with this policy, vote 68e of these supplementary estimates in finance proposes to delete the existing deferred charge from the accounts of Canada and charge to net debt the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency of the Canadian forces superannuation account arising in periods prior to the current fiscal year, which is $524.8 million. It also would authorize the writing off to net debt of a similar deficiency of $6.3 million in the superannuation account of the R.C.M.P.
The actuarial liability of some $76 million, including interest, arising from the general increases in pay and allowances granted members of the armed forces in the current fiscal year, will be charged to expenditure this year in accordance with the terms of the statute.
The quinquennial actuarial report on the public service superannuation account as of December 31, 1962, that is, before the current fiscal year, is now being prepared. When it becomes available in a month or two, authority will be sought from parliament to write off then to net debt the deficiency as estimated in that report. The additional deficiency created by pay increases authorized during this current fiscal year will then be estimated and will be charged over a five year period commencing next year in accordance with the policy I have already outlined. The period of five years has been selected because it is the statutory period between valuations of these accounts.

Supplementary Estimates Tabled
Northern affairs and national resources vote 106e includes provision for dealing with the losses incurred by the Dawson city festival. The larger portion of these losses is represented by bank loans and it is proposed to pay these off in full, including interest. These arrangements were guaranteed by the territorial government with the knowledge and consent of the government of Canada. The accounts of a large number of small creditors, many of whom reside in the Yukon territory, are also to be paid in full. It is proposed that the verified claims of the actual promoters of the festival, for expenditures incurred but not authorized, be settled on a basis roughly equivalent to 50 cents on the dollar.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which the Minister of Finance has just read to us is rather technical in nature, and I am sure it is not desirable that I should comment on it at any length even if I were permitted to do so at this time. The minister sent me a copy of this statement a short time ago, and I appreciate his courtesy. This has given me a chance to glance over the statement as he read it. I might say in parenthesis that in dealing with the estimates the minister tabled the other day I was slightly confused in my mythology. I referred to Atlas as rolling the stone up hill when actually it was Sisyphus. Atlas held up the sky. I can correct that statement this morning by saying that Atlas has let go and the sky has fallen, and unhappily it has fallen on the minister.
The Minister of National Defence has been given a great deal of credit for reductions in expenditures, but actually we find that $76 million, including interest, arising from the general increases in pay and allowances for the armed forces must be added by way of expenditure this year. Altogether we get an increase in the deficit for this year of something around $241 million.
I realize, of course, that there are deficiencies for the agricultural stabilization board, as well as these other boards, but this has been a condition for some time. As the minister has pointed out, if these calculations were on the same basis as heretofore the deficit shown here would be substantially less. I am rather intrigued by the last sentence in this paragraph:
This change of method of calculation of loss is designed to reflect more accurately the current position of the program.
I am sure I do not have to be a cynic in order to say that it is also designed to reflect more comfortably the deficit which the Minister of Finance expects next year. Therefore the difference between the two would not be

as great as it would be if he were following the accounting procedures we have followed heretofore.
I am glad to see that it has been decided to write off the deficiency in respect of the superannuation fund. This has always been a thorny problem. Some of us in the house can remember the days which I am sure the Minister of Finance would like to recall, when there were substantial surpluses in the public accounts. The minister of finance would then transfer that surplus to the deficit in the superannuation account, and this would enable him to say "I cannot reduce taxes because we owe the superannuation account so much." This was a very happy policy in years gone by. Unfortunately the Minister of Finance cannot follow that policy today because we have deficits rather than surpluses. At any rate, the government has now decided upon a new policy in connection with these matters, and I presume it will be followed. I think it is desirable that that be done, although it is going to make a substantial increase in our debt and will involve other changes upon which it is not advisable for me to comment at this time.
The last paragraph of this statement refers to the Dawson city festival. I noticed in this morning's newspaper an article on the front page referring to the success of the dramatic act which accompanied this festival, indicating the success which it has attained elsewhere. If in its wisdom some government had decided to cut itself in on a share of the profits of this play, possibly the deficit would not be as great as it now is. I also noticed a reference in the newspaper item to the fact the minister of northern affairs was going to discuss this matter on his estimates. Certainly this is not the time to do so. I am sure at that time we will have a full discussion of this item, as well as the other changes introduced by the minister this morning.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) stopped his remarks rather suddenly when he was talking about the Dawson city festival, and my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce got up before I had a chance to move that the message from His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have two short announcements

to make this morning. First, I wish to inform the house that the English language edition of the Canada Year Book for 1963-64 is being released today. Because of pressures on the translation services of the government the corresponding volume in the French language, Annuaire du Canada, will be available about mid-year. The government is seriously concerned about the shortage of translation facilities, and is taking steps to improve the situation.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he tell us what causes the delay in publication of the French edition of the Canada Year Book? What steps has his department taken to see that the French edition comes out at the same time as the English? What steps does he intend to take, in future, to make sure both are published simultaneously?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made when announcing the publication of the English language edition referred to the heavy demands now being made on the translation service as a result of the efforts of the government to provide as many publications as possible in both languages as quickly as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In trying to have the French translation published, did the minister find that the translation service of the Canadian government was inadequate and could not meet the demand?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my announcement, we have discovered that our translation services are inadequate. This has arisen in recent times because of the extra efforts which are being made by this government to supply these publications in the French language. We are doing everything possible to increase the supply.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Does the Secretary of State intend to take the necessary steps to improve the French translation service within the government?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I announced a few days ago the opening in Montreal of a translation
Trans-Canada Air Lines office which, it is hoped, will not only make recruiting personnel much easier but will also speed up the work.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO EAST


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian wheat board is announcing today the conclusion of a long term wheat agreement, this time with East Germany. This agreement sets out procedures to facilitiate the sale and purchase of wheat through subsequent individual sales contracts.
Under the agreement the East German authorities have declared their intention to purchase from Canada 750,000 metric tons of wheat, equivalent to 27.6 million bushels, to be shipped over a three year period August 1, 1964 to July 31, 1967. The Canadian wheat board has undertaken to make such supplies available with specific quantities, prices and shipping periods, to be negotiated periodically.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of the statement he made this morning respecting the sale of wheat to East Germany. Was there any provision in this deal for some of the wheat to be delivered in the form of flour?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, the wheat board has informed me that it consists entirely of wheat.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE    TABLING OF DIXON-SPEAS REPORT

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking given to this house by my predecessor on November 29, 1963, I table herewith a special report prepared by R. Dixon-Speas Associates for the government, dealing with the overhaul and store base facilities study made by that company last year for T.C.A. This special report was undertaken at direct governmental request, and omits the proprietary information of a confidential nature relating to the operations of T.C.A. which had prevented publication of the earlier report made to that company.
I should perhaps add that a copy of this report was sent to the premier of Manitoba

Inquiries of the Ministry so that it would be available to him at about the same time as it was tabled here.


Mr. Churchill:: How many copies are you tabling?


John Whitney Pickersgill: One.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-74, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct a long standing piece of discrimination as between different types of industrial workers, and make the provisions of the act apply equally to all.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the spate of speculative articles regarding the force which the secretary general of the United Nations is endeavouring to mobilize, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the spirit of the enthusiasm of the Minister of Trade and Commerce a moment ago, let the house in on the present situation, and be less guarded, careful and restricted than he was yesterday?


Mr. Pearson:: And be responsible.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in any event would expect me to be responsible, and I should hope there would be an equation or synonymous relationship between responsibility and caution.
I have myself been in touch since yesterday morning with the secretary general, U Thant. The ambassador has had another conference with him. Consultations between the secretary general and the proposed participating countries are still going on. The United Nations is sending a team of three from the secretariat to Cyprus, perhaps today, to have detailed discussions with the Cyprus government and others concerned. On the return of this team we should have a much clearer idea of the responsibilities of the force and be in a position to judge what role Canada and the other potential contributors might be asked to undertake.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether discussions are taking place between his department and the United Kingdom in this connection; also, whether the various NATO countries are being consulted as to the propriety of Canada taking part in this peace keeping force in view of the fact that two of the parties in Cyprus are members of NATO and that Britain herself has those treaty responsibilities which are known to all?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to the first question, there has been the fullest consultation between Her Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom and Canada. With regard to the second question, there has been the fullest consultation between Canada and its NATO partners.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of these conversations is the minister in a position to say that there would be no possible objection to Canada providing personnel for this force, in all the circumstances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been no objection registered by any NATO country to participation by Canada, if that should be decided on.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: am sure the minister is aware that the Canadian people as a whole are anxious to make their legitimate contribution to any peace keeping activities of the United Nations. Can I ask the minister to give the house and the country an assurance that Canada will participate in a peace keeping force providing the conditions set forth by the Prime Minister on February 19 are complied with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that Canada has been very faithful to its obligations under the charter in its contributions to peace keeping operations of the United Nations, and Canada will not shirk its responsibility as a member of the United Nations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are shirking the question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Can
the minister inform the house what size of contingent Canada has been asked to provide and what kind of troops would compose such a contingent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The number of British troops in Cyprus today is about 7,000. The proposal envisages the withdrawal of British forces to the extent of 3,000. There would remain some 4,000 British troops on the island. The place of the 3,000 troops withdrawal would be taken by forces from the proposed contributing countries. The full

Inquiries of the Ministry
nature of the contribution asked of Canada agenda as soon as our correspondence with has not yet been precisely stated.	the provinces on the matter has been con-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can I ask the minister this. cluded-In such a situation would the British forces Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): A supple-remaining in Cyprus come under the direct mentary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the control of the United Nations, as would the minister indicate whether some provision will rest of the peace keeping force?	be made to ascertain the views of the native


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those forces Indian people before anything concrete is de-would be part of the international force. cided upon as a result of the conference?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has his attention been drawn to the recent decision of a county court judge in British Columbia upholding the traditional rights of the Indians to hunt and fish, in which action, if I may say parenthetically, the Indians were represented with distinction by a former member of this house? Will the minister give consideration to engaging counsel to support that part of the judgment which, according to press reports, suggests that the royal proclamation of 1763 which guarantees those rights is still in full force and effect?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that this is a question for the order paper.



STATEMENT RESPECTING DATE OF FEDERAL-

[Stage Direction]
PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE	<
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the question by the hon. member for Skeena concerning the plans for the proposed federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs.
As the house knows, the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa last November accepted a committee recommendation that a federal-provincial ministerial conference on Indian affairs be convened in 1964. This will be a most significant conference. The preparations are now being made, but consultation with the provinces on various points is still required.
The month of May was suggested as the most suitable time, and the planning of the conference has been under way on that basis. No firm dates have been set yet, but I shall be glad to provide this information and an indication of the nature of the conference


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker; such consultation is being considered.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Glassco commission has recommended the turning over of Indian administration in the Yukon and Northwest Territories to the territorial governments in each case, will the minister when he consults with the provinces put to them the suggestion that the governments of both territories should be represented at this conference so that their views may be obtained?


René Tremblay: That is a very good suggestion, and I will take it into consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question on behalf of a very indignant populace. In view of the fact that the arms and ammunition in the Trail armouries were seized yesterday by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, would the minister inform the house if Kootenay West is considered a sensitive area and, if so, is this on account of the strong opposition to the Columbia river treaty?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs advises me that in view of the attitude of the hon. gentleman with respect to the Columbia, there is no doubt about the sensitivity of the area.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Have the arms and ammunition in the armouries in Kootenay East been seized?


Mr. Bell:: They have seized the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the press report of March 5 in the Ottawa Journal which purports to be a statement by an officer in the forces that the defence department wanted the order re the seizure of these arms applied on a political basis instead of a military basis, I wonder

Inquiries of the Ministry whether the minister could inform the house whether the instructions given were on a political rather than a military basis?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform my hon. friend that I think he has misread that statement-


Mr. Starr:: You said yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -and that there were certainly no instructions which could possibly be interpreted in that manner.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to ask the minister whether he is going to table the directives and answer the questions which have been asked during the last several days in regard to these seizures and raids; because if he is not there is only one course which can be taken, and that is to move the adjournment of the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, some of the questions which I have taken as notice will be answered in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: But when?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In respect of the right hon. gentleman's allegation about raids and seizures, this is completely erroneous and he knows it, and he should be ashamed of himself for using that kind of language.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Arrogance.


Mr. Pigeon:: The same old bunch.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of those added words may I say to the hon. gentleman that the information was asked for several days ago. No information has been given, and I can understand it after the stupidity which is apparent in the administration of this country.



VILLE LA SALLE, QUE.    ATTEMPTED BREAK-IN AT NAVAL DEPOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence arising out of part of his statement yesterday on the Ville La Salle incident, in which he said, as reported at page 573 of Hansard, that:
-there was perhaps some delay in relaying the message from the Ville La Salle police to the metropolitan police, and I think there were some very good reasons for this-
Can we conclude from this statement that the minister is of the opinion that the Montreal police are not to be trusted with information on this matter? I think that is

the impression of the people in Montreal today, and I believe the minister should clear this up.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and I very much regret that my hon. friend has made such an allegation.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question. In view of the seriousness of the situation I wonder whether the minister could tell us the real reason why he thought there were some very good reasons for the Ville La Salle police not giving the information to the police of the city of Montreal. If there are some very good reasons I think the house and the public should know what they are.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that some of the opposition are at last taking this matter seriously, as we have all along.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Your performance has been comic opera.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is becoming a debate, and I believe the matter was discussed yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: But we did not get an
answer.


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


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think there are some very serious doubts about this whole situation which justify the question. I think the minister should clear up this matter as far as the Montreal police are concerned. I think the impression left in Montreal is that the Montreal police should not be trusted with these matters, and I think the matter should be cleared up for the sake of the morale of the Montreal police.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that allegation is so ridiculous that it does not deserve comment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: You have not said anything.


Mr. Lambert:: What are the good reasons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REPORTED COMMENT ON CONCLUSIONS OF DEFENCE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the light of the salutary tradition of civilian control over the military, would he care to comment on the propriety of a letter said to have been sent to senior air force officers by the chief of air staff disputing certain conclusions of the special parliamentary committee on defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will look into this question, Mr. Speaker. I noticed the press report, and will be pleased to look into it and advise my hon. friend.



SYDNEY, N.S    CONTINUATION OF R.C.A.F. STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I might say the question is prompted because of the many rumours circulating throughout Cape Breton resulting from the questionable decision to close the naval base-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: -and the decision to transfer the naval cadet training unit-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Graffley:: The trained seals are bored again.


Malcolm MacInnis: -to another questionable location-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Really I do not see any question of privilege, but I am waiting for the question. The house is giving the average attention that is given to any member. If the hon. member will state his question I shall be able to hear him.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying to put a question to the Minister of National Defence and, I might say, at the request of the minister. I assume he has a favourable answer. He suggested that this question be
Inquiries of the Ministry asked again in the house. It has been asked on two or three occasions; finally he has come up with an answer, but the government members refuse to give me a chance to ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I say government members are refusing me an opportunity of asking a question which the minister's office requested me to put to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his question?


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister has a favourable answer prepared. I ask him to comment on the future of the R.C.A.F. base at Sydney, Nova Scotia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope to be able to make an announcement in respect of radar stations on Monday.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the debate on the proposed Canada pension plan is coming up in a few days-at least we hope so-can she say whether the resolution respecting this plan will be filed shortly; and can she also say whether progress is being made on the preparation of a white paper to be tabled before the debate takes place?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that it may be expected that the resolution will appear on the order paper on Monday next. With regard to the white paper, one has been prepared and it is hoped it will be tabled during the course of the debate on the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. In order to facilitate the debate, would it not be possible to have this white paper tabled before the debate starts, as was done by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he tabled his white paper a few days ago?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question under consideration and produce the white paper as quickly as possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



APPLICATION FOR CHARTER FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of several press reports that the application for a charter for the bank of British Columbia will not be handled as expeditiously as some of the other applications that we expect. I would like to ask the minister if he will comment on this matter and assure the house that the government are prepared to handle this application just as expeditiously as any other applications that may be received.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have absolutely nothing to say about such speculative press reports.



GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN BROADWAY THEATRE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of a statement made earlier today by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and out of some press reports regarding a Broadway show called "Foxy". I am wondering whether the minister can tell us in view of the fact that it has apparently now become Conservative policy to have public investment in the rather precarious business of playing angel to Broadway shows, if this government is prepared to follow a similar policy; or have they sounder policies for public investment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was a little surprised at the enthusiasm expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings for this form of investment of public funds. I can assure my hon. friend that the present government does not think this form of investment is appropriate for this or any other government to undertake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This government is "foxy" in other ways.



ERROR IN AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could the minister tell us why he did not see fit to mention the error made about the interest on the debt for the year 1963-64 in

the supplementary estimates "E" tabled this morning, rather than in next year's estimates, that is for 1964-65?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the error when I was tabling the estimates for 1964-65 the other day. The amount of the actual interest has been provided for throughout the year.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
I think the minister did not quite answer my question, perhaps because he did not understand it. Here is my question. Since this expenditure was made during the 196364 fiscal year, why has the minister not deemed advisable to include this item in the supplementary estimates "E" submitted this morning, instead of in those for next year, since this expenditure was made during the period covered by the supplementary estimates "E" for 1963-64?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The expenditures have been properly approved, Mr. Speaker. I have nothing more to say.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the house whether the total and actual amount of the interest payable on the public debt for the year 1964-65 will be less than the amount paid for 1963-64, taking into account the error made last year in the computation of the interest?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The amount of interest
payable for the year 1963-64 is based upon the amount of bonds outstanding and the obligation to pay interest. The amount of interest payable in 1964-65 has been estimated as accurately as it can be estimated at this stage. I hope this estimate for next year will prove to be considerably more accurate than such estimates have customarily proven to be in the past. There has been a different approach to the way in which the calculations are made, and I think they reflect a truer picture.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we have had a whole series of questions and we are now entering upon a debate. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would care to send the minister a written question, which the minister could then carefully consider.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question in French to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce give the house the assurance that the land selected as the site of the world fair will be ready at the agreed time, that is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The same old theme.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: And the same old gang, Mr. Speaker.

I am serious in asking that question. Will it be ready at the agreed time, that is June 30, 1964?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the city of Montreal will have provided the land by that time. That is the latest information I have. I will make inquiries to see if there is any later information.
May I also take advantage of this opportunity to reply to the question the hon. gentleman put to me the other day. He asked me if it was my intention to invite the Vatican state to participate in the Montreal world fair. He will be pleased to know that an invitation to participate in the Canadian world exhibition was extended to the Vatican state on March 18, 1963 by the Department of External Affairs through the apostolic delegate in Ottawa.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the announcement he made this morning about the completion of the sale of wheat to East Germany. In view of the fact that most of the announcements he has been making about new trade agreements seem to be connected
Inquiries of the Ministry with countries with whom we do not have diplomatic relations, is the minister giving consideration to having a separate trade fair for countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister inform the house the result of the discussions or negotiations held between officials of his department and the city of Calgary in regard to the use of the Colonel Belcher hospital?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have since informed the house that two members of the Alberta government have been to Ottawa. They have laid a proposal before us which we are now considering. Until we have examined this document it is difficult for us to reach a conclusion or to make a statement.
While I am on my feet may I correct an answer that I gave yesterday to the hon. member for Kootenay West when I said that the meeting would take place toward the end of next week. That is to be found on page 572 of Hansard. The date, March 16, is early in the following week and not at the end of next week.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before any change in policy in regard to the operation of the veterans affairs hospitals is decided upon, will the minister, as I requested some two weeks ago, submit this whole question to the veterans affairs committee of the house for examination and advice?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that into consideration before I can answer my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same subject. With reference to the mounting unrest among veterans and their relatives concerning the uncertain policy of the government with regard to veterans hospitals, will the minister unequivocally state now that there will be no change in the administration of these veterans hospitals by the Department of Veterans Affairs, so this unrest will be dispelled?

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Teillei: I cannot give the hon. gentleman such an undertaking, but I have undertaken to give the house a statement as soon as I can. I am hoping this will be next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said that two weeks ago.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the great loss of sales through failure to develop suburban areas, and other financial losses, to the owners of C.A.T.V. systems, would the minister consider lifting the freeze that he placed on the owners of cable television on December 31?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is of course no freeze of any kind on any systems that are in existence. The only caution was with respect to future developments. I hope the B.B.G. will be able to make a report very quickly on that matter, and if it is necessary I will emphasize to them the desirability of all diligence in this matter.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Churchill the other day about the airport at The Pas, Manitoba. Extensive rebuilding of The Pas airport will be undertaken this year. This will include rebuilding and paving of runway 12-30, the aircraft parking apron and access taxiways, and also revision to the airport lighting. It is unfortunate that the state of the airport should be interfering with the transport of this community and every effort will be made to proceed with construction as rapidly as possible.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether the report of the investigation into the tragic T.C.A. accident on November 29 last has been received, and also has the transcript of the tape recording 
from the tower, just before the wreck, been examined? If so, what does it reveal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In response to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition-I may say he was good enough to give me notice and I made inquiries-it is not even possible yet to estimate how soon the investigation into this very baffling and tragic accident will be completed. I may say it will probably conclude by being one of the most costly investigations ever held, but I think it is warranted because of its baffling nature and the terrible tragedy.
I am sure those who are conducting the investigation will have examined the particular matter to which the right hon. gentleman referred. I have no information on the subject myself, but it has been the view of the department and the view of the other agencies concerned that instead of examining bits and pieces of the evidence it would be better to leave that to the inquiry, so as not to create any false impressions which can be avoided about what may have happened. In fact, to be quite plain about it, I myself do not know at all what the tape may contain.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. Did not the investigators find out enough in their investigation to determine that a similar crash would soon take place, which did take place in the southern United States just a few weeks ago? Did they not discover in their investigation that such a crash as did take place was most likely to occur?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no such information, Mr. Speaker, and I would be very surprised if there was any truth in such a rumour.



HASKETT, MAN.  PROVISION OF LANDING STRIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister be good enough to obtain an answer to the question I asked the former minister in regard to the establishment of an air strip on the Manitoba-North Dakota border at Haskett, Manitoba?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister

of Trade and Commerce is in a position yet to reply to the question addressed to him by the hon. member for Renfrew South last Tuesday with respect to the order of the minister of mines and forests of the province of Quebec concerning the movement of pulpwood into Ontario from a number of Quebec counties immediately adjacent to the province of Ontario.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to reply to this question. I have been investigating the circumstances, and I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to make a statement until I have completed those inquiries.



PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF IMPORT INTO NEW YORK STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Yesterday in my absence, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac asked a question about a bill relating to bread which is now before the New York legislature. I wish to inform the house that the United States authorities have been informed of our concern regarding the possible implications of this proposed legislation as it may affect the export of Canadian bread to the United States. They have been made fully aware of our interest in ensuring that Canada's access to the United States market should continue unimpaired.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he yet concluded his intensive and favourable consideration of the proposal to extend the grain elevator at Prince Rupert and has he come to a favourable decision?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sorry, but we have not concluded this consideration yet.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, who answers to the house for the C.B.C.
Inquiries of the Ministry Could the minister tell us whether it is true that the proposed construction of C.B.C. headquarters in the eastern part of Montreal is being delayed until after 1967 and, if so, what is the reason for that?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of the delay referred to by the hon. member. I will inquire from the management of the C.B.C. and provide a reply later.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is based on a portion of the statement he made when he tabled the supplementary estimates this morning. Since the government seems at this time to be tidying up matters related to various superannuation funds, does the government not consider that this would be a good time to adjust the pensions of superannuated civil servants already retired?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, when the government has a statement to make on this subject it will do so. As I have said on other occasions, this matter is under consideration all the time.



HAMILTON FALLS


[Stage Direction]
FOR DEVELOPMENT On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
Could the minister tell the house whether an agreement has been reached or entered into between the province of Quebec and Newfoundland regarding the development of Hamilton falls in Labrador?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as a federal minister I would not be expected to know, but if there is any point in my making inquiries I shall do so.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries or in his absence to the act-

Inquiries of the Ministry ing minister. Is the minister in a position to advise the house whether any sealers lost their lives in yesterday's storm while seal hunting off the east coast of Canada; and were any helicopters or other planes lost as a result of the storm?


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take the question as notice, find out the particulars and give my hon. friend an answer as soon as possible.



THANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF NAME IN EVENT OF CHANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government taken note of the concern expressed by Mr. Gordon MacGregor that the name Trans-Canada Air Lines might be taken up and exploited by someone else when our national air line becomes Air Canada? Is consideration being given by the government to protecting that name?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have given consideration to that matter myself. I have communicated with my colleague, the government leader in the other place, and I believe certain suggestions will be made concerning the protection of the name in exactly the same way that the name Air Canada has been protected for Trans-Canada Air Lines since 1953. Neither name can be used by any other organization. It seems to me it is most desirable that that legal situation be continued. I feel quite sure I express the views of everyone in the house when I say that if the other place sees fit to make such a provision in the legislation, it will commend itself to everyone.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: few days ago the Minister of National Revenue told the house that members of the oil, chemical and atomic workers union who were on strike in Saint John, New Brunswick would be protected against foreclosure proceedings by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation if they paid half their arrears. I have received a telegram which says that the local manager of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. H. W. Schaven, has announced that foreclosure proceedings are

now being undertaken. I wonder if the minister is aware of this and what action he proposes to take to protect these people, and to keep the commitment which has been made to them.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: I respectfully suggest that the subject matter of the hon. member's question may be a little out of date. We have been in communication with the president of the union and with the corporation offices. No foreclosure action has been undertaken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister assuring the house that the statement made by the local manager is not accurate?


John Richard Garland: I cannot, because I do not know what statements the local manager may have made. However, I can tell the hon. member that the corporation advises me no foreclosure action has been taken, and I suggested that none be taken until there is a full opportunity to pursue the matter.


Malcolm MacInnis: Can the minister explain why, following the foreclosure notices that were issued, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation refused union cheques as part payment of the arrears of these people? What attitude does the minister intend to take with the officials of his department concerning this matter?


John Richard Garland: I believe the hon. gentleman is in error. I do not believe any foreclosure proceedings were undertaken.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, together with the protocol containing modifications and clarifications to the treaty annexed to an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States signed on January 22, 1964, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, at the close of the sitting last evening I had made reference to a study of the Columbia river treaty arrangements and their effects on the United States which had been commissioned by the state of Washington. This study, which was commissioned by the state conservation department, was carried out by H. Zinder and Associates of Seattle, consulting engineers. Hon. members may have seen

a summary of this report which appeared in the Globe and Mail for Tuesday, February 25, 1964. I should like to quote from that article:
A Washington state study released yesterday questions whether development ot the upper Columbia river under a proposed U.S.-Canadian treaty would be of benefit to the Pacific northwest.
Further along the article states:
The report says alternate projects in the United States would provide almost as much power and flood control as the Canadian development at nearly the same cost.
The article also states:
The report says the treaty system by 1985 would provide 485,000 more kilowatts of prime power than the all U.S. system, would probably not make much difference in northwest transmission costs, but might cause higher unemployment in the United States by precluding construction of U.S. dams.
This study, I submit, indicates first, that the accusations made yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay West as to the competence of the Canadian professional advisers who assisted this government in negotiating the treaty are completely unfounded. They assisted this government in driving a very good bargain with the Americans. It also affirms that the accusation by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that this treaty is a sell-out, and that by its provisions we are conferring on the Americans benefits which they could not provide for themselves in any other way in the United States, is completely unfounded.
When I first commenced my study in connection with this particular subject last year, there were several objections which from a standpoint of an Ontario member, or any other member from central Canada, seemed to be most important to me personally, and would be also of the greatest importance to hon. members from the rest of Canada outside British Columbia.
First, the arrangements which the then government appeared to be in the process of making-if we can dignify the state of immobility which the treaty had reached last year with the description of "arrangements"- would have provided that Canada, at her own expense, would have to raise and pay the full cost of the dams to be built in Canada. At that time it seemed that not a bad analogy to those proposed arrangements was that they were almost like reparations to be paid, and that Canada would assume the full financial cost for the benefits to be provided to the United States in the way of possibilities for the generation of power, and we would not be able to take advantage of these for many years. I submit that it is from that particular point of view in the status of last year's negotiations that the new agreement, whereby the downstream benefits will be sold for a
Columbia River Treaty period of 30 years, appears to be the most advantageous position for Canada to take.
Under the sale agreement the entire cost of structures to be built in Canada will come from the United States, and will not cost the Canadian taxpayers from the Atlantic to the Pacific a single cent. What is more, it will yield a profit in Canada which will enable Canada to instal a portion of the generating capacity at Mica creek dam.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What about the cost of "cheap" power?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows very well, the financial arrangements in this particular treaty will confer upon Canada possibly the cheapest power that can be made available anywhere in British Columbia and probably anywhere else in Canada.
The second concern which disturbed me last year was the fact that under the treaty the Canadian government and Canada as a whole were, by its provisions, made subject to very serious contingent liabilities which, if the contingencies came about, would have been borne by the credit of this country as a whole. There was a significant advance made by this government in negotiating an agreement with the province of British Columbia whereby all liabilities incumbent upon Canada by the terms of the agreement are assumed by that province, the province which will gain the greatest benefits.
Third, I was very much concerned by certain criticisms of the treaty, such as those of General McNaughton to which I referred last night, which indicated that because of the obscurity of the wording in the treaty, Canada's freedom of action to use or develop the waters would be very much curtailed. I made reference last night to the control of the watershed, and in particular to the difficulties which might have been imposed under the wording of the treaty for controlling the waters for maximum generation in Canada.
I was also very seriously concerned at that time about the provisions of article XIII regarding the future diversion of the Kootenay waters. Therefore I was very pleased to see that in the protocol these objections which concerned me had been so effectively covered by the appropriate paragraphs.
I would further like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that while great benefit is to fall in the province of British Columbia under the terms of this treaty, Canadians generally will benefit. As the hon. member for Coast-Capilano pointed out, Canada's balance of payments position will benefit, and the country as a whole will benefit as a result of the activity which will take place when construction commences.

Columbia River Treaty
I would particularly like to point out to hon. members from Ontario that firms such as John Inglis in Toronto and Canadian West-inghouse in Hamilton will have a first class opportunity of competing for the supply of the very expensive and very complicated machinery required for the various installations which, under the terms now arranged, will be proceeded with much earlier than was previously agreed upon.
In this connection I would like to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, like I, is a member from central Canada. I should like to pay tribute to him for the skill which he exhibited in these negotiations, and for the benefit which his efforts will confer not only upon the citizens of British Columbia but upon Canadians generally. I am delighted that he-like myself, a native of the Ottawa valley-has been able to participate in conferring such benefits on the residents of the Columbia and Fraser watershed.
I have not made any reference to the remarks of the official opposition as yet, but I listened with interest to the position taken by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke, who spoke during the first day of this debate. I suppose his speech might well be summarized in this question: What is the difference, what has been added that was not here previously? The difference between the arrangements completed by this government and the arrangements as they existed last year under the previous government, is the difference between success and failure, the difference between the successful harnessing of a great resource and last year's failure of negotiations and the bitter acrimony being conducted between the federal government and the government of British Columbia.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke apparently had great belief in the prospect of arriving at some advantageous arrangements for Canada. He may have thought his government could arrive at some such arrangements, but that government's chief negotiator, the former hon. member for Kamloops, who had charge of the negotiations for so many years, apparently had no such optimism. In fact he abandoned his treaty, gave up active legislative responsibilities and went into retirement as leader of the Progressive Conservative party in British Columbia.
The position of the hon. members in the official opposition might best be described as having abandoned their own offspring, an offspring which has now been nourished and reared by this government. Now that it has reached a successful status in life, hon. members opposite are coming back in like free loading relatives trying to take credit for it.

As to the New Democratic party, I think I can summarize my remarks about their position in this way. In the one and a half years I have been in this house they have been calling at frequent intervals for committee hearings on this important question. We are now to have committee hearings. But the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said in his remarks the other night it did not matter what kind of evidence was presented at those hearings; they had made up their minds about this treaty, and it was not going to pass.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has made an allegation which he has not attempted to substantiate. May I ask him to read the words where I said that irrespective of what the committee might recommend we would be against the treaty? If the hon. member will take the trouble to read my speech he will see that I said we were very glad to have this committee set up because we wanted a full investigation. At no point did I say that irrespective of the evidence put forward we would oppose it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Very well. I am prepared to put it this way, and say that my impression of the remarks made by the hon. member the other night is that he was saying in effect "Don't bother me with the facts; we have already made up our minds."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As long as it is only your opinion it doesn't matter, but why not stick to the facts?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Nobody is going to pay any more attention to yours.


Mr. Peters:: Your speech is not going to be any better than the withdrawal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member wishes to make a contribution perhaps he would stand up, not speak from his seat.
I believe we have here a valuable opportunity to make a difficult subject clearer in the eyes of Canadians, and that it is up to the house to take advantage of the expert evidence which will be presented before this committee. Canadians will not thank members of the New Democratic party for obstruction in the committee, or indeed in the house, as far as that goes, or for preventing a full and fair hearing on this most important issue.


Erik Nielsen: I intend to say a few words about the contributions made to this debate by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and the hon. member for Kootenay East, and to reflect for a moment or two on certain words used by the present Prime

Minister when he was leader of the opposition. What these gentlemen have to say now is a far cry from the position they took when they were in opposition.
The hon. member for Kootenay East made, I think, a naive attempt yesterday to reserve his position, or to find justification for reversing his position on this subject. He tried valiantly but, I think, unsuccessfully. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano found himself in the same position, since he too had taken a very different stand when he was in opposition. I intend to put certain facts on record which will show this to be incontrovertibly the case.
Let me deal first with a more specific matter which has arisen in the course of this debate. Hon. members on the government side, in an attempt to garner all the credit for the treaty which was negotiated among the three governments concerned, have played down, as they did when in opposition-particularly the hon. member for Kootenay East- the part which was taken by the able and excellent civil servants who for many years have participated in these negotiations. I refer to Mr. Patterson of the water resources division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; Mr. MacNabb, the chief technical adviser to the Canadian government; Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Olson, to mention only a few. These gentlemen were in fact responsible for concluding these negotiations in the way in which they have been concluded, not the politicians as hon. members opposite are attempting to tell us now. The hon. member for Kootenay East, I was told this morning, spent half the night burning up copies of yesterday's issue of Hansard. While I do not entirely credit the rumour, there would be a good deal of justification for the hon. member taking such a course.


Mr. Byrne:: On the contrary, I am sending
out a hundred copies.


Erik Nielsen: This is what the hon. member
said in December, 1962:
There was Mr. Robertson, deputy minister of northern affairs and national resourses. I question whether he has any training in electrical engineering or hydro development. Another member of the team was Mr. Ritchie of the Department of External Affairs, a man with very little knowledge of hydroelectric development. Finally, there was Mr. Bassett the deputy minister of lands and forests of the province of British Columbia.
This is small shift to give to the excellent Canadian negotiating team. Then the hon. member went on for half a page to describe the virtues of the team from the United States, the team which was pitted against these dwarfs on the Canadian side. I think he was selling the Canadian civil servants short when he was doing that. He says he
Columbia River Treaty has now seen the light. He says he was misinformed and that is why he took the stand he did, before his party formed the government, of supporting the McNaughton plan. Yet here, in the Lake Windermere Valley Echo of January 17, 1963, is a statement by the hon. member in an address to the Windermere district board of trade in the course of which the hon. member said he had been following the course of the Columbia river negotiations since 1949.
All I can say is that it took the hon. member an awfully long time to see the light. If all the information he amassed in those years between 1949 and 1963 finally brought about his conversion, then I think his studies have been both deep and fruitful. However, I doubt the legitimacy of his conversion. As a matter of fact the matter was raised yesterday by a member of the New Democratic group-in fact, it was the leader of the group, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who said, as reported in yesterday's Hansard:
He used to be a keen supporter of the McNaughton plan, and tonight he has outlined all the defects of the McNaughton plan. I want to ask him when he observed those defects. Was it when he was made parliamentary secretary?
He was referring, of course, to the hon. member for Kootenay East, who then replied:
Effectively, Mr. Speaker, that could be my answer. But the truth is that I have never said categorically that we must have the McNaughton plan. To do so would have meant political extinction for me in the east Kootenays.
Now, that is a most interesting statement, Mr. Speaker.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, there was unquestionably a misinterpretation of what was said. At the time I said this would be an effective answer, a member from this side of the house had interjected I had not been converted when I heard the speech of the hon. member for Kootenay West, and that was the time I had made my conversion. Of course it was a facetious remark, but it was not after my speech; it was having heard the speech of the hon. member from Kootenay West.


Erik Nielsen: Well, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said last night, and it is recorded in Hansard as I heard it last night. It did not appear to me at the time, and it does not now, to be facetious. If that is what the hon. member intended, then of course we must accept his explanation. But of course this is an example of typical Liberal evasion, and it raised its ugly head again when the hon. member said that to do so, namely to support the McNaughton plan, "would have meant political extinction for me in the east Kootenays".

Columbia River Treaty The fact of the matter is that the hon. member did support the McNaughton plan. He told this house-and I suggest he was not being facetious-that he had never categorically stated he was supporting the McNaughton plan. But here I should like to quote again from the Lake Windermere Valley Echo, a copy of which was handed to me by the hon. member for Macleod. The article is headed "Columbia In Doubt" and it says, immediately afterward, "Jim Byrne Believes McNaughton Plan Best". I quote:
James Byrne, M.P. for Kootenay East, addressing the Windermere district board of trade said that renegotiation of the Columbia river basin treaty would be in the best interest of Canada.
That position is consistent with the position he took in this house last year. He is reported in Hansard on December 13, 1962, as saying:
As I have said earlier, this is a poor agreement, a poorer arrangement for Canada than was the old Kaiser deal, the deal that was blocked by the International River Improvements Act. I believe it is wrong. I believe this treaty should be renegotiated.


An hon. Member:: It was.


Erik Nielsen: No, the treaty was not renegotiated. The Liberal party has made a great hullabaloo about all the changes which have been made, but in the covering press release we find that the following words appear at page 126, paragraph 8. Members over there say the treaty has been changed, but let them look at the opening words of these paragraphs-"New Procedures", "Confirms", "Reaffirms", Affirms", and so on. Change? Nonsense; there have been no changes at all. The single change made between the time the governments changed has been the change respecting the sale of downstream benefits, and that change was being negotiated at the time the governments changed.
To return to the hon. member's statement that he had never said categorically that we must have the McNaughton plan, may I express the opinion that the hon. member should exercise a little more care in his choice of words. The article I cited states:
Mr. Byrne said he believes that the McNaughton plan is best for Canada and he reviewed important details of the plan which advocates a dam at Murphy creek above Trail, building of the Mica dam and flooding of the Columbia valley-
Mr. Byrne told the meeting he appreciated the thorough study Dr. Coy has made of the Columbia situation although he could not agree with his opinions-
Captain J. S. Blakely, Radium: "What is the situation at the present time?"


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: "Exactly the same as when the treaty was signed." (January 17, 1961).
Those were the member's words on January 17, 1963. So when the members on my left charge the hon. member with supporting 
the McNaughton plan, the hon. member cannot be heard now to say that he never said categorically that he would support the McNaughton plan.
This weaving and dodging the hon. members like the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano reminds me of when still at school and my reading of "Alice in Wonderland". I should like to cite a passage which came to me and which is to be found on page 117 of Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass". In this story a discussion occurred between Humpty Dumpty and Alice, and I think we might cast the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano in the role of Humpty Dumpty and Alice just for the moment to see the applicability of these words:
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many diiferent things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them-particularly verbs; they're the proudest-adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs; however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said, in a thoughtful tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is what these two hon. members have been doing here. They have been using words, not-if I may steal a phrase for a moment from an hon. member opposite which I heard yesterday- like the rolling periods of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but words used in such a fashion that they are twisted and warped out of all recognition. I think too we might describe their words, in a more serious sense, as words which are certainly not said in all sincerity. I think the hon. member for Kootenay East made a valiant effort, but to my mind he did not succeed at all. As a matter of fact, I think the only time the hon. member for Kootenay East opens his mouth is to change feet.



B, 1964

[Stage Direction]
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to refer to what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano had to say before the change of government. He is reported in Maclean's magazine for November 17, 1962 as taking this position:
Dr. Jack Davis, the Liberal member for Coast-Capilano (North Vancouver) a Rhodes scholar who was the senior economist for the Gordon commission and is now his party's chief spokesman on the Columbia. Davis backs the export of power, but considers the present treaty nothing short of a fiasco, because "it fails to procure any demonstrable advantage for the people of Canada." Davis claims that under its terms treaty power costs to Canada will be five to six times as high as the price paid by the U.S.
That seems to be a little different from the position he takes now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Davis:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Those comments, of course, applied to the state of affairs which obtained over a year ago. Does he agree with that?


Erik Nielsen: I will agree that the article was written over a year ago and that those statements were made by the hon. member over a year ago, just as statements were made, I take it, since 1949 by the hon. member for Kootenay East. But I am suggesting to hon. members of this house that the only reason for this remarkable change of heart is that hon. members opposite now form the government. They have now seen the light, and have seen that the treaty which was negotiated by this party when it was in office was a treaty which was beneficial to Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Then why did you not ratify it? Why wait three years?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member knows that negotiations were going on right up until January 22. Not being privy to the secrets of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I do not know the precise date on which the negotiations were concluded, but I suggest that they were not concluded until after-


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were concluded just about January 18.


Erik Nielsen: Then I do not think I am making an inaccurate statement when I say that the negotiations were continuing under both governments, throughout the overlapping period when the government changed right up until January 18.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not agree that before the treaty was signed in Washington it should have been capable of ratification by this house; that it should have been put to the house for ratification when signed by the
Columbia River Treaty executive? Is it not a fact that the treaty was actually incapable of ratification at the time it was signed?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member knows the circumstances full well. If he has made the study which he says he has made of this matter since 1949 he should know that negotiations were continuing after the signing of that treaty with regard to the details of the sale of downstream benefits and other matters, which negotiations were finally concluded on January 18 and resulted in the protocol. The treaty which was signed was capable of ratification once these details had been ironed out. They have now been ironed out, and I think it ill behooves hon. members now sitting on the government benches, and is rather ungracious of them, to come along as politicians and steal all the excellent work done by the civil servants who ironed out the details of which I speak.
The treaty negotiations which were led by Hon. Davie Fulton when he was minister of justice, and other members of the cabinet, were negotiations which looked after Canada's interests and sovereignty and were for the benefit of Canada generally. We take the position that it is still our treaty. It is the treaty which was negotiated under the former government and which is going to go to a committee and will eventually be ratified by this parliament. It is also the treaty which hon. members opposite, perhaps unintentionally, are now lauding as a good treaty, yet about which they had such critical remarks to make when they were sitting on this side of the house.


John (Jack) Davis: Would the hon. member permit another question? Would he please indicate what financial arrangements had been completed during the regime of the previous government? Were there financial arrangements for the carrying out of the treaty or were there not? Without them obviously the treaty meant nothing at all.


Erik Nielsen: I do not think the hon. member is making that suggestion seriously at all. The financial arrangements which were worked out eventually were the product of the negotiations which continued throughout the remaining term of the former government and into the term of the government which took office last April. But it was the civil servants and the technical experts who worked the matter out. The hon. member knows that because he purports to be one of those technical experts. It cannot be suggested that the politicians worked out the details of the downstream benefits, the height of the dams, the amount of flood control to be provided, and so on. Even those matters, I understand as a layman, are still sufficiently vague to require

Columbia River Treaty
further negotiations for details to be worked out in the future, over a period of some 80 years perhaps. It seems to me that it lies ill in the mouths of hon. members who now form the government to be attempting to steal all the very fine work that has been done by the civil service.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, could 1 ask the hon. member a question? As one who is watching from a distance, I would like to know how this is consistent. A few moments ago the hon. member said "our treaty", referring to the Conservative government, and then he talked about the civil service. I want to know, has the hon. member some advantage over the rest of us, that he can have it both ways?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member had been listening carefully he would have noted in the course of my remarks-I should not have said "our treaty"-that I said "this treaty", or words to that effect. If he will examine Hansard tomorrow he will find that I did overrun that phrase with another one. I suggest the hon. member should listen a little more carefully.


Michael Starr: He is too far away.


Erik Nielsen: I want to deal for a moment with a specific matter which is of concern to me, and I am sure will be of concern to all members of the house. I refer to the development of the Yukon river and to certain remarks that were made by the Prime Minister when he was the leader of the official opposition. His words are to be found on page 4653 of Hansard for 1961. This has to do, sir, not just with an individualistic about-face, which appears to have happened to hon. members over there. It used to be the policy of the Liberal party that there should be no export of power at all, and I will be referring to this later. A proposal was put to the government at the time Mr. Lesage was minister of northern affairs with regard to Yukon development. A decision was then taken that has set back Pacific northwest development for 15 years. This policy was expounded again by the Prime Minister as recently as May of 1961. It appears that he too has now had a change of heart. He said:
It is true, naturally, that any application for the export of power made by any corporation in any part of Canada would have to be considered.
Then he said:
We have learned in the past, however, that one has to be particularly careful about granting permits for the export of power of any kind, however carefully guarded the provisions might be with respect to recapturability, if I may use that word; because experience in the past has shown that when the time comes when you wish to

get that power back from the United States, obstacles are created which make such a course almost impossible.
Therefore, while it would be natural to consider any application for the export of power from British Columbia or any other province in the future, one would hope there would be no departure by any government in Canada from the policy which has been laid down in the past-[DOT]
That policy I have already referred to.
-and, I think, accepted now by governments representing both parties-
He was referring to the policy which in effect was applied to the application of a company to develop the hydro potential of the Yukon river at that time. The government of the day turned down that application.
Active consideration of a power plant for the Yukon river waters began in 1946-47 when the Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa, placed before Canadian authorities a plan to develop 2 million horsepower by diverting Yukon river waters through Bennet lake to tide water in Taiya inlet. This is on the Alaska Panhandle. This was to be done by means of two tunnels, 19 miles in combined length, through the coast range; the head to be developed on the Canadian side and the power to be generated on the Alaska side in the Panhandle.
The United States opposed this development by private companies and suggested a joint investigation of the plan by Canada and the United States, each country being responsible for surveys in its own territory. Canada also opposed the original Alcoa scheme. Mr. Lesage's remarks are to be found in Hansard of either 1946 or 1947, where he said in effect that this power could not be generated on the American side and had to be saved for future generations of Canadians. The Liberal government of the time took the stand that if there was to be any Yukon river power development involving diversion of Yukon waters, Canada would do it and would stand on its rights under the boundary waters treaty to do so.
The studies I referred to were undertaken by Canada and completed, but apparently little work was done by the United States authorities to supplement information they already had. I think Canada's studies were completed in 1950. While various views have been exchanged by the two countries, no agreement has been reached and Yukon power became a quiet issue until late in 1952. At that time is was suggested by the Canadian authorities that Ventures Limited investigate the possibilities of economic power development wholly in Canada using Yukon waters. I was a little out in my quotation

of Mr. Lesage's remarks. These appear in Hansard for 1952 or 1953, and not 1946 or 1947 as I stated.
Ventures Limited immediately began office and field investigations. These resulted in the Yukon-Atlin-Taku project with its early stages producing nearly a million horsepower for construction in 1954. This promise of low cost power evinced immediate interest by large United States industrial firms, and it appeared that construction of the first stages of the Yukon-Atlin-Taku project might be under way in 1954 with Canadian and United States funds.
This was a completely Canadian plan involving the generation of power near Tulse-quah in northern British Columbia. Alcoa was again interested, but United States authorities again did not favour its participation. Later in that year Reynolds Mining Company showed active interest, and in July its top representatives met with those of Ventures in Victoria, British Columbia, and a well known New York consulting and appraisal firm was present on Reynolds' behalf.
The plans for the initial development of nearly one million horsepower were fully approved and agreement for joint participation in construction was drafted for signature. However, on the day the signatures were to be affixed, the Reynolds Mining Company people received word from the head office to sign nothing and return to Pittsburgh. Later it developed that United States authorities did not wish United States company funds applied to the diversion of Yukon waters.
Again, in the fall of 1954 the consulting firm that had advised Reynolds in Victoria showed their interest and met with Ventures officials in New York. The feasibility and economic promise of the first construction stage were again fully considered and accepted, and preliminary construction plans were discussed. However, some two weeks later the company advised that it would not be able to proceed. Again I suggest it was because of United States authorities' disfavour regarding the application of funds by a United States company for the diversion of Yukon waters.
So on three occasions the United States authorities apparently influenced their firms from assisting in the financing of the Yukon-Atlin-Taku project, presumably because this plan involved the diversion of Yukon waters in Canada. By doing so they set back the industrial development of the whole Pacific northwest of Canada by some 15 years, and that setback would apply also, of course, to the state of Alaska.
The Yukon-Atlin-Taku project could be forestalled permanently if any precedent were
Columbia River Treaty set by the treaty we are now asked to consider, and its protocol. Therefore, I am very happy to note the confirmation and affirmation of the principle that the treaty and the deal on the Columbia will not affect the subsequent diversion of any other rivers in Canada, although a great hullaballoo has been made about that. In effect, the protocol in paragraph 8, subparagraph (f) makes 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, and does not modify the application of the boundary waters treaty to such other waters. But in effect, Mr. Speaker, the boundary waters treaty already sets that out quite clearly in article 2. Therefore no protocol is necessary to say that we can divert, because it is quite clear in the treaty itself that Canada has the right to divert.
I would hope that the experts, as I am sure they did, had special regard to the Yukon situation when the protocol was considered. If the Columbia river treaty established any such precedent, of course, or if any concessions were made in regard to the Columbia that might affect by precedent the Yukon river, I suggest that storage on the Yukon would be prejudiced. It is vital in my view that no terms should be in the Columbia river treaty or in the protocol that will prejudice Canada's right to use her own Yukon waters as she sees fit, and I intend to pursue this in some detail in the committee.
Since 1959 there has been little or no work done on the once widely hailed Yukon-Atlin-Taku project. The work was done by a subsidiary of Ventures Quebec Metallurgical Industries and included intensive surveys and power marketing talks with United States interests. Since the merger of Ventures with Falconbridge the Quebec Metallurgical subsidiary has survived as a corporate entity, but the Yukon-Atlin-Taku power scheme has been on the shelf for many years.
It would be to Canada's permanent disadvantage to have the Columbia river treaty alter our existing rights on the Columbia, and by inference on the Yukon, to divert waters. So I am very happy to see that this is not so, and I hope I will be confirmed in this belief when the committee considers the project.
The Yukon-Atlin-Taku scheme called for extensive diversion systems in the Yukon river's feeder lakes and rivers in the Whitehorse area near the Yukon-British Columbia border. Canada has rights under the 1909 boundary waters treaty to divert the Yukon river waters, and the Yukon-Atlin-Taku project was based on this right. Eventually the hydroelectric potential of the Yukon will be harnessed, and it is to be hoped that since the

Columbia River Treaty river rises and is fed mainly by waters stored in Canada, we will be the first to take advantage of the hydroelectric benefits to be derived from the Yukon river potential. The old 1909 boundary waters treaty ensured our rights, and I would hope that those rights would remain intact.
Before I sit down may I say a word about the pending Rampart development scheme that it is proposed to undertake in Alaska. I brought this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs last session, and I do so again because the huge potential of the Yukon river system is now in danger from the point of view of preserving its development for future generations of Canadians. The United States army corps of engineers is now in the process of conducting a survey of the feasibility of a completely Alaskan project known as the Rampart project. The report is anticipated very soon, and it is also anticipated that the United States will act on that report at the earliest possible date. If the Rampart project goes ahead we will then become the upstream party under the boundary waters treaty and we will find our position prejudiced.
Even before the government changed this situation had arisen. I drew it to the attention of the previous government and I also, as I have said, brought it before the house last session. It seems to me that we should be sitting down pretty soon, if we have not done so already, with the government of the United States to discuss the future development of the Yukon; because I submit we do not want to be placed in the position of having to face a crystallized program of the Americans to go ahead with the Rampart project when all the engineering assessments as to feasibility and even plans for preliminary construction have been completed with regard to the Yukon-Atlin-Taku project, a wholly Canadian scheme whereby power would be generated wholly in Canada for the use of Canadians. As I have pointed out, the Americans were also determined to go ahead with this project but because of internal politics the companies withdrew their backing on three different occasions.
If something is not done now to negotiate in a friendly fashion with the United States with regard to the Rampart project, I am afraid we are going to find ourselves in the position where we will simply have to junk any hope of going ahead with the development of the Yukon river and its huge potential of some 6 million horsepower in all, I believe. We will have to sacrifice that project because of our failure to react to the

United States plan to develop the Rampart scheme in Alaska.
The Rampart scheme was a secondary alternative that was first proposed, I believe, by Senator Bartlett because of the failure of the Tyee scheme and the Yukon-Atlin-Taku scheme. I understand it is not as feasible from an engineering point of view to develop power at Rampart in Alaska as it is in either of the other two cases. I understand that from an engineering point of view the Tyee scheme was the most practical; and while the power would have been developed on the American side the company, Alcoa, was prepared at that time to meet by long distance transmission all of Canada's demands with respect to any power generated on the Panhandle. That was made quite clear at the time, and for the life of me I still cannot understand the position that was taken by the government of that day in refusing the go-ahead for that project. Here was a wholly American investment of $3 billion to develop some 6 million horsepower, the full potential of the Yukon river and its watershed, with an absolute undertaking on the part of the Americans to transmit all the power required to meet Canadian demands initially and in the future.
Now that the Columbia river treaty is so close to its culmination and ratification I hope the minister will devote his time to sitting down with the Americans and attempting to preserve for Canada a feasible scheme for the development of the whole of the Yukon potential for Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Spadina.


Mr. Ryan:: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Sylvester Perry Ryan: The Columbia river treaty, Mr. Speaker, after long years of preparation was finally signed at Washington on January 17, 1961 by the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, then prime minister of Canada; the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, the then minister of justice, and the Hon. A. D. P. Heeney, then our ambassador to the United States. I have, as a member of the power committee of our party paid a good deal of attention to this treaty over the past one and a half years. I am of the opinion, and I recognize that it is my opinion, that this is substantially a good treaty. I feel that under the political pressures of the day it might

have been signed too hastily and, as a result, the great work of many people over many years may have been unfairly criticized.
The treaty is an involved and intricate, legal and scientific document. For this reason, I submit, it became an easy mark for all manner of criticisms from various sources. From a lawyer's point of view, I found many of these criticisms to be non-factual and indeed, in a great many cases, unfair. Slanderous attacks have been made upon this country's civil servants and their opposite numbers in the United States by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I made no slanderous attacks. I simply quoted the opinion of the chief negotiator for the United States concerning the ability of our negotiators.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: It is a matter of opinion, and I submit I am entitled to my opinion. Since the hon. member for Kootenay West does not appear to have much faith in our civil servants or crown corporations, I may say it is peculiar to find this critical approach coming from an hon. member who espouses such things as the nationalization of industry and administration by civil servants.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, not by civil servants, but by crown corporations.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Then, we heard a speech from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I understand that this morning he denied a charge by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) to the effect he had committed his party to blockade this treaty. In so far as this point is concerned, I should like to read into the record from Hansard for March 3, 1964, page 500, the remarks of the hon. member:
If the committee brings back this treaty and recommends its ratification, we in ttie New Democratic party will oppose its ratification, and will do everything in our power to prevent this parliament giving its assent to what we consider a great betrayal of the interests of the people in British Columbia in particular, and the people of Canada in general.
I do not. know whether the leader of the New Democratic party is getting old and just cannot remember what he said three days ago, or just does not want to remember what he said. However, the fact is he committed his party three days ago, to blockading this treaty, but apparently he has changed his mind today.
It is fortunate that there were criticisms of this treaty because some of them, I think all members of the house will agree, were valid. It is fortunate also that the coming into effect of the treaty was made conditional 20220-41
Columbia River Treaty upon ratification by Ottawa. This fact was either known to the signatories at the time they signed the treaty, and they relied upon it, or else it was a very fortunate oversight. We can kill this treaty simply by refusing to ratify it. This would be an unfriendly act. toward a friendly nation. In addition, it would mean the continued wastage of water power for many more years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What about their 40 years delay on the St. Lawrence seaway?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: This would be particularly true in view of the tremendous developments on the Peace river. The co-operative development by Canada and the United States of the water resources of the Columbia will be a source of great strength to both our nations. Apparently the communist party of Canada is convinced of this as well, because it opposes the treaty. I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from a press release dated June 26, 1963-


Mr. Orlikow:: Was McNaughton a communist?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: -which I have received from the headquarters of the communist party of Canada, situated at 24 Cecil street in my riding of Spadina. However, this is a fact of which I am not entirely proud.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The old McCarthy technique.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: It is headed, "Communist party of Canada, press release, June 26, 1963-24 Cecil street, Toronto," and reads:
The national office of the communist party today issued the following statement of the party's view on the Columbia river treaty, and the need for the rejection by parliament of the present draft.
Ratification of the draft Columbia river treaty, as proposed by the Pearson administration and endorsed by B.C.'s Socred government, would constitute a calculated and treacherous betrayal.
-and note the word "betrayal" coming in here again-
-of the vital interests of every Canadian.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would you read their endorsement of the Canada pension plan?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You are opposing it now, are you?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: These words are peculiarly reminiscent of somewhat similar words which we have heard in this house during the last couple of days.


Mr. Scoil:: This is nothing but a smear technique. I insist that those words be taken back. That is a cheap smear.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I stand by everything I said, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that the over-all average of only 2.46-

Columbia River Treaty


Reid Scott: Are we going to have the McCarthy technique used in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The words which were used were not applied to any particular person or party. They were general comment, although I would like to say that the debate at the moment is to refer the treaty to a committee, and is not a general discussion. On the other hand I believe that the scope of discussion was considerably enlarged by several members who spoke before the present hon. member. Therefore, in the circumstances I am relying on the good humour of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The over-all average of only 2.464 persons per square mile in both the east and west Kootenay areas will rapidly rise, as will the standard of living in the whole area when the dams envisaged by the treaty are built.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. member know those comprise one of the highest salaried groups in Canada?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I am very pleased to know that, and I am sure they will do better in future when these dams are built.
The upper Columbia basin in Canada, that is the part north of the states of Idaho, Washington, and possibly a bit of Montana, contains about 40,000 square miles. It is a highly elevated area and its prime wealth is its water. The valley floor in the riding of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne)-or if you wish, the floor of the Rocky mountain trench where both the Columbia and Kootenay rise quite close to each other-is almost 3,000 feet above sea level.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Have you ever been there?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: You betcha.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In an aircraft?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Many times, on foot and otherwise. But Banff on the Bow river, on the east side of the Rockies, is about 4,500 feet above sea level.
I think many people are under the impression that the valley floor of the Rocky mountain trench around Golden, in fact right down to the border, is higher than the land at Banff on the Bow river, on the east side of the Rockies. Such is not the case. Banff is approximately 1,500 feet higher than Golden, therefore a diversion here would be difficult. Even though the Rocky mountain trench will not be flooded under the amended treaty it should still be possible to make diversions to the prairies, particularly later on during the life of the amended treaty.

The proposed diversion from Spillimacheen to the Bow river, that is, from the Rocky mountain trench through a tunnel into the Bow river, is presently estimated to cost $255 million, which is almost the cost of constructing all three dams under the terms of the treaty. A tunnel would have to be drilled through the Rocky mountains for about 25 miles, through which water would have to be pumped up 2,000 feet and dropped into the Bow river above Banff. This tunnel would go through much soft sedimentary rock. Such a tunnel, and others like it that have been suggested would likely give rise to continuous cave-in problems, and would not be too reliable.
The trouble is that Canada is not now ready to proceed with such a venture, or ventures, even if British Columbia would permit them, and that is extremely doubtful. It may be years before such a project could be undertaken. In the meantime the United States, by its increased user, is daily increasing its claim upon the flood waters of the Columbia in Canada. If we fail to ratify the treaty, then they will likely decide to build great reservoirs on the arid Columbia plateau in the United States, immediately south of the border, to trap flood waters coming across the border, to give them the protection they need to settle people on the flood plains further on towards the mouth of the Columbia.
I know there are many difficulties to face in a matter of this kind, and that the negotiations are not always easy because there are so many jurisdictions involved. In Canada the federal government has jurisdiction under the International Rivers Improvement Act, the National Energy Board Act, and by virtue of its responsibility for the conduct of external affairs.
The province of British Columbia, on the other hand, is the owner of the resource, and has primary responsibility for deciding what projects will be built where and when. They say when the dams are to be built and they say where their land can be flooded. We cannot do much about that. In the United States the federal government has more direct control, and it is not so likely to be hamstrung in the course of negotiations by one of its states.
Some will regret that the premier of British Columbia, in the midst of international negotiations over adoption of the McNaughton plan, made it known that he would not allow any flooding of the east Kootenay valley. I am personally of the opinion that the general's plan, for a number of technical and topographical reasons, does get somewhat more power out of the waters of the Kootenay and the upper Columbia; but I am also of the opinion that the premier

of British Columbia had many other things to bear in mind than just a degree of power potential when he made his decision that it would be only the Arrow lakes valley that could be flooded.
In today's world power from coal, oil, gas and uranium are competitive, or are rapidly becoming competitive with hydro power. British Columbia, with the development of the Peace river project, will be glutted with hydro power, and with the proposed developments in Quebec that province will also be glutted. I understand that the present power surplus in British Columbia is in the order of one third to one quarter, and will so continue according to the dominion bureau of statistics five year forecast. So, the brown-out scare, brought up by the 'hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming), has no basis whatever in fact.
We are not. yet ready to use this tremendous surplus of hydro power, and it seems to me it makes sense to sell it while there is still an opportunity to do so. The downstream benefits from this treaty are not just surplus power; they are a windfall from a waterfall and we owe our deep thanks to General McNaughton. The treaty and the protocol clearly show that in progression, 20, 60 and 80 years after ratification, sufficient water can be diverted from the Kootenay to the upper Columbia so that only the lesser of either 1,000 cubic feet per second or the natural flow will cross the United States boundary in the bed of the Kootenay river. So that easterners may be able to make a comparison, let me say that this border flow cut down by diversions will amount to about one half of the mean flow of the Severn river into Georgian bay, though the Kootenay is a far swifter river and carries much more water.
It seems to me that the general's plan could still be carried out in the future if it were thought feasible to do so. Certainly, the specific diversions could be made for hydro purposes, as they could also be made to the prairies for consumptive use. I think, too, that a good case could be made out for developing hydro with respect to a prairie diversion provided the hydro development was incidental to consumptive use, that is, that consumptive use was the primary purpose of the diversion. In any event, the hydro restriction or limitation can clearly be removed by Canada in 60 years plus a day from ratification by simply serving a ten year notice of termination as provided for in the treaty.
I direct the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to that specific provision.
What has worried me, and I am sure it has worried others, is the possibility that upon
Columbia River Treaty ratification the Americans will immediately take it they have acquired a vested interest in the upper Columbia, an interest which we shall not be able to dislodge whatever our rights may be-that they will build a complex downstream based upon water for the infinite future, not just upon the 60 year period of the treaty. This notion of vesting could arise whether the McNaughton plan or the treaty plan were used, or even if we did nothing at all and allowed the waters to run wild in the untamed river. The way to disabuse this notion, if Canada sees fit, would be to serve the 10 year notice of termination after the dams are all constructed. Canada would have nothing to lose by such a course. We could always at a later date renew the treaty in whole or in part, depending upon whether or not our experience was a happy-one, and in accordance with our needs.
I fully expect that our experience will be-a happy one. The United States has gone a long way to meet our objections by agreeing to the revisions to the treaty as set out in the protocol. One now has to consider first, the benefits of the treaty as amended; second, what better deal could possibly be agreed upon by all concerned; and next the unfriendly situation that would develop if we were to refuse to ratify the amended treaty now.
Like many other hon. members, I was at first sceptical about this treaty, mainly on account of the bad press it had received, but the more I look into it, particularly in view of the improvements and clarifications in the protocol and the sale of downstream benefits, the more I find myself becoming quite enthusiastic about it. I hope to be a member of the committee on external affairs to examine this treaty even further and to question and hear witnesses. I believe the public will be greatly reassured about the treaty after the makers of it have had a chance to present their case before the committee. After all, they have not had an opportunity to do so as yet. Up to this point what we have heard is a lot of one-sided argument.
In the short and long range views, Canada will benefit from the employment that will be provided, tremendous stimulation in the construction industry and related trades, and by a large temporary assist to its balance of payments problem with the United States. British Columbia, after the first 30 years, will have the dams all paid for and will commence to receive power, or firm cash equivalent for its share of the downstream benefits. In addition, British Columbia will receive a great assist towards putting generators on Mica dam that will produce 1,800,000 kilowatts or so of extremely cheap power for a British Columbia east-west grid that can

Columbia River Treaty
become part of a Canadian grid. With the construction by British Columbia of more dams on the Columbia in Canada, I believe something in the order of another 2,200,000 kilowatts can be generated. British Columbia as well as the United States will have their flooding problems alleviated, and there will be over 200,000 kilowatts of found power from the west Kootenay power plants if Libby dam is constructed in the United States, as described by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne).
All in all it looks as if British Columbia is in for a great boom as a result of this treaty, and what helps British Columbia so much is bound to help all Canada. I would recommend that all hon. members make a point of reading the editorial in today's Globe and Mail which appears on page six and is headed: "On with the Columbia Project". It begins with these apt lines:
Great projects seldom would be translated from dreams to realities if those responsible for undertaking them waited until the last objection of the last dissenter had been met.
We now know the general picture. It is a favourable one. So let us really all get down to the detailed facts and learn as much as we possibly can about this unique and promising treaty by sending it to committee.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My remarks will be brief. As one of the members from British Columbia I feel I should put a few facts on the record and raise a few questions with regard to this Columbia proposal. The first point I want to make is with regard to the sale of our share of the power. I know there is a lot of confusion in the minds of some people with respect to the sale of our power and the treaty itself. The treaty in itself is not the instrument for the sale of the power; the treaty merely makes it possible to sell our share of the power. Article VIII of the treaty provides that the Canadian share of the downstream benefits can be sold; the instrument whereby they are sold would be an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States. So I am referring to the question of the sale of the power separate and apart from the treaty itself.
When the treaty was negotiated by the former government, and up to the time of the signing of the treaty, it was never contemplated by either the Canadian government or the government of the province of British Columbia that any major part of our share of the power would be sold for a long time. That point never arose and was never contemplated. In fairness to the present government I must say that they were forced to consider the sale of the major part or the whole of our share of the power, owing to
tMr. Ryan.]
the position taken by British Columbia in its development of the Peace river. In developing the Peace it became obvious that, if not all, at least a large part of our share of the power would become surplus, and the question of sale therefore arose.
The question I want to ask is this. I am not opposing the sale of power, but is the government satisfied, and will the committee satisfy us, that all of our share of the power will be surplus to the requirements of British Columbia and Canada? When I say "surplus" naturally we must also consider the price. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) made very clear in his speech that he thought the power was generated in the United States and that therefore the question of export did not arise. To me that is a technicality, and is a stand taken by the present government to get out of the difficult position of having to conform with the National Energy Board Act. Surely the government must recognize that the intent of the National Energy Board Act was to have some over-all control of the sale of our energy, and it must certainly be agreed and acknowledged that although the power is physically generated in the United States the causative resource comes from Canada. Even if the government believes that it is not necessary to get a licence for export from the national energy board, why did they not in any case refer this matter to that body, so that we could have some clear evidence that the power which is to be sold at a price is surplus to our requirements? Is the price we are getting right? Can it be substantiated that it is a proper price which we should accept?
I do not say that it is not, but some of the points raised by other members on the other side of the house raise doubt. Using some figures quoted by hon. members opposite I should like to demonstrate that this question is still unanswered. As reported at page 476 of Hansard, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the price for our share of the power being bandied around varied from 3.75 mills to 5.3 mills. I will use the upper figure which he has quoted of 5.3 mills per kilowatt hour. The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to explain that included in the 5.3 mills is money which we get for flood control, some $69.6 million which represents .91 mills.
Now, Mr. Speaker, remember this. If our share of the power had been returned to Canada we would have been paid that $69.6 million in any event. Therefore, I do not think it is right to include payment for flood benefits by the United States as part of the sale price of the power, because we would have received that sum in any event if the

power was returned to us. Therefore, using the upper figures of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and deducting therefrom .91 mills for flood control, the price we would come up with, according to the figures of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would be 4.39 mills per kilowatt hour.
Is this the right price? According to the Financial Post article of June 29, 1963, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) made a statement as follows:
Laing told FP the 3.75 mills price now being bandied about Is merely a breakeven rate. He said Canada would need seven or eight mills if the B.C. government's latest estimates of construction costs were correct.
I am using, as I say, figures quoted by members on the other side of the house.
Then the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis) in an article in the Vancouver Sun of February 28, in talking about the price and so on, said:
That is to sell most, or all, of Canada's downstream power entitlement to the United States for cash at a price of, say, five mills per kilowatt hour.
So he says five mills. Therefore, using the figures of hon. members on the other side, the question as to whether the price we are receiving is right or not is left up in the air. I suggest that if the minister, in closing the debate, cannot clarify this point we should at least be given evidence before the committee that the price is right and that the power is surplus to Canada's requirements.
I should now like to make passing reference to the effect of the 11 per cent sales tax on the cost of construction of the dams. The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the price of the dams can be estimated at $448 million (Canadian) in 1973. I think it is obvious to all that any saving in the cost of the building of the dams will reduce the cost of the power which British Columbia will get from the Mica. The secretary of state indicated that there would be $53 million left which could be used to reduce the cost of the power which British Columbia would get from the Mica. Assuming that about half of the cost of the dam would account for materials and equipment, which would be taxable at 11 per cent, the cost of the dams would be increased by roughly $25 million. The secretary of state indicated that the $53 million reduces the cost of the power from the Mica and provides a saving to the people of British Columbia of $16 million per year for 30 years. On that same basis the 11 per cent sales tax on materials increases the cost of the power to the people of British Columbia by approximately $7 million per year, and over 30 years would total $210 million. Later on I will suggest to the government how they
Columbia River Treaty might use the sales tax to the advantage of the people of British Columbia.
The next point I want to make is to set the record straight on the change of position of the present Liberal government from the position taken by the Liberal party in former days. When I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak on Tuesday in that inimitable way of his, particularly in his new political, non-partisan role, I thought to myself that if I could be assured that he would have made such a speech, particularly the remarks he made in the first part of it, I would have invited him to speak on my behalf in the 1961 by-election, aside from the 1962 and 1963 elections.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to observe that that would be asking too much of me.


George Louis Chatterton: It was just a thought, Mr. Speaker. Then when I heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) speak on Tuesday last, his speech sounded like an echo of what the Liberals said in 1961, 1962 and 1963.
I saw the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) here a moment ago, but he is not here at the moment.


Mr. Groos:: I am here.


George Louis Chatterton: The hon. member is in the wrong seat. I remember that the hon. member for Victoria opposed me in 1961 and 1962-in 1961 in a by-election and in 1962 in a general election. Then, of course, he saw the light and went across the boundary. In the by-election of 1961 and the general election of 1962 this question was one of the major issues in British Columbia and I was defending myself against attack from all sides. The Liberals and N.D.P.'ers were all attacking me and hammering at me on this question.


An hon. Member:: And the Socreds.


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, and the Socreds. The Socreds changed their minds after the treaty was signed. In any case, Mr. Speaker, this is the position. The hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) mentioned some specific facts with regard to statements made previously by hon. members on the other side of the chamber. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) had the audacity to suggest that we are now jumping on the band wagon to get some credit. At least one hon. member from that side of the chamber, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), was frank enough to come out and say he made a mistake. He said, as is reported at page 608 of yesterday's Hansard,

Columbia River Treaty when he was questioned about his change of position, "I was wallowing in ignorance". That is referring to the position he took before this government assumed office. I had hoped that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) would show a little contrition also. He may still do so; I know he is a very honest man.
However, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal party had not taken the stand of opposing us on the treaty question in 1960 and 1962, the results in British Columbia might have been different. This was one of the major issues. Yet today the same people are telling us that this is a wonderful treaty.


William Heward Grafftey: Like the nuclear arms question.


George Louis Chatterton: Yes. I could talk about that too, but that is a different matter. I suggest that the government should be as frank as was the hon. member for Kootenay East and admit that they made a mistake. There is no harm in that and, as the hon. member said, it is a statesmanlike attitude to adopt. If they do not take this approach, they either do not mean what they are saying, or in 1961, 1962 and 1963 they were deliberately deceiving the people. It is one or the other.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano says, "Oh, but this is a new treaty. The protocol is a renegotiation". However, we must bear in mind what the hon. member said as reported in the Vancouver Sun of February 28:
The present Columbia river treaty is not good enough. It amounts to a sell-out of our Canadian resources.
This embarrassing treaty must therefore be renegotiated-


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member please give the date of that article.


George Louis Chatterton: It is February 28, 1963- just before the election in 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Louis Chatterton: Does the hon. member for Coast-Capilano dare to say that the protocol constitutes a renegotiation of the treaty?


Mr. Benson:: An improvement.


George Louis Chatterton: If that is the stand they take, I would refute that position with statements made by hon. members on that side of the chamber. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I would read an excerpt from the joint communique issued on May 11, 1963 by the office *of the Prime Minister and the office of the White House press secretary following meetings between President John F. Kennedy and Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson:
The Prime Minister indicated that if certain clarifications and adjustments in arrangements proposed earlier could be agreed on, to be included in a protocol to the treaty,-

He calls them "clarifications and adjustments". Again, I quote from the second joint statement issued by Prime Minister Pearson and President Johnson regarding the Columbia river development on January 22, 1964. Paragraph 7 says:
The primary purpose of the first set of documents-
That is the protocol:
-signed today was to agree now on the clarifications and adjustments that would eliminate certain possible sources of controversy between the two countries in later years.
That was the official statement of our Prime Minister and the President of the United States. Then in an article in the Financial Post of June 29, 1963, the previous part of the article relating to the difficult position of the Liberals in British Columbia because the federal Liberal government were changing their position, we see the following:
The general Impression is that the changes he has agreed to let Prime Minister Pearson-
This is referring to Mr. Bennett:
-seek in the treaty are only minor ones, and this in turn suggests that the provincial Liberals have forsaken their long standing and outspoken desire for major renegotiation.
If this protocol constitutes a renegotiation, surely hon. members opposite must admit that the major part of this whole question is the treaty. If the protocol constitutes a renegotiation or a substantial change in the treaty, surely the United States congress would have been asked to ratify it. As it is, this is not being done. So the protocol constitutes nothing but amendments and clarifications. The last point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is merely to add my support to the appeal made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby) with regard to the over-all development of the Columbia area. I realize that this is primarily a responsibility of the provincial government because it is their resource. However, I take this opportunity to appeal to the people of British Columbia to use their influence with the provincial government. The suggestion is that the government of British Columbia is establishing a Columbia authority, something in the nature of the Tennessee valley authority, to consider a long term plan for the over-all development of the Columbia region.
I	come back to my suggestion to the federal government with regard to the 11 per cent sales tax, which adds roughly $25 million to the cost of the dams.
My suggestion is that the federal government exempt this particular project from the
II	per cent sales tax. I believe this could be done without any amendment to existing

legislation, because the money that is being used comes from the federal government; it is our money. Certainly it is paid by the United States government to the Canadian government, but the Canadian government pays it to the provincial government. Therefore it is federal government money; or at least we can say it is, for the purposes of the 11 per cent sales tax. The exemption from sales tax of the Columbia development could be a lever used by the federal government in getting the provincial government to undertake certain developments in connection with the storages apart from those connected with power. This would have a great deal of value. I refer particularly to the clearing of the shores. I understand that the provincial government has in mind perhaps clearing only the shores of the Arrow lakes. I believe it would be a very shortsighted policy if they did not clear the shores of all the lakes because, as happened in the case of the Tennessee valley authority, the development of the other resources in connection with this project may in time become more important to British Columbia than the power itself. The tendency of the present government of British Columbia in the past has been to be shortsighted in this respect. As far as I know they are not going to clear, for instance, the shores of the lake to be created by the Peace river development. I know from personal experience that it costs much more to remove stumps after they have been in the water for some time. I know of one case where stumps had been in the water for 50 years and they were just as good as when the trees were cut. Therefore my suggestion is that the federal government should in the first place use its influence with the provincial government and that it might use an 11 per cent exemption as a lever to obtain this type of development.
I hope the treaty will be ratified soon. The resource belongs to the people of the province of British Columbia. In the last provincial election this project was a major issue. The people of British Columbia spoke clearly. I think it is now up to the federal parliament to ratify the treaty as soon as possible so that this tremendous development in British Columbia can proceed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few remarks in connection with the Columbia river project because I do not think any good purpose would be served by my entering into a lengthy discussion of all the pros and cons in connection with this matter-or perhaps I should say reiterating them, because we have heard a good many of the arguments in the last two or three days.
Columbia River Treaty
I was exposed for a longer period and more intensively, I think, to the problems and ramifications of the Columbia river project than anyone else in the house, except the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). As a result of scores and scores of protracted meetings on this matter it was borne in on me more and more what an extremely complex and difficult question the whole matter was, and how difficult it was to come to a decision with regard to what course of action was the best for Canada as a whole and the best for the province of British Columbia.
In listening to this debate and in paying some attention to what has been said not only by members of the house but by many people outside the house in different places, I have often wished they could have had the same experience I did of listening to such masses of expert advice, engineering detail and things of that kind. Had that been the case I think there would have been far fewer categorical statements made such as some members of the house now wish could be forgotten. Somebody has said that it is much easier to talk about something you know nothing about than it is to talk about something about which you have a great deal of knowledge, and I think many of the statements made about the Columbia river project exemplify that old aphorism very well indeed.
I think there is no question that we could have secured a better treaty with the United States than the one now under consideration. It will immediately be asked: Why did we not get a better treaty? I myself was convinced that a general plan of development very much along the lines of the proposal put forward by General McNaughton would have resulted in greater long term advantages to Canada than any of the other plans which were proposed at one time or another, and there were quite a few of them. However, to adopt what is generally referred to as the McNaughton plan would have involved the flooding of the east Kootenay region, the valley of the Kootenay and the valley of the Columbia running up to Windermere valley. The province of British Columbia absolutely refused to agree to any scheme which would involve the flooding of those areas. This was the basic reason why the McNaughton plan, about which we have heard so much, was not proceeded with.
When we were faced with a situation where the premier and the government of British Columbia absolutely refused to agree to any plan of development which would involve flooding in the Windermere and other valleys as envisaged under the McNaughton plan, we had to search for the next best thing and as

Columbia River Treaty a result the plan embodied in the present treaty was evolved. As I say, I quite freely admit that in my opinion it is not the best plan, but it was the best plan that we could get under the circumstances. It was the best plan that we could get the government of British Columbia to agree to, and I think everyone must realize there was no use trying to go ahead with a plan to which the government of British Columbia would not agree. Therefore the responsibility for the fact that we are now debating a treaty which is not the best treaty that could have been secured must fall squarely on the shoulders of the government of British Columbia. I think there is no question that we did the very best we could under those circumstances.
Instead of spending a great deal of time now dealing with what the advantages of the McNaughton 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. As I have indicated earlier, this whole matter is so complex in nature that it is not possible to bring out all of the factors involved here in the House of Commons. For that reason I am extremely glad that the whole question is being referred to the external affairs committee. I hope that committee will take sufficient time to bring out all of the factors which were involved when decisions were being made in connection with what plan to adopt and the reasons why various things which might have been desirable were not done and could not be done because agreement could not be reached on them. Unless this is done and until the full story in connection with this whole matter is told, I think there is bound to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of a great many people in Canada and particularly in the minds of many people in British Columbia, which is most directly concerned. Therefore I urge most strongly that there be no attempt to try to hurry this matter through the external affairs committee, but rather that all the time required should be taken there so that the whole picture can be brought out, so that opportunity for full discussion of the whole matter can be provided and all of the expert testimony which is necessary to establish what the facts were can be brought forward and put before the members of that committee.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter into this debate but I was provoked to do so by the remarks of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan). I do not propose to follow the hon. member in his quotation of the views 
of the communist party on the issue before us. I had thought that as the communist party has no representation in the house we could be spared hearing what their views were. Indeed, I wondered why the hon. member introduced this subject. I am quite sure it could not have been because he desired to smear all those who in perfect good faith see some weaknesses in the proposed treaty and who desire to examine it accordingly before they agree to its being ratified.
The real reason I wished to intervene was the comment made by the hon. member for Spadina to the effect that opposition to the treaty could be regarded as being unfriendly to the United States of America. I totally deny that proposition, Mr. Speaker. I have too much respect for the United States of America, its government and its people to believe for one moment that, should this sovereign parliament regard the treaty as not being in the interests of Canada and exercise its entitlement, indeed, its obligation to reject it, we need fear that the United States will regard this as an unfriendly act. The reason that the treaty is submitted to parliament for ratification is so that the representatives of the people in parliament can decide whether or not the treaty is adequate for Canada. It was negotiated, no doubt in good faith, by men of very great skill. It has been questioned, also in equally good faith, by able men of high skill who doubt whether or not it is advantageous to Canada.
While I admire the debating ability of my legal colleagues from Toronto on the other side of the house, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to them that before they give their views on this matter they might be well advised to hear the evidence. I anticipate that I may be a member of the committee on external affairs. I do not claim to be completely ignorant of this subject, but I do claim to have an open mind. I hope when this matter is referred to the committee I will listen as carefully as I can to the evidence and try to make up my mind what I believe will be in the best interests of Canada as a whole. I will do this after I have listened to what qualified people have to say, and I doubt very much if lawyers from Toronto are the best qualified experts on this subject.
I noticed that the last speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) suggested that even if this were not the best treaty available for Canada-and he said in his opinion it was not-it would have to be accepted as a result of the veto of the premier of British Columbia. I should like to conclude by saying that if that is so, if the reason for accepting the second best is the premier's veto, then I hope even at this late date it might not be impossible for us

to consider whether we can get a treaty which is in the best interests of the people of Canada, notwithstanding any veto from the premier of one of our provinces.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Stuart A. Fleming: Has
he ever had any direct, personal dealings with the premier of British Columbia?


Francis Andrew Brewin: The answer is no, I have not.


Mr. Sieven  Olio@York East: I have been following the speeches very carefully, and I believe there are probably three points in connection with this treaty and protocol which the house and members of the committee should consider carefully. I do not believe these points have been brought out as carefully as they should have been.
The first point is that we are now in the age of nuclear energy. A great deal of time has been spent by all members in considering the power aspects of this treaty and protocol. Having done some research in connection with the development of electrical power from nuclear energy, I find that Canada has taken the lead in this field. The cost of electrical power developed in this way is now somewhere in the vicinity of 3.7 mills per kilowatt. I understand that the 800 megawatt station which was recently constructed on the west coast will result in the reduction of this cost to 2.5 mills. We are considering a treaty which it is expected will result in supplying electrical power 10 or 15 years from now. In the light of the technical advances that are likely to be made in that period, I wonder whether by the time the dams are constructed and power is available we will have progressed so far in the production of electricity from nuclear energy that this scheme will no longer have the value it has now. This is one aspect of the matter which I feel the house and the committee should consider. The power that will be produced under this treaty may not be of the same importance in 1973 or 1975 that it is today.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) referred to another point. This is something about which I agree with him in part and in part I do not. He said that fresh water would be given away, and that this fresh water belongs to the people of British Columbia. He intimated that what we have really done is to sell the water to the arid areas of the United States at a very low price. In other words, the inference seems to be that we should have held up the United States for a greater price. I wish 20220-42
Columbia River Treaty these words could be struck out of Hansard because I, for one, cannot believe that if our neighbour to the south lacked fresh water we would hold up that neighbour for the last penny. I should like to feel that, so long as we are not using the water we would say our neighbour could have it, especially if it will make his fields bloom. I would even like to think that if water became in short supply in Canada as well as the United States we would still be willing to share what we have with our neighbour. The United States has been a good neighbour; no one can deny that. I do not feel that because we have water we should charge a good price. I do not believe this policy has ever been successful in history and I do not believe it ever will be.
There is one final thought I should like to leave with the members of the house and those who will be members of the committee, and it is this: After all, we are dealing with a neighbour, so it is quite possible that our i's have not been dotted or our t's crossed in this treaty and protocol. However, it is our neighbour with whom we are dealing, a neighbour with whom we have had considerable experience. I do not believe these things should be of such serious consequence. I hope that this treaty and protocol will be given a quick passage through the committee and brought back to this house for ratification.


William Arnold Peters: All the
people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, have been very interested in the negotiations that have taken place between one of our western provinces and the federal government, as well as the negotiations that have taken place between Canada and the United States. I suggest that a great deal of confusion has been created, and we have added to the confusion by some of the terms we are using. We now hear reference to a protocol and a treaty. This protocol appears to be to be the political rape of an innocent and misguided nation, accomplished with the co-operation and diplomatic finesse of the establishment.
Would it not be simple for the Canadian people to be told what this scheme really means to Canada? I think everyone who has spoken has made reference to the terms and the arrangements, what we are getting, what British Columbia is getting, what British Columbia will not accept and what the United States wants. This has been done in terms that are not generally understood by the Canadian people. I believe this fact is illustrated by an article in the Seattle Times of January 20, in which this statement appears:
The belief exists south of the 49th parallel that the Canadian public may be in for an emotional let down when the final terms of the Columbia river treaty are announced.

Columbia River Treaty
They go on to explain why. I think the let down is going to take place because the Canadian people will realize we are now playing that little game we always play-let us get rid of our resources if we have nothing we can use them for at present. The previous speaker made this point that, since we are not using this resource ourselves let us give it to someone else.
Have we not been doing this for many, many years? We have resources in this nation that the Americans would be very happy to have. Those who claim to represent British Columbia so well must be aware of the fact that the Americans would be just as happy to get our trees cut up in log lengths, and sent down river to the United States, as they would be to receive the timber material on flat cars after it has been made up into plywood.
I am quite sure there are many entrepreneurs on the west coast who would like that to happen with our other resources as well, but I ask is it not time to look at the implications this will have, and plan for the future? This means looking at the terms of the treaty, and surely the committee to which it is sent will pay the courtesy to the Canadian public of asking whether it meets the needs of the Canadian public, and of asking whether it does anything with the resources of Canada that will help the future of our nation?
The committee must also ask whether this is an arrangement designed to help the premier of British Columbia to raise enough money to build other dams? Certainly this is not a contribution to which we object, but in my opinion it again indicates the inability of the Canadian nation to raise the money necessary to do the developments that we have to undertake.
Let us take a look at some other things that are very similar to this. One is the Saskatchewan river dam project. It was kicked around for 40 years until the Canadian public finally decided that, politically, it was necessary to undertake the expenditure; but that was at a time when the great need for it had disappeared, and when the emergency which gave rise to the project was no longer apparent. If we could have devised a way by which the United States might have financed it, I am certain it would have been built many years before the project was actually begun.
Is it not true we now realize that the amount of water we have been able to provide through that project is not sufficient to meet the needs of the economy of three of our major provinces? Is it not also true that waters from the watershed now under discussion could, in future years, be required for

an irrigation system that will have to be provided in the prairie provinces?
I am not suggesting that this can be done.
I am not suggesting that we want to do it. In fact I am not suggesting that we may ever want to do it; but it is of prime importance to the Canadian nation that we assess the future needs that may develop in Canada, and make sure we do not give away the birthright we have by giving away any more of our natural resources.
I do not know whether the federal government would be willing to advance to the premier of British Columbia the amount of money necessary to develop the electric potential which that premier wants to see developed. I do not know if we could raise that much money, but I do think we had better look at the resources we have and assess whether it would be worth while for us to try to raise that money.
I have no objection to the United States getting the benefit of any surplus resource we have, but I think they should get it only so long as we do not need it in Canada. We in Canada have been fortunate enough to get a small amount of industrial development, mainly because transportation costs were so high that it was easier to transport the financial capital into the country to process our resources here than it was to ship our natural raw resources out of the country.
Water is a very important resource, and in the near future we shall be faced with a decision about the Grand canal. We shall be asked to divert water from the Arctic watershed into the great lakes system where it can be used to promote the industrial development now contemplated in the United States. This is a question which the committee should examine, and it should inquire into who will finance the Grand canal. Are we going to supply the money, or are we going to give the resource to Chicago because they have the financial means to develop it?
If the United States wants power from the surplus production of Canada then we should supply it to them at an economic price, but we should also maintain control of it, both for the present and for the future. This is something which has always been wrong with our nation, and is something we have never been able to solve. We have never been able to match our natural resources to the industrial and economic development that is required, and this is something which should be considered in the committee.
Frankly, I do not give a damn if we ever sign the Columbia river treaty or not. I could not care less. I think this matter is not of

any importance at all, but I certainly do believe we should have the machinery in Canada to assess this resource and find out whether or not this treaty is in our interests. We shall have to set up that machinery, and I serve notice that I shall fight for it.
The "Engineering and Contract Record" points out some of the facts that we will have to consider. In the issue of September, 1962 it said:
So we do not need to rush into any deal we are not satisfied with.
It went on:
It is also said that for Canada to reject the treaty would be a sign of weakness and that we would have to go back to the U.S. and beg for another deal which would give us less than we have now. I disagree.
The reason the bill is submitted to parliament for ratification is so that the representatives of the people can decide whether the treaty is adequate for Canada. It was negotiated in good faith by highly skilled men, but the people still must decide. If parliament does not have the right to reject the treaty, then the process of ratification is a mockery.
If parliament decides that the treaty is not what the country wants, and rejects it, our negotiators can go to the Americans with complete honour and honesty, and say the treaty is not acceptable to the Canadian people. Then both negotiating teams would be obliged to come up with a treaty that is acceptable, and this would mean a better not a worse deal for Canada.
Can the United States afford to make any more concessions and still retain a deal that is acceptable to them? There is no question but that they can. Fortune magazine calls the present treaty a bar-httoiowr 1th' Y'S- because it spends $418 million by 1970 to get extra power that it would have to pay $710 million to obtain without Canada's help.
These figures have been modified, but not changed considerably. In the interests of Canada the committee must look at what the treaty means in terms of the resources of our nation. I am sure members of the press gallery were interested, last night, to hear a man who has criticized the treaty with great vigour and energy while in opposition, suddenly commending it with equal vigour as a supporter of the government. The inference to be drawn is that whether the treaty is a good one or not depends to a large extent upon where one happens to be sitting in the house.
My own view is that the overriding consideration in approaching this question should be the best use of our resources, in the long term, for the benefit not of one province only, but of all Canada. We should take into account the desire we have for a national power grid to supply energy from coast to coast for the secondary industrial development which Canada needs and which is beginning to take place in many areas. I know the minister responsible for piloting this treaty through the house will give some consideration to this approach. I hope he will give the house an 20220-421
Columbia River Treaty indication that the question of making the best use of these resources for the Canadian nation as a whole will be dealt with by the committee before the actual terms of the agreement can be discussed.
It seems to me that even the newspapers have got bogged down in detail. There is a saying in northern Ontario: "You can't see the forest for the trees". It seems to me this situation has been created on purpose in this particular case. I hope the minister will indicate that the over-all care of our natural resources is to become the prime driving force, and that the terms of the treaty will be presented in the light of what they may mean to Canada's future.
Mi. Bert Leboe (Cariboo): I shall not detain the house very long, but there are some things which have been said this afternoon that cannot be left unanswered. It was our intention that only one member of this group should speak on this subject this afternoon because we felt it should go to the committee for consideration as soon as possible. However, I must make some reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and others about the premier of British Columbia. I should like to make it clear here and now that decisions are not made by the premier of the province, or, indeed, by the premier of any province.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh.


Mr. Leboe:: Also, as was ably pointed out by one hon. member, there was an election in British Columbia in which the people also spoke in this connection. I resent its being said that the premier of British Columbia has done or said something, as though no reference had been made on his part to the people of that province or to his colleagues.
References have been made to natural resources. I can understand the feelings of my hon. friend, the last speaker, on this question of natural resources because it seems to me that in eastern Canada in the past they have not looked after these natural resources. However, I may say that in western Canada that is not true, and this goes for Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. These provinces of western Canada do look after their natural resources. They do a mighty fine job, and one of the things that is the responsibility of provincial governments is the care of these natural resources on behalf of the people they represent. If anyone says that the provinces should be overridden by the voice of Ottawa in connection with natural resources, he is certainly off on the wrong foot as far as I am concerned.
It has also been said here that the Columbia river treaty was designed to help develop the Peace river. This is absolutely erroneous.

Columbia River Treaty What did happen was this: the Peace river development was the cause of the anxiety about the Columbia project which has been in the news for the last 15 or 20 years. With the alternative power coming out of the Peace it became important, in the opinion of a good many people, to put the Columbia project on the drawing boards and develop it as soon as possible. Had it not been for the development of the Peace river we should not have the Columbia project before us for discussion today. This is all to the good.
Another thing which has been brought up in this debate has to do with financing and the mill rate. When you look at profits from the point of view of cost-benefit ratio and you have to borrow the money to build the complex known as the Columbia river project, you will be faced by having to build your dams in such a way as to get the quickest return from the money spent. Under the present treaty, provision is made for money to come in in a lump sum, and an entirely different situation exists; we are in a position to take advantage of every move we can make to bring about the development at the lowest possible cost. This is bound to have a great effect on our plans for the development of the Columbia river complex. I saw an article in the newspaper the other day in which it was stated that the development proposed at Hamilton falls was only a borderline project at the present time because of the development of power from thermal sources. So the future of this Hamilton project is actually in jeopardy. This means that if any developments are to take place in the use of water power they must take place now. Looking at the cost of the power that comes out of these proposals as compared with the cost of power from developments in the past, it seems to me that the constant dollar ratio must come into play if we are to establish an exact relationship between the cost in the past and the cost at the present time. When we talk about a two mill power rate years ago and compare it with a two mill rate today we must realize there is a vast difference on the basis of the change in the purchasing power of the dollar. I maintain that if we can get power on the line now at two mills or two and a half mills, and hold it there, we shall be getting what amounts to a continual advantage in power costs, bearing in mind the diminishing purchasing power of the dollar.
As I said before, I had not intended to speak in this debate at all. I think we have been confronted with a great many red herrings in the course of this discussion. It is really too bad it has happened, because we could have finished this debate and got the treaty before the committee where we could call on the people we want to talk to, get their

answers and then find ourselves in a position to return to the house and make an intelligent assessment of the subject before us.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: So
that Toronto expertise may not be the only voice heard from the east in this debate, I should like to make a very brief contribution. I want to suggest to the house that the Columbia is not the only international river in Canada. I support the treaty and I welcome the protocol, and I have long wondered what all the. fuss is about. I have never understood the reason for a ban on the export of power. I feel that export of power is much like many of our other exports, and that this feature of the treaty is very helpful.
I want to confine myself, not to the technicalities of the treaty, because they will be dealt with thoroughly by the committee, but to certain phrases which have been bandied about lately to which I take objection, such as "losing our sovereignty", "selling our birthright", "sharp Yankee traders", and other colourful yet quite inaccurate statements. As a matter of fact, if we did not have a date to this debate we might think it was taking place in 1864 instead of 1964, and it is really quite ironic that the hon. members who are using these ancient shibboleths are the so-called New Democratic party members.
I admire the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). We all, of course, admire the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). However, I cannot help saying that they seemed to me to be going through the motions of being horrified and scandalized by certain aspects of the treaty, although they have not yet convinced me that they believe what they say.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not in the habit of going through the motions.


Mr. Fairweather:: I will not make the comment that I could on that. It seems to me that they bow to the altar of the doctrinaire dogma without really getting down on their knees. We must keep this fact in mind, that the Columbia is a supranational phenomenon, not a national one. Surely it should not be so unusual that in 1964 North America should work out a plan for joint development of an international water system. Loose talk about sovereignty is really for the jingoists of other days.


William Arnold Peters: They give them away, no matter what they are worth.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I thank the hon. member for his help; we hear him much easier late on a Friday afternoon.

The hon. member starts his criticism of the treaty from a different set of assumptions than do I. He talks about naivety. Perhaps I am naive, but my assumptions are based on the premise that we are dealing with a friendly neighbour. I am perfectly prepared to believe, and I do believe, that our negotiators are not naive and inexperienced. After all, we have been at this now for five or six years, and that fact itself is evidence of some experience.
I also suggest that we in New Brunswick have had the closest possible relationship with the state of Maine. The national energy board has been authorizing power export for some years. The final protocol, the white paper coloured light green, and the treaty do not affect future developments. In other words, there is no precedent created. In fact, I think I should read into the record the exact terminology. Paragraph 12 of the protocol reads as follows:
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 river basin and does not detract from the application of the boundary waters treaty, 1909, to other waters.
In addition to that we in New Brunswick would like to think that the basis for negotiation, the basis for settlement if you like, will work to the advantage of New Brunswick, and therefore to the advantage of Canada in the future development of the Saint John river basin. The headwaters of the Saint John river pass through the state of Maine, and we hope for the eventual development of the Rankin rapids which will assist us in the power developments of the lower stages of the Saint John river in the province of New Brunswick.
Lastly I should like to refer to expropriation and acquisition of land. I thought Dr. Keenleyside's very helpful summary of the Columbia river agreement presented to the Vancouver board of trade on February 10 put the case very well. I have been interested in the St. Lawrence expropriations and in particular the Camp Gagetown expropriations. After all, British Columbia will be making the acquisitions, and I think we must remember that it is not only the owner of the freehold who is affected, but also the people on the fringe of any development. This is one of the great weaknesses in the Camp Gagetown situation and in the St. Lawrence seaway developments, because too many people were adversely affected in a manner which could be measured by standards. That is, you could measure their financial loss, but because they did not actually lose a chunk of land, whether it be one inch of a square mile, did not receive any recompense or compensation.
Columbia River Treaty
I hope that when this matter comes before the committee this point will be brought very forcibly to the attention of the hydro authority of British Columbia or the government of the province, and I should like to think that an entirely new philosophy on land acquisition will be developed in the spirit of Dr. Keenleyside's pronouncements in the last few paragraphs of his speech to the Vancouver board of trade.
That is all I want to say, Mr. Speaker, about this question. I did think that we should remember that there are other places in Canada apart from the Columbia which are affected by this formula, but this great development will be of benefit to North America.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if he speaks now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will close the debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make in connection with this resolution. It seems to me that this debate illustrates one of the problems created when political chickens come home to roost from time to time, and that in the result probably the waters of this particular issue have been as muddied as are the waters of the Columbia during the appropriate time of year. In the first instance, those who have laboured the question of renegotiation of the treaty have suggested at times prior to this debate, perhaps during the course of election campaigns, that what would emerge would be something completely different in shape and quite distinct from what the previous government negotiated in the form of the treaty signed in 1962, I think it was. However, I think they will now be confounded, first by the fact that the hon. gentleman who opened this debate for the government quite frankly admitted that in form the protocol did not, in essence, change in any material way the initial treaty. I think there is a very sound reason for that, apart from anything else, which I do not think has been mentioned so far. The very fact that this is termed a protocol, the very fact that there is not a new treaty, that the old treaty was not renegotiated establishes, I think, that these were conditions essential to the completion of the final arrangements between the United States and this country. I may be wrong in this, but as I appreciate the situation, if there had been a renegotiation which would in the end result have produced something quite different in form than what was in existence before and if there had been a new treaty, the whole matter would have been laid before the senate of the United States. Then a completely fresh approach would have been taken

Columbia River Treaty and there would have been discussion in that legislative body. As I apprehend the situation, it was for this reason that what is added to the treaty is called a protocol, which in international parlance means, I think, something in the form of a supplementing or a qualifying document. This is all it is.
As I said before, I think the hon. gentleman in opening the debate virtually admitted that, and in doing so cut the ground from under the feet of those who at different times in the past have said this was not what was going to be done. They said there would be something new, something fresh; a completely new position and attitude would be adopted by a Liberal government if and when it came into power. Now we find this is included in the protocol by reason of the fact that the treaty could not in essence be changed without being resubmitted to the United States senate. I think this is the answer which must be given to those who took a different position.
I do not want to go too much into past history, Mr. Speaker. This was done in that eloquent and articulate statement by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) earlier in the day. But I do recall-this was at the time in 1961 when the then prime minister first announced to the house that the treaty had been signed-the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, took what I think was the sensible and logical approach, namely that the treaty should not be put before the house-by inference I think this meant, of course, that it should not be put before the external affairs committee-until there had been executed and completed an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. This was the position which the government accepted. It attempted to negotiate this agreement and, as was said earlier, the present government carried on and in due course successfully concluded the agreement which is now in the form of the treaty and the protocols.
I submit that this was the sensible attitude to take. But it was not the attitude that was consistently maintained by the Liberal party which now constitutes the government. In 1962-and it is significant that this was very shortly before an election; it was in the dying days of the parliament which was dissolved prior to the election in June of 1962- the leader of the opposition completely reversed his field and said, "Let's put the matter before a committee right now". He was followed by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who quoted copiously from statements which had been made by General McNaughton. He quoted them in such a way as to leave no other inference, I think, but that he accepted those

statements. Certainly by quoting them he, as an experienced member of parliament, realized he was accepting their correctness. I am sure he will be met with those statements during the course of the meetings of the external affairs committee and he will probably take an entirely different position at that time. The minister quoted those statements and said, "Let's all together discuss this matter". He was referring to discussing the matter in the external affairs committee. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this was done because an election was imminent and the hon. gentleman at that time


Erik Nielsen: Who is not a politician anymore.


Gerald William Baldwin: At that time he was a politician and realized there might be some significance to this particular issue. I think this was unfortunate, because this has been a difficult and complex problem. I for one, living where I do and representing the area which I do, am happy that the matter has been completed. In essence I believe that the treaty as slightly qualified and amended constitutes in its entirety a document which will probably have a beneficial effect, although I say this with the reservation that I would certainly like to hear the evidence given before the external affairs committee with respect to one or two of the issues which have been raised by General McNaughton and others. I am thinking particularly of the statement made by Mr. Ripley which appeared in an egineer-ing magazine two or three years ago.


Erik Nielsen: Robert Ripley?


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not know if it is Robert Ripley. I do not know the gentleman's first name. Anyway, I refer to the statement he made relating to the question of reversing the flow of the Columbia and the comparative acreages that would be flooded. These are very material points. While I accept in general the principles of this treaty as qualified by the protocol, I do so with that particular reservation.
Mr. Speaker, something has been said about the Peace in relation to the Columbia. It was said they have been tied together, and I do not think there is any doubt that there has been more than causal connection as to effect and the relation between these two great river projects. I have always taken the position that these were both necessary and essential projects for the benefit of our country. I have continuously supported the engineering and the hydroelectric project which the province of British Columbia has commenced and is carrying forward vigorously on the Peace. I had the pleasure of going up into that area in the constituency of my

friend the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) and seeing the tremendous works which have been undertaken on this particular river. I have every reason to believe that both projects will be required and the electrical energy produced from both will in due course fill a very important requirement in Canada. I think there is a very definite connection here. I raised during the last session the fact that in my view, despite the admission by the then minister of justice that the Peace river was a navigable river, and despite the fact that according to the opinion given to the minister by his officials, it came under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the government of British Columbia was proceeding without obtaining the necessary approval required under that act. In my humble opinion this is entirely linked up and identified with the negotiations which were carried on with regard to the Columbia and was a case of appeasing the province of British Columbia in order to work out a complete, negotiated agreement in respect of the Columbia.
I have to say I am only surmising but I can surmise nothing else in view of the admissions which were made last session by ministers of the crown. If this is so, I think it is a shocking thing. I support in every way the principle of the Peace river dam but I do think it should proceed according to the law of this country.
I have one further comment to make. I wish that it could have been possible for the whole question of waters and rivers to have been considered as one over-all subject and the fact is that some time it will have to be. I was reading the other day that in the United States the greatest amount of water that can ever be available in that country as a result of engineering works will be 650 billion gallons a day and that by the end of this century the population of the United States will be such that their requirements for industrial, consumptive and irrigation purposes will be not less than 1,000 billion gallons a day. In other words, there will be a shortfall of approximately 350 billion gallons a day.
I agree with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that this matter will first of all have to be dealt with on the basis of national development, including such rivers as the Columbia and the Peace and then ultimately on the basis of continental discussion and agreement. The re-use of waters in the east and the proper use and division of the waters of the rivers of the west between industrial purposes, irrigation purposes and consumptive purposes will have to be considered, not by any one province, not by the federal government alone but in my view by
Columbia River Treaty a consortium of the provinces and the federal government. This has proven to be a necessity in the United States.
We hear much talk nowadays of amendments to the constitution. The British North America Act now provides that jurisdiction over navigation is vested in the federal government but I think this will have to be looked at very critically, and changed. For the sake of those who will come not too long after us the only sensible and rational solution will be to take an over-all look at the question of the use of the waters of this continent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West. Before the hon. member speaks may I say I know he will appreciate that we are discussing whether the treaty should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it may have been that Your Honour and I had some system of telepathy working in this regard, because my first remarks were going to be as to the nature of this debate as it has developed since last Tuesday. I trust that in so doing I will not be deemed to be criticizing Your Honour or your deputy, but I think that in all of these matters, where there is a resolution either to set up a committee or to refer something to a committee, there is a rather narrow issue. I do not think we need to go into the precedents in that regard. No doubt Your Honour has had reference to them in the same way that I did.
But I would say that for the Chair to limit the debate becomes very difficult indeed when the minister leading off throws in the whole question at issue; and, as for the fact that the debate has extended as long as it has, I believe that, while the honourable and genial Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has been extremely patient, he brought the length of the debate upon himself. Last Tuesday we were also subjected to a great trial of our patience as we listened for about two hours to his speech. I think that the lengthy speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs must have been motivated by some pride of authorship, because it certainly covered the whole ambit of the Columbia river treaty situation. It certainly did not deal only with the very limited issue of referring the treaty to the committee and the advantages of doing so. We got the whole question from stem to gudgeon.
The hon. gentleman dispensed his favours left, right and centre. He paid tribute to the negotiators and, I thought perhaps a little grudgingly, to the previous administration, in order to make what I felt was quite a

Columbia River Treaty concession on his part-that the treaty was basically a good one and that he felt the protocol improved it. As a matter of fact, the burden of his two hour speech was really to show that the protocol was a great improvement on the treaty. I do not think it went any further than that. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the press release rather carefully he also sees the same type of authorship. It seems that the same people had a hand in the preparation of the press release as in the preparation of the material for the minister to make his speech, not only as to sentences but to whole paragraphs. In any event, the matter has been put on the record in all its details.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think the house must accept a reply in kind. The debate has ranged far and wide, and once the house has embarked on such course I think it must necessarily remain with it until the debate is finished. Otherwise those who follow find themselves rather frustrated by the restrictions. There is always that difficulty, and I think what has happened may be a salutary lesson to those on the government benches, that if any minister introducing a motion of this kind wishes to have a short debate he should limit his remarks and not open the subject matter too widely.
This debate has once more shown the attitude of the Liberal party. In my mind it is a reaffirmation of the remarkable changes in attitude that have come about as the result of the assumption of office. In fact, if one considers similar major matters of government policy, nuclear arms, devaluation, the Canada pension plan as well as the treaty we are now considering, we find that at the time of the election and prior thereto great stands were taken by hon. gentlemen opposite from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) down but once they assumed office we saw a remarkable volte face. In fact, last night we almost had the situation of one hon. member eating himself because his about face was so dramatic. But he at least had the good grace to admit that he had changed his mind. Why he did so I do not know. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) who, in fact, confessed that if he maintained a certain stand it would be political suicide for him in his constituency. How cynical can he be? Is he there affirming that political expediency shall always prevail, that in order to curry favour with his electors he is going to maintain one stand but in his heart he believes he should take another? I believe this is an attitude on the part of the hon. gentleman that is not to be commended.

In any event, we see this attitude exhibited by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and it was referred to by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). In the years gone by we have heard him quote remarks passed by this person or that person, including General McNaughton, with the inference that there was something wrong with what had been done, and that there was a great deal of weight in the criticism that we were being offered. Then, in so far as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) is concerned, I shall refer in greater detail to some of the speeches he made in 1962 about the Columbia river. I find it absolutely astounding that he should stand before us now and make the representations he does in the light of what he said and wrote previously.
We are now told that this was basically a good treaty. It has always been the position of the former administration, that this was basically a good treaty. There were certain difficulties with it, yes. It could not be said that 100 per cent had been gained on every point because, after all, we were negotiating with another country. As was readily admitted, I think, by both the minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, there is a certain amount of give and take in any negotiations. It seems that when these hon. gentlemen were in opposition they concentrated on the things that were being yielded to the United States. Now, we have seen the protocol which is the result of these renegotiations. I shall refer in a few moments to the words of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.
In his speech in the house in 1962, as recorded at page 204 of Hansard, we find these words:
As a Canadian I regard this treaty with mixed feelings. As a legal document it is superb. Phrased in straightforward language, it takes a complex subject and reduces it to terms most, if not all, of which are understandable to the layman.
In the light of what has happened in the protocol, these are rather illuminating words:
The engineering data upon which the draft treaty is based is laudable.
We have not heard from the hon. gentleman at this time, perhaps in committee we will, as to why this information was any less laudable or why it should now be acceptable to him if the treaty is still basically a good treaty and is acceptable to him.


John (Jack) Davis: Will the hon. member accept a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, certainly.


John (Jack) Davis: Has it not been brought to the hon. member's attention that the cost estimates, for example, have been markedly-altered in recent months?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a point upon which I think the hon. member is now getting himself into difficulty. He is emphasizing the inconsistencies in what he said last night, because he referred to the $274 million (Canadian) that we would be getting for the sale of downstream benefits. He said that this would go toward covering the cost of certain installation and would leave us with some $50 million or $60 million which could be applied to the cost of generating electric power. I say to him in that regard not to be naive, because these costs will be going up and up. I say that, rather than having $50 million left over we will be looking for $100 million more. These projects are of such a vast nature, and so complex, that anyone who says they are going to cost so many millions and no more is indulging in a little bit of fantasy.
It is true that there have been changes in the cost estimates. It may be recalled that the treaty was based on negotiations during 1961. We are now in the year 1964, and the renegotiations, or what passed for renegotiations, were in the year 1963 when already there had been changes in costs. I think, perhaps, the example has pointed up the difficulty of fixing a hard and fast limit on the costs of these projects.
If I may, I should like to quote again from page 204, where the hon. member is reported to have said:
New information has been collected since the treaty was negotiated nearly three years ago.
This fact is borne out by the hon. member.
Construction cost estimates have been revised and interest rates have risen sharply. Still, it is the over-all economics of the Columbia river treaty about which I am most concerned. As interpreted publicly by the present government it must be characterized as nothing short of a fiasco.
Is the treaty a fiasco?
It is inconceivable that the government of this country should enter into any agreement, let alone a comprehensive treaty with another country to last at least 50 years, which failed to procure any demonstrable advantage for the people of Canada.
On December 13, 1962, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) had this to say as recorded on page 2643 of Hansard:
As I have said earlier, this is a poor agreement, a poorer arrangement for Canada than was the old Kaiser deal, the deal that was blocked by the International River Improvements Act. I believe it is wrong. I believe this treaty should be renegotiated. '
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano said much the same sort of thing and he used the
Columbia River Treaty word "renegotiation". What does renegotiation mean? Does it mean merely dotting the i's and crossing the t's, or the clarification of certain language? This is all that the protocol has done, it has clarified certain language. I submit to hon. members, and to members of the government, that it is not within the power of the United States to enter into an agreement or treaty and then negotiate fundamental changes which one would expect from renegotiations. If the treaty was so wrong, as hon. members pretended, then more would be required than the mere negotiation of a protocol which does not have to be submitted to the senate. This must mean that these are essentially minor changes, and in many places the protocol does nothing more than dot the i's and cross the t's. We can always work on improving the language of a treaty or any other document. I cannot see that there has been anything take place that one might classify as renegotiation.
It is true that we now have the sale of surplus power and this was not the case at the time the hon. member was speaking. Certainly, however, this principle had been set out in the speech from the throne, and this had been a change in policy by the government. But it was a policy that had been so instituted and held to so hard by hon. members opposite when they had been in power prior to 1957. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was a member of the administration that refused and said no, no, a thousand times no, to the sale of power outside this country. This is very definitely a fact, and there had to be a change because of the change of circumstances.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree that today, because of changing circumstances, we in Canada can consider, under appropriate conditions, the sale of power resources on a long term basis. It does not do us any good for natural gas to be in the ground. It does not do us any good to have hydroelectric potential merely going over some waterfalls or rapids, or running through undeveloped basins. It is only when we harness these resources that they are of advantage to us. But then there is always the technological process which must follow, and right close behind hydro is nuclear power. We must realize that it does not lie too far in the future. It may be a matter of a decade, perhaps two decades-and I may be ultra conservative when I say this-when nuclear power will be a real competitor to hydro generated power. Therefore it behoves us to develop these resources and to realize them. Today we have billions of tons of coal lying underground and they are of no use if they remain there unrealized.

Columbia River Treaty
Therefore we must understand that one of the chief purposes of the negotiators at the time the protocol was being drawn was to sell the downstream benefits rather than to continue with what had originally been decided upon, that electric power to the equivalent of 50 per cent of the downstream benefits would be delivered at a gate in Canada.
We must also realize the difficulties that faced the previous administration over the years, and which I am sure the present ministry came into contact with last summer when they were negotiating with the government of British Columbia. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) said this was not the action of the premier of British Columbia, but the premier of British Columbia is the government of British Columbia. These negotiations were carried on by him on behalf of his government, and we know that attitudes in that province have changed considerably.
We also know that the actions of the government of British Columbia have been approved by the people of British Columbia. These are facts of life. We know that there was an about face at the time that General McNaughton was, shall we say, underlining the alternatives of diversion of the Columbia into the Fraser, and we know that the government of British Columbia pulled the rug out from under his feet in this regard and did not leave him with much bargaining power.
We know also that the government of British Columbia was fully represented on the bargaining team dealing with the United States, and at that time the terms were acceptable. I ask you to consider the position when a provincial government sends a cabinet minister as a member of a negotiating team and he approves of what is negotiated. Then nothing is said, but months after that the provincial government suddenly says it does not approve. Whose word can we take? There must be some responsibility. However, this was a fact of life that had to be faced, that after the treaty had been signed with the United States we suddenly discovered that British Columbia did not consider the terms exactly acceptable.
By that time, of course, the Peace river power question had loomed much more largely, and the government of British Columbia saw a way to obtain financing for it. It had previously made sure it was the only customer, through its nationalization of the B.C. Electric. When you are dealing with somebody else and he has certain aces up his sleeve, you have got to be able to cope with the situation.
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree that it has not been easy

dealing with the province of British Columbia, and I am sure that under the circumstances, so far as Canada is concerned, he will now agree this is basically a good treaty. The official opposition agrees with him. I do not think the protocol hurts the status of Canada with regard to the treaty, although I have some reservations regarding the entire sale of the downstream benefits.
I also have some reservations regarding the cost of power that will be generated on the Peace river, and it is possible that at some stage there will be some difficulty in British Columbia. However, this is a decision for the people of British Columbia, and we know that in the last provincial election they gave the government of Premier Bennett another mandate. Therefore his scheme has received a certain stamp of approval. The people of British Columbia are the owners of the resource and, if they have committed a mistake, they will have to bear the brunt of it. It will be regrettable, but that is a decision for them to make, the same way as the original decision on the export of gas was a decision of the Alberta government. Those are political decisions that have to be taken, and of which the people either approve or disapprove.
In reviewing the stand taken by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) I must say I cannot agree with him, but at least he has been honest and consistent in that stand and his opposition to the treaty. I do not think we have seen any vacillation on his part, but I must say there was in many other sectors.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You mean the hon. member for Kootenay West, not Kootenay East.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I beg your pardon. Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty and I may have to ask you to rescue me. It was certainly the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who I said was honest in his stand.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You were right the first time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Other Liberal members were converted, especially Liberal members from British Columbia who used to be very critical of this treaty. They paraded up and down, and the whole hierarchy of the Liberal party is responsible for a similar state of affairs. They cannot take any glory out of this, even though in his attitude the other afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to feel that his should be all the glory, and that this beneficence to Canada was brought about as a result of the expert negotiating team which he led.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: His biggest problem has been smoothing the Liberals down.


Mr. Lamberl:: I feel, myself, he will have a great deal more difficulty spreading salve among a lot of Liberals in British Columbia. They are talking out of one side of their mouths one day while they are thinking something entirely different. That is why I find the conduct of the administration in this regard somewhat reprehensible. I wish they had been more honest about their stand in the past.
A great deal has been said in the course of this debate about water wastage in Canada. Perhaps you will allow me a little latitude, Mr. Speaker, to refer to this aspect of the subject. We in Canada do have immense opportunities in this regard. Not only is water needed for industry in western Canada, but water is needed in Ontario for all purposes. As far as we in western Canada are concerned, it is needed for agriculture, and I should, myself, like to see an immediate study made of our water resources and their use across the country. Such a study should be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces. This is not something which should be undertaken only when the urgency becomes extreme; we should do it now, because, after all, we have in this country tremendous rivers which flow to the north. One considers, for example, how much water diversion could take place from the head of the Mackenzie water system, which is the cradle of the Athabasca.
Somebody spoke about the diversion of Peace river water to the prairies. I do not know who is going to build the great canal which would be required; remember, there are large heights of land, acute heights of land, between that river and the prairies. Certainly, though, out of the Athabasca system we could, without too great an expenditure of funds and dislocation of land use, divert sufficient water to help our prairie systems. We should recognize that there must be a degree of co-operation between the provinces; I do not think a province can go it entirely alone as far as the best use and development of water resources is concerned.
I hope this suggestion will commend itself to the heads of the various provincial governments as well as to the federal government-that they should get together and make a comprehensive study with a view to the full development of these water resources.
I feel that we will get a lot of answers- certainly, we will get a lot of questions- during the hearings of the external affairs committee. No doubt there will be differences of opinion. There will be differences of opinion on technical matters and judgement decisions will have to be made. People are not going to be 100 per cent right or 100 per cent wrong, and it is for this reason
Annual Vacations Act
I differ from my genial friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge); I do not think he is entirely right, nor do I believe he is entirely wrong. Those people who also have opinions, or who have written or said things on which the hon. member bases his conclusions may, in the same way, be not wholly right and not wholly wrong. However, we may get some clarification of these various points in the course of the committee hearings.
Essentially, though, there has been no difficulty about referring this question to the committee on external affairs. There has, of course, been a great deal of controversy about the treaty, and I myself would like to see some clarification of a number of points though, in essence, I believe we must go ahead with the scheme. I would, therefore, commend it to hon. members with perhaps some minor alterations, after we have got a little more information.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we carry on until six o'clock with unanimous consent of the house, so that this measure could be referred to the committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to agree to the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman and normally I would, but I think it would be unwise on this occasion, on a subject such as this, when several of our people are unavoidably absent because of the death of one of our colleagues. I am prepared to say a few words myself on this important subject, but I see it is now three minutes to five and if we could call it five o'clock and proceed with private members' business I think that would be agreeable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house agree to call it five o'clock?


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-15, to amend the Annual Vacations Act (two weeks after one year).

Annual Vacations Act
He said: Once upon a time-that, of course, is the way one begins to tell a story about something which took place a long time ago -there was a national convention of the Liberal party in the city of Ottawa.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Was that in 1919?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in 1919.


An hon. Member:: A good convention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear hon. members across the way speaking as though they know something about the Liberal convention of 1919. Among other things, it committed the Liberal party to the enactment of the various items of a national labour code. We have reminded the Liberals of this many times and it occurred to me today that they might be getting tired of hearing of this 45-year stint of theirs to try to bring in this national labour code.
I wondered if by any chance they had dealt with this matter at an earlier convention. There is one thing about Liberal conventions; you do not have to go to very many books because they have not had very many. The one in 1919 was called the second convention; the first one was held back in 1893. I went to the library to see whether there was any record, and I found an interesting booklet entitled: "Official report of the Liberal convention held in Ottawa June 20 and 21, 1893". So I thought I would look in this booklet to see whether there had been any suggestion made for the adoption of a national labour code, and do you know, Mr. Speaker, I cannot find the word "labour" in the book. It is not in the index, and I have spent most of the afternoon reading through the book and did not find the word "labour" anywhere. So I will not accuse the Liberals of having proposed a national labour code 71 years ago; it was only 45 years ago that they first made this proposal.
Now at long last, in the year 1964, we have had it promised in the speech from the throne that there will be introduced at this session a national labour code. And not only was it indicated in the speech from the throne, but when he spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) confirmed that that legislation would be introduced. Likewise the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) when he spoke in the same debate confirmed this fact. Therefore we are looking forward to the introduction at this session of this piece of legislation which has been a Liberal promise now for 45 years.
I have taken careful note of the references which have been made to the proposed national labour code, because I have been

hoping that it would be comprehensive in scope. There is always the possibility that it might be, but so far the references made to the items of detail which might be included are not as comprehensive or as extensive as some of us feel they should be. So far the only references have been to a minimum v/age, maximum hours of work and a maximum work week, statutory holidays with pay, and certain other standards which, I take it, are in the field of protection of workers against injury and accident. But to date there has been no clue given on the part of spokesmen of the Liberal government as to whether anything is going to be done to improve the vacations with pay legislation which is already on the statute books. Therefore, I suggest it is a fortunate coincidence that before the introduction of legislation from the government for a national labour code this bill of mine comes up for debate, giving us the opportunity to present to the government the proposal that this year, when we are going to enact a national labour code, we do the job in its entirety.
We feel that the Annual Vacations Act which is already on the statute books should be improved in at least two particulars. As a matter of fact I have on the order paper two bills dealing with the two proposed improvements, one of them being the bill now before the house. This bill simply provides that the two weeks vacation with pay which is now made available to workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction after two years of employment be made available to them after one year of employment. The other suggestion I make, which as I say is in a separate bill so that hon. members are not faced with the problem of having to vote for two things at the same time-because this other suggestion will come later-is that after five years of employment the length of holidays with pay should be increased to three weeks.
In these times, Mr. Speaker, surely proposals such as this-two weeks after one year and three weeks after five years-are minimum standards which our economy ought to be able to provide. At any rate, what is before us at the moment is not the whole broad scope of a national labour code. What is before us at the moment is not the question of three weeks after five years, but simply the question of providing for two weeks vacation with pay after one year. As I say, a vacation with pay is one of the items of a national labour code which is already on the statute books, having been put there in the session of 1957-58 when the Conservatives were in power. At that time we tried to persuade the government of that day that if they

were going to give us an Annual Vacation Act two weeks should have been available after one year. The Liberals supported us then in the contention that the bill should have been improved right at that time. They also supported us later when they were in opposition in 1962-63. So that when one looks at the record of the various groups in this house he finds at some point that all of us have supported the idea that we should be much more generous in our provisions for holidays with pay than we have been to date.
All that the bill now before us proposes, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment to the Annual Vacations Act which is now on the statute books. The act now provides that workers under federal labour jurisdiction do not get their two weeks vacation with pay until they have worked for two years for an employer. This bill would amend that statute so that workers under federal labour jurisdiction would get their two weeks vacation with pay after working one year for an employer. It seems to me that this is a very simple and minimal provision. All of us are in favour of it, and therefore I hope the bill will get the support of the house this afternoon. I hope it gets not only the support which it had last year, namely speeches in favour of it, but the kind of support which the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) received the other day for his bill, namely its actual passing through all stages of the house.
I have tried to think, without success, of some title to the bill which would be as bilingual as the phrase "Air Canada". If I could have done that I suppose the chances of this bill would have been better; but at any rate, in whatever language it is put, surely we all want to give our workers under federal labour jurisdiction the best we can in terms of annual vacations. We want to give a lead to the country as a whole. Therefore I hope that this afternoon the house will pass this bill.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafonlaine):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is so intimately connected with labour movements in Canada gives evidence of the significance of the problem. As the hon. member stated a few minutes ago, the legislation now before the house would give two weeks annual vacation with pay after only one year of employment instead of two.
Paragraph (2) of the existing act passed in 1958, in fact at the end of January 1958, and the word "or" at the end of subparagraphs
Annual Vacations Act
(a) and (b) of clause 7 would have to be struck out to amend the 1958 act as it applies to vacations.
If parliament enacted immediately on that point and carried out the proposal brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it would remove one of the main points of discussion between labour unions and employers in their negotiation of collective bargaining. Since there is no obligation to bring that point into the discussion, it could also bring out financial difficulties with great consequential effects on other points of negotiations which also have their importance.
I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the speech from the throne in which the government announced its intention to bring forward legislation to lay the foundation of a labour code and that this item was not specifically mentioned.
However, I think we must rely on a good understanding of the wording, especially when we know that this labour code will deal with the main points concerning labour rights. It is not necessarily restrictive. Of course, vacation is a very important matter; that is a very important fringe benefit, but it was not possible for the government to reveal all the points to be brought forward in the legislation and I think it is an accepted policy that the government always holds back a trump card in case it has to negotiate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government will deal with this question when it introduces its labour legislation.
I do not believe that this question of vacation could be defined in terms other than "working standards". I am sure that hon. members realize that the same serious reasons of justice and opportunity that existed in 1958 when that legislation was passed should prevail today.
As the present government is concerned with the welfare of Canadian citizens and their present needs, it is conscious of its responsibilities to the working class and to the employers alike. Based on past experience, it is also thankful for the excellent suggestions made by hon. members.
I am convinced that the government intends to integrate the main acts concerning labour relations, working conditions and other benefits into a single piece of legislation which should be simpler and easier to apply. At least that is what I concluded from a perusal of the speech from the throne.
If today the government decided to pass the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I wonder whether such action would not bring a senseless upheaval of Canadian economy, at least in

Annual Vacations Act
certain fields, because, in two or three months from now, when the government introduces its labour legislation, or rather a rudimentary-labour code, further changes will be called for.
The standards existing when the present legislation was enacted in 1958, are still unchanged. Indeed, those standards have been the basis for the drafting of the present legislation in 1958, together with some provincial measures, which were an excellent criterion for legislation in a similar field.
Government statistics reveal that about two thirds of the people employed in industry are only entitled to two weeks paid vacation after having been employed for two full years.
On the other hand, some provinces did not choose to legislate in this matter, and, if I understand rightly, the two most densely populated provinces, that is, Ontario and Quebec, only provide for one week's vacation after two years employment.
Mr. Speaker, until the government decides to legislate in this matter, the question should be considered seriously, in order to co-ordinate all legal labour problems. As I said at the outset, we should also consider that collective bargaining may lessen the parties' rights.
Indeed, what may be an essential point in collective bargaining in a given field is often much less important in another.
May I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he should, in my opinion, change the wording of his bill to make it consistent with the end he seeks to attain or even to prevent it from coming into conflict with the present annual vacations act.
In fact, I feel that he should have provided for the deletion of the second subparagraph of section 2 (c) which reads as follows:

-"vacation pay" means
2 per cent of the wages of an employee during the year of employment in respect of which he is entitled to the vacation, if he is entitled to a vacation of one week.

Mr. Speaker, if the bill is to be logical, the hon. member will have to recommend the deletion of the subparagraph I have just read because then the provision would be for two weeks vacation instead of one week.
Furthermore, if the hon. member wishes his bill to be consistent, he should also provide for the deletion of subsection 2 of section 3 which reads as follows:

This act does not apply to employment under a collective agreement entered into after the coming

into force of this act and containing provisions, approved by the minister, for the granting of an annual vacation with pay.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that under section 2 (3) and after this legislation has come into force, the minister has approved collective agreements which gave the employees concerned less vacation than the law provided for. Consequently, unless the subsection in question is deleted, we will be recognizing the fact that the minister has approved collective agreements which gave less vacation than was provided in the present act. Moreover, if the hon. member is not asking for its repeal, the legislation he proposes is no longer necessary, since he accepts the principle that some workers have less vacation.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make on this bill. I should like to point out once again that if the government, as we are given to understand in the speech from the throne, intends to implement a labour code, no matter if it is 40 or 50 years after such and such Liberal convention

the needs then were not as urgent as today-I feel that we should wait until the government introduces its legislation in order to make the proper suggestions and amendments.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words respecting the bill that has been presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think it is well known to all members of the house that similar bills have come before us over a number of years. I know that, since I have been a member of the house, bills almost exactly the same as this one have been introduced at every session. I understand this bill has been presented approximately 10 times, mostly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but on occasion by other members now on the government side of the house.
Without going into the details of whether or not the wording of the bill does in fact give effect to what the hon. member is attempting to do by way of amendment to the Annual Vacations Act, may 1 say that the best thing the house could do with this bill would be to refer it to the committee that will be studying, 1 hope, a comprehensive labour code for Canada. We have been promised that this is going to be done very soon, but to my knowledge there has been no indication so far that the matter of annual vacations with pay is going to be discussed by that committee. If it is the intention of the government not to include this very important part of labour's rights in those discussions, then this bill certainly has a very

useful purpose and, as I said, it would be well for the house to refer the subject matter to that committee so that it would be included in its discussions in seeking to arrive at an over-all, comprehensive labour code.
In Canada as well as in all the other industrialized nations of the world we find that we are moving toward shorter work weeks. The reason advanced, of course, is that a greater amount of automation is being introduced so that not as much actual physical labour is required on the part of employees to turn out the same volume of production. I am sure there is no disagreement with what is happening. Negotiations in some parts of North America have resulted in a 35 hour week and surely if this is the trend a great deal can be said for longer vacations as well.
The previous speaker said that there must also be other amendments to the Annual Vacations Act if this particular amendment is going to be reconciled with the whole purpose and administration of that act. I think this only adds weight to my contention that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the committee to be set up to study a national labour code. In making these brief remarks I support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his contention that this matter should be considered, so that it will not be left up in the air when a comprehensive labour code is written.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in introducing his bill used the fairy tale opening of "once upon a time". If I may steal a leaf from his book and bow to his great experience I should like to use a similar opening. Once upon a time I had a dream and in that dream I was up on my hind legs speaking to an empty House of Commons. I woke up and realized it was not a dream. It was private members' hour on Friday afternoon. I do not mind standing before an empty house speaking in private members' hour on Friday afternoon. It is a useful way to get experience in speaking in this chamber, but when we bear in mind the cost of the operation of the house I think this method by which newer members gain experience is a pretty costly one.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Sit down and vote then.


David George Hahn: Why do we do this? We do it because we are trying to stop a particular bill from becoming law, and I believe this is the right thing to do in this case. As I will outline in a few minutes, I think there are very good reasons for not passing the bill, but I would hope that the committee which is going to study the procedures of the house will look at the problem of making this hour
Annual Vacations Act
a little more useful and stimulating. In my view the suggestion that has been advanced, that such measures should be voted upon, would certainly force members of all parties to remain in the chamber when they were being debated, and I am sure this would lead to a more lively and useful debate.
I have already indicated that I think this measure should not pass and I should like to spend a minute or two outlining why I believe this is the correct position. First of all, like everybody else, I think, I am very strongly in favour of the principle of the bill. I believe very strongly that two weeks vacation with pay should be available after one year's employment. Personally, I also agree that there should be three weeks vacation with pay after a further period of time. I think many of us feel that this is quite a common practice in industry now, and I should like to see it embodied in the legislation of the country.
But as has been indicated, this is only one of the problems connected with our labour legislation. I am not satisfied with our labour legislation. We need, and we must enact, proper legislation covering vacations with pay. We need, and we should have a minimum wage standard. We need the statutory holidays to be spelled out. We need the hours of work to be spelled out. I think, too, there should be some legislation covering employee safety and other matters.
It seems to me that if we enact this particular measure we are dealing with only one piece of the problem, and I feel we should be grouping all our labour legislation in one act. We should be providing a proper, comprehensive labour act that would cover all facets of the labour field. I would agree that if there were no possibility or no likelihood of this sort of legislation coming forward in the near future that this particular measure should be passed because, in itself, it is commendable. Surely, however, when we on this side of the house are committed to a comprehensive piece of labour legislation in this session of parliament, it seems foolish to pass one measure covering one section of the field, and then follow it with a comprehensive measure that would probably change what is being done here.
For this reason, I do not believe this piece of legislation should be supported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


David George Hahn: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has he been given an assurance that the labour code, when it is introduced, will include a section dealing with annual vacations with pay along the lines upon which he and I are in agreement?

Annual Vacations Act


David George Hahn: I think there are two answers to that question, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I have no assurance on anything connected with the legislation. However, I do know that a number of members on this side of the house feel there should be such legislation. I hope, too, that the views of these hon. members will be reflected in any legislation that is introduced. Certainly, when that legislation comes before the house it can be amended, if there are weaknesses or deficiencies in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit one other question? If that is the case, will he support us in the necessary amendments at that time?


David George Hahn: Well, a colleague of mine is saying that I do not have to answer hypothetical questions. However, in this particular instance I, as an individual, would support this particular item because I believe in it very strongly.
The hon. member, in introducing his legislation, indicated that he had been waiting a long time, since about 1919 I believe, for a labour code. I think I can assure him that if those of us on this side of the house who are in favour of a labour code have anything to say about it, such a code will be forthcoming very soon: The hon. member will not have to wait much longer. I might add also, because I hate to see him waiting for things, that if we can do anything about it we will see that he does not have to wait quite so long between conventions, so that he can have pamphlets that he can read back to us in the house.
As I say, I am opposed to this measure because I sincerely believe it is the wrong thing to do at this time-to introduce this particular piece of legislation when I hope that, shortly, we will have a comprehensive labour code before us which can be rapidly passed.


Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth):: It is rather a good thing there are not too many people here on Friday afternoon. As a result, I have the pleasure of having the opportunity to express my opinion on Bill No. C-15. Generally speaking, I am in agreement with many of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Certainly if this measure has been introduced into this house ten times or more, it must have some merit.
However, there are a few points that are troubling me about which I would like to speak. First, as has been mentioned, one of the proposals in the speech from the throne is the establishment of legislation covering minimum wages, working hours, statutory holidays and the setting of other labour standards for work done under federal jurisdiction.

I am sure that this measure will, in some ways, encompass the objectives of Bill No. C-15. I may say at this time that I have had the good fortune and great pleasure of discussing the various ramifications of such a measure with one of the champions of labour in the Liberal party. I am referring to the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro). As a result of this association and study I am well able, I believe, to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of this particular measure. Certainly, my experience in this house is limited as compared to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, I am not so inexperienced in other fields that I am not aware of the decided disadvantages inherent in this piecemeal approach to legislation.
If this measure is worth while, how much better it would be if it were enacted along with other measures in a complete package and not treated as an orphan to be clothed bit by bit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John B. Morison: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he feel that the so-called "complete package" should include the principle of this legislation?


John B. Morison: I believe when the hon. member hears my remarks he might get an impression of just exactly how I do feel.
This bill, as it stands, would appear to be a simple measure designed to give a new employee two weeks holiday with pay after working for one year. I do not believe it is quite that simple. Immediately, there would have to be changes in contracts, in pay scales and employment time and there would be added expense. Today, Mr. Speaker, added expense is something that is of major concern to me, not only as a member of this house but as an employer and as a Canadian taxpayer. Surely in this country, where today we are devoting 12 per cent of personal incomes, as against 8 per cent in Great Britain and 7 per cent in the United States, to welfare and where our welfare costs have risen from 2.8 per cent to 6 per cent of the gross national product in the last 12 years, we must stop continually looking for new ways to add to the cost of doing business. I would be the last person or almost the last person to deprive a fellow worker of a week's holiday with pay, even though I have never had that luxury.
In the past, I have spoken in favour of a balanced budget, and one way to do that is to reduce costs. I have seen very little of that since I have been here, especially in the last few days. Deficits may be necessary or

justified in certain periods of extreme unemployment and recession. As soon as those conditions are corrected, we should plan for a return to a balanced budget. We have not heard any talk about recession for two or three years, and unemployment is at its lowest level since 1957. We still hear about more and more spending and large deficits. I say the Canadian parliament is so imbued with the give, give philosophy, the continual build-up of government staff and departmental expenditures, that we find it impossible to cut expenditures as we must. If we cannot operate economically and effectively as a government, what hope have we of leading our country's industry to a productivity level to pay for the pleasures and welfare we have already voted ourselves.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that we have been discussing this measure for some time, but if it takes another few months to incorporate it into a comprehensive measure to be presented to the house, I am in agreement with the delay. I think the whole bill should be well studied and discussed, so that the end product will be one that will be accepted and applauded by all sides of the house and by industry. Then I am sure industry will decide, if the legislation is good, to use it as a yardstick for their own plans.
Much as I understand the hon. member's bill and his desires, I would like to see it defeated this evening, so that it may be incorporated into a package agreement at some later date.
Second, Mr. Speaker, if I am not getting away from the subject, and I do not think I am, I wonder if now is really the time to make this change. I do not want to seem prejudiced even though, as I said, I never enjoyed a holiday with pay. My poor father never believed in holidays, with or without pay. He worked for 18 years, and after five children and a heart attack, he once decided to take a holiday. It was the only one he had, and I remember it well because he came home with a case of acute indigestion. The change was too much for him.
We did not have another holiday until we all came home from the services in 1946, when we once more joined him, and this time it was a holiday with pay from the R.C.A.F.
As I say, I am not prejudiced but I do worry, with the expanding economy and declining unemployment rate we have today.
I read in a newspaper last week that John Inglis Limited suffered a $1,760,000 loss because they did not have sufficient skilled employees to keep up with their orders.
Going back to the Minister of Finance's book, "Troubled Canada", I think sometimes he has forgotten it. Certainly we have not
Annual Vacations Act
heard very much about it since last June, but in it he said he did not like to see added expense. The exact quotation is:
Would not this added expense be an invitation to inflation which no responsible government could contemplate?
I hope the Liberal government will take a very long look before they add more expense to the cost of doing business.
Third, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that if we do this thing properly, then industry might follow our lead. It is ironic that the United States, the industrial giant which we seem to fear will engulf us, is giving vitality and ambition to its business community by tax cuts whereas we, for our part, are talking about larger deficits and increased taxes to pay for our fun and games.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to dissociate myself from the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) in regard to the usefulness and practicability of private members' hour. I personally am very much in favour of the continuation and enlargement of this hour. He said it serves no useful purpose, but I would point out that there are many potentially great first string pitchers who would never get out of the bull pen if it were not for private members' hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bull pen is right.


David George Hahn: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) is misinterpreting my remarks. I did not say that private members' hour had no purpose . I just questioned the wisdom of conducting it in the fashion in which we do.


John James Greene: I will accept the hon. member's explanation; but if the rules were made too stringent, or if the capability of the flinger had to be too good, then it might be that the very purpose I refer to would be defeated, and I think we should bear that in mind.
I am told that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a proponent of this bill, came to this house as but a stripling youngster, he won his spurs in private members' hour, and from then went on to the lofty heights of fine points of order and lofty questions of privilege. It was in this humble field that that talent was developed.
Again I would point out, as did the hon. member who preceded me, that this bill has been brought before the house on 10 separate occasions. Therefore it has one very clear attribute, an attribute shared by the proponent of the bill, namely, that of venerability. Surely this should commend itself very highly to the house.
It is singular that the party the honourable proponent of the bill represents is bringing

Annual Vacations Act
in a bill which, as the last speaker quite properly pointed out, is concerned with vacations and with distribution of income. But in the constituency I represent, and generally in the upper Ottawa valley, we are presently much more concerned with the problem of employment, of jobs, of an economy that will move ahead; and when that time comes and our people are working we would then be more concerned with matters such as vacations and the distribution of income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the Liberals were going to get the economy rolling.


John James Greene: Give us time. I am sure that after this government has been in office for not too long, many people will be concerned only with holidays and a better distribution of vast, new prosperity. But I think this is rather symbolic of the ideology represented by the party of the hon. member, which has always been concerned with distribution.
All of us will agree there was a time in history, particularly in the old country, when wealth was controlled by a very small group of people, when the economy was static, when there was no opportunity for people who did not already have place, position and wealth, to prosper and find new opportunity. In those days the philosophies of socialism were needed, and played a very great part.
I think the fact that this party is still concerned very largely with distribution, at a time when we need production far more than distribution, shows why the unimaginative philosophy of socialism has not taken hold anywhere in the twentieth century dynamic type of economy existing today. I think they still have their feet in the 19th century and their heads in the clouds. The Liberal party appreciates the problems of today's world more realistically. We do know that what is needed today is impetus and production, not necessarily such matters as distribution and holidays. I associate myself with those hon. members who quite properly reminded this house that the whole question of a national labour code was embodied in the speech from the throne and that a measure to deal with it will, no doubt, be brought before the house shortly.
Again, it is characteristic of the methods of the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs that they should bring these measures before the house in a hodgepodge manner, piece by piece, little by little, never with any cohesion and never on the basis of any over-all plan. The 11 members of that party ride 11 white and unsullied horses in different directions. At the same time, those gallant white horses are, of course, unblemished because they have never been in any way tarnished by the responsibility of office.

It is very easy to ride these gallant white chargers and to appear altruistic, but those who have the responsibility of office cannot afford that luxury. Those who have the responsibility of office must ultimately bring their plans to fruition and put them to work. That is what this party intends to do, by bringing in a national labour code and at that time these matters, including, no doubt, something along the lines of this suggestion as to vacations, will be discussed within the ambit of the new code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? When that legislation is brought in and if this aspect is not included, will he support the necessary amendment to include it?


John James Greene: I shall be very glad to consider supporting an amendment at that stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes two Liberal votes we have got.


An hon. Member:: He said "consider".


Bert Raymond Leboe: You might consider for another 45 years.


John James Greene: It seems to me that the introduction of this type of hodgepodge, bit by bit legislation reflects the fact that the party which the hon. member represents never has any intention of forming office. Fortunately, in any case, the good sense of the people of Canada would preclude such an unhappy event from taking place. But if the hon. member and his friends had any real intention of forming an administration they would I suggest, bring forward responsible, pervasive measures which would illustrate the entire ambit of their policy, instead of attempting to win political approbation by bringing in these bits and pieces which, certainly, would be popular with everyone. Let me say this: I have never heard the hon. member bring in any measure at any time which savoured of sin. They are always on a pleasant plane, measures which everyone could support. Again, I suggest this clearly indicates-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? If a member of the opposition, say the official opposition, were to move a motion for sin, would the hon. member support it?


John James Greene: It would depend on what facet of sin.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: In that regard it has been my experience in this vale of tears that the only ones who are pure and unblemished at all times are the socialists.

I would point out one other aspect of this bill which has caused me some concern. It is simply this-that the party which the hon. gentleman represents professes to speak for, and to represent, the trade unions of this country. It has always been a matter of concern to me that a parliamentary party which is supposed to speak for trade unions appears ultimately, if it were ever in power, to be the very instrument which would abolish any need of or necessity for trade unions. The hon. member's own political party would, I suggest, put the unions right out of business, if it were in office very long.
The measure now before us is a small and humble example of what I am saying. The question of holidays is certainly one which comes within the ambit of the collective bargaining process. Yet what the hon. gentleman would do, even though he professes to speak for trade unions, is to place this question outside the bargaining process and within the confines of legislation. I believe we saw a more forcible example of this trend during discussions in the committe on railways when, in the course of considering a railway bill, members of the hon. gentleman's party wished to legislate to ensure pay for workers and other persons employed by the railways who had been displaced by reason of automation. We found out from representatives of the railwaymen that this was something for which they had bargained in the past-that this was something clearly within the area of collective bargaining. Yet the hon. gentleman and his friends wanted to take it out of
Business of the House the area of collective bargaining and have it determined by legislation.
We in this party will uphold and maintain legislation which will keep collective bargaining free and equal, legislation which will make the game fair for both sides. But we will never legislate the trade unions out of business, as would happen if the hon. gentleman and his party took office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yet you want to bring in a labour code.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the acting house leader any announcement about the business for Monday which would vary the order of business he made known yesterday?


John Watson MacNaught: There will be no change in the order of business as outlined by me last evening. On Monday we shall proceed with the debate on the Columbia resolution.
There is only one matter to which I think I should draw the attention of the house. The last item on Votes and Proceedings today, namely notice of the resolution in the name of the Postmaster General for a change in the Post Office Act, may have to be brought on to the end of the debate on the second reading of the redistribution commissioners bill.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Monday. March 9, 1964