1964-06-04

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of the house. It has to do with a Canadian Press dispatch of this morning regarding a meeting which was held in the Toronto area last night and addressed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. It says in part:
Noting that Prime Minister Pearson had threatened an election if parliamentary business does not progress, Mr. Diefenbaker suggested this was a ruse.
"The Prime Minister knows he stands in no danger from his allies (the Social Credit, Creditiste and New Democratic parties).. .because of the increase in (M.P.'s) indemnity to $18,000 a year".


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The report continues:
"It had a wonderful effect on third party support".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It continues:
"On the flag vote'', he said, "the attitude would be, not that I love the red ensign less, but $18,000 more".


Mr. Pigeon:: The same old bunch.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this house assume that every member has a right to take whatever position he or she wishes on any question on the basis that they are acting in accordance with their convictions and their conscience, and it does not lie within the power of any member to impute motives to other members or to insinuate that they are acting from ulterior or sinister motives. I suggest that this statement is a reflection not only on the three parties which sit to the left of the official opposition but impugns the motives of all members of this house who may disagree about the design of the proposed flag. The great bulk of the Conservative members in this house, with the exception of a small handful, voted for an
increase in the sessional indemnity, and the implication would be that any of them who vote for a design other than the red ensign are also doing so out of considerations based upon the sessional indemnity.
I do not raise this on any basis of personal resentment, Mr. Speaker. I say this is a reflection on the integrity of all members of the house. What is to my mind even worse, it helps to feed the cheap cynicism that is all too prevalent with reference to parliament and its membership.
I recognize that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition may have been misquoted, and if so I hope he will make that clear to the house. Or it may be that he spoke in the heat of a campaign meeting and that he will want to retract his statement. All of us have had the experience of being carried away by the exuberance of our own eloquence and having said things that we later regretted. If that is true, then I hope the Leader of the Opposition will make a retraction.
The right hon. gentleman is an old and experienced parliamentarian. He is a former distinguished prime minister of this country, and no one knows better than he that he cannot impugn the motives of other members. He may call in question their judgment, but he cannot reflect on their integrity. I ask him to give this house either an explanation or an apology.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as
the statement made by the hon. member is concerned, may I say that there were no motives imputed whatsoever or in any way. I have consistently taken a stand against the increase that was voted. I made that clear again last evening when I spoke. If that is imputing motives to hon. members of this house I do not know what motives are. I took a strong and very definite stand against the circumstances under which the increase took place. I took the stand that no such increase should be made effective by members of the house voting for it. I pointed out at the time the dangers inherent in that course. I am unchanged in that view and will remain so, and any suggestion on the part of

Question of Privilege
the hon. member that motives are imputed is entirely without foundation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Citation 154, paragraph 6, of Beau-chesne, fourth edition, is very clear. It reads as follows:
The words "purchased by legislation" applied to a member of the house are unparliamentary. An appeal was taken from this decision of Speaker Lemieux who was sustained by a vote of 87 to 71.
The reference given for that citation takes one to February 8, 1926, when a Conservative member of that day, Mr. Sutherland of South Oxford, referred to the then member of Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Woodsworth, and his support of certain things the government of that day was bringing in by using the phrase "purchased by legislation". The clear implication of the words used by Mr. Sutherland was that Mr. Woodsworth and others associated with him were voting in support of things the government was bringing in because they had got certain things from the government of that day.
Mr. Woodsworth raised a point of order and the matter was debated at some length. Mr. Speaker Lemieux ruled very clearly that to say that a member's vote was purchased by legislation was out of order, and he called upon the member to apologize and withdraw. The ruling by Mr. Speaker Lemieux was appealed by Mr. Meighen and the ruling was sustained by a vote of 87 to 71. Mr. Speaker Lemieux then called on Mr. Sutherland to withdraw the remark he had made.
It took debate extending over a couple of pages of Hansard for this to be achieved but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the precedent is a clear one; and that a former member having been told by the Speaker that he must withdraw any suggestion that a member's support had been purchased by legislation applies today, so you, sir, should rule that the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw or apologize for the statement he has made about members of this house.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, before you give your decision on the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I should like to say a few words on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).

If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) really did make the statement attributed to him concerning the members of the three minority groups in this house, to the effect that the indemnity increase voted last year is one reason why those three minority parties vote with the government to maintain the government in office, in order to avoid a general election, I want to say that I dissociate myself entirely from that statement of the Leader of the Opposition.
In view of the important post he holds at the present time, I am of the opinion that he made last night's statement without thinking or through lack of competence or honesty.
As far as we, in this corner of the house, are concerned, we voted more often against the government than for it, political partisanship aside. We voted according to our conscience, in the interest of the Canadian people. We voted, at times, with the government, but when it came to voting against it, we did not shirk our responsibility.
The Leader of the Opposition is free to make a spectacle of himself in Toronto, but he certainly has no right to do so at the expense of the three groups which sit to his left.
Furthermore, I wish to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that some of his own followers in the house do not share his views and that they are the first ones to condemn such boasting and say that they personally disagree with such statements as he made yesterday in Toronto.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to say that I am in complete agreement with the remarks made by members of the smaller opposition parties.
Personally, I introduced in the house a bill affording all members the opportunity to refuse their indemnity raise, if they so wished.
I can therefore say, on behalf of the members of my party and myself, that the indemnity raise never had any bearing on any decision we were called upon to make in the past. If there are some who are opposed to the bill, if it is ever introduced, I would ask them to vote against it.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am rising on a point of personal privilege to say that I do not propose to sit quietly under a slanderous lie stated by any preposterous mountebank who will seize upon anything in his desperation; and that

if a case of this kind occurs again outside the house, I shall take the matter to the courts myself.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter that has arisen, I think the house must first look at the question that is before it. This is not an allegation concerning a statement made in the house, and the quotation which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has read, and the various authorities I have been able to look up in the very few minutes we have had, refer only to statements made in the house on which questions of privilege arise.
The hon. member who raised the question stated that he was merely quoting from press reports. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that is actually what we are now attempting to discuss, and it is very difficult if not impossible to discuss a matter which is subject only to press reports and which has been raised on press reports. If it had been a statement made in the house there would be a question of privilege which could be raised.


Some hon. Members:: Deny it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not know what all the heat is being raised about on my left. Surely we can discuss this matter in some sensible manner. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that no motives were imputed in the statement he made last night and that no motives were imputed here in the house. I do not think we can take up this question of privilege on the information that is before us at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it is unfair to say that the Chair does appreciate the position it is in at the moment. It is a very delicate one, but nevertheless the Chair has its duty to perform.
I would like to point out that if hon. members will refer to page 133 of May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition and edited by Sir Gilbert Campion, they will find that:
Alleged breaches of privileges or contempts committed out of the house or in the precincts of the house but not in its actual view may be brought to the notice of the house (1) by a complaint from a member-
-and various other examples are given; by communications, etc. Therefore I do think the hon. member is right in bringing this to the attention of the house.
While it is not exactly on the point may I refer to citation 134 of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, fourth edition, paragraph 2:
Question of Privilege
In the House of Commons a member will not he permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the house itself as a political institution; or to impute to any member or members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case; or to use any profane or indecent language; or to question the acknowledged and undoubted powers of the house; or to reflect upon, argue against or in any manner call in question the past acts and proceedings of the house, or to speak in abusive and disrespectful terms of an act of parliament.
This is not precisely on the point but it does seem to me to give me general directions. I have obtained a copy of the words which I understand were used. They are in a quotation published in this afternoon's Ottawa Journal also, and if they are as stated it does seem to me that the right hon. member, who must take his responsibility, of course, has gone too far.
This afternoon the right hon. member mentioned the fact that he was against a certain pay increase. Well, that is his privilege, to be for or against; but we are not discussing whether he was for or against the pay increase. We are discussing the words which were used, and the words in the quotation which I have before me are:
"not that I love the red ensign less, but $18,000 more."
-and these are applied to three parties in this house. Further the quotation reads:
-the Prime Minister knows he stands in no danger from "his allies"-the Social Credit, Creditiste and New Democratic parties-because the government voted M.P.s a pay increase to $18,000 a year.
"It has a wonderful effect on third party support."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand, as do all hon. members, that at political meetings emotions run sometimes cold, sometimes hot and sometimes too hot. Statements are made on occasion in the enthusiasm of the moment which carry the orator or speaker or guest of honour along, and he is sometimes carried away. But if those words were used I must come to the conclusion that they are very serious words if they are to be applied to every member of the house. They affect every member of the house, and in the circumstances I am going to make a personal appeal to the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw those words or take other steps which will amount to a withdrawal or an apology to the house. I appeal to him to help us out of a very difficult situation at the moment.

Question of Privilege


John George Diefenbaker: I have always been a House of Commons man, and I made it clear there was no imputation. Your Honour still believes there was. That being so, following your ruling as always, I withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MR. NIELSEN    REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege comes a little late because I did not have the material before me when the question of privilege was raised by the leader of the New Democratic party. It is based on the same ground, sir, as that raised by the leader of the N.D.P. and supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Churchill:: No, not "south".


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry; "north centre".


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be confused at any moment with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Neither, sir, would I want to ever confuse the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre with the constitutional conscience of the House of Commons. The question of privilege I raise arises out of statements made by the Prime Minister to the Liberal council at a meeting he attended the day before yesterday. I have before me the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, June 3, where the words that were used by the Prime Minister are set forth in quotation marks on the first page. This is what was said by the Prime Minister, according to this newspaper report:
-"if the public's interest is made secondary to partisan tactics-no doubt by filibuster and by blocking public business, by politicking and polemics".
Further on it says:
"Today there is day after day of repetition and obstructing debate and raising of useless questions of order and privilege"-


An hon. Member:: This is an example of a useless question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: I hear an hon. member say "This is an example of a useless question of privilege".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure there are many who share my view that the question raised a moment ago has the same basis of privilege as this one, because what the Prime Minister said to that meeting of the Liberal council imputed irresponsible motives to every member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: No member of this house, I submit to you, sir, let alone the Prime Minister, based on the precedent you yourself have established, can impute irresponsible motives to any member of this house. It seems to me, on the basis of the precedent you yourself have just set, sir, that the Prime Minister should have at least that much grace and that much understanding of the rules of the house as was exhibited by the leader of the official opposition, and should rise in his place now and withdraw the remarks he made, or assure this house that there was no imputation of motive, as did the leader of the official opposition; and he should inform the country accurately as to the rights of all members to exercise their duties. I appeal to you, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member concluding, because I think I get the drift of his argument?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I appeal to you, sir, to treat this question of privilege with the same degree of seriousness with which you treated the question of privilege that was raised a moment ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps hon. members opposite will cease their catcalling and allow me to make my closing appeal to you, sir, to make your decision on the basis of the precedent which has just been set in this house. The Prime Minister should be called upon to withdraw the imputations that he left, not only at this meeting of the Liberal council but as well in the minds of Canadians all across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his gallant diversionary activity. I am glad to confirm the words he has quoted, and

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether any question of privilege is involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For the second time today I have to reach a decision on the question of whether there is a question of privilege. I may say, without going into a long harangue, that in the first case 1 did see a question of privilege; in the second case, I do not.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I think the Chair should prepare itself in the same way as it prepared itself for the former question of privilege, and should not try to decide this matter and give an off the cuff decision such as has just been given.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the argument the Chair used to reach the conclusion in the second case is very simple. If we are to have no political commentary at all we might as well fold up and go home.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is quite a difference between making a political speech and charging hon. members with certain activities which on the face of it are just not so. That is the difference. I do not want to overstress this matter, but it should be self evident to all hon. members, and I am sure it is.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I would urge the hon. member for Yukon not to continue along this line. I do not see where it does the slightest good. If it were a question of privilege, yes; but this is an argumentative statement, and I do not think anyone has been hurt by the decision rendered in the second case.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to make a substantive motion with respect to this question of privilege, which I submit should have been the case with the last question of privilege that was dealt with, but I suggest to Your Honour-of course I bow to your ruling-that perhaps it would have assisted Your Honour had you read the words that I quoted.


Michael Starr: Yes, to prepare yourself.
4,	1964
Provision for Dredging Lake Huron SHIPPING



LAKE HURON


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: There have been many questions recently about the problem of water levels in the great lakes, and the government has indicated the seriousness with which it views this problem. I am now in a position to advise the house that as a result of surveys completed to date I will be including in the supplementary estimates, to be presented shortly, provisions for dredging at some of the main commercial harbours and channels in lake Huron.
Major projects will be undertaken at Col-lingwood, Owen Sound and Midland. In addition it is proposed to proceed with dredging at fishing harbours at Kincardine, Saugeen river, Bayfield, Stokes Bay, Port Elgin and Oliphant. We are continuing our surveys at other locations, and these surveys may well produce additional areas for increased operations in the near future.
To this end I am also proposing in the supplementary estimates some increase in our general dredging allotment. I hope hon. members will appreciate that we do not look upon this as a final solution to the water levels, but it is emergency action we feel justified in taking in order to ensure the continuity of navigation in the main channels.
This dredging in the lake Huron area is over and above our original dredging program in such areas as Grand Bend, Goderich, Howdenvale and Wiarton. The government is conscious of the importance of this emergency program and it will be given high priority.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is certainly a matter for satisfaction that the government has finally recognized and come to grips with the very serious low water problem. The minister mentioned a number of places where emergency work is being done and I am sure, as he has stated, that there are still a number of others which must be investigated and assisted. However, we appreciate the statement of the minister as evidence of a first timid step toward meeting the emergency.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I repeat, a first timid step. I say this because there are many, many locations which urgently need assistance, and they are

Inquiries of the Ministry not included in the list given by the minister. I understood him to say more were being considered. I wish the parliamentary secretary would not become so annoyed about my statement.
There is still another problem in the area, and it concerns the plight of the smaller private operators who have suffered severely. A week ago today I made a suggestion to the minister regarding assistance in the reconstruction of water access facilities on behalf of certain of these people. It is necessary to keep these people in business, not only in their own interests but also in the interests of the highly concentrated tourist business in the Georgian bay area. I hope the minister has recovered from the surprise I gave him last week without notice of this proposal, and I hope the cabinet is giving some consideration not only to providing additional public facilities but to assisting private businesses.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Branl-Haldimand) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-103, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, etc.)


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make the wire tapping of telephone communications an offence under the Criminal Code, except in the case of law enforcement officers acting pursuant to an order of a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning all hon. members and which, I believe, has been drawn to the attention of everyone.
I refer to a piece of legislation passed in August last year, namely Bill No. C-91 which provides in section 4:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that each member of the Senate and House of

Commons will be allowed such actual moving or transportation and travelling expenses between his place of residence and Ottawa and such actual telecommunication expenses while in Ottawa as the respective houses may prescribe for their members.
Here is my question of privilege. For some time now we have been receiving calls from the Bell Telephone Company asking us to pay certain bills. Now, according to the act which was passed and which is retroactive to April 8, 1963, the internal administration of the House of Commons should have paid for those telephone calls and those telecommunication charges from our ridings.
I want to raise this matter so that we know where we stand in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The question raised by the hon. member is a very important one, and has been under consideration and discussion for some time. However, if I understand the act correctly it authorizes or instructs, if I may put it that way, the internal economy commissioners to determine the time, place and conditions of any payments which may or may not be made. Up to the present time the commissioners have not decided that long distance telephone calls should be paid for, and until that decision has been reached by the commissioners it is not legal for the government to pay such accounts. Consequently the accounts remain the personal debt and charge of the individual member concerned for which the government is not responsible.
Now, I do not say that the question should not be studied carefully again. It is under constant study, but until a decision has been reached the legal position is that members are responsible for their own long distance telephone calls.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me I would have a remark to make on this subject.
Clause 1 of the bill provides that it will be retroactive to April 8, 1963. According to clause 1, retroactivity applies to all clauses mentioned in the bill, including the one concerning telecommunication charges.
Mr. Speaker, this measure was voted on a year ago. We believe that the year granted to members of treasury board is a fairly long period of time. Besides, this bill was passed in order to set up a system whereby all

members would be on an equal footing, that is those who live far away and those who live nearby. It is true that travelling expenses and telephone charges incurred by members living in Halifax or Vancouver are higher than of members living in Montreal or Ottawa, or still nearer.
I think it would be advisable for the house to recommend to the members of treasury board to make a decision as soon as possible on this point and to make their decision consonant with section 1 of the bill which is retroactive to April 8, 1963.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of privilege may I say I hope that when the internal economy commissioners discuss this matter, they will give no consideration to accepting the request which has just been made.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, with every passing hour the flood situation in British Columbia gets that much worse. I wonder if I might pose a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask whether he has any up to date information to relay to the house on the action taken to prevent very serious damage in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: On the grounds of urgency I realize that flood conditions out west are really a very serious matter in the Fraser valley, the Skeena area, and so on. If the minister has anything to say, let him say it.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have some information on the condition of the rivers in British Columbia as of about yesterday noon. This is the time of the year when great concern is felt in the valleys of a number of our rivers. I think the Fraser river is rising at the rate of about one foot per 24 hours, and this will be reflected at the gauge at Mission in about three days. There has been some flooding already in the case of the Skeena at Cedarvale, about 65 or 70 miles east of Terrace. The flow in the Columbia drainage basin is rising much less rapidly. We are particularly concerned over the fact that precipitation has been somewhat higher and run-off has been greatly delayed. The chief
Inquiries of the Ministry concern in the province of British Columbia to date, of the provincial people and those in areas that are organized, is the outlook for the weather. Yesterday the weather was in the 60's and low 70's in the interior of British Columbia; today it is expected that the temperature in most of the interior areas will rise to 80 degrees and that there will be a temperature of 75 degrees at Prince George.
My hon. friend from Skeena is fully aware of the problems that situation poses for us. We have every evidence that the officials of the province of British Columbia and the civic authorities, wherever they are stationed, are aware of the situation and are doing their utmost to prepare for it.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister, or perhaps the minister responsible for E.M.O., whether any agency of the federal government is prepared to assist in any way if the situation does get out of hand?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that the government of Canada would act, in the normal course of events, upon application of the government of the province of British Columbia.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence maybe the Prime Minister could answer.
As the number of tourists coming from all over Canada to visit parliament increases with the coming of the summer months, and as the parliament buildings themselves should be an example and a model as far as integral bilingualism is concerned, could the Prime Minister give us the assurance that he will see to it that all R.C.M.P. constables on duty on parliament hill are bilingual, that is are able to understand and to make themselves understood in both languages?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



READINESS OP PROVINCES TO ATTEND CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In relation to the planned federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs, can the minister inform the house which provinces have signified that they are prepared to meet now and which provinces have indicated that they will need more time to consider this matter?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the Prime Minister to the answer he gave me on June 2 relative to the telegrams passing between Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland and the Prime Minister with regard to the two flags, or to one of those flags. At the page in question I asked for the production of this telegram, which was tabled yesterday. I also used these words, as reported at page 3833 of Hansard:
Can we also have the telegram from Mr. Smallwood so that we can resolve this apparent dispute or uncertainty as between the views of the Prime Minister and the premier of Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to ask Premier Smallwood for permission to table his telegram, and I would certainly be very glad to table my own.
When I asked for the production yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said there had been no correspondence. I would ask him what he meant the day before yesterday when he stated that he would find out whether the telegram from Premier Smallwood could be tabled and his consent secured thereto.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when I answered the question to which my right hon. friend has referred I was of the impression that Mr. Smallwood had made the request by telegram for information as to the procedure to be followed if and when the resolution were adopted. When I got back to my office I found that

the request had been made by long distance telephone. I am very sorry if I have misled my right hon. friend and the house, but it was a telephone call, not a telegram. The telephone call was asking for information, and when I sent back the telegram "In reply to your request" I was referring to that telephone call.



REPORTED THREATS TO SUPPORTERS OF RED ENSIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been informed that the life of the organizer of the red ensign march on parliament hill was threatened; and further, that the lives of the members of her family were included in the threat; and still further, that only one retail outlet in downtown Ottawa was willing to sell the red ensign, the remainder apparently being in fear of reprisals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: It is very kind of hon. gentlemen opposite to laugh when the lives of individual Canadians are being threatened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member finished his question?


Robert Carman Coates: No, I have not finished yet, Mr. Speaker-and of the proprietor of that establishment having his life threatened for selling the red ensign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no such information. If the report is accurate I know how they must feel, because I have been getting some threats myself.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the Prime Minister to slough off threats that are being made against the lives of Canadians because they are interested in flying the flag that is designated as Canada's flag.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that every possible step will be taken to assure that threats of this type will not be made against any Canadian citizen, and will he inform the house just what has taken place with regard to these threats made by hoodlums, no doubt?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will send me a copy of his report I will be glad to examine it, and if the circumstances warrant it can be passed on to the police and to the mayor of Ottawa.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is no time for argument.


Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: My question is for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Will the minister inform the house whether the R.C.M.P. were instructed to restrict or restrain spectators and nonparticipants who entered the grounds of the parliament buildings on Monday evening during the flag demonstration? Will the minister investigate the situation in which a member of this house was forcibly restrained and asked to identify himself as a member of parliament before he was allowed to proceed?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: I would be glad to bring this matter to the minister's attention.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON AUDIENCE OF TRANSPORT MINISTER WITH THE QUEEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the recent trip to London of the Minister of Transport and his audience with Her Majesty the Queen, and also concerning the government's delay in starting a debate on Canada's two flags. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether it is true that Her Majesty the Queen explained that the union jack was the flag of the United Kingdom and its colonies, while Canada was rather a sovereign country? Could he also explain whether that is the reason for the government's delay in introducing its legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order. It is hypothetical.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock bogeyman.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-



REQUEST THAT NEW DESIGN BE FLOWN ON PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and I have given him notice of it. In view of the evident interest of the members of parliament, as well as the general public, in the subject of a flag for Canada, can or will arrangements be made to have the flag proposed in the resolution flown on the flagpoles in front of the parliament buildings which are used from time to time for flying other than official flags, so that members in making their decision can have the advantage of seeing for themselves the proposed flag flying as it will appear if adopted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would be glad, Mr. Speaker, to arrange to have that done.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister consider at the same time also flying in the same manner a design with a single maple leaf on it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be some responsibility on the government to show to members the flag which is described in the resolution so they would have it before them before they decide. We have not, of course, the same responsibility in regard to any other design. However, I will be glad to look into this suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the Prime Minister would enlighten the house as to the number of hours, approximately, that this flag was flying out at the Prime Minister's summer home?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the people of Canada would like to know how long it took before he arrived at the decision that it was, to use his word, "wonderful".


Lester Bowles Pearson: This flag was flown for some hours over the summer cottage of the Prime Minister, on private property where there

Inquiries of the Ministry was no main road and where it was not normally possible to see it, so I could get a very good view of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister again, does he think he was justified in doing that at the Prime Minister's house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, entirely justified.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a petition signed by 19 Canadian engineers who attended the recent annual meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada, urging that in view of the serious differences of opinion that exist with respect to the Columbia river treaty, before the government commits the country to an irrevocable course of development it take further steps to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that this treaty will serve the best interests of Canada now and in the future? Would the Prime Minister inform the house of his reply to these distinguished engineers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question and it deserves a detailed reply. It is true that on Monday morning of this week I did receive the telegram to which my hon. friend has referred, attributed to a group of very distinguished Canadian engineers and asking that "steps should be taken to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that any treaty on the Columbia truly serves the best interests of Canada now and in the future".
On Tuesday I sent a reply to the originator of the telegram and addressed copies to all the other engineers named in the telegram. The same day I received the following telegram from one of the most distinguished persons on the list, the president of Calgary Power, Mr. G. H. Thompson:
I have received a copy of your telegram to Dr. L. Austin Wright in reply to his telegram to you of May 31 regarding the Columbia river treaty. Having noted from your reply the thorough study already given to this treaty I would request that my name be deleted from those listed in Dr. Wright's telegram to you.
Yesterday I received a telegram from another distinguished person on the list, namely


Mr. J. B. Sterling, chancellor of Queen's University and a former past president of the Engineering Institute of Canada. The following is the text of his message:
Thanks your telegram June 2 re Columbia treaty. Regret did not have complete information last week and now withdraw completely any objection.
This morning I received a somewhat longer telegram from Mr. P. M. Sauder of Lethbridge, Alberta, whose name was also listed on the original telegram. Mr. Sauder begins his telegram by saying:
I do not understand how I got involved in the discussion of the Columbia river treaty, while I talked with Dr. Austin Wright I do not remember discussing this subject with anybody at the Banff meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada.
Mr. Sauder goes on to raise some question about possible diversions for consumptive uses on which I have commented to him in a telegram this morning. I do not know what further messages may come in on this matter, as I understand that many of those whose names were listed in the original telegram have not yet arrived at their homes after the conclusion of the Banff meeting. It seems clear, however, that in general the signers of the telegram were expressing their interest in this important subject. As indicated in my reply to them, the government and many outstanding engineering authorities who testified before the external affairs committee are satisfied that the existing treaty and protocol will serve the best interests of Canada now and in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has read a number of telegrams, but I do not believe he has read the one containing his reply to the original telegram.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might be desirable if I tabled the original telegram, my reply and any telegrams that have come in in reply to my reply. I would be glad to do that tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Except for the fact that telegrams from various engineers have already been quoted by the Prime Minister, and it seems to me that the record should also contain the Prime Minister's reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to table all telegrams that have come in later in the day when I will get them in my office.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There are some more coming in now.

Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the house whether France has unofficially expressed the wish to recognize the Quebec delegation in Paris as the permanent delegation of a sovereign country and whether he will soon accede to that request?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is definitely no, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken definite steps in order to investigate whether organized alien influences are behind and have infiltrated terrorist activities within our country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that this is a question requiring very careful consideration before an answer is given, unless the Prime Minister has already considered the question or received notice of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be very glad to look into that matter.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the failure of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his negotiations with the province of Quebec as regards the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos, has the government given consideration to the appointment of another federal negotiator?



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister taken any steps to withdraw or cancel the extravagant advertising campaign to create the impression that registration for social security is the obligation of everyone?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have taken no steps to alter the advertising in any way.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who reports for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. According to press and radio reports special measures are being taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist the unemployed in Elliot Lake, in the riding of Algoma East which is represented by the Prime Minister. Will the same assistance be provided to the workers at the Point Edward naval base in my constituency who have been thrown out of work by the actions of this government?
May I also ask the Prime Minister if he would devote just a fraction of his time to this problem, rather than spending it in playing around with flags?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put the first part of his question on the order paper?


Robert Muir: I am sorry, sir, but I did not hear you.


Mr. Speaker:: If I remember the hon. member's question correctly it was in three parts. The last two paragraphs were opinions, but the first question, it seems to me, is one which should be put on the order paper.


Robert Muir: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked a direct question of the minister who reports to the house for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I asked him to confirm reports that something is going to be done for those
3928	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry who are unemployed at Elliot Lake, and if something could not be done for the unemployed in my riding. Surely they are as important as the people who reside in Algoma East.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not the time for debate.



REPORTED DECREASE IN CONSTRUCTION IN ATLANTIC AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Pictou asked me, as the minister who reports to this house on behalf of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, about a reported decrease of 23 per cent in housing construction in the Atlantic region.
I believe, after checking, that the figure to which the hon. member referred relates to the number of dwellings under construction in urban centres at the end of April. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have assured me, since the question was asked, that the volume of housing construction in urban centres in the Atlantic region so far this year was substantially higher than a year ago, due in part, of course, to the winter housing program.
The actual figures are as follows. The number of dwellings brought to completion in the Atlantic region, during the period in question, totalled 1,302 units in the first four months of the year as compared with 835 units in the corresponding period in 1963, an increase of 55.9 per cent. The corporation has also assured me that while during the same period, that is the period when completions were up substantially, housing starts in the same region were down somewhat as compared with the previous year, the figures for May show an increase of 5.4 per cent over the corresponding month of last year.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: May I
express the hope that the reports of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are clarified before being given to the press in future.


Robert Muir: May I ask the Postmaster General what arrangements he has been able to make to assist the unemployed workers from the Point Edward naval base to pay their rent?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take the question as notice.
IMr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) .1



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. It seems that the present contract forms in connection with the United Kingdom's offer to purchase
1,200,000	pounds of uranium oxide are so worded that only the wealthy Consolidated Mines and Denison Mines can tender on these contracts. Will the Prime Minister have new contracts prepared in order that our own, small, wholly Canadian companies can tender on this contract?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the offer was made in terms which did not discriminate against any producing mine.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether representation has been made to him or to the department by representatives of the smaller mines, stating that due to the wording of the present tender forms for the uranium it would be impossible for these small firms to tender?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations. The offer made to the producing mines was in a form to ensure that the maximum amount of employment would result from the successful bidder.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and may I say that we are all delighted to see him back in his place so relaxed after his family holiday in the United Kingdom. In view of the statement which was made yesterday about seaway revenues, will the minister give an interim report, as he said he would, before July 1, the deadline for the investigation of tolls on the seaway? Will he also tell us how the investigation is coming on alongside that of the United States and what we may expect in the way of further hearings?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I very much hope to be able to make a report before the deadline. I thank the hon.

gentleman for the rather belated welcome. I was here yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: I have a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. When the Minister of Transport visited Buckingham palace, did he have an interview with Sir Basil Smallpiece with a view to improving the efficiency and organization of house business in Canada?



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Prime Minister. Instead of dangling the bait of a cabinet post before the voters of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, would it not be in the best interests of Canada to fill the vacancy of the Minister of National Revenue at once with one of the qualified Liberal back benchers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to my hon. friend for his advice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare of which I gave notice in the house two days ago. It has to do with an announcement by the officials of her department regarding the significant level of contamination of milk due to pesticide poisoning in the Vancouver area. I wonder if the minister could give the house a report on whether action is being taken regarding this serious situation.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I noted in Hansard that my hon. friend suggested I was convalescing, whereas in fact I have been conducting the business of the department for four or five days. However, I thank my friend for his solicitude.
In reply to the question which he posed to my parliamentary secretary I should like to state that trace amounts of pesticide residues were detected in market milk during a routine survey carried out by the food and drug directorate in dairy products in British
Inquiries of the Ministry Columbia. The levels found do not represent any immediate hazards to health; therefore there is no justification at the present time for a reduction in the consumption of milk by either adults or children.
However, there is no question but that such residues are undesirable and could represent a potential hazard if milk containing these residues were consumed over long periods of time. Therefore the federal department is working closely with the provincial departments of health and agriculture in order to bring about an improvement in the situation. The regulatory program of the food and drug directorate is continuing, and I also understand that the province is planning to establish a laboratory to examine food products as well as animal feeds for pesticide residues.
I should like to assure the hon. member and the house that if the levels found in milk are considered in any way and at any time to be hazardous or deleterious to humans, immediate action will be taken to have such milk removed from the market.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before asking a supplementary question may I say I am sure all hon. members are delighted to see the minister back in good health. I understand she had some trouble with her spine but I want to tell her I know there is nothing wrong with her backbone.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the house that that was an allegorical expression and not a personal opinion. May I ask the minister what level of contamination was found and what is the level which is estimated to be dangerous.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I say I am sorry that it was not a rather more personal remark that my hon. friend made. Since I am unable to give the statistical information which he now requests I should be happy to see him privately and discuss both matters with him.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. I understand that the C.B.C.

Inquiries of the Ministry today issued a press release in connection with the Pearson film, but after having it read to me by a C.B.C. official I find it is no answer to the question I raised with the minister as to whether the C.B.C. would be prepared to arrange a showing of this controversial film for members of parliament. Has the minister his reply yet?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the request made to me by the hon. member, I am informed by the C.B.C. that tentative plans have been announced by the national press club for the showing of the film in question. If there is such a showing it will be carried out solely on the responsibility of InterVideo Productions. The C.B.C. does not plan any private showings of this film which has been rejected for the C.B.C. television network. For the additional information of the hon. member, the corporation has announced today that it is releasing two prints of the film to InterVideo Productions.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The conditions under which the films have been released are that they be shown only to film societies. Would the minister press very strongly that the C.B.C. give permission to Mr. Ballentine to show the films they are going to release on a wider basis so that all of us, including members of parliament, can get an easy chance to view them?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to press the C.B.C. on anything with regard to programming.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My question had nothing to do with programming. I am talking about giving a demonstration, on parliament hill for parliamentarians, of the film in the railway committee room, using 16 mm. film and a projector.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Yukon who is, I understand, a former member of the R.C.A.F., asked whether any arrangements would be made for participation of the R.C.A.F. in the air force day program-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister restate his answer? I was not able to hear the beginning of it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday last the hon. member for Yukon who is,
I understand, a former member of the R.C.A.F., asked whether any arrangements would be made for participation of the R.C.A.F. in the air force day program taking place at R.C.A.F. station Rockcliffe this Saturday. He alleged that the majority of personnel and equipment participating were from the United States air force rather than from the Royal Canadian Air Force.
I can inform the hon. member that, as is not unusual, he has his facts wrong. Actually over 90 per cent of those participating and over 90 per cent of the equipment being shown is R.C.A.F. It is true that both the United States air force and R.A.F. aircraft, in limited numbers, will take part in the fly past saluting the 40th anniversary of the R.C.A.F., thus showing on the part of our allies a more sincere appreciation than that expressed by the wording of the hon. member's question of the contribution the R.C.A.F. has made, and continues to make, to the defensive alliance of the west. As a joint partner in NORAD the United States air force is also contributing to the static display at Rockcliffe.
I understand that as a member of the special committee on defence the hon. member has received an invitation to attend the air show, and I hope he avails himself of the opportunity in order to see for himself just how wrong he was.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister I fully intend to attend the air show, but I would ask him to be fair when making comments on my question. If he will read it carefully he will see that no allegations were made by me whatsoever, that I said my information was that the United States air force was participating openly in the air show, and I simply wanted the minister to confirm or deny whether this was so. I made no such allegation and I suggest it is improper for the minister to impute motives to the question I asked.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be satisfied now. He told me what his information was and I have told him what my information is today.


Erik Nielsen: I am not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to be laying down the law all afternoon, but it does seem this is a good time to point out to both hon. members that according to the

instructions given me this is a very good illustration of the following; that answers to questions-and this would include questions too-should be as precise as possible, should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. I think, in order to be strictly impartial and fair, it should apply to both parties.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether he has an answer to a question which I put to the Minister of National Defence on May 26, and to which I have received no answer up to date.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am not aware of that particular question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. I view of the fact that MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited, the largest industrial concern in the province of British Columbia, is currently trampling upon the principles of the I.L.O. convention respecting the right of workers freely to enjoy the protection of the union of their choice, will the minister use his good offices with Mr. J. V. Clyne, the head of that company, to alter the course of action presently being pursued by his company?


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



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Columbia River Treaty
Does the government intend to allow taxi drivers of the Montreal area to have access to Dorval airport, thus taking away that monopoly from the Murray Hill Company?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will put his question on the order paper I will be glad to seek an answer.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification of 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, and the consequent coming into force of the protocol thereto annexed to the exchange of notes signed at Washington on January 22, 1964, and that this house do approve the same.
Francis Andrew Brewin: When the debate was adjourned last night I was discussing the right of diversion for consumptive use-


Mr. Davis:: On a question of privilege. A few minutes last evening before the hon. member for Greenwood remarked that it was five o'clock, he referred to a statement which he attributed to myself. He said that with respect to rights of diversion from the Columbia pursuant to the treaty there was ambiguity. He used the word "ambiguity" and chose, also, to attribute it to me. May I say I have never used the word in that connection.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will, of course, accept what the hon. member has just said. He did not use the word "ambiguous". However, he used a similar word having the same meaning.
What I was discussing when the debate adjourned last night was the view which we hold that the right of diversion for consumptive use provided for in article XIII of the treaty and paragraph 6 of the protocol was illusory as far as any practical diversion to the prairie provinces was concerned because any such diversion, to be economic, would have to be for multiple use including the generation of power, which is explicitly excluded under the terms of the definition

Columbia River Treaty of consumptive use in article 1(e) of the treaty. I also pointed out that the only reasoned legal opinion presented to the committee-an opinion which I believe to be correct-was to the effect that the permitted consumptive use contemplated by the treaty was riparian use, that is, use within the Columbia basin itself.
I am aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has asserted from time to time, with his usual tone of absolute assurance, that diversion is permitted for purposes of power generation, provided such use is only incidental and that the other uses are, as he has put it from time to time, the primary or main uses-the real and the genuine uses of the water diverted. It is significant that no reasoned legal opinion is presented to justify the addition of those words to the clear language of the treaty.
If this interpretation is so acceptable, why not submit it to the United States and get their approval of this clarification? When the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other proponents of the treaty are backed into a corner on this question of diversion they reply that the matter is of little practical consequence in any event, as the proposals for diversion are either too expensive or are far away in the future. Indeed, they say there are other sources of water for diversion which can be used more cheaply and which are more accessible. This is not the view of those who are most concerned. We heard a brief presented by the government of Saskatchewan supported in detail by the evidence of Mr. Cass-Beggs, general manager of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation and a hydro engineer of distinction. He said that a Columbia prairie diversion might well be an exceedingly important component of a water plan for the prairie provinces. It is this right of diversion, so described by Mr. Cass-Beggs, and conferred by the Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909 which, we say, is being given away without the payment, if I may use such an expression, of a plugged nickel.
It is true that article XIII contains provision for the diversion from the Kootenay into the Columbia of a specific amount of water after 20, 60, 80 and 100 years from the date the treaty comes into force. But this right, in the opinion of General McNaughton and others who gave evidence before the committee may also be illusory, because the building up of vested interests on the completion of the Libby dam will make the exercise of

these rights impracticable, even though the legal right is there.
The essential difference between the McNaughton plan and the treaty plan is that the treaty plan includes Libby in the United States, and the construction of Libby precludes, in fact, the effective diversion of the upper Kootenay. The treaty storages are near the border. The storages proposed by the McNaughton plan are as high up on the rivers on the Canadian side as possible. The essential difference, therefore, is that under the McNaughton plan there is maximum flexibility and control of Canadian water in Canada.
The treaty plan throws away the most effective bargaining counter which Canada would have for the future. It will be necessary for us to deal again in the future with the United States but we will be deprived of our most effective bargaining power. There is no doubt that the Canadian negotiators preferred the plan which excluded Libby and had succeeded in persuading their United States counterparts to negotiate on the basis of giving up Libby, which was indeed an expensive project though significant because it ensured flow of water from the Kootenays. Why, then, did the Canadian negotiators suddenly switch from the McNaughton plan to what they themselves have described as a second best plan, a plan which included Libby and limited control over Canadian water?
The answer to this was made very clear in the evidence which was given before the committee on external affairs. As reported at page 1147 of the report of the proceedings Mr. Fulton, the chief negotiator for Canada, was asked about a press statement accredited to him and which reads as follows:
Justice minister E. Davie Fulton, in a series of frank speeches in B.C. recently, put it in this way: "Under our constitution, B.C. is the owner of natural resources lying within provincial borders... and has therefore the right to designate which resources should be developed and in what way. This is the basic reason why High Arrow is included, and the major dams and diversion of the Kootenay river are not included in the treaty projects".
That passage was in quotation marks and Mr. Fulton acknowledged that he had said that. Then the press report went on to say:
He also publicly admitted the salvage nature of the negotiations from that point: "B.C. having made these decisions, it was then the federal government's task to negotiate with the U.S. within the pattern thus determined... We then had to ask ourselves the final question, does this arrangement still represent an advantage to Canada?"

Mr. Fulton also acknowledged that this accurately represented what he had said, and indeed that the final treaty was to be negotiated within the pattern set by the premier of British Columbia. Mr. Green and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) have said the same thing, in effect that Canada accepted a second best treaty because of the veto of the province of British Columbia.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs acquiesced in the theory that the McNaughton plan was in fact vetoed by the British Columbia government. Indeed, in correspondence with General McNaughton and in his evidence he seems to accept the theory that under our constitutional system the fact that the provinces have the ownership of the water and land affected by the development of an international river confers on them the right to veto a project. In a letter dated August 6, 1963 to the secretary to General McNaughton, the Secretary of State for External Affairs explained his rejection of the general's plan and said that the province of British Columbia selected the present treaty project. I would ask the house to note the word "selected". The province of British Columbia selected the treaty project, and he said the federal government were bound to accept this dictation. We in this party repudiate this surrender and abdication of jurisdiction over an international river.


Mr. Gelber:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly, although I do not have too much time.


Marvin Gelber: As I understand it, the hon. member says that the original proposal put forward by the government of Canada was the McNaughton plan. I think that if he refers to the government submissions he would find that the original plan which the government undertook to put forward included high Arrow, and is it not a fact that General McNaughton never accepted the high Arrow project?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Well, I do not propose to go into irrelevant details of that sort. The facts are very clear. As Mr. Fulton and many others have said, a project which excluded Libby was rejected at the dictation and veto of the province of British Columbia, and that is the point I am trying to make.


Marvin Gelber: Did the hon. member say a few minutes ago that the location of high
Columbia River Treaty Arrow was probably one of the weaknesses of the present sequence, and-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the hon. member will have his chance to make a speech. I have not even discussed high Arrow. I have a good deal to say and I want to get on and make my own speech, if I may.
We in this party repudiate this surrender and abdication of jurisdiction. The theory of the government that the government of Canada cannot make treaties for the development of international rivers without the consent and concurrence of the provinces is dangerous, unsound and is an unconstitutional doctrine which should be repudiated by this house. This doctrine confuses ownership with legislative jurisdiction, and I suggest that the acceptance of this doctrine would seriously weaken Canada's bargaining position on all future occasions of this sort.
I do not propose to detain the house with a lengthy lecture about the British North America Act. I will content myself with a quotation, which is undoubtedly a correct statement, by the Hon. Jean Lesage, made in 1955 when he was minister of northern affairs. At that time he was officially putting forward the view of the government of the day with regard to jurisdiction in this matter and he said this:
According to the Canadian constitution, works built on rivers in Canada and having an effect outside the country fall under the jurisdiction of parliament even if they are entirely located in one province.
This difference of opinion about the power and responsibility of the federal government was clearly set out by General McNaughton in a letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs dated September 23, 1963. General McNaughton said:
I do not-
-and the word "not" is underlined-
-agree that the government of British Columbia is the government responsible for the final selection, by which I understand you mean the ultimate
decision.
I will not quote at length but this matter was clearly considered in this correspondence.
Notwithstanding that, the Secretary of State for External Affairs persists in speaking of the right of veto of the province of British Columbia and the fact that there is no alternative to the acceptance of the pattern set by that provincial government. I say there is no doubt that the government of Canada had the constitutional power if it had the

Columbia River Treaty will to proceed with whatever project it believed best for Canada, and if need be it could have declared the whole project a work for the benefit of Canada both as to the power and the water. I am not saying for one moment that in these days of co-operative federalism a province which undoubtedly has the proprietary right in the power to be produced should not be consulted and its views fully taken into account. What I am suggesting is that in a matter which affects the welfare of more than one province and is unquestionably within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament as determined by the B.N.A. Act the government of Canada has a duty to assert firmly that Canada will be master in its own house and will not submit to dictation or veto in international negotiations from any province.
In other words, what the government of that day and the government of today should have said to Mr. Bennett in relation to this matter is, to use a colloquial phrase, "Go jump in the lake", or if not in the lake, in the river. We all know that as we approach Canada's one hundredth birthday we are doing some soul searching about our constitutional set-up and the relations between the federal and provincial governments. We in this party do not believe that the policy of abject surrender to provincial veto evidenced by the history of this treaty will help to build a strong or united Canada. We ask parliament to reassert the jurisdiction claimed for parliament by Mr. Lesage, a jurisdiction which it undoubtedly has.
While dealing with parliament I want to make a final comment on the way the treaty has been submitted to parliament. This treaty was subject to ratification by Canada and the United States. Before the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) promised that the treaty would be submitted to parliament and scrutinized by the external affairs committee, which would hear evidence and then make its recommendations.
After the election, and before submitting the treaty to parliament, the protocol was negotiated and signed. The committee then met, as the house knows, and many days were spent in hearing evidence. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) attended on the committee and made it clear that while the committee had the theoretical power to do what it liked, in fact the treaty that was before it was before it on a "take it or leave it" basis; no changes were to be accepted; the existence of the

government was put on the line in support of every dot or comma in the treaty and protocol.
I must say that I found it hard to see, in the circumstances, how any supporter of the government could express any views or hesitations about the treaty, whatever the evidence happened to disclose. In this situation the review by the external affairs committee was a mere formality; the verdict had been given before the evidence was heard. Indeed, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) described the process in a statement made on December 12, 1962, and reported in the Globe and Mail, as follows. This is to be found in the evidence at page 260 and I want to read it to the house. He said this:
The Columbia river treaty, the government tells us, is to be brought before the House of Commons and there it will be promptly referred to the house committee on external affairs. Various experts and a number of publicly minded citizens will be asked to testify before that committee. They must be heard and their suggestions will be treated seriously-so seriously, in fact, that the treaty may have to be changed in certain important respects. To ignore these witnesses and to brush aside their recommendations would be folly; not only that, but it would make a mockery of parliament. Why bring the Columbia treaty before your elected representatives if it cannot be changed in any way? And why shy away from making changes which are in our national interest? After all, we have to live with certain aspects of this treaty for a long, long time.
The hon. member made that statement in late 1962 and it is just as applicable now as it was at that particular time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You should read the whole speech.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the minister will make sure that I get extra time, I might think of reading the whole speech; I think it would be very helpful to the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Get the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) to read his, too.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The issue is this, and it is an important one, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that it is constitutional practice in this country that the treaty-making power is vested in the executive, but the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who I suppose would be regarded as something of an expert or an authority by members of this house, had this to say. I am quoting from "The Art of the Possible", a book by Professor James Eayrs, at page 106. He was quoting Mr. Mackenzie King in the House of Commons:

The day has passed when any government or executive should feel that they should take it upon themselves, without the approval of parliament, to commit a country to obligations involving any considerable financial outlays or active undertakings.
In all cases where obligations of such a character are being assumed internationally, parliament itself should be assured of having the full right-
I underline those words:
-of approving what is done before binding commitments are made. I would not coniine parliamentary approval only to those matters which involve military sanctions and the like. I feel parliamentary approval should apply where there are involved matters of large expenditure or political considerations of a far reaching character.
I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs will say, "Oh, well; we have submitted this to parliament"; but it was submitted to parliament under conditions in which parliament could have no opportunity, unless it wished to throw out the government, to do anything more than rubber stamp the treaty. I suggest it is time serious consideration were given to deciding whether or not, before the final details of a treaty of this sort are negotiated, this treaty should be submitted to a committee for external affairs and examined, so that, the evidence having been taken, parliament and its representatives would be free to suggest changes and would have some meaningful participation in that treaty. This is the situation, of course, in the United States, where the Senate can attach riders. We think there should be the same situation here.
I think I have only a very few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I do not propose to go into any detail in describing this particular treaty. As a matter of fact, it has been described very much better than I could describe it by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and will see if I can find the words that he used in speaking of this particular treaty. Because he was a little sensitive and said I did not quote him correctly before, I will try and get the exact words that he used.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was before the protocol, was it not?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes.


Mr. Orlikow:: And before the election.


An hon. Member:: That is more important than the protocol.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be patient, I will deal with the protocol.
20220-250J
Columbia River Treaty


An hon. Member:: The protocol was as a result of the election.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I entirely agree with the hon. member who suggested that this was before the protocol and before the election; that is absolutely true. I am having a little difficulty finding the particular reference that I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, but I can remember what the hon. member said with perfect clarity, and he can tell me later if I have not quoted him exactly. What did he say? First of all he said this treaty was a fiasco; second, he said that the treaty was one of which no government could be proud; third, he said the treaty was a sell-out; fourth, he said it was an embarrassing treaty. Those are the words he used. I think I can give him the exact reference later, but I do not seem to have it in front of me at the moment.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) accept a question-just one question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: My time is nearly up.


John (Jack) Davis: Would the hon. member say that a treaty which involved obligations and no conceivable source of revenue was other than a fiasco, a sell-out, and so on?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will say this to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that the points to which he objected have not been in any way changed by the protocol.


John (Jack) Davis: And the sale.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The only difference in relation to the sale is that instead of getting power we are getting cash; but the basic objections the hon. member had-and I think they were good objections-have not been altered by the protocol at all. I say that even though his words were used in different circumstances, they are absolutely applicable today. We accept them and we ask this house to reject a treaty which has been described by one whom I think is the best qualified member on the Liberal side of the house to deal with this matter as a sell-out and a fiasco. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this treaty is one that should be renegotiated.
I just wish to conclude by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), the following amendment:
That the resolution before the house be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Subject to the negotiation of a further protocol or an exchange of letters clarifying the right of Canada to divert up to 6,000 c.f.s. or 5 million

Columbia River Treaty
acre feet annually from the Columbia river for the beneficial use of the prairie regions and for multiple-purpose use of water so diverted".
I would say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment will clarify the right of diversion which the minister says already exists but which is of very serious concern to many Canadian citizens.


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to take the position that the amendment is out of order and should not be accepted by Your Honour, and I have two main arguments in support of this contention. The first is a constitutional one which, before I go into it further, might be summarized as follows, that the treaty making or treaty negotiating function is an executive act, that it is a prerogative of the crown going back to the very early days of British parliamentary democracy and is now exercised by Her Majesty's government both in the United Kingdom and in Canada; that to suggest an amendment to a treaty or protocol or to suggest a further protocol or exchange of letters, as my hon. friend suggests in his amendment, is not within the competence of parliament; that parliament's rights in respect of the treaty making function are limited to the general matter of confidence, that is to say, either rejection or approval of the resolution, and that any such amendment is an infringement of the executive power as recognized under British parliamentary traditions.
My second argument is a procedural one based on what I submit to you is parliamentary practice. It is that the amendment of such a resolution in the form introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood is in effect a negativing of the resolution, the resolution being simply one calling for either approval or rejection, and that any conditions attached to it would in effect negative it. Since under the rules of the house it is not admissible to introduce an amendment which negatives the main resolution I submit that Your Honour should not admit it.
I should like to expand on these arguments and quote my authorities. I said that the treaty making or treaty negotiating power is an executive act and that in Canada the power to negotiate and conclude treaties having to do with acts of an international character is a part of the executive prerogative which in Canada is exercised on the advice of the Secretary of State foi External Affairs.
As the negotiation and conclusion of treaties is an executive act there was, strictly speaking, no legal obligation upon the government to consult parliament because legislative approval is not constitutionally a part of the ratifying process. Nevertheless it has been the practice of Canadian governments for many years to ensure that all treaties, other than minor administrative arrangements, are brought to the attention of parliament in one way or another. This has generally been done by tabling the treaty and, in the case of particularly significant agreements, referring the treaty to the standing committee on external affairs. After approval of the standing committee on external affairs, if this is forthcoming, the committee report is tabled in the House of Commons as has been done in this case, and then a joint resolution of the house and the other place such as the one before us is moved by the responsible minister asking for approval of the treaty.
I might say that since the standing committee on external affairs was set up in 1945 only nine treaties have come before this house, of which eight were approved and one was withdrawn by the government. In no case, to the best of my knowledge, was there any amendment to the resolution calling for approval of ratification, and therefore no such amendment was accepted.
My authority for saying that the treaty making process is purely an executive act may be found in a book by Professor Hendry, professor of law at Dalhousie university, entitled, "Treaties and Federal Constitutions", published in 1955. On page 62 Professor Hendry states the position clearly in these words:
In Canada, the executive power in the central government in foreign affairs is indefinite.
At page 74 he says:
Legally, the capacity of the executives of the states of Canada and Australia is unrestrained except by the limits of the prerogatives, the doctrine of "acts of state" and their constitutions. In neither state is there any rule of law or convention which requires the executive to seek prior approval from any organ of government before initiating negotiations, signing, and ratifying treaties.
McNair in his classic, "The Law of Treaties", says at page 68:
Our constitution is the net result of the operation of the common law, of a number of important statutes, and of a large and still growing body of constitutional usages or 'conventions' (not in the treaty sense), as they are usually called. The organ in which, constitutionally, the treaty making
[Mr. Brewin.J

power resides is the crown, that is, Her Majesty, acting upon the advice of her ministers. It is the crown which in virtue of the royal prerogative issues full powers for the negotiation and signature of treaties and ultimately ratifies them when ratification is necessary, or grants the necessary authority for the negotiation and conclusion of the less formal types of international agreements. As we have already seen, the monarch, being a constitutional monarch, for more than two centuries has possessed no power, except upon the advice of his ministers, to bind his country by treaty.
Then on page 115 of the same treatise he says:
Generally speaking, the law and custom of treaty making which have prevailed in the United Kingdom for many years-
I might interject that this law and custom have been accepted and appropriated by Canada.
-have now been adopted by the other commonwealth countries: their constitutions for the most part mention treaties either barely or not at all; and upon such questions as when the approval of parliament or new legislation is required, or when a treaty should be ratified, for the most part they share the views of the United Kingdom.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in citing United Kingdom precedents I submit I am on good ground. I should like to refer to a Canadian book, the fourth edition of R. MacGregor Dawson's, "The Government of Canada". At page 102 the late MacGregor Dawson has this to say:
There has been no uncertainty regarding the powers of the dominion and the provinces so far as the negotiation of treaties with foreign countries is concerned. This was originally the function of the crown acting through the British government, and with the growth of dominion self-government it has gradually come under the control of the government of Canada.
At pages 221 and 222 Dawson had the following to say:
Finally, the cabinet performs collectively a wide variety of explicit executive acts, usually in the name of the governor in council and on the immediate initiative of the prime minister. A number of the more important of these acts are listed below:
The fourth on the list is the following:
The participation in international affairs by the appointment of plenipotentiaries, the issuing of instructions to those plenipotentiaries, the ratification of international agreements and treaties, etc. Parliament may be consulted and even asked to approve international agreements and treaties, but this is largely a matter of convenience and political strategy: the actual ratification is purely an executive act.
Some agreements and treaties (such as a commercial treaty to alter the tariff) will, of course, need later legislative action to carry their terms into effect.
Columbia River Treaty
My first argument, in summary, is that by suggesting an amendment to the resolution, by making ratification subject to the negotiation of a further protocol or a further exchange of letters clarifying what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) considers to be the lack of clarification about the right of diversion, which we on this side do not accept, the hon. member is in effect moving an amendment which is, in my view, an invasion of the traditional parliamentary prerogatives of the government under our British parliamentary system. It is, therefore, out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? If such a move is an invasion of the prerogatives of the executive, is it not an invasion of the prerogatives of the executive to discuss it at all even on a motion in the name of the government? Why is it before us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because that was the commitment of the government.


John Napier Turner: May I say that the fact the treaty and protocol are before parliament has been a waiver, to that particular extent, of the prerogative to which the government, in terms of practice and convenience, is entitled. The waiver of that prerogative for the purpose of submitting the protocol in this form does not, in any way, waive the prerogative of the government in negotiating treaties.
In addition, as the minister has suggested, there was a commitment of the government so to do. In answer to the hon. member's specific question, although the prerogative was waived so as to present the treaty to the scrutiny of parliament and a standing committee, that waiver does not go beyond the submission of that treaty or protocol.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is just window dressing.


John Napier Turner: This is my argument on the first of the two branches of my argument, Mr. Speaker, that is the constitutional position.
The second branch of my argument relates to parliamentary practice. If I may, I should like to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, citation 202. It is clear, looking at the 12th paragraph of that citation which appears on page 170, that an amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order. I suggest that since this resolution calls for approval or rejection, any contamination of the resolution ist in effect, the negativing of the resolution.

Columbia River Treaty
I should like to draw attention to paragraph 14 of the citation. I quote:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
The effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood would be to negative the resolution because the resolution calls for either approval or rejection of the treaty. Any contamination of the resolution is a negativing of it.
Then, if I may, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to paragraph 15 of that same citation. I quote:
An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order.
I suggest, with respect, this is what the hon. member's amendment is trying to do. It approves the treaty and protocol subject to certain further clarification so, by inference, it approves part of the resolution and disapproves another part. The citation goes on to refer to an incident which occurred in this house on October 20, 1932 when the prime minister at that time moved that the house approve a trade agreement entered into between Canada and the United Kingdom. An amendment was moved that the house welcomed certain terms of the agreement and condemned several features of it. I quote:
The Speaker ruled it out because (a) the portion of the amendment which approved the agreement was useless as it suggested no change in the main motion, and also, (to), an amendment to disapprove what the main motion approves is nothing but an expanded negative.
This incident occurred in 1932, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to refer to Hansard containing the debate at this time. It is found in volume I of the session of 1932-33 at pages 386 and 387. At that time the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom was before the house and the Hon. J. L. Ralston, who was then the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, moved an amendment to the resolution which called for ratification of the agreement, but amended it in five ways. Paragraph 4 of the amended resolution was similar in form to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood and stated, in effect, that the house was not satisfied with the ratification of the agreement and suggested some additional assurances be sought. Mr. Speaker said:
Paragraphs 4 and 5 affirm general principles which cannot be moved as amendments to motions of this sort but which could be moved on other occasions.
IMr. Turner.]
Now, Mr. Speaker, basing myself on these two arguments and also on the fact that before the committee the hon. member had a full hearing of the particular argument which he has introduced in the house this afternoon, I would ask Your Honour to rule the amendment out of order and inadmissible.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The contention put forward by the hon. member would have the effect of seriously limiting the sovereignty of this parliament. What he says is true, that the executive has initially the treaty making power, but in accordance with the very salutary observation of the former prime minister Mackenzie King, governments of the day have not exercised that prerogative and have seen fit to submit to parliament for ratification or approval the treaties that the executive can make. I concur in the view that they are not bound to do so. However, once they have done so, there is no limitation upon the power of parliament to deal with the matters submitted to it. It can accept them, reject them or attach whatever terms it likes. To argue in any other way makes a mockery of the submission to parliament.
I, for one, contend strenuously against the argument that once a matter is laid before parliament, then parliament's hands are to be tied; we are not even to be allowed to suggest to the government a formula amending the resolution for clarification of the treaty that is being made. I suggest that if the words of a former prime minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, which I quoted earlier, are to be taken seriously, namely that parliament should have the full right to inquire into these matters, then the arguments my hon. friend made are wrong.
Now, Mr. Speaker, he said that in a number of cases where treaties were introduced into parliament, where approval had been asked for from parliament, there has been no instance of an amendment having been made. The answer to that, then, is that there is no precedent in respect to it and you, Mr. Speaker, are faced with the obligation of deciding this as a new matter; and I urge that you should not make a decision limiting parliament's rights.
The second point is that the amendment negatives the original resolution. I submit there is nothing in that point at all. The amendment accepts the resolution, and it merely adds a proviso which is well within

the terms in the acceptance of the original treaty. It is provided for in article XIII of the treaty that there should be no diversion, except those specified, without the consent of the other party, evidenced by an exchange of notes.
All that this amendment asks is that within the terms of the treaty an exchange of notes be sought in order that the particular problem of diversion-one of very grave importance to many hundreds of thousands of Canadians -be clarified within the terms of the treaty as they stand. There is no negative; there is no rejection of the treaty, and I suggest that the very learned authorities which my hon. friend has given to you, Mr. Speaker, while interesting have no relevance to the particular problem that faces us here.
We have a new situation-a treaty submitted for the approval of this house; and if consistent with that treaty we as a parliament are not allowed to suggest an amendment which would clarify and develop something within the treaty, then we might as well not bother with the formality of submitting treaties to parliament at all.


Mr. Baldwin:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to go all the way with the parliamentary secretary on the first point he raised as to the powers of the executive. He and I have already parted company in that connection during a debate in the house with regard to the federal government as opposed to the federal parliament on the Eskimo issue.
Again I am driven back to section 12 of the British North America Act which defines what are the powers of the executive. I shall just give the gist of it. It simply says that the powers of the governor in council of Canada shall be equivalent to those of the lieutenant governors in council or of the parliament of the United Kingdom as of the time of the enactment of the British North America Act in 1867, and the section ends up by saying that it shall apply until "abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada".
So, to find out what are the limitations of the powers of the executive we are compelled to look at the situation which existed in the respective legislatures of the provinces which formed confederation, and of the parliament of Canada, and I would be reluctant at this time to agree wholeheartedly with the parliamentary secretary on that particular point.
However, I think he is on much sounder ground on the second point he raised with
Columbia River Treaty regard to the practical difficulty facing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in moving an amendment. The citation referred to by the parliamentary secretary is quite correct. In effect it says that in a resolution of this kind any attempt to amend, by introducing a suggestion of what is included in the original resolution, is quite wrong, because you secure that efEect by voting for it. Any attempt to alter, change, modify or in any way divert from the original resolution is wrong because you are in effect attempting to negative that part of it, and you achieve that effect by voting against the resolution. This is one of the very unfortunate difficulties for anyone proposing to move an amendment to a resolution of this type, and it may well be that in considering our procedural problems we may have to give some consideration to this.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Greenwood who said if what the parliamentary secretary says is correct we are in a dilemma in this house because we have no means, no method, of trying to arrive at amendments of this kind. However, this is not the point now. Your Honour is faced with the established rules and practices of the house, and I submit that the argument made by the parliamentary secretary is quite correct. May I just add to that one or two citations on the second point. This is from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, as I have not got the current one. On page 580 the head note reads:
On the motion that an address be presented to the King for amendments to the British North America Act, it is out of order to propose amendments dealing with other matters than those mentioned in the address.
I think this is generally along the same point. The amendment here states:
Subject to the negotiation of a further protocol or an exchange of letters clarifying the right of Canada to divert up to 6,000 c.f.s. or 5 million acre feet annually from the Columbia river for the beneficial use of the prairie regions and for multiple-purpose use of water so diverted.
Apart from the merits of this, which may serve a very excellent purpose, my submission, from what I have read and examined in the treaty and protocol and the documents which follow it, is that this would achieve an effect distinct from the effect the protocol provides, and as such it is proposing something completely distinct. I submit that the only resource which the hon. member has is to vote against the treaty. It may be unfortunate that that is all he can do, but under

Columbia River Treaty our rules as they now exist this is the situation, and to that extent I support the position taken by the parliamentary secretary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tor Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has already stated that you are faced with a ruling on a new situation, for if the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) is correct, that on no previous occasion of this kind has any amendment been offered, then this is the first time the Chair will have had to rule on this point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the parliamentary secretary this will be the first time in Canadian history.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) shakes his head and says no, but if he knows of an occasion when a resolution to ratify a treaty was subjected to an amendment he should so inform the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On four different occasions.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, I would draw to the attention of the house that an attempt was made to amend the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada in 1932, and the Speaker rejected the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There were three other occasions before that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary secretary said this was the first time in the history of the country, in the case of a treaty.


John Napier Turner: The first time since 1945, when the standing committee on external affairs had been set up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, that creates a new situation for Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says that the full power to make and ratify treaties rests with the executive and that the executive does not need to bring the matter before parliament. He quoted MacGregor Dawson on this point, and apparently he quoted with approval Dawson's suggestion that this is sometimes done for convenience and political strategy. I suppose it is under that heading that this has been done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At any rate the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George rests his case on the proposition that the executive did not need to bring this matter before parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then he said that the executive had waived its prerogative, that it had waived its right to do it on its own. I submit that either the executive should have done this entirely on its own without bringing the matter before parliament at all or, if the question were brought before parliament, parliament should be allowed to decide whether or not it has the right to express an opinion. This, it seems to me, is the point with which Your Honour has to deal. It is not for you to accept the word of a parliamentary secretary as to how far the government is prepared to waive its rights. Let parliament express an opinion. The government says parliament may say yes or no. But the matter is before parliament and surely it is in our hands to decide how far parliament may express an opinion.
I have a copy of Beauchesne here and I am interested in what is said on page 232. This is the second paragraph of citation 284, and it reads as follows:
When a treaty, which does not involve fiscal changes or the expenditure of public moneys,-
And, presumably, this would include the present one because we have had no motion involving the expenditure of public moneys placed before us.
-has to be approved by parliament, a bill to that effect must be passed-
If this is a treaty to be brought before parliament, then obviously we need a bill, not just a resolution. However, the citation goes on:
-as parliament can only express its opinion by the joint consent of its three constituent parts, namely the crown, the Senate and the House of Commons: but the adoption of a resolution is not required before introduction of that bill.
That last phrase is obviously precautionary, since the bill in this case refers to a treaty not involving the expenditure of public money. The quotation continues:
Notice is given under standing order 41 and the bill goes through its ordinary stages. On the second reading a member may move either the six months hoist or an amendment declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from the policy of the bill or expressing any opinion as to

the circumstances connected with the conclusion of the treaty. The main debate on the treaty should take place on this motion for the second reading of the bill. As to the other stages of the measure, procedure follows its ordinary course.
I recognize that we do not have a bill before us; we have only a resolution.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The secretary of state says "Oh". Why does he not stand up and say what he has to say so as to get it on the record a little better?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: This is an absurd argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite the discomfort which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is suffering, may I point out that in this paragraph which refers to the bringing before parliament of a treaty there is a reference to ways in which parliament may express its opinion and, further, the suggestion is made in this paragraph of Beauchesne that when a treaty is brought before parliament in the form of a bill members have the right to move amendments on second reading so as to express opinions on the action connected with the adoption of that treaty.
Surely, this same right should apply if this is being done in the present foreshortened way? What we have before us now is not a bill. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs will possess his soul in patience he will see I am not pressing that we should have a bill. But I am saying that the rights which we would have if the government had brought in a bill, the right to put forward amendments expressing an opinion, should surely not be taken from us as a result of this device of bringing in a simple resolution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is why this was done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are hurting the argument of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member for Greenwood feel that way? No, he does not.
Surely, if there is any point at all in bringing this measure before parliament, parliament should be able to express its opinion. I do not know exactly what would happen if we were to turn down the resolution in the light of the statement made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner). He says the executive has full power. Well, the resolution reads:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification of the treaty-
Columbia River Treaty And so on. Suppose we do not. If the executive has this power it could, surely, go ahead and ratify this treaty anyway. So the whole course, according to the author quoted by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, is being carried out for the convenience of political strategy-unless, of course, we are to be allowed to express our opinions.
It seems, therefore, that Your Honour should look at this point of order in the light of what is assumed to be the purpose of bringing this measure before parliament, namely to give an opportunity for parliament to express its opinion. The opinion which parliament expresses might be yes, or it might be no, or it might be "yes, subject to the government doing certain things". I submit that this is a legitimate opinion for parliament to express and that it has the right to do so, a right which should not be eliminated simply because the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George says the government will waive its rights, but waive them only so far.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps if I might reply briefly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has already spoken and I am afraid he cannot speak again at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he could ask me a question before I sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes; perhaps he could put his contribution in the form of a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Napier Turner: Thank you. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he does not think importance attaches to the first paragraph of the citation from Beauchesne to which he referred-the paragraph which begins:
When it is required, either by statute or by the terms of a trade agreement, that the agreement be approved by parliament-
This is what leads to the necessity for a bill-where the measure falls within those terms because the bill involves a statutory duty on the part of the government, or a fiscal change arising from an imbalance of ways and means. I ask the hon. member whether his argument is not altered accordingly? When a bill is presented which involves an imbalance of ways and means it would be subject to all the openings for amendment which are possible with regard

Motions for Papers
to a bill of that type, whereas in this particular case we have a simple resolution before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There were two reasons why I read only the second paragraph of citation 284 rather than the whole of it. The first is that the citation is very lengthy, and the other is that the first paragraph had to do with trade agreements, while the second had to do with treaties. What is before us is not a trade agreement, or at least I do not think it is. Maybe it is. What is before us now is a treaty, and it seems to me that while paragraph 1 does not apply, paragraph 2 of the citation does apply. However, as I pointed out, I was not arguing that we should have a bill. I was pressing, though, that we should have in a resolution the same right as is accorded in the case of a bill, namely, the right to express the opinion of parliament, whatever that opinion might be.


Marvin Gelber: It seems to me that the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house wish to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Or do hon. members prefer to hear a ruling?


Mr. Scott:: I have some remarks to make on this point. I would prefer that you call it five o'clock.


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



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill S-ll, to incorporate Canadian Conference of the Brethren in Christ Church-Mr. Greene.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of all flag designs or models which have been received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet or the government, as models for a Canadian flag.
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is one in which I know the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) is deeply and intensely interested. I think we ought to explore the implications of the motion rather fully before we take a vote on it. The argument on which he based his motion was that it would be desirable to empanel a committee of the house, made up of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and several members from both sides of the house, that these gentlemen would screen the designs or models submitted, and then take a few of the designs or models submitted to a federal-provincial conference. I do not wish to attempt to negate that particular argument in favour of passing this motion. The truth of the matter is that a great number of designs and models have been submitted. Many of these are obviously the result of a great deal of interest in the question of a new Canadian flag. One has only to inspect some of these designs and models to see what loving care has been lavished on this particular project which is so dear to so many loyal Canadians both in this house and throughout the land. Many of our citizens are keenly concerned with the establishment of a Canadian flag, as the large number of designs shows. The models are elaborate in many instances, and they appear on all kinds of fabric. They appear on paper, on bunting, on nylon, and, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) told us last week, even on plywood.
It is true that a committee of this house has not examined all those designs and models, but no one should think that the keen interest displayed by these patriotic Canadians has not contributed greatly to the development of the discussion on a new flag to the point which that discussion has now reached. These artists have been interested in a new flag, and they have displayed their interest in a most tangible and useful way. I think we are all deeply in their debt.
Last Thursday, when arguing against the adoption of this motion, the Minister of Justice was particularly concerned with one of the two possibilities raised by this motion, namely that copies or reproductions of these designs and models should be made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why?


John B. Stewart: I am asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) why the minister should be concerned

with this possibility. Well, Mr. Speaker, this possibility was raised by the hon. gentleman who sponsored this motion. It was raised as one of the ways in which the object of this motion could be satisfied. As reported in the middle of page 3697, interpreting his own motion-and I assume he is the one most eligible to interpret it-he said:
Possibly it would be difficult to make copies of all of them and table them-
In other words, he is admitting that that is a possibility.
-but I would suggest that the originals be tabled.
Therefore we have two ways of interpreting this motion, and the Minister of Justice was dealing with one of them, namely that they should be reproduced.
The minister argued that this would not be desirable, and I think that the sum of his rather elaborate argument-not being a lawyer I do not pretend to understand it all -is to be found at page 3703 of Hansard, where he is reported as saying:
In other words, it is clear that if I, in the first place, were to create a work of art or make a design and if I submitted it as a suggestion, as long as I do not waive my copyright, as long as I do not grant permission to issue that design, I keep my copyright. It is not to be published. I am the only one entitled to decide whether or not the said design will be published or issued.
I think that was the sum of the argument made by the Minister of Justice a week ago. It was an argument against the reproduction of these models and designs.
Still on that same possible interpretation, I want to suggest to the house, when the house is considering the possibility of passing this motion, that great cost would be involved. I have inquired into this matter, and I am informed by the national film board, which proved to be the agency most suitable to undertake this kind of reproduction, that a rough estimate of the cost of reproducing approximately 3,000 flag designs in their original colours would amount to $45,870. The rough breakdown of the cost is as follows. There would be photographing with a 4 x 5 negative at a cost of $12,000. There would be proofs costing $3,450. There would be prints at $10 each, totalling $30,000. Then there would be the charges for a photographer at $60 a day for seven days, which would amount to $420.


Mr. Clancy:: What are you selling-shares in a new company? Get on with the business. We don't want the cost.
Motions for Papers


John B. Stewart: The hon. gentleman says he is not interested in the costs, but I am sure many hon. members of the house are.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I asked, are you selling shares?


John B. Stewart: An alternative procedure for reproduction would be to have the flags reproduced on slides. This would reduce the cost to approximately $18,000; but of course, if eventually actual prints from these slides were desired, the cost would mount again to something like the figure I mentioned previously. Consequently, I do not think that any hon. member, on consideration, would wish to propose this extensive expenditure in order to reproduce these models and designs.
I come now to the second possibility, which is that the originals be brought here in response to the motion now before the house. This would be a cumbersome process perhaps, but it would be physically possible. We could bring in the bales of designs and models. We could even bring in the plywood model.
But there would be, as I am sure you realize, Mr. Speaker, a great difficulty, which is a procedural one. Many of the authors who own these designs have requested that these designs be returned to them.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Hear, hear.


John B. Stewart: At page 180 of Beauchesne's fourth edition we find the following words:
The custody of all papers and files is entrusted to the Clerk of the House and it is "at his peril" if he suffers any of them to be taken away without leave of the house. As the number of reports and returns laid on the table is too large for the Clerk to handle, a special branch was set up for that purpose in 1929. It keeps a register of all papers tabled and records the names of the members of parliament who may take them out. The general public may consult these papers in the presence of these clerks. Every member who takes out a report or return must sign the register. There are on the ground floor of the parliament building three large vaults with iron doors and combination locks for the safe-keeping of these papers. Once a document has been placed on the table and recorded in the Journals, it becomes the property of the house.
It is true, sir, that some of these designs and models do not appear on paper, but since this is a motion for the production of papers we are regarding these models and designs as being governed by the rules that would apply in the case of normal papers. As the citation to which I have just referred says:
Once a document has been placed on the table and recorded in the Journals, it becomes the property of the house.

Motions for Papers
If these models and designs were produced as the result of the passage of this particular motion, they would undoubtedly become the property of this house, and would be in the unchallengeable possession of this house. In what position, then, would the Secretary of State be? The Secretary of State has been requested by many of the authors, who have been thoughtful enough to create these designs and models and transmit them to him, to return those designs and models; but if this motion passes the Secretary of State will not have those designs and models under his control-they will have passed into the control of this house. Obviously, sir, this would contravene the request of the authors who own the designs and models. This is the procedural difficulty against the production of the originals in this house.
Realizing the keen, intense interest of the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) in seeing these designs and models, I have a suggestion. I suggest to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State will be very pleased to display these models and designs to him in any number that he wishes to see. I expect he will wish to make a fairly close analysis of the nature of these designs and models. When this question of a new flag was before the house in 1945-46 some 2,695 models and designs were then considered. Since 1946 and up to May 15, 1964, 3,013 models and designs have come in. I ought to say that others have come in since the middle of May. There have been, since the middle of May, many displaying three maple leaves in various artistic arrangements. I think the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, if he examined these 3,013 models and designs, would report that of these 359 bear the design of the fleur-de-lis, 408 bear in some point a union jack, and 389 display a beaver. There are some displaying various coats of arms, and 2,136 display a maple leaf design.


Mr. Winkler:: Single, double or triple?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the hon. member himself examined these designs, to give us the information that 2,136 display the maple leaf, or from where did he get that information? Also, is it the maple leaf only that is on these designs?


John B. Stewart: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that I myself tabulated the number of flags displaying the maple leaf design.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a supplementary question?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the hon. member aware that the committee, which met in 1945 and 1946 and examined the 2,695 flags that he mentioned, reported that over 50 per cent of them had the union jack displayed on the flag in some place or other?


John B. Stewart: I was not aware of that fact, Mr. Speaker. Obviously there has been a considerable change of opinion in certain sections of the country. I have one further point to make, and that is that anyone who accepts the invitation, which is cordially offered, to inspect this large number of excellent designs will be deeply impressed by the keen interest of many of our loyal Canadians in this matter of a new and distinctive Canadian flag. I am sure that even the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) would realize the keen interest of these people in this important matter, and would wish to joint all hon. members in applauding the zeal with which these good citizens have devoted their time and energies to this most important subject.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up a few minutes of the time of the house in contributing to this debate and supporting the request as contained in the notice of motion for the production of papers. You will note, Mr. Speaker, as will all hon. members, that the motion calls for an order of the house for the production of all flag designs or models. I believe that my colleague did not have in mind the reproduction of any of these symbols, but rather the originals. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) suggested that it was an extremely costly procedure, involving some $45,870. I suggest to him through you, sir, that the government did not hesitate to spend $35,000 in pushing aside a film made by the C.B.C. about the Prime Minister, and therefore surely this small, additional sum of money for the information of the entire country could be spent, if need be. However, that is not the case. The hon. member, I know, asked for the production of the originals, and therefore I think this is what we must demand from the government at this time.

The parliamentary secretary suggested that dt would be a cumbersome and difficult procedure to produce all these originals. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) also finds himself in a rather cumbersome position today in regard to his stand and because of the fact that his design was, very properly and technically, leaked at the right time. Perhaps now we could have a little leakage in regard to these 3,013 designs that are now on record. I say this because of the way the whole issue is taking shape in the country. Of course, the government side would have us. believe public opinion is all their way. Perhaps we, too, believe that the whole country is seeing it our way. But for goodness sake, surely the country has the right to see all these designs, as well as the Prime Minister's design. Is the Prime Minister above the rest of the citizens of Canada in producing a design? I suggest that with the production of this number of designs-they could be displayed in the railway committee room, room 200, or some other suitable place-something of aesthetic value would result that would be more pleasing even to those on the government side of the chamber. Although the government is a little blinded right now by their own imposition of this design, I think they would see the light of day and would have a change of heart in regard to this question. As a matter of fact, I think they are having a change of heart right now. However, Mr. Speaker, I think the entire matter could be settled to the satisfaction of the house and the country if these designs were placed at our disposal, so we might look at what Canadians have seen fit to produce.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough went to great lengths in dealing with this matter. He mentioned the zeal and the great effort that was put into the production of these designs. This is all the more reason why we should see them. Canadians are very, very jealous of their position as citizens of this country, and therefore I do not think any of their suggestions should be cast aside for something that the Prime Minister in particular wants to present, together with a few of his cabinet colleagues. It is a difficult thing for a member of the opposition to rise and make a very pointed, critical argument about something we might have forced upon us because that might eventually become our national symbol.
Motions for Papers
I will tell you that the production of these designs is equally important to this country in that, within them, may lie the solution to problems that exist between the two founding nations, solutions of which the Prime Miinster (Mr. Pearson) has never thought. This argument applies to many other items of legislation that have been introduced into the house. The Prime Minister brings in his own ideas and then defers to somebody else. I will tell you that I believe somewhere in this group of 3,000 designs we may find something that may lend itself to the solution of the problems that are before us. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that all of these people who submitted designs did so as a result of great feeling within their hearts. I do not suggest the Prime Minister did not have the same sort of feeling; but these people did not hire designers to do the job, although some of them may be designers, nor did they have consultants to say that this will suit this situation or that will suit that situation. They did it themselves.
I believe that this is all the more reason for the government considering the passage of this motion and producing the designs in their original form. We are not asking for anything that would be illegal. It has been made very clear that simply because these designs are copyrighted, they are not secret. I think the government should avail themselves of the opportunity of producing these designs and allowing the members of the house, the members of the press gallery and the people of this country to have an opportunity of seeing them, and thus perhaps solving the problem that faces us today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this motion is of great importance to the house and to the nation. It is quite obvious the government had something to hide or conceal or they would have immediately agreed to the passage of this motion when it was presented two or three weeks ago. What is wrong with having a public display of the designs for a national flag which are in the possession of the government? There is nothing wrong with it at all. However, the government will not let the people of Canada see these designs. We have to be satisfied with the one selected by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). This is a form of dictatorship to which we are not going to submit in this country.
The design submitted by the Prime Minister, which has been leaked in advance, and so on,

Motions for Papers
was knocked together over a period ol nine days by a few people. Some of the other designs that are in the possession of the government, and therefore in the possession of parliament, are the result of much greater care than that. Anyone who will take the time to read the committee report for 194546 will find out that a great deal of care and attention was put on the various designs that were submitted to that committee. Some of them, of course, were carelessly done, but others were done with a great deal of care and attention.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Stewart) has told us that there were 2,695 of these designs put on display in the railway committee room. They were seen by the members of the House of Commons at that time. They were examined, checked and voted upon until they finally eliminated all but two. There was a final vote and they made a choice of one. Surely, when this issue has been raised again in this country we should have a look at the designs that were produced in that period, in 1945-46.
What is the government attempting to hide? I suggest they are concealing from the people of this country designs that are superior to the one that was concocted just a little while ago and selected by the Prime Minister. I think there was faulty advice from the so-called experts in heraldry.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), for example.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Leeds, for example, who was written up as the parliamentary expert on heraldry. I am glad he knows a little bit about that. A very distinguished person, a man who has made a study of heraldry, has indicated that the present design is faulty. Mr. Beddoe, who is responsible for part of the design-he was not responsible for the blue border-misread or misinterpreted the proclamation setting out the coat of arms for Canada. So, you have experts in the field disagreeing. An attempt is being made, which I prophesy will fail, to foist upon the Canadian people a spurious flag improperly designed and based on a false interpretation of the proclamation determining the coat of arms of this country. If you can select from the coat of arms a sprig containing three maple leaves and say this will constitute Canada's flag, why can you not similarly and with equal reason select other designs from that coat of arms and make them into flags? It is just nonsensical

reasoning that any portion of the coat of arms is automatically the design for a Canadian flag.
This is what we are being subjected to by this autocratic government. I regret very much that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough should have endeavoured to leave the impression in the minds of members and of the public that of the over 3,000 flag designs submitted, two thirds of them showed the maple leaf. He would not go further until I asked him a question and discovered his ignorance of the committee report for 1945-46, and say that over 50 per cent of the designs submitted contained somewhere on the flag the union jack. When he mentioned that two thirds of them contained the maple leaf he should have said in conjunction with the union jack, and that would have been a clear statement of fact.


John B. Stewart: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member has misunderstood what I said. I was giving a breakdown, not of the designs submitted in 1945-46, but rather a breakdown of the designs submitted between 1946 and 1964. I am certain the hon. member did not understand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not want to misunderstand the hon. member. I thought he gave us the official figure and there were over 3,000 designs for flags in the possession of the government. Is he now telling us these have all come in since 1946?


John B. Stewart: No, if the hon. member had bothered to listen he would have known precisely what I said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was listening very carefully to the hon. member. Let us be quite fair about this thing. Am I right in assuming, and are hon. members of this house right in assuming that, including the designs submitted in 1945-46, there are now in possession of the government over 3,000 designs for a national flag; is that right?


John B. Stewart: There are more than 3,000. If you include those two groups, those that came in between 1945 and 1946 and between 1946 and 1964; you would have a total of over 5,000.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, now he has raised it to over 5,000.


John B. Stewart: I have not raised it at all. If the hon. member had listened or if tonight he will read the record, he will find precisely what I said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have got the figure up to 5,000 now. This is all the more reason why we should see these flags. Let us see the ones that were produced in 1945-46 and that were on display in the railway committee room.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he know what happened to the flags submitted in 1945-46, concerning which he pretends to know so much?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have put a motion on the order paper for the production of these flags.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Have they been destroyed? I do not know where they are. I do not know why the government is concealing them. Why are they concealing the choice in 1946? Why are they concealing this?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the hon. gentleman is telling us he does not know that this house passed a resolution authorizing the return of those designs that came in during the period 1945-46?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well now, we are actually getting bits and pieces of information from the government. You have to drag it out of them. They won't come clean with anything. There is evasiveness, concealment and a lack of answers to questions. Now he tells us all these designs have been returned, so we have not 5,000 in the possession of the government. A minute ago he said that all those in before 1945-46 were returned, and they have only those that came in subsequently. Well, let us have a reproduction.


An hon. Member:: Let us have a referendum on that reproduction. That will fix everything.


Gordon Minto Churchill: These hon. gentlemen opposite are making just as much fun of the flag issue as the Prime Minister made of the threat to the lives of women and children this afternoon. Let us have a reproduction of the flag design that was chosen by the committee in 1946. That flag design had the union jack in the upper left hand corner, the red fly, and instead of the shield of the coat of arms it had a maple leaf with a white border around the leaf.
That committee sat for a great many weeks and looked at between 2,000 and 3,000 flag designs. It reduced the number of flag designs, first to 76, and then on down until it had six, then five, and right down to two,
Motions for Papers
and after the most careful examination recommended the adoption of a flag similar to the present red ensign with a change in the shield. Why is this flag not produced so that we may have a comparison with the present flag, which has been flying in Canada for almost 100 years, and with this monstrosity which the Prime Minister has selected and blackmailed his party into accepting, and is trying to blackmail the people of Canada into accepting?
It may well be that the flag selected by the committee in 1946 would be a satisfactory flag under present circumstances. All the people who want the maple leaf on the flag have it in that flag, and those who want a little more white on the flag have it in the flag selected by the committee in 1946. Why cannot we see it? Oh no, you ask them to produce something and the Minister of Justice gives a legal argument, goes away back for a reference to 1884, and then says anything that has lasted for that long is sacred. How about the Canadian flag which has been flying in this country for almost 100 years and should have the respect of all Canadians, instead of being discarded in the way the Liberal party is discarding it, throwing it into the dust bin, and at the whim of a Prime Minister who is acting more and more like a dictator?
I am supporting this motion for the production of the flag designs in the possession of the government, for a reproduction of the flag design that was selected by the committee in 1946, and then let us see if we cannot get a solution to this problem. There are a great many people in this country who are greatly concerned over the Canadian flag. There are a great many people in the country who would not oppose a slight modification of the present flag with regard to the coat of arms, and if a suitable design, with the maple leaf there instead of the coat of arms, has been designed it could be produced and might find general acceptance.
But no, this government says to the Canadian people and to this house, take it or leave it. The Prime Minister says, "This is my design. I have flown it for two days up at Harrington lake and I think it is wonderful, and therefore everybody else must think it is wonderful." I say this is the wrong approach to an issue which will divide this country as no other issue has divided it. Here is our very modest request. Let us in on some of these secrets.

Motions for Papers
The government is dealing with the flag of Canada and it has thousands of designs. Some of them may be better than the one I have mentioned. I do not know, I have not seen them, but why should we not see them? Why should the people of Canada not have a chance to see these flags, or reproductions of them, and make their choice? Then perhaps according to the general attitude that has prevailed in Canada for so many years some compromise might be worked out, and not this frightful atrocity which the Prime Minister like a sawdust Caesar reminding me of Mussolini, is attempting to ram down our throats, trying to force this country to accept his personal choice for a flag.
All we are asking is, let us see the designs of the flags in the possession of the government and give the house a chance to formulate an opinion with regard to this issue. But that is denied by this government that denies so much information to this house and to the Canadian people.


John B. Stewart: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. I wonder if he would tell me if I am correct in assuming that he did not understand me-that would not surprise me-when I suggested to him that he, along with any other hon. members, could come along and inspect these flags which are in the possession of the Secretary of State? There is no objection to this whatsoever. Am I correct in understanding he did not see through what I said?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I understood the hon. member, but he seldom speaks very clearly. Fortunately I was alert enough to understand him. He is suggesting, "Go and call on the Secretary of State and privately he will show you the flags." Why not invite everybody? It would be simpler for the Secretary of State to come over here with his flags than for use to go individually to see them. This is one of the silly suggestions which I thought would not come from an hon. member for whom I had a high regard.


John B. Stewart: I will drive you over in a car; you won't have to walk.


Gordon Minto Churchill: So little concerned is the government with this issue, so bent is it on forcing this on the Canadian people that the ministers are not even in the house when the question of the production of flags is debated. This is a complete disregard for parliament, reminiscent of the days of 1956,

an autocratic, arrogant, Liberal party that wants to destroy parliament.
Well, Mr. Speaker, at least that produced one minister, but it is under compulsion. That is the way we have to drag them in.


Mr. Sharp:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called me to the telephone. I regret my absence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, it is not abnormal for people to have calls to the telephone when they want to get out of the house, because a debate is going on which they do not like. Because I was criticizing the government the minister did not defer the telephone call, as he might have; but no, he had to rush out. However he has come back under compulsion and we are glad one person is here representing this ineffective government. There is one confused member of the government present, instead of the whole crowd.


An hon. Member:: Here they come.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are glad to see them. To get back to what is really a very serious matter, the production of these designs is desired by this house and I think this would be desired by people generally across Canada. Let us not just discard a flag which we have known and loved, which has been flying in this country for 100 years, and substitute another flag, the personal choice of the Prime Minister, without seeing these other designs on which the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) said people had worked with loving care. Why should we not show our appreciation of their interest by seeing the designs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must interrupt the hon. member and advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, surely the speech just concluded has beer, one of the most foolish we have heard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One does not expect very much from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) but we can be assured that when a poorer speech is made in this house that hon. member will make it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I don't want to compete with you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is distressing to hear a long standing member of this house, a privy

councillor, a former member of a government-not a very illustrious member, but a former member-get up and suggest to the government that it should break the law, that it should trample on private rights by disclosing designs which have been submitted to the government in confidence.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, you did in 1946.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to my hon. friend that in 1946 the designs which were submitted to the parliamentary committee were submitted subject to the express right of that committee examining them and making them public.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the hon. member not aware that some other designs were made available to that committee that had no connection with the actual presentation of the committee? Some old designs that were around were also brought forward at that time, in 1946.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not really see that the hon. member's question is relevant. May I point out that the Minister of Justice referred last week to the fact that there was a copyright vested in these designs. May I also point out that there is a further property right arising at common law and in addition to copyright and that there would be ground for action by the individual concerned against the government if these designs were produced without consent in writing from the owners. I might refer to the Canadian law on copyright as discussed by Dr. Fox on page 53 where he points out:
Copyright, which is statutory, and the right of property in original works at common law, are two quite different rights.
And at page 67 he says:
It is clear that an author's incorporeal copyright in an unpublished work is something quite separate and distinct from the physical manuscript itself.
And it is further pointed out:
That the right of an author of an unpublished literary production is not confined to the paper or other material on which the work is written. "His right is an exclusive right to publish or refrain from publishing it, as he may please, and anyone who publishes it without his consent infringes his legal right, and does that which is actionable per se."
As I say, it is shocking to hear a former minister of the crown, a privy councillor, get up in this house and say we should ignore private rights and abolish private property- that the government should forget the law and do what this motion requests. I submit to all
Motions for Papers
hon. members that they should take the opportunity this afternoon of voting this detestable motion down.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: With regard to the address of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) I will only say, at the outset, that I was surprised to hear that the hon. gentleman had declined to attend at the office of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) in order to view these flag designs, as he was so cordially invited to do.
I would point out that the Secretary of State now has various aspects of culture in our country in his domain and I can think of no member who could benefit more from rubbing shoulders with just a little culture than the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. If he does finally accept the cordial invitation extended to him, may I suggest he take with him the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who would also have a great deal to gain from an encounter with a little culture.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege. In our party we express our opinions and we are not slaves, as they are on the Liberal side.


John James Greene: If sitting on this side of the house is slavery and if following the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is freedom, then thank goodness for slavery. He is free to be foolish.
I was also more than a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre use the words "a frightful atrocity" with reference to the proposed flag, a flag which has embodied in it the royal coat of arms for Canada as designated by His Majesty King George V in 1921. I never thought I would see the day when a member of this house would refer to Canada's coat of arms as a frightful atrocity.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege. I never mentioned the coat of arms as being a frightful atrocity. I said the flag design selected by the Prime Minister was a frightful atrocity. It is only the flag of Guatemala with a superimposition on it.


John James Greene: The hon. member is splitting hairs, or splitting the flag, or what have you.


An hon. Member:: He has no hairs left to split.


John James Greene: Quite correct. If the hon. member were splitting hairs he would not have

Motions for Papers
much to split. Nevertheless, I do suggest it is a most disgraceful exhibition for a former minister of the crown to refer to a flag which is essentially composed of Canada's royal coat of arms, given by royal decree, as being a frightful atrocity. Then, too, when the hon. gentleman referred to this flag as being someone's personal choice he is again denying the fact that the essential component of the design is Canada's royal coat of arms. It seems to me the hon. member is suggesting that the best of all possible worlds could be enjoyed by taking these 3,000 suggested designs all of which, no doubt, are very worthy, and putting them before the house so that people of supreme artistic taste, such as himself, can make a selection from them. Really, I can think of nothing worse which could be foisted upon the country than that this question should be decided in accordance with the artistic abilities of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or of his cohort from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm aiding and abetting him in this supreme artistic endeavour. If it comes to a matter of artistic taste-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John James Greene: As I was saying, if it comes to a matter of artistic taste, I would prefer that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Hey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: Inasmuch as the main component of the flag was selected by His Majesty King George V when he selected the coat of arms, I, for one, would much prefer that a choice be made of this symbol of Canada's history, one which has its roots deep in our past, than that the selection be left to people such as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I was also a little surprised to hear that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was so anxious to have the union jack perpetuated as Canada's royal emblem. I think all of us here have as great a respect for our past and for our heritage as has the hon. member. I think this is certainly evidenced by the fact that the royal emblem of Canada, authorized by royal decree, is an essential part of the suggested flag. But most of us in this house and, we believe, most people in this country, feel the time has now come for the selection of a unique Canadian emblem without reference to our antecedents in the
United Kingdom or elsewhere. I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, since he is so anxious to preserve the past exactly as it was, without recognizing the evolution which has taken place, would also like to revoke the Statute of Westminster? I think this would be in keeping with his chain of thought expressed with regard to our emblem. It is possible he feels the colonial office should still operate in control of the affairs of Canada. I hope he will be consistent in his representation to this house. What we are witnessing today is a mere gentle backwater of the flag debate which will shortly be commencing. When that debate opens I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and his cohort from J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I call it six o'clock?


John James Greene: Will be consistent and ask that the Statute of Westminster-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You will vote for two flags. It will be-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Afraid to vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So have we.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), legal action respecting the program "Twenty Years Later"; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), floods in British Columbia and potential dangers on the Skeena river; the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde), labour conditions, provision for unemployed to receive unemployment insurance or social assistance.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification of 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, and the consequent coming into force of the protocol thereto annexed to the exchange of notes signed at Washington on January 22, 1964, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house wish the Chair to deliver a judgment or opinion at this time?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, just before you give your judgment I should like to say a few words on the amendment moved by my good friend the hon. member for Greenwood <Mr. Brewin). I want to suggest to you that the amendment he has moved has really raised a very fundamental problem for your consideration. In many ways it seems to me that the issue posed by the amendment is of such importance to the rights of parliament that it should not be disposed of without the fullest possible consideration. As has been pointed out, there are not very many precedents on this matter and in many ways you are breaking new ground. In view of this we wish to lay before you our submissions.
Briefly our position is this. We are not quarrelling in any way with the right of the executive to negotiate treaties. This is their right and a responsibility which they exercise. Nor have we quarrelled with the original contention that legally they are not obligated to submit these treaties to parliament for parliament's acceptance, rejection, ratification or consideration. But we do say that once the executive waives that right, once it divests itself of that protection, once it brings before parliament the measure in question, it cannot reserve unto itself some form of qualified acceptance of the rights of parliament.
What the executive is attempting to do here is to bring this matter before parliament for consideration and then attempt to qualify the rights of this parliament to deal with this measure. I say that once they have waived that right they cannot take it back when the measure comes again before the house. Once the executive surrenders to par-
Columbia River Treaty liament jurisdiction to deal with the matter, parliament then becomes the master and the executive becomes the servant; and it does not lie in its mouth to come into the house and attempt to qualify and to cut down the rights of parliament to deal with this measure. It cannot now start telling parliament that all we can do is to say yes or no; that we can either approve the treaty or not approve the treaty.
Surely parliament has the right to move amendments to show our position on various aspects of the treaty and to test the feelings of the house on the parts of the treaty with which we disagree. Otherwise the whole idea of bringing this treaty and protocol before us is a charade; the whole debate becomes a meaningless exercise if all we are to do is to have a series of speeches, but are given no right to register protests and suggest amendments to the treaty now before us.
It seems to me that what is really involved is an interference with the basic rights of parliament; that the executive is trying to come into parliament and tell us what are our rights, and to qualify those rights and privileges which have grown up through tradition over many years. If we accept the position that all we can do on this treaty is to talk about it and vote yes or no, then I should like to suggest that we are permitting parliament to be muzzled in these proceedings, and as I have said the debate itself becomes a meaningless exercise in debating technique. So I suggest to you that in making your decision you are really deciding the basic right of parliament to deal with this measure once it is brought before us.
I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made an interesting observation when reading from the rules and procedures of this house. He outlined the fact that in the case of treaties which do not require the expenditure of money-and I presume this treaty falls into this category-the correct procedure might well have been the introduction of a bill. If that procedure had been followed we would have every right to move amendments and to test the feelings of the house on various aspects of the treaty. Because another method was adopted, rightly or wrongly we do not know-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Deliberately.


Reid Scott: Perhaps deliberately, although I am not saying that in that way. But be-

Columbia River Treaty cause this other route has been taken we are being deprived of the very rights which would have been ours had the procedure of introducing a bill been followed.
I do not know why this present procedure has been adopted. No one has ruled on the rightness of it, but in any event the government is depriving the members of this house of the historic right of parliament to deal with a measure without qualification, and without any limitation of our rights by the cabinet or the executive. Therefore, I should like to suggest to you that this amendment really raises for your consideration the very grave and serious problem of the rights of parliament, and the degree to which parliament can be muzzled and its rights abdicated by the actions of the executive.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this amendment, quite apart from the constitutional and legalistic questions which have been raised, we must also take into account the substance of the motion itself in deciding whether the amendment can be accepted by this house at this time.
The amendment requires a specific diversion of water for a specific purpose. It asks this house to make a decision to instruct the government to undertake to secure, through an exchange of notes with the United States, the right to divert waters from the Columbia system to the prairie region in a certain amount.
The resource which is encompassed in this amendment is a resource which comes under the administrative jurisdiction of a province of Canada. The effective use of this resource belongs to the people of the province of British Columbia. If we here are required to impose the will of the federal government, by the acceptance of this amendment, upon that province and upon its people when they have already given an indication of what they want, then I feel we are going beyond our jurisdiction. I submit this has to be taken into account. The external affairs committee have had some 50 hearings, and have examined exhaustively and carefully-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask whether the amendment has been ruled as in order and whether we are debating the substance of the amendment? If so, others might like to do so.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No; he is giving additional reasons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that the hon. member is speaking to the point of order.


Stuart A. Fleming: Certainly; and I am speaking to it because the substance has some bearing on whether the amendment should be accepted for consideration by the house at all. The substance, as well as the form, is of some consequence here. If we were to vote and accept this amendment, we would be accepting as a fact that, without prior consultation, we can in effect impose, our will on one of the provinces of Canada with regard to a resource which lies within its jurisdiction constitutionally.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Certainly.


Stuart A. Fleming: I
hear an interjection from my left, "Not at all", Mr. Speaker. I wonder what the feeling would be in other provinces if there were this intrusion on the right of a province to have at least some voice in the utilization of a resource that it has the right to consider within its jurisdiction and available for its development. I feel we must take this into account. Article XIII of the treaty does provide in general terms and very precise terms for diversion for consumptive purposes, that there shall be this diversion wherever we want to divert. But if we accepted an amendment that limits this right, without first consulting the province concerned, in my opinion this would be wrong. There is no suggestion in this amendment that we should consult the province; it simply says that we should exchange notes with the United States, and I claim that we would be going beyond our jurisdiction and responsibility in accepting the proposal contained in the amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) has looked very closely at the amendment which is being proposed. There is no suggestion in the amendment that if we were to pass it parliament would impose its will upon the people of British Columbia or the government of British Columbia. All this amendment says is:
Subject to the negotiation of a further protocol or an exchange of letters clarifying the right of Canada to divert up to 6,000 cubic feet per second or 5 million acre feet annually from the Columbia river-

This does not instruct that there shall be placed in the treaty a provision that 5 million acre feet or 6,000 cubic feet per second of water shall be diverted annually from the Columbia river, but only that the right of this diversion shall have been agreed to by the governments of Canada and the United States; so that if at some future time the government of British Columbia wants to exercise that right, it will have the legal power to do so. As a matter of fact, yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) told the house that the right of diversion was in the treaty and the protocol, and before the external affairs committee government witnesses said repeatedly that this right of diversion is safeguarded.
All this amendment does is seek to have that right spelled out not only by the Canadian government but also by the United States government, so that the right to divert water will be clear beyond any shadow of doubt. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment does not impose any burden or onus on any government. It does not deal with anything beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament. It merely suggests that it be made clear by an exchange of letters that the right to divert, which the government says is there, is in fact there-which we seriously doubt.


Erik Nielsen: Does Premier Bennett have any doubt?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whether Premier Bennett has any doubt or not does not meet the situation. We are dealing here with a treaty. Unless the government of the United States and the government of Canada are agreed as to the legal meaning of this treaty, then of course difficulties may arise in the future.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There is no doubt about it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says there is no doubt about it. If there is no doubt about it, let him accept this amendment to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the protocol does that very thing.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. member for just one moment. It seems to me that this discussion is to some extent out of order. We are now discussing the merits or demerits of the amendment itself. This is the type of discussion which I think would be in order
Columbia River Treaty if the Chair had ruled the amendment in order and acceptable. Therefore I would suggest that hon. members limit their contributions to the question of whether this amendment should be accepted by the Chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I quite agree with Your Honour, but in view of the fact that you allowed the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke to deal with the substance of the amendment I felt that some reply was in order to deal with the point which he raised. Further on the point of order, I think the house ought to be fully aware as to what a serious decision you, Mr. Speaker, and the house are about to make. According to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) the government is apparently now taking the position that a treaty is really the sole prerogative of the executive, that they do not have to submit it to parliament-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -but that they have waived their right in this regard, and with graciousness of heart and great condescension have agreed to allow parliament to say something about it. But what we are allowed to say about it is exactly what Hitler allowed the Reichstag to say. They can say "ja" or "nein"; they can say "yes" or "no", but-


John Napier Turner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I gather that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is embellishing the statement I originally made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am interpreting the statement which the hon. member made, Mr. Speaker, and I think anyone who reads it will agree with my interpretation.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question, Mr. Speaker? On the point of order, will the hon. gentleman tell the committee whether he feels that the effect of the proposed amendment will be to provide something which the treaty does not itself provide now?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Then I have a following question, if the hon. member will permit it. Does the hon. member not agree, then, that if this is the case surely this is something the committee cannot consider.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is not a committee; this is the House of Commons.


Erik Nielsen: Well, the house.

Columbia River Treaty


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have proposed this amendment because we seriously question that the present treaty and protocol provide for the right of diversion; as a matter of fact, we think it specifically denies the right of diversion where the generation of hydroelectric power is involved.


Erik Nielsen: If this is the position the hon. gentleman takes, surely the whole treaty has to be renegotiated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Absolutely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker. What we are arguing is that this amendment calls for a new protocol or an exchange of letters to make it perfectly clear that the government's contention, that the right of diversion is contained in the treaty and protocol, is in fact contained there. If the government is satisfied that the right of diversion is there, all it needs is a protocol signed by the United States government and the Canadian government to that effect and our fears would then become groundless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It now has that very thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to return to the point I was making, Mr. Speaker. We are now having a demonstration of the Liberal party's belief in the supremacy of parliament, namely that parliament is supreme only to the extent of being able to say yes or no to a treaty, but having no power to declare its opinion with respect to any particular aspect of the treaty. This is dictatorial arrogance of the very worst kind. This makes the pipe line debate look like child's play.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope Your Honour will realize that from our point of view this is a most serious decision which has to be made, that parliament has to decide this evening whether or not a treaty introduced by the executive is so sacrosanct that this house may not even pass a declaratory amendment stating its opinion with respect to any part of the treaty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In the course of the debate on the government resolution calling for the approval by this house of the ratification of the Columbia river treaty, the hon. member for Greenwood introduced an amendment as follows:
Moved by Mr. Brewln, seconded by Mr. Her-ridge, that the resolution before the house be amended by adding thereto the following words:

"Subject, to the negotiation of a further protocol or an exchange of letters clarifying the right of Canada to divert up to 6,000 c.f.s. or 5 million, acre feet annually from the Columbia river for the beneficial use of the prairie regions and for multiple purpose use of water so diverted."
The validity of the amendment has been questioned by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George, the hon. member for Peace River and also this evening by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. On the other hand, the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre, Greenwood, Danforth and the leader of the New Democratic party have argued in support of the amendment's legality.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has expressed the view that the amendment is out of order because it encroaches on the government's exclusive prerogative in the treaty making field. I do not think that anyone will question the validity of the principle itself, and I would suggest that it is not diluted or altered by the government's action in seeking approval of the treaty's ratification. The very narrow and limited question before the house is not approval or disapproval of the terms of the agreement but approval or disapproval of the ratification of the treaty. I would hesitate to rule that, in seeking this approval and in placing this very limited question before the house, the government ipso facto abdicates its prerogative in the realm of treaty making, a prerogative on which the proposed amendment would seem to encroach.
In any event, if there can be some doubt about the acceptability of this constitutional argument, it appears that the validity of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood is open to question on other and firmer grounds. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River, it is extremely difficult to produce an acceptable motion in a situation of this kind. There are first the limitations of standing order 44 which, of course, are well known to hon. members; but perhaps I should quote the standing order at this time:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
Then in turn an amendment is limited by the rule of relevancy. On this point I should like to quote from May, sixteenth edition, at page 421:

The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant, if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
The difficulty, of course, is that if an amendment proposes nothing new it is a nullity and if it does introduce a new proposition not covered in the motion it becomes irrelevant. In this instance the proposed amendment does import a new argument and thus contravenes the rule of relevancy.
Another point made by the hon. members for Peace River and St. Lawrence-St. George is that the amendment is an expanded negative. It seems to me that acceptance of the amendment negatives approval of ratification of the treaty, since it proposes re-opening negotiations with a view to changing the terms of the treaty itself. Our rules provide a way to negative a question, and this must be done not by way of amendment but simply by voting against the main proposal.
Futhermore, the Chair agrees with the suggestion made in the course of argument this afternoon that one cannot propose an amendment which does not oppose or alter the main motion but attempts to approve of it on a conditional basis. The reference made this afternoon was to citation 201 of Beau-chesne, fourth edition.
Lastly, it would appear to the Chair that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood is in the nature of a substantive motion requiring notice.
Perhaps in concluding I should refer hon. members to a very similar situation which is reported in the Journals of the House of Commons and which rebuts the suggestion made this evening that we are now breaking new ground. I would refer hon. members to the Journals of the House of Commons for Wednesday, the 11th day of June, 1958, at page 132. On that occasion the house was considering the following motion:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America.. .and that this house do approve the same.
At the time an amendment was proposed by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Martin (Timmins), as follows:
Columbia River Treaty
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"And in the opinion of this house consideration of the interests of collective security and the principles of the United Nations make it advisable for the government to give consideration to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements within the structure of NATO."
Mr. Speaker Michener made the following ruling:
I concur the view he-
-the Acting Speaker-
-tentatively expressed as to the irrelevance of the proposed amendment which I think is apparent from a consideration of the motion itself which calls for two things; first, that it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement and, second, that the house do approve the agreement. That is all that the motion puts forward. In effect, if the motion is affirmed it will approve the agreement and if it is negatived it will disapprove the agreement. If the amendment has the effect of denying the motion it is unnecessary and irrelevant because those members who wish to disapprove the agreement have only to vote against the motion as it stands. If the amendment adds something to the motion in a positive way it is a declaration of principle.
Then, a few lines further on:
Assuming that the amendment and the motion were accepted you would have the agreement approved but you would have added to it a declaration of this independent principle which is not related to the motion nor is it necessary for the decision of the motion in question.
That view is reinforced by a consideration of the limited number of cases where it is possible to introduce a principle by way of an amendment.
Speaker Michener here refers to a ruling of a previous Speaker, to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George referred this afternoon, in which he said:
May, Bourinot and Redlich indicate that the only motions upon which amendments declaratory of principle may be moved are motions for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, motions to go into committee of ways and means and supply and for the second reading of public bills.
For these reasons and on these grounds I must declare the amendment out of order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the matter, and with the very greatest of respect to you, I must appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Greenwood has appealed to the house. Those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will
please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: In addressing the house for a few minutes on the measure before us for the ratification of the Columbia river treaty, may I first of all take this opportunity to express on behalf of the members of my group and, I think, on behalf of all the members of the committee on external affairs, appreciation of the way in which the chairman of that committee sat through 50 sittings of evidence. I think the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) did a very commendable job indeed and I think the members of the committee were very proud of the effort he put forward to make himself acquainted with those matters with which it was necessary he should become familiar. In any case, his conduct of the committee was such as to stand him in good stead as a future chairman of many other committees of this house.
I should like to mention, also, that in my opinion the negotiators of this treaty did an excellent job of probing into the finer points under discussion. I think they were firm. I think they were fair. I am certain that those who sat on the committee were aware of the

tremendous ability that these gentlemen possessed in their own right as individuals. I think we can be very proud of the work they did.
Negotiation of any type of treaty is a twoway street and there has to be, 1 think, a certain amount of flexibility in the final result. There are those, I know, who would like to see every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed so as to have everything spelled out. But I believe that if we were to take an extreme position of this kind we should get not only the other side but ourselves, too, into a strait-jacket in which it might be very difficult to move. I believe our negotiators have taken into account all the factors, human and otherwise, which were in the minds of those concerned with this matter both here and in the United States. I believe they have achieved an excellent treaty.
In the course of the hearings before the external affairs committee more than 1,500 pages of evidence were presented. We heard many witnesses and many long briefs were put forward. Many probing questions were asked. I do not object to the position taken by those who oppose this treaty and the protocol. If they felt there was need for probing I give them credit for doing the probing which they thought was necessary. No one is any the worse for this probing having been done, because it gave an opportunity to those who supported the treaty to clarify the opposing views and bring the question into proper focus. We dealt with the financing of the dam. We dealt with the agreement between British Columbia and Canada concerning financing, and this was the most important part of the treaty negotiations; as a matter of fact as far as British Columbia is concerned it was the most important part-the part for which British Columbia will be responsible. The government of British Columbia has now expressed its delight in the fact that the negotiations have now made progress to such an extent that we have before us today a treaty which will bring about the building of three major dams, with money to spare as far as the cost is concerned. This money will be used for installing machinery at some of the power dams in British Columbia.
It has been said that the cost of damming the Columbia will be much greater than the estimated cost. I, for one, do not hold this view and I say this because of evidence which came to us very recently in connection with the Peace river project. Estimates for the cost of construction of the main dam on the Peace
Columbia River Treaty river were in the neighbourhood of $90 million, but the actual contract let was for an amount of $25 million less-some $73 million. The reason for this downward trend in cost is to be found in the extensive use of the conveyor system for moving material. At the present time there is under construction in the Peace river area a conveyor which will be over three miles long. It will have a belt five and a half feet wide; it will travel at 12 miles an hour and it will deliver 12,000 tons of material to the dam site per hour. Anyone who can visualize the pile of material which will be moved in one day can readily understand why there is a reduction in the cost estimates which were previously made with regard to the building of the dam.
We in the committee discussed the responsibility, and the angles of this responsibility, of the province of British Columbia in connection with the treaty. We discussed the safeguards taken by the federal government with respect to this responsibility. We discussed at length the safety of the dams which will be built. We probed into the matters relating to foundations, material, engineering reports, and we found no reason for alarm; as a matter of fact we were well assured as to the quality of the dams which will be built. We even probed into matters which were not actually before the committee. We dealt with the question of labour relations in connection with the building of the dams. This was dealt with clearly and succinctly, which meant that most of us at least were satisfied, as I think are the people who expect to do the job, that we have gone a long way towards a peaceful construction project with the least amount of disruption either on the part of labour or management.
We also dealt with the British Columbia power policy with regard to the dams on the Columbia and as the policy related to the Peace river dam. It seems to me in this connection that it would be well if I were to remind the house that we in British Columbia have a power policy which delivers electrical power to all parts of the province at equal cost. There is an equalization rate. People living at Fort Nelson, for instance, pay the same price for domestic power as people in the city of Vancouver or Victoria. In considering the Columbia river power project and the cost of electricity delivered, we must take into account the whole network of power which is delivered from all sites in British Columbia in the over-all cost of electricity on a uniform basis. This power

Columbia River Treaty policy is one which can lend itself very well,
I think, to any part of Canada.
We have heard a considerable amount about the possibility or impossibility of diversion for consumptive uses, and we had an amendment moved in this connection. I think it would be well for me to read at this time an extract from the transcript of the proceedings before the external affairs committee. At page 299 appears a preliminary study of the possibilities of additional water supply for Saskatchewan rivers. This study was prepared for the Saskatchewan Power Corporation in March 1962 by Crippen-Wright Engineering Limited, and the summary of their report reads, in part, as follows:
The following observations, without consideration of any planning by the province of Alberta, can be made:
(a)	Diversion of the upper North Saskatchewan river into the Red Deer and South Saskatchewan rivers suggests substantial savings in power development costs within Saskatchewan as it would take advantage of regulation provided by the South Saskatchewan dam reservoir and the additional 150 feet of fall available within the province. Diversion at Rocky Mountain House is very low in cost and appears to be an attractive first increment to supplement irrigation, domestic and power requirements.
(b)	The diversion of the Athabasca as a first stage of an eventual Peace river diversion, is feasible and seems attractive during or following construction of power projects on the North Saskatchewan river.
(c)	Diversion of at least 20,000 cubic feet per second from the Peace river was found to be economical. Even greater quantities are available with upstream regulation.
They are referring there to the Peace river dam at Portage mountain. The study continues:
(d)	Diversions of the Kootenay, Columbia, or Fraser river water are high in cost. Water from the Fraser costs the least of that obtainable from the western slope.
As well as keeping ourselves out of a strait-jacket in connection with the treaty and protocol, the contention that we need to take water from the Columbia and bring it over to the prairies, according to the report produced by Crippen-Wright, is absolutely ridiculous. To waste the time of this house with something which, as I see it, according to engineering reports is valueless is almost bordering on irresponsibility.
Reference was made this afternoon to the fact that the federal government should stop British Columbia building dams. This can be done by refusing to give permission which was asserted by the government of Canada in Bill No. 3 which was passed, I believe, in

1955. The point I should like to make here is that there is no way in which the Canadian government can force British Columbia to build dams. I think this is very important. As a matter of fact, one of the matters in the original Bill No. 3 of 1955, if I recollect correctly, was that under clause 9 all of the watershed of the Columbia and other rivers drained into foreign territory which was under federal jurisdiction. But, Mr. Speaker, before this bill was passed clause 9, if that is the clause I am thinking of, and I am sure it is. was deleted, and there was a very good reason why the government of the day deleted that clause from the bill.
The business of centralization and of bringing about federal powers and jurisdictions of this kind may appeal to some. But I want to say on behalf of this party that we are not inclined to pass over the natural resources of a province to federal government jurisdiction. I am sure that if the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) had been in the external affairs committee of that day he would have realized that the position of the government of that day, and the position it took in eliminating clause 9 of the bill to which I have referred, was a wise one indeed.
Reference has been made to downstream benefits, flood control, and so on. Those matters are part of the record and there is no need for me, or for anyone else as far as I can see, to dwell on them. Surely after 1,500 or more pages of evidence, 50 sittings of the external affairs committee when witnesses were subjected to the most searching questions, and the committee having come in with a report that this treaty and the protocol should be ratified, we in this house, after hearing a member from each party giving the position of his party on this issue, should pass the treaty and get along with the business of the house.
I would like to see the treaty ratified by this House of Commons at the earliest possible time so that we can get on with the job in British Columbia. I am sure the people of British Columbia would appreciate it very, very much. Therefore I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that if possible even yet tonight we should pass this treaty.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on this motion concerning the ratification of the Columbia

river treaty. Even if I intend to be brief, I should like to follow the example set a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) and congratulate the chairman of the external affairs committee, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who did a splendid job and who greatly facilitated our task. He was helpful to me in this sense that he provided me with a truly competent interpreter who made it possible for me to follow with great interest the evidence given and the statements made at the 50-odd meetings of the committee during which we heard the pros and cons of the project.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say as much for the internal organization of the house, for here I have the English version of the external affairs committee's report, number 29, dated May 27, while as far as the French version is concerned, I only have report number 3, dated April 9. This seems to indicate a fairly wide gap between the publication dates of the English and the French versions of the committee's reports.
Sometimes it is necessary to review the evidence which was given and I could not take advantage of that opportunity in view of the fact that the French reports always arrive long after the English reports.
I raised this matter myself a few days ago in this house, on May 13. Besides, it had been done on previous occasions, many many times, but unfortunately we do not see any sign of improvement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I did not intervene while the hon. member was making his comments, but I am afraid that he cannot keep on dealing with the question he just raised. He should, as much as possible, confine his remarks to the subject now under discussion.


Gérard Laprise: In any case, I had completed what I wanted to say on that matter, but I simply wanted to point out the time elapsed between the two versions.


Maurice Côté: The injustice.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, during the study in committee, I was able to see the wonderful work which had been done for several years by the engineers and technicians who have been in a position to see the pros and cons of that extraordinary project which will no doubt go down in our country's history- control hydraulic power and put it at the disposal of mankind and the people of this continent.
Columbia River Treaty
About that power which we try to harness more and more for our own use, I read the following:
Power was defined thus: "Substitution of mechanical energy for human energy, of mechanical action for human labour".
Electric energy is really such a power.
In his "Geography and World Power", Fairgrieve states: "The power with which Greece achieved such great things in every sphere of human progress was mainly provided by slaves. Each Greek, each Greek family, had five helots about whom we do not think when talking about Greeks: however, they were the ones who accounted for the main power of the Greeks".
We are fortunate enough to have great water power in Canada; the Columbia river is one of the greatest in the country. I feel, we should commend the government of British Columbia, which wants to turn this resource to account, and do everything in our power to help and to hasten the fruition of this plan. Indeed, during this debate, I have heard nothing which could hurt the prerogatives of any region of this country. Now, in my opinion, we have nothing to lose by using a natural resource of which we can take great advantage.
The opposition of some people prevented hasty action and prompted us to be careful. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that those critics were necessary, even if they did extend the debate. But it seems to me that the Canadian people and, to a certain extent, the American people should be able to take advantage as soon as possible of those resources which are being wasted.
The Columbia river has always flowed and will always flow through part of the United States; whether we like it or not, we can do nothing about it. Now, in view of the fact that we have no doubt the advantage of carrying out the necessary work in co-operation with the United States, I think that the Canadian government and parliament should ratify this agreement as soon as possible, so that the work may start quickly, be successful and help the Canadian people through the creation of a labour market, so that our workers may also be able to take advantage of it. I feel that not only the citizens of British Columbia, but many workers outside of that province will take advantage of it.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our group I say that we agree with this project.
Besides, the evidence which was given indicates that the government of British Co-

Columbia River Treaty lumbia also agreed. II that project included some objectionable features-but I do not believe such is the case-then some day it would be that province which would suffer. But since it is in favour of that treaty and since the headwaters of the Columbia river are located in that province, although it flows into the United States, we ought to support British Columbia and ratify as soon as possible that treaty, in order that work could start and the long awaited results might materialize.


Mr.   Reg. Canielon@Kindersley: Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers said they intended to be brief and I intend to be brief too. There is just one main point I hope to make. This treaty has been a subject of very violent debate in the past and, as we have seen this evening, the violence of the debate is not entirely ended. Nevertheless I now believe that it is the best treaty which could be negotiated under the circumstances. Of course the applicable circumstances were created by the government of British Columbia which owns the resource.
As has been pointed out on other occasions by other speakers, the Liberal party, while in opposition and while the treaty was being negotiated by the Conservatives, opposed the treaty with very strong attacks on the negotiators as being incompetent, and on the treaty as a selling out of the interests of Canadians. However, once the Liberals came to power they did a right about face and now maintain that it is the best treaty possible. It seems to me in the face of this, and with the two main parties of the country now supporting the treaty, that one can be sure that it is indeed the best treaty possible, and so I intend to support it.
Nevertheless there is one question that as a Saskatchewan member I believe needs clarification. Are the water diversion rights of the three prairie provinces protected by the treaty? The chief negotiators of the treaty, Hon. Davie Fulton for the Conservatives who negotiated the original treaty, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for the Liberals, who negotiated the protocol, maintain that the water diversion rights are adequately established. General McNaughton is their chief opponent and the main critic of the treaty. Yet he took a leading part in negotiating the treaty as it is today. He says that he opposed the final draft and refused to join in recommending it to the cabinet.
[Mr. Laprise.l
Mr. Fulton says that the general was at the final meeting and never had a word to say against the treaty. I should like to quote in substantiation of this opinion the Ottawa Citizen of May 12, 1964, where John Walker of Southam news services reports as follows:
But Mr. Fulton was most emphatic on this point, however, saying that he had asked all those on the negotiating team whether the treaty as drafted
__including the high Arrow dam to which General
McNaughton has taken strong exception and excluding the McNaughton dams on the upper reaches of the Columbia river-should be recommended.
"All agreed. General McNaughton said that while he was opposed strongly to certain of the physical aspects of the treaty, he did not oppose the recommendation to cabinet. He then said something to the effect that he must maintain his freedom of expression for the future".
Mr. Fulton then made a strong attack on the major criticisms which have been raised against the treaty. He reviewed the communications between Ottawa and the B.C. government before signing of the treaty to show that the B.C. government had given "the clearest and most unequivocal assurance" of its intent to proceed with the treaty as drafted, only to indulge in "a surprising contortion" a month later.
The former member from Kamloops, rubbing in the former McNaughton stand, stated in his 30 page brief that "at every stage the views of General McNaughton and the Canadian section, international joint commission, were obtained: and at no stage did they or General McNaughton withdraw or refrain from the discussions."
And further:
Mr. Fulton insisted, despite General McNaughton and others, that "the present treaty is far from a second best choice. It is, on the basis on which it was negotiated, a completely fair alternative."
He argued that without the treaty plan the development of the Columbia river would not have been possible at all. Once this was possible it would provide the "springboard" for further developments on the Canadian side.
He lashed out at those, like General McNaughton, who had told the committee that "despite the black and white provisions" in the treaty (for diversions, for instance), Canada would not exercise them. The right to divert the Columbia to the prairies-
To me this is the important point I want to make.
-or to divert the Kootenay, or to divert the Columbia into the Fraser, were all possible either immediately or in the long run.
From this it is quite plain that Mr. Fulton is confident that, first this is the best treaty that could be negotiated and, second, that water diversion rights for the prairies are protected. The Secretary of State for External Affairs corroborates Mr. Fulton's opinion. In his report to the external affairs committee he had this to say near the beginning of his

evidence, as found on page 29, volume 2 of the reports of the standing committee on external affairs:
In my judgment the treaty and protocol represent the best possible arrangement from Canada's point of view. I believe that this agreement, this arrangement, will serve well the national interest. At the same time I think it is important to emphasize that it reflects the wishes of the province of British Columbia where the river is located. It is also far better for Canada than anything we could do on our own without United States co-operation. In fact, one engineering report after another has indicated that without co-operation with the United States the economics of developing the Canadian stretch of the Columbia would be doubtful indeed. Whatever else may be said in these hearings, I hope that these basic facts will be kept in mind.
Further, on page 40 he comments as follows on article XIII of the treaty, the provision which permits diversion, and again this is the particular point I want to make:
Now, there is not any doubt in my mind that under article XIII of the treaty there is a clear right of diversion for consumptive uses, and what has to be read with this is the fact that the province is the owner of the resource.
I would suggest that, in saying that, he thinks that whatever is to be done has to be done with the consent of the province. Later, in commenting on the protocol to the treaty, which he was mainly instrumental in negotiating, he re-emphasizes this view by saying, as found on page 65 of the same report:
Doubt was also expressed whether article XIII (1) of the treaty in a positive enough way gave Canada the right to make diversions of Columbia waters for consumptive uses such as irrigation, domestic and municipal needs. Argument will be prevented on this point by this item's re-affirmation of Canada's right to make such diversions. In connection with the definition of "consumptive use" in the treaty it should be pointed out that the fact that water being diverted for a consumptive use such as irrigation also produces hydroelectric power en route either as an integral or incidental part of the total operation-
Again I should like to emphasize these final words.
-does not result in that diversion ceasing to be a diversion for a consumptive use.
I should like to re-emphasize that last idea. The water may be used for the development of electric power on its way, if its prime use is for irrigation or other consumptive use. Since the prairies will want the water for consumptive uses primarily and not mainly for power, there should be no trouble at all with diversions.
Columbia River Treaty
None of us in this house can fail to respect the intelligence and capacity of Mr. Davie Fulton and the Secretary of State for Ex-terial Affairs and their interest in the future of Canada, and in this instance I am compelled to agree with their opinions. Saskatchewan's opportunity to use the water they want in the future is in my view established in the treaty. This being so, I intend to support it.


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


Colin Cameron: Since the government members who are so enthusiastic about this treaty are so coy about taking part in the debate, I will proceed now. I have no illusions about the outcome of this treaty. I am well aware that it is going to be ratified. I am quite well aware that the opinions and attitudes displayed in the external affairs committee will be reflected in the House of Commons. One may perhaps ask, why take part in what is essentially an exercise in futility, in butting one's head against a stone wall? I feel it is the responsibility of those who have been members of the external affairs committee during these hearings to place on the record some of the story as to the manner in which this treaty was brought before parliament and before the external affairs committee, and some account of those who gave evidence to that committee. I think also it is as well to put on the record some account of the manner in which the government of Canada has protected the rights of the Canadian people for whom they are responsible.
I should like to deal first of all with the nature of the government's presentation to the external affairs committee. Without in any way implying even the slightest suggestion of incompetence on the part of these witnesses called by the government, I think it is only right to point out that all three engineering firms, who were described in the proceedings of our committee as independent witnesses, are involved in the construction program of the British Columbia hydro and power authority on the Columbia project. Each one of them is a parti pris to the treaty plan and to call them independent witnesses is, I think, stretching matters rather badly.
Then, we had another technical expert brought before the committee by the government. He was a young man, I am sure of great intelligence, who in the course of time will undoubtedly become an eminent figure

Columbia River Treaty in his profession. However, when we discovered that this young man had graduated from university only ten years ago and since that time had been exclusively employed by the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and had no experience at all as either a consultant or an assistant in the planning of a major complex scheme of hydroelectric power such as is involved in this treaty, then we were forced to ask ourselves some questions as to why he was brought before the committee as the government's sole technical witness. We were faced with two alternative interpretations, Mr. Speaker. Either the government was treating the committee with contempt and not producing the most important of their technical advisers before that committee or this young man, brilliant no doubt but with very scant experience, was in actual fact the chief technical adviser to the government of Canada and to the negotiating committee. I lay no claim at all, Mr. Speaker, to any knowledge or expertise in the field of engineering. However, as the son of a man who was of considerable eminence both in Europe and North America in that field, I have some idea of the length of experience that is required before an engineer can be considered as a competent adviser to a government in connection with a scheme of this magnitude and complexity.
When in the course of examination it came out that this young man, brilliant no doubt as I say, was in actual fact the chief technical adviser to the government of Canada and to the negotiating committee, one could only have very grave misgivings as to the adequacy of Canada's representation in these negotiations. When we find that this is the only engineer brought before the committee, then one can only be dismayed at the attitude of the Canadian government, at the care that the Canadian government has exercised in performing its functions in protecting the rights of the people of Canada.
Now there were, sir, some independent witnesses of technical competence who came before the committee about whom there can be no possible doubt of either their special interest or the pressure from their employers. I have in mind two of them in particular, one of them an economist and the other an engineer. They came before the committee at their own expense and in defiance of the disapproval of their employers. I have no hesitation in placing their names on the record because I think their conduct was ad-

mirable, an admirable display of courage and public spirit that should earn the admiration of everyone who sat in those hearings. I refer to Mr. Larratt Higgins, an economist of the Ontario hydro authority, who came to Ottawa at his own expense, prepared a brief at his own expense for the use of the committee, and came here in defiance of the disapproval of his employers, who finally made it a condition that he only come here as long as he made it clear he was not representing the Ontario hydro authority who had, understandably, misgivings about being involved with affairs concerning another provincial hydro authority. The other is Mr. Richard Deane, the chief hydroelectrical engineer for the West Kootenay Light and Power, a subsidiary of the giant Cominco concern, supported as my colleagues have said by 23 other engineers in that district, who came here at his own expense and again in defiance of the disapproval of his employers. I think, sir, the status of these men in the eyes of their employers is signified by the fact that they were able to insist on their right to do their duty as they saw it as citizens, no matter how much their employers may disapprove.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Colin Cameron: I hear that the government members are very anxious to have this carried before they hear something said about it.
There was a third witness with whom I shall deal because I feel very disturbed about the treatment that witness received from the various committee members. This was an elderly gentleman from Vancouver, a man who for many, many years has enjoyed a reputation in the engineering field second to none. I happen to have met Mr. Bartholomew many years ago in my father's office in Vancouver when I was a very young man newly returned from the war.
I can recall the high opinion my father had of this engineer who, at this time, was also a comparatively young man. I am sure Mr. Bartholomew would not object if I suggest that due to his age he was unable to withstand-and I am going to use the word "harry," because it was-the harrying tactics of some government members in their crossexamination; but no one should run away with the idea that Mr. Bartholomew, 79 years of age though he be, is not an extremely intelligent, well trained and experienced engineer with experience not just in

B.C., not just in the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, but with experience all over the world as a consulting engineer on major hydroelectric installations.
I can tell you I was greatly disturbed, in fact ashamed, at the manner in which this courageous old gentleman was treated by certain members of the committee. No attention was paid to his evidence.
No attention at all was paid to the evidence of Mr. Larratt Higgins, who presented a brief which most members of the committee, certainly implied in private conversation with me, was in all respects the most comprehensive and effective brief presented to that committee. My regret is that I was unable to persuade the committee to include that brief as a historic record in the proceedings of the committee for future reference.
Not only, sir, were all the engineering witnesses produced by the government involved in the construction program of the British Columbia hydro and power authority under the terms of this treaty plan, but they were also given extremely restrictive terms of reference when they were engaged by the government. They were constrained to examine solely the aspects of hydroelectric power. One of them indeed was confined merely to a comparison of the financial returns of alternative schemes. Not one of them was commissioned by this government to examine and investigate what is probably the most serious aspect of this whole project and treaty, that is, the aspect of water per se.
I am astonished, Mr. Speaker, that neither the government nor most of their witnesses, nor the members of the committee seemed to be aware of the relative importance today, and the greater importance tomorrow, of water per se as a resource, in distinction to water as a means of producing electric power. It is estimated by the United States department of commerce that the consumption of water in the United States increases by from 35 per cent to 40 per cent every decade.
I was astonished when I read the brief of the government's chief engineering witness, a witness who, we were assured again and again, had competent authority beyond question, the Montreal engineering company, to see his astonishing estimate of the modern consumptive requirements of an industrial society, set at 150 gallons per capita per day. This is a Victorian estimate of the water requirements of a modern industrial society. We had evidence presented to us by another
Columbia River Treaty witness, a man whose job it is to deal with matters of water consumption, in which he gave us some figures of the real consumption requirements today, and he pointed out that in the adjacent United States the average per capita consumption runs as high as 3,500 gallons per capita per day.
This report from the Montreal engineering firm was brought forward and presented to the committee as evidence that could be accepted with a figure of 150 gallons a day. Now, 150 gallons per day might perhaps, and it is a "perhaps", satisfy the requirements of the individual domestic consumer. It cannot come within miles of satisfying the requirements of a modern business community, certainly not a modem community engaged in industrialization. To present such evidence before that committee, with all the prestige that was accorded to this particular concern, I think was grossly misleading to the committee.
I was also interested to see the cavalier manner in which this major witness of the government, the government's most important witness, dismissed the idea of there being in the arid prairie provinces of this country any real desperate shortage of water or likelihood of it in the future, particularly, sir, when we can find no evidence-and I sought for it and asked for it-that this concern had ever made even the most cursory examination of water requirements in the prairie provinces. This again I suggest was in effect causing great misapprehension in the minds of the members of the committee.
I would like to refer to some of the requirements of the prairie provinces as presented to us in the brief brought here by Dr. Cass-Beggs, the head of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, in which he points out that the needs and requirements of water on the prairie provinces are becoming acute and shortly will be desperate.
He deals with the alternatives that were suggested lightly by the Montreal engineering firm, and even more lightly referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who has stated of course that even in the unlikely event of the prairie provinces needing to have further water, there are other places from which they could get it more cheaply.
I would like to quote from the brief of the government of Saskatchewan of that day, a brief which I presume was endorsed by the incoming Liberal government of that province, otherwise Dr. Cass-Beggs would not have

Columbia River Treaty appeared before us. It had this to say about the behaviour of the government of Canada in this regard. It spoke of the various possibilities:
As noted above, neither the feasibility nor the costs nor the benefits of any of these alternatives
-these alternatives to the Columbia river diversionhave been evaluated in detail. The diversion routes have been identified on paper only, with little or no on-site investigations of terrain or soil conditions. ...It is interesting that this does not prevent the government of Canada from quoting unit-cost figures from the same Crippen-Wright report in order to "prove" that alternative sources are considerably less expensive. These figures, of course, are meaningful only when considered in the light of the location of our future needs for water, the volumes involved, the diversion routes and the
possible benefits_It should be equally obvious that
one cannot compare the unit-cost of a diversion of 26,000 c.f.s. into the North Saskatchewan with the unit-cost of a diversion of 6,000 c.f.s. into the South Saskatchewan basin or even into a higher point in the North Saskatchewan basin, whence it could more easily be diverted to the south.
Only the most general conclusions can be drawn safely from the investigations made to date that these conclusions clearly support the view that a Columbia prairie diversion may well be an exceedingly important component of a future water plan for the prairie provinces, considering the location of future water requirements, the volumes involved and the potential benefits to the prairie region and the whole of western Canada.
In his evidence before the committee, Dr. Cass-Beggs had a few things to say with regard to the estimated cost of the various alternatives which were so kindly suggested to him and to the prairie provinces by the knowledgeable Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) by other government witnesses before the committee, and by members of the committee. He pointed out that it might be advisable to take note of the relative distances involved. Whereas the Columbia waters would be some 300 miles from where they were to be used in the prairie provinces, the Peace river was some 950 miles away; that no estimate had been made at all of transmission costs and that, moreover, it would require the immediate investment of many times the sum required to build installations permitting the diversion of the Columbia river to the Saskatchewan basin; that the payment of interest on this vast investment to be undertaken many decades before it would be needed would in itself constitute a burden far in excess of any of the costs involved in the Columbia diversion scheme. These matters, however,

were not the subject of careful consideration by government witnesses. They had not been asked to consider them. They had only been asked to consider power and, in one instance, specifically the matter of finance; evidence narrowed almost to the point of disappearing.
We were told repeatedly that there was no danger whatever of losing control of our water to the United States. Doubts were cast on some admittedly second or third hand evidence that plans were being dusted off for the diversion of Columbia river water to the southwestern states of the United States. But only a while ago there were press reports of even more ambitious plans being produced by the Parsons Engineering Company for diverting the Athabaska, the Peace and the Mackenzie along with the Columbia and the Fraser to satisfy the thirst of the southwestern states. Members may say that these plans are grandiose and not likely to be fulfilled, but it would be a bold man who would today place any limit on man's ingenuity. And I do say this: At least they illustrate the fact that there are thirsty eyes in the United States fixed on Canada's water resources while at the same time we have thirsty eyes at home which have been looking to the government of Canada to protect their future water requirements.
I am fully in agreement with the idea that we must co-operate with the United States; no one in his right senses would have any other attitude toward this development. I have been surprised at the manner in which government witnesses and government members on the committee have erected a straw man composed of the suggestion that if we did not go along with this treaty the Americans will pick up their marbles, go home and refuse to play. Nothing could be more ridiculous or more absurd. We are told, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the Americans have alternative storage basins for flood control. But the slightest examination of the evidence shows that all the storage basins they have are subject to the most severe pressure from local interests for other use and even if they were available they would not be of sufficient size to satisfy flood control requirements. The very suggestion that the Americans are only casually interested in the treaty and have merely signed it in order to accommodate their good Canadian friends is too difficult for me to swallow, particularly after conversations I

had in Washington with Senator Mansfield of Montana.
I went down to see Senator Mansfield to find out one or two things from him. I wanted to know, for instance, whether it was correct that at some point in the proceedings the Americans were prepared to drop the Libby project from the treaty. Senator Mansfield made no bones about it. He said: I told them on more than one occasion that I was quite prepared to drop my demands for the Libby dam if that was the price we had to pay for the treaty. This, in spite of the fact that the Libby dam was, as he said, extremely important to him politically as the senator from Montana, the state in which the dam would be situated. It indicated something else to me. It indicated that the Americans are much more in need of this treaty than Canada is, and to have gone into the bargaining room under the impression that the Americans had to be coaxed to come here was a piece of infantile nonsense and a complete misreading of the situation facing the United States today both with regard to their water requirements and with regard to their requirements in the field of flood control. I am convinced that had we been represented by more resolute and, perhaps, better equipped negotiators it might have been possible to have returned with a treaty which would protect the rights of Canada much more effectively than this document does. May I call it ten o'clock?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if I could suggest to the hon. gentleman who is making a very interesting speech, although he would not expect me to say that I agreed with it, that he continue his remarks until they are completed? Perhaps we could allow the hon. member to go on until half past ten?


An hon. Member:: No, they are on a filibuster.


Colin Cameron: No, I am not going on tonight, thank you.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask if we are continuing with the Columbia river debate tomorrow, and what is the prospect for Monday and Tuesday?


Mr. MacNaught:: Tomorrow we will go on with the Columbia treaty question, and if it is finished we will take up the second reading of the measure to amend the National Housing
3965
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Act. If that should be finished tomorrow we would then take up the second reading of the measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. But if it is not finished until Monday, the second reading of the act to amend the National Housing Act will be followed by consideration of the measure to amend the Farm Credit Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion.)
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on May 21 last I directed the following question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) who is responsible for the C.B.C.:
Does the minister intend to recommend that the government take legal action against the C.B.C. following the program "20 ans Express" presented on Saturday, May 9, which was an insult to religion and which questioned the value of religious teaching in Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, following that broadcast, I received several letters of protest-


An hon. Member:: How many?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -including that of Mr. Rene M. Coderre of Joliette, who wrote an article in the May 13, 1964 issue of L'Action Populaire, from which I wish to quote a few extracts:
A recent program on CBFT (20 Ans Express, on Saturday, May 9) left us aghast.
Leading questions to the people interviewed gave the audience the impression that religion is on the way out in Quebec: the young would be about to lose their faith because their convictions are based on prohibitions and occasions of sin. Reportedly, religious teaching after grade school would be worthless. It would consist of a more subtle indoctrination carried out by teachers who place themselves at the level of their students and who hypocritically pretend to be on the side of our youth to instil them with the principles of a lost cause.
Mr. Coderre continues as follows:
Have we, Roman Catholic French Canadians, no pride; no company or political party would tolerate such a program without taking legal action against the responsible parties. And this is our public broadcasting, subsidized with our money, which
39GG	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion gives us such outrageous and perfidious disservices.
I can hardly believe it.
And the author adds:
Could a teenager not try on his own to find the religious enlightenment which he lacks?-instead of accusing his teachers. And could not the C.B.C. show a little better judgment in the choice of some masters of thought which it suggests to our young people?
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that something be done to stop the C.B.C. from showing certain programs and certain films. Many protests are now heard in this respect, and I wonder whether it would not be proper for the government of the province of Quebec to assume its responsibilities, as the censorship is under its jurisdiction, or else, whether it would not be possible for the minister in charge of the C.B.C. to suggest to its management without impinging on the corporation's business the setting up of an organization of parents, educators, and even religious authorities, who would supervise the programs and films shown on television.
In order to allay the doubts which now exist in the minds of Canadians with regard to the C.B.C.'s activities, I think that now is the time for the government to set up a royal commission in order to satisfy the public. There has been abundant criticism, and rightly so.
I do not wish to launch a direct attack against the C.B.C. personnel, because there is some good in that corporation. It employs most distinguished columnists to inform the Canadian people. But I think that there is some abuse in the showing of films and programs by the corporation, and a royal commission might clear up the situation, correct abuses and, by that very fact, result in appreciable savings, by eliminating some expenses which, in some cases might be unwarranted.
When the money of the Canadian people is used to present films which should not normally be shown at hours when young people are watching television, I feel that the Canadian people are complaining, with reason, because they do not wish that their taxes be used to exercise a baneful influence on young people.
I hope that the minister who is responsible in the house for this corporation will assume his responsibilities. By all rights, I think that it would be advisable to institute a royal commission in order to examine the activities of that crown corporation which is now subjected to so many criticisms on account of certain films and programs.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that his views will be transmitted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the series of programs to which the hon. member makes reference is designed to be an informative series for young people. Each program deals with current topics of interest to the young people of French Canada. In the program in question many of the students interviewed were members of Roman Catholic youth organizations, which, along with some student newspapers, had conducted surveys into the practice of religion by young people and the teaching of religion in schools in the province of Quebec. The interviews gave these young people an opportunity to set forth their reactions to the results of these surveys and the opinions expressed by those who were interviewed.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, many of the residents in British Columbia, particularly in valleys through which run large rivers, are facing one of the most serious situations in the past 16 years, namely the potential flooding of those areas because of the cold weather and late run-off of snow in the mountains. This question was initially raised a few days ago by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), who has a great interest in this matter, as does the leader of our party, of course, coming from the constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam; and so far as the Fraser valley is concerned, I know the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), whose birthplace was right along the banks of the Fraser, being a native British Columbian is also very seriously concerned about the potential flood danger. In fact, I do not think there is a member in the house who may have knowledge of it who is not vitally concerned about it.
We have had floods before in British Columbia from the same causes, the last one being in 1948 and the one before that, in the memory of my contemporaries anyway, in 1936. It seems that on each occasion this flood damage occurs governments look at it from the point of view of hindsight rather than foresight. This has been the case with

previous floods and it looks very much as if it is the case now. Following the damage that was wrought to the river valleys of British Columbia in the 1948 flood there was established a diking board for the Fraser river area, financed 75 per cent, I believe, by the federal government and 25 per cent by the provincial government. It engaged in an extensive diking program. Since that time the dikes in that area have been allowed to deteriorate, regardless of the fact that the Fraser river board, which also was appointed following the 1948 flood, in 1958 in its preliminary report, I believe it was, or one of the interim reports pointed up this seriousness and recommended that the amount of some $17 million be spent to bring the dikes in the valley up to the 1948 flood peak level; but nothing has occurred.
Unfortunately we in the northern part of the province, particularly along the Skeena valley, did not have the benefit of any such board to study and survey the situation, but it does not appear to matter much because we there, too, are faced with equally as disastrous a situation as they are in the lower Fraser valley regions, perhaps the only difference being one of population. In a situation such as this, communities large or small should be protected to the full. There are millions upon millions of dollars of land value, of investment by people, of homes, and their savings and lives involved. Very easily all these could be wiped out of existence. Yet we get the sort of answer, in regard to dealing with this situation, that we got earlier today from the minister. I am not blaming him for having given that answer; under the circumstances it was obviously the only one which he could give. I asked whether any federal agency was going to be able to assist or step into the picture, and in reply the minister said he was quite certain that the government of Canada would act, in the normal course of events, upon application of the government of the province of British Columbia.
To my mind it is high time that we quit looking upon the British North America Act and its jurisdictional barriers as an instrument to prevent action on the part of the government to save the lives and property of people of this nation. We are in the midst of a great controversy about amending the British North America Act. Surely this is one of those things that we should be able to get immediate agreement upon in order to allow such organizations as the emergency measures organization, which is relatively 20220-2521
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion useless for any other purpose, to be able to assist people and work with them to preserve their property and prevent damage taking place.
Surely to heaven, on the heels of the disaster that befell the Albernis and other parts of the west coast of Vancouver island, we should have learned that it is necessary to move quickly. I urge the government: Please do not wait for Premier Bennett to send a letter asking for help. Offer it immediately. Show some courage and determination at the federal level to indicate that the government of Canada is also interested in the preservation of lives and property. Let us start from that point and forget about the barriers that the B.N.A. Act may present. Let us take the initiative and make it clear that we are willing, able and desirous of offering all possible help because, after all, the people who live in the Fraser valley and in the Nass and Skeena valleys are equally important as those who live in other parts of the nation and we should not allow the whims of the premier of a province with regard to whether he should wire, write or phone for assistance to be the guidepost with respect to whether or not we should help.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Skeena has made a very worth-while contribution tonight in his review of the situation in our province of British Columbia. We are a province with a very great proportion of the area set on end, and when we have snowfalls out of the ordinary, as we have had during the past winter, we are always troubled when the spring thaw sets in. With temperatures exceedingly low up to the present time and freezing remaining at a very low level of about 2,000 feet on the hills, a sudden change in temperature at this time causes the people of these valleys to worry.
We are fortunate that in spite of a somewhat higher snowfall during the winter the water content of the snow does not seem to be higher than normal and is probably even lower than normal. The hon. member made special reference to the Fraser valley and the great flood of 1948. There was a much greater flood in 1894 but there were very few people in the Fraser valley at that time. But in 1948 the losses incurred amounted to $18 million to $20 million, and it is quite obvious that if a disaster of the same magnitude occurred today the losses, due to the tre-
3968	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mendous increase in the value of the improvements on the flood plain, would probably be $80 million to $100 million. We are aware of these things.
The hon. member makes the charge that hindsight instead of foresight has been used. I cannot agree with him entirely in that respect. He will recall the fact that we tabled the final report of the Fraser river board not very long ago. I wrote immediately to the responsible minister in British Columbia, Mr. Williston, suggesting that we should do one thing or the other, that we should use the report which had cost us a lot of money or we should discard it. I wanted to speak to him at once and he came to Ottawa immediately thereafter.
He is already investigating the engineering in respect of an expenditure of about $5 million to strengthen the dikes, which is the first requirement in the Fraser valley. After that we propose to use the Canada Water Conservation Act to build some dams in the tributaries of the Fraser which, if properly built, should take care of that area for all time. He makes the further suggestion that there should be a permanent organization and I think it has much to commend it. However, that is a suggestion which I think might well be a matter for discussion between the federal government and the provinces the next time we meet.
I think the first suggestion made in that regard was made by Reeve Emmett of Burnaby who, when his municipality was asked for a contribution toward Alberni, suggested that this was improvident and we should have a permanent organization-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I regret that I have to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-PROVISION FOR UNEMPLOYED NOT RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen). I was asking him what action he intends to take concerning unemployed persons receiving no unemployment benefits or assistance.
If I asked such a question, Mr. Speaker, it is because I get letters every week from many heads of family and hundreds of young men

who are out of work and who receive no unemployment benefits or assistance from the province.
I ask the minister what he intends to do for those people without any income, because their families live in the most dreadful poverty.
There is the case of a young man of 22 who was told "Go to such school and you will get a cheque at the end of the month". Imagine his disappointment when at the end of the month he got a cheque for $10 only, since he had had to dress better and incur transportation and other expenses.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployed are convinced that the government does not care about their condition and that we forget about them. The government must do something for those hundreds of unemployed without income. Wherever they apply, they are told: "No work; full staff".
My riding is mostly made up of workers. Those people are willing to work, but we must find them jobs. That is all they are waiting for to get rid of poverty in their homes.
I agree with what Mr. Firestone said, as reported in today's Le Droit:
In a lecture he gave Wednesday at a seminar on the organization of labour held in Manitoba, Mr. O. Firestone, vice-dean of the faculty of social sciences at the University of Ottawa, stated that one Canadian out of five was living in poverty.
A former economic adviser in the Department of Trade and Commerce and a member of the royal commission on health services, Mr. Firestone pointed out that 21 per cent of Canadians are quite poor, but that much greater attention was being paid to the 300,000 unemployed than to the 3.8 million people who are living in a constant state of poverty.
Mr. Firestone added that poverty is one of the four major economic problems which Canada must face...
To overcome poverty would not only serve the poor but "would also contribute to strengthen our economy, increase economic growth and raise the level of employment and everyone's income".
The lecturer recommended also to increase the means which would allow youth to receive a better education and take advantage of technical training. Mr. Firestone believes that social assistance programs ought to be developed.
Moreover, Mr. Firestone advocated an increased assistance to farmers and industry so as to improve the income of employers concerned in those enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, the crucial problem in this country is not the Canadian flag or the national anthem, but rather unemployment. The house should without any delay grapple with this evil.

Let us help the financing of new industries and guarantee employment to Canadians. That is what they want first. Then we can take the necessary time to talk about the government's flags.
When Mr. Firestone said that the government paid more attention to the 300,000 unemployed than to the 3,800,000 people living in constant poverty he was right, since most of the applications for jobs which were sent to me came from that group of 3,800,000 people, and the government does nothing for them, because they are not unemployed registered under the act.
I am not so sure that the government is taking care of the 300,000 registered unemployed, because I read recently in an article on this subject that it seems as though this number is quite normal, considering the population of the country.
I think it is high time that the minister should take action in this regard. I would be happy indeed if he would tell the house, tonight, what he intends to do to help the unemployed who receive no assistance, in order to put an end to this shameful unemployment in our country which is supposed to be so wealthy.
The first freedom of every citizen, in my view, should be the right to work, and the state should promote this freedom of our citizens in making available to them the opportunity of earning a certain income.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the objectives of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) are certainly of the highest order. I can assure him they are the objectives of the government, and that the government has not lost interest in or concern for those who are unemployed and liv-
4, 1964	3S69
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ing in the circumstances described by the hon. member.
One of the best ways we could assure that our program to help these people can be placed in effect is to get a little more cooperation in the house in order to implement the program. Last June the minister announced a ten point program of manpower development, and the hon. member cannot ignore the fact that the federal government pays 50 per cent of the assistance, that is, in addition to the unemployment insurance, when the unemployment insurance runs out, to an employee or head of a household entitled to unemployment assistance.
The hon. member's question of June 2 indicated that this person was deprived of certain assistance. I think perhaps that is an error. Social assistance is not terminal unless of course it has been determined by a welfare officer that a person is simply not entitled to social assistance by virtue of the fact that he may not be spending it in the manner for which it was intended. If a person loses the right to social assistance, this is a matter for the welfare officers of the municipalities and the provinces.
We have the Unemployment Assistance Act and in addition we provide pensions to those who are handicapped by one reason or another, and who are unable to earn a living. Then again we have the training and retraining program. We have endeavoured to bring in legislation that would provide an extension of family allowances to young people who wish to continue their studies. We will return individuals to school, even those who have families, and I am sure the hon. member cannot say that the government is not doing as much as it can to alleviate the circumstances of these people.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Friday, June 5, 1964