1964-03-03

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1965, was presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations relating to the main estimates for 1964-65 now being tabled.
Budgetary expenditures provided for in the estimates for the new fiscal year commencing April 1, 1964, including amounts already authorized by continuing statutes as well as moneys parliament is being requested to appropriate, amount to $6,703,513,508. Parliament is also being asked to authorize the disbursement of moneys for loans, investments and advances (which add to the government's active assets), in a total amount of $108,897,000.
Not included in these totals, but set out in the estimates for information, is the forecast amount for old age security pension payments amounting to $882 million. These pension payments are separated from the budget figures and are payable out of the old age security fund to which is credited the taxes levied for this particular purpose.
To compare the main estimates for 196465 totalling $6,703.5 million with expenditures authorized by parliament to date for 196364, $6,619.1 million, would be misleading. The latter figure does not include the final supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year, and the former figure takes no account of the supplementary estimates for the new fiscal year. It is for this reason that a reasonably accurate comparison of total expenditures for the year commencing April 1, 1964 with those for the current and previous fiscal years must await the budget presentation.
It is also misleading to compare the main estimates for the coming fiscal year with the main estimates for the current year, unless one takes note of certain differences in presentation. I will point out these differences. For example, the public debt
charges, which are statutory are shown in 1964-65 at some $157 million more than the amount included in the main estimates for
1963-	64. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the increase anticipated in 1964-65 over the expected actual expenditure in 1963-64 is about $52 million. This indicates a serious underestimate in the amount presented to parliament in the 1963-64 estimates. The amount included in the new estimates is forecast on a more comprehensive basis in which the costs of new refunding and other issues are based on interest rates prevailing just before the estimates were printed.
There is also the manner of presentation of the defence estimates. The main estimates for 1963-64 do not include an additional amount of $44 million required in that year to meet increases in pay and allowances for the armed forces. This distorts the year to year comparison. Both operating and capital grants to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are included in the main estimates for 1963-64, but only the operating grants- which incidentally are increased by $7.4 million-are included in the main estimates for
1964-	65. The capital requirements for 1964-65 amounting to $14.3 million are included in the loans section for that year.
Some of the increases in statutory expenditures in 1964-65 should be noted. Hospital insurance costs continue to rise at a rate of close to 10 per cent a year. An additional amount of $35 million is being provided in 1964-65 for this purpose. Estimated contributions by the government under the Trans-Canada Highway Act are increased by 10 million. The statutory contribution by the government of Canada to the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition requires the provision of $17.9 million. This is a new item in 1964-65 to meet the expected federal share of the fair corporation budget costs in that year.
In dealing with the statutory area of expenditures I would like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that although the government has announced its intention of increasing the equalization payments to provinces, the amount shown in the main estimates for 1964-65 does not include such increase since it has not yet been enacted by parliament. This is in keeping with the practice of not anticipating in the estimates proposed legislative changes.

Estimates Tabled
Mr. Speaker, when I tabled the main and first supplementary estimates for 1963-64 last May 29, I stated that treasury board was examining, with the assistance and co-operation of the ministers concerned, the programs of each department of government. This special examination has been completed and formed a prelude to the customary treasury board review of departmental proposals for the coming fiscal year. Substantial cutbacks in many expenditure programs were achieved as a result of this examination. At the same time provision is being made in the estimates for 1964-65 for the cost of new programs and new functions, including the new Department of Industry, as well as for substantial increases in the amounts provided for external aid and for grants for the scholarship and research programs of the national research council and medical research council. It should be noted also that as a consequence of the review of defence outlays now being conducted by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, an amount of $15 million has been included in the estimates for the Department of Public Works resulting from the transfer of responsibility to that department for the northwest highway system and for the maintenance of facilities at Fort Churchill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the house to an important change in the form of the estimates for 196465. This change relates to the number of items to be voted. In former years the estimates contained some 500 or more separate votes. The main estimates for 1964-65 contain
only 230 such items. This reduction has been accomplished by consolidating a large number of the items formerly in the votes section of the estimates, while at the same time preserving the same amount of information as in the past in the details section. This change is in keeping with the recommendations of the royal commission on government organization, and puts into effect the proposal which was made by the government to the standing committee on public accounts last December. This committee has reported favourably to the house on the proposal, and I am hopeful that the change will do much not only to facilitate discussion of the estimates in the house, but also to improve the quality of financial management in the public service.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I now propose to table for inclusion in Hansard three tables relating to the 196465 estimates. The first table compares the 1964-65 estimates with the total budgetary estimates for several preceding years. The second table compares the statutory expenditures for 1964-65 with those of 1963-64. The third table indicates the changes in the main estimates between 1963-64 and 1964-65 by an examination of operating, capital and other costs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the tables presented by the Minister of Finance being printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]
[Mr. Gordon I

Estimates Tabled



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
TOTAL BUDGETARY ESTIMATES (in millions of dollars)
Final
	Main estimates	Supple- mentary estimates	supple- mentary estimates	Total
1964-65			 6,703.5			
1963-64	
6,307.2	311.9	-	6,619.11962-63	
6,048.2'	181.0	281.9'	6,466.0s1961-62	
6,123.8	355.9	122.8	6,602.51960-61	
5,732.2	169.9	178.2	6,080.31959-60	
5,595.9	86.1	116.8	5,798.81958-59	
5,178.8	144.8	282.8	5,606.41957-58	145.3	187.6	5,088.8*1956-57	
4,526.1	153.5	89.8	4,769.41955-56	
4,360.2	114.1	22.3	4,496.61	Revised estimates; original main estimates were greater by $228.0 million.2	This is the amount appropriated by governor general's warrants and included in the report on supply for 1962-63 which would have been tabled as final supplementary estimates for 1962-63 had parliament been sitting.3	This total is the amount appropriated for 1962-63 and is $45.0 million less than the sum of the tabled estimates and the final supplementary estimates for 1962-63.4	This total is the amount appropriated for 1957-58. It is $71.7 million less than the amount of the tabled estimates due to year-end financing by governor general's warrants.

[Stage Direction]
BUDGETARY ESTIMATES OF STATUTORY EXPENDITURES FOR 1964-65 AS COMPARED WITH THOSE FOR 1963-64 (in millions of dollars)
Submitted	Approved
1964-65	1963-64	Change
Civil departments-
Public debt charges	
Subsidies and special compensation to provinces	
Family allowances payments	
Payments to provinces under Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act	
Old age assistance	
Allowances for the blind and disabled	
Major pensions, superannuation and other benefits	
Contribution to Unemployment Insurance Fund	
Unemployment assistance	
Trans-Canada highway contributions	
Subsidy to C.N.R. for railway to Great Slave lake	
Payment of (1) carrying costs of storing temporary wheat reserves (2) administering the prairie grain advance payments program....
University grants	
Payment to the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 world exhibition..
Emergency gold mining assistance	
East west railway bridge subsidy	
Railway grade crossing fund (statutory portion only)	
Forgiveness of indebtedness-municipal development and loan board..
Payments under Fitness and Amateur Sport Act	
Sundry items	
Defence departments-
Major pensions, superannuation and other benefits	
1,037.9	881.0	156.9231.0	239.9	-8.9546.0	542.9	3.1420.0	385.0	35.045.0	38.7	6.328.5	24.1	4.471.4	65.9	5.560.5	58.0	2.5115.0	110.0	5.060.0	50.0	10.025.0	20.5	4.546.7	42.4	4.327.2	26.8	0.417.9	-	17.916.6	12.1	4.57.0	7.0	-5.0	5.0	-5.0	-	5.05.0	5.0	-22.6	20.1	2.567.5	66.0	1.52,860.8	2,600.4	260.4


[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Administration	Buildings, works,	Grants, subsidies	Totaland operation	and equipment	and other items	estimates1964-65 1963-64*	1964-65 1963-64*	1964-65 1963-64*	1964-65 1963-64*Agriculture	Atomic energy	Auditor general's office	Board of broadcast governors	Canadian broadcasting corporation	Chief electoral officer	Citizenship and immigration	Civil service commission	
External affairs-
Department	
International joint commission	
Finance	
Fisheries	
Forestry	
Governor general	
Industry	
Insurance	
Justice	
Labour-
Department	
Unemployment insurance commission	
Legislation	
Mines and technical surveys-
Department	
Dominion coal board	
National film board	
National gallery	
National health and welfare	
National research council, including the medical research council.
National revenue	
Northern affairs and national resources	
Post office	
Privy council-
Privy council office	
Economic council of Canada	
Public archives and national library-
Public archives	
National library	
Public printing and stationery	
70.0	64.5	25.9	27.435.0	31.6	10.3	13.51.4	1.3	-	-0.4	0.4	-	-2.1	1.9	-	-0.1	0.1	-	-64.6	58.2	12.4	9.35.5	5.0	-	-26.1	22.4	1.8	2.50.2	0.2	-	-137.7	146.7	0.2	0.220.0	18.9	3.4	3.48.7	7.6	2.9	1.10.7	0.5	-	-24.2	14.2	-	-0.9	0.8	-	-35.4	30.9	16.1	10.08.9	7.9	-53.4	45.4	-	-12.5	8.9	-	-32.1	29.1	5.5	4.80.2	0.1	-	-5.8	5.3	0.3	0.21.3	1.1	-	-48.2	44.2	3.7	2.326.1	23.1	5.7	3.287.4	78.6	-	-39.2	33.0	27.6	28.8208.9	191.5	-	-4.5	2.5	2.5	2.50.8	0.2	-	-0.8	0.7	-0.5	0.4	-	-2.9	2.2	-	-44.3	37.4	140.1	129.41.2	0.9	46.6	46.0-	-	1.4	1.3-	-	0.4	0.485.9	85.8	88.0	87.6-	-	0.1	0.1-	-	77.0	67.5-	-	5.5	5.096.2	65.9	124.0	90.8-	-	0.2	0.21,311.7	1,156.1**	1,449.7	1,303.01.2	1.2	24.6	23.57.9	7.9	19.5	16.7-	-	0.7	0.5-	24.2	142-	-	0.9	0.8-	-	51.6	40.9105.3	109.5	114.2	117.460.5	58.0	113.8	103.4-	-	12.5	8.916.6	12.1	54.2	46.016.0	16.6	16.2	16.7-	-	6.1	5.5-	-	1.3	1.11,211.7	1.157.5	1,263.7	1,204.020.1	19.6	57.9	45.9-	-	87.4	78.622.8	22.1	89.6	83.9-	-	208.9	191.54.0	2.0	11.0	7.0-	-	0.8	0.2_	0.8	0.7-	-	0.5	0.4-	-	2.9	2.2454	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Estimates Tabled
20220-30* **
Public works-
Department	
National capital commission	
Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition
R.C.M.P	
Secretary of state-
Department	
Atlantic development board	
Office of the representation comm	
Trade and commerce-
Department	
National energy board	
Transport-
Department	
Air transport board	
Board of transport commissioners	
Canadian maritime commission	
National harbours board	
St. Lawrence seaway authority	
Veterans affairs	
Total-Civil departments	
Defence production-
Department	
Emergency measures organization.
Crown companies	
National defence	
Total-Defence departments. Total-Budgetary estimates.
85.5	67.0	56.4	53.0	60.0	40.0	201.9	160.0	5.4	4.8	-	-	4.5	7.5	9.9	12.3	17.9	-	4.0	-	-	-	21.9	-	67.6	60.4	3.8	3.1	-	-	71.4	63.4	5.4	4.9	-	-	5.4	4.9	0.5	-	-	-	-	-	0.5	-	0.2	-	-	-	-	-	0.2	-	36.3	30.9	0.1	0.1	46.7	42.4	83.0	73.4	0.7	0.6	-	-	-	-	0.7	0.6	132.1	124.5	79.9	76.9	54.7	50.2	266.7	251.6	0.7	0.6	-	-	-	-	0.7	0.6	1.4	1.3	-	-	12.1	12.1	13.5	13.4	0.3	0.3	-	-	37.0	26.4	37.3	26.7	-	-	2.1	3.1	-	-	2.1	3.1	2.8	2.8	-	-	-	-	2.8	2.8	63.5	63.6	3.3	2.3	264.0	268.9	330.8	334.9	1,386.9	1,241.1	267.9	247.7	3,490.5	3,200.1	5,145.3	4,668.9	S >ao16.4	9.9	1.4	1.6	-	17.8	11.5	X2.6	2.3	2.1	2.5	5.6	5.3	10.3	10.1	CO4.8	6.3	0.3	0.4	-	-	5.1	6.7	*1,236.5	1,227.5	253.9	328.4	34.6	34.1	1,525.0	1,590.0	COcn1,260.3	1,246.0	257.7	332.9	40.2	39.4	1,558.2	1,618.3	. 2,647.2	2,487.1	525.6	580.6	3,530.7	3,239.5	6,703.5	6,307.2	
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding.)
*These figures differ from those shown in the 1963-64 column of the 1964-65 blue book in that
(1)	the amounts of the supplementary estimates (A), (B), (C) and (D), 1963-64 are not included, and
(2)	provision for salary revisions is included under finance whereas it is distributed among all departments in the 1964-65 blue book.
**Estimates for public debt charges are not comparable between years due to a change in the manner of estimating interest and amortization costs.
Cn
Cn
Estimates Tabled
[Stage Direction]
Estimates Tabled
Walter Lockhart Gordon: That the message of His Excellency together with the estimates presented this day be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which the Minister of Finance has just given to the house is, of course, of great interest to all hon. members. I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing the statement; therefore I do not propose to comment upon the various figures of which he has advised the house. However, I am a little intrigued by his preliminary statement that on March 29, 1963 he advised the House of Commons of his estimates for that year. If he did that, Mr. Speaker, he was certainly guilty of more legerdemain than I realized he was capable of when he presented his budget.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have had a series of figures given us this afternoon which of course will be reviewed and studied by all hon. members. As I caught the statement of the minister I think he said, although I could be in error here, that the total amount of his estimates for the coming year will be $6,703,515,000 odd. If that figure is correct I would simply make the comment in passing that the estimates which were tabled in this house by the minister on May 29, 1963 were $6,545 million and some odd hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is true that figures do not mean a great deal on an occasion such as this. The minister can bring in supplementary estimates and in the end, as was done last year, alter the balances by charging up bookkeeping entries which should not be charged up at all. However, on the figures presented by the minister this afternoon we have an amount of $6,545 million odd as of last year and $6,703 million odd as of this year; and that figure, Mr. Speaker, despite the massive sacrifices which have been made by the Minister of National Defence in reducing the defence expenditures for this year. All I can say is that he must feel something like Atlas who rolled the stone up the hill only to see it come down again on top of him. Actually I am not sure whether this applies to the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Finance, but one or the other must feel very badly crushed this afternoon.
In any event, I know this matter is not debatable, so I simply make this passing comment as a matter of fact and not as a matter of debate; we will have ample opportunity to study these figures as they are now presented to us. I have a sure feeling that you are going to have many opportunities to hear these matters debated in the days to come.



BARLEY-ANNOUNCEMENT OP SALE TO RED CHINA

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to inform the house that the Canadian wheat board announced in Winnipeg today that it has negotiated a contract for the sale of approximately 350,000 long tons of feed barley for shipment to mainland China. This sale, totalling approximately 16.3 million bushels, is for shipment from Vancouver during the period April through July 1964.
Payment for the barley is to be made on the basis of 25 per cent at the time of shipment with the remaining balance plus interest to be paid in 18 months. This credit arrangement is identical with the credit terms provided on the most recent wheat sale to China.
I know all members of the house will join me in expressing satisfaction with this additional sale of grain to mainland China by the wheat board.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I think the house will be glad to hear this confirmation of the rumour that has been in the press this last two or three weeks about the barley sale. I hope this time the government in its conversations with the Canadian wheat board will reconsider the fact that they turned down Chinese wheat sales in December, to see if it would not be possible, with the new capacity created by co-operation out on the west coast, to fulfil the 18 million bushel wheat order that the Chinese would have liked to place last December.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: am sure the members of the house and particularly the prairie farmers will be delighted by the minister's announcement regarding this sale of barley to mainland China. I hope at some early opportunity the minister will make it clear whether the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who is going to mainland China next week, is part of the deal.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I join with other members of the house in welcoming the announcement that has just been made. I think perhaps we could have some discussion and some more emphasis placed on expanding the facilities for loading this grain at the terminals on the west coast and take care of this additional sale, along with the other commitments that we have to deliver through the west coast during this crop year.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question, in French, to the minister of trade.
Could the minister tell the house if, upon signing the latest long term agreement concluded with red China for the sale of Canadian wheat, Canada undertook to buy textile products from mainland China?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. In the last transaction between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company it was agreed by the China Resources Company, acting on behalf of that country, that they would limit their exports to Canada. There is no undertaking on the part of Canada to buy anything from China.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister of defence has been able to secure the information which he did not have yesterday regarding the series of forays in the province of Saskatchewan and elsewhere. When he gives that information I would like to ask him whether any action has been taken on the part of the military forces that were not known to him or instructed by him, or any action taken regarding which he had no information at all.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The armed forces have taken some steps on their own initiative, and this involves the reduction to reasonable levels of the amount of ammunition in storage, in reserve units and elsewhere, to meet current requirements and also to enforce existing security regulations. The actions referred to by the right hon. gentleman yesterday in respect to the western provinces was related to these orders to enforce existing security regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: All of this adds up to the fact that the minister should table the directives that were given. If we had the directives we would not have to ask these questions. Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that the minister intends to punish certain officers for having acted without consultation with him?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no substance
whatsoever in this speculative news story.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A morning paper carries the statement, attributed to a defence department spokesman, "that the minister's order to tighten security of arms generally throughout Canada had produced widely different results, depending on the interpretation of regional or local commanders". I want to ask the minister if these different interpretations are due to lack of clarity in the minister's order, or to incompetence on the part of the commanders, or to a desire on their part to embarrass the minister because he has been taking away some of their toy soldiers?


Mr. Roberl C. Coates (Cumberland):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that Amherst, Nova Scotia has been designated a sensitive area by his department, and that six .303 rifles used by the air cadets for target practice will be removed from the armoury; or is this an attempt by the government to arm the Nova Scotia border against any infiltration by people from upper Canada?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question really is related to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition. It arises out of an article that appeared in the Thomson newspapers. Is it the intention of the government for the sake of security to implement regulations governing the sale and storage of Lee-Enfield rifles and .303 calibre ammunition in hardware stores in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada, in view of the fact that such small arms equipment could be readily purchased or stolen and in view of the steps taken recently by the Department of National Defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that question would not come within the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. If it does come within the jurisdiction of the federal government, which I doubt, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, and perhaps my colleague the Minister of Justice would like to take it as notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. It seems to me that if rifles without bolts were seized and these rifles have bolts-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a question or giving information?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I had a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask this question. Is it the intention of the Minister of National Defence or his department

Inquiries of the Ministry to do anything in this regard, because the rifles which were seized had no bolts and these had bolts and ammunition?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to do everything we reasonably can to protect the small arms and ammunition that come within our jurisdiction.



INQUIRY AS TO PRESENTATION OF WHITE PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the anticipated white paper on defence, I wonder whether the minister is able to give us a more precise definition of the word "soon", which he used the other day in reply to a question in which I asked him when he was going to present this white paper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope it won't be too long, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: As a
supplementary question, are press reports correct that the white paper will call for unification of the Canadian armed forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on a speculative news story. I may say, however, that I have been giving some thought recently to the degree of integration required in order to ensure the uniform implementation of orders.



R.C.A.F.-HOUSING FOR TRANSFERRED OVERSEAS PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of Defence with respect to the housing problem of R.C.A.F. personnel at Zweibrucken. Is the minister aware that the issue of the overseas magazine "The Family", published in Frankfurt, on February 14 dealt with this problem in a front page story, pointing out that the R.C.A.F. personnel would have to find housing in the city itself, which is already overcrowded; and further that a meeting of the local council indicated that the solution was in the hands of the Canadian government?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the article to which my hon. friend refers. We are aware that there will be eventually a transfer of personnel to Zwei-briicken and that there may be the possibility of the construction of houses at that time. However, at the time we made inquiries into this matter there had been no pronounced
[Mr. Woolliams.l
shortage of housing, and as I mentioned before we are looking into this matter very carefully and are in close contact with the situation there.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement last night by her parliamentary secretary that there will be survivor benefits under the Canada pension plan, does the government intend to undertake a constitutional amendment before bringing in the plan?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the house who read the white paper produced last spring are aware that provision has been made for survivor benefits for a widow when she herself falls within the provision as to age and reaches the age of 65, and that is to what my parliamentary secretary referred.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question. Is the statement found in column 2 on page 449 of Hansard, which was made by the parliamentary secretary, in error when he said that there were survivorship benefits under this plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as I have just explained again to the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -there are survivor benefits to an aged widow. She will have to wait, of course, as is clear, until she reaches the age of 65 in order to obtain benefit from her husband's contributions. I am quite sure that under the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, you would not wish me to take the time to go into detail, but if the hon. member is in fact seeking the truth I shall be very happy to see him in my office and explain the matter to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister inform the house whether the four conditions that had been mentioned by the Prime Minister for sending Canadian troops

to Cyprus are included in the resolution proposed by Brazil in the security council, on which a decision is to be taken tonight?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the resolution to which my hon. friend draws our attention is in very general terms. It calls for the establishment of an international force and the appointment of a mediator. It leaves to the secretary general much of the responsibility in connection with consultations with potential participating countries, and it is only in regard to consultations that the question of the requirements of any country would come into consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
That question arises from the press release published Friday, February 28, by the Department of Transport, about the increase in rates applicable on government's wharves.
I would like to know if the 25 cents increase to be charged for cars will apply, for instance, to the wharves in Three Rivers, Quebec city and Sorel?
Does that increase apply also to trucks, to trucking companies which have to use the ferries at those same wharves?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I could not undertake to answer a detailed question of that sort without consultation, and I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING MONTREAL MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in order to clarify a question that was asked in this house on Tuesday, February 25 last. On that occasion I asked the Prime Minister whether a certain alleged quotation from the Minister of Trade and Commerce was government policy, and in the latter part of his answer the Prime Minister said:
The statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce speak for the government and are clear and unequivocal on this point.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the document I have just given him, whether this alleged statement is still government policy.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman sent me this clipping that I hold in my hand and which I saw for the first time today, in which Mr. John Meyer, the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, is commenting on a speech I made at Calgary on oil policy. In the course of this article he quotes me and then goes on to say:
A forced conversion of the Montreal market to western crude is no longer practical within the framework of an evolving continental policy.
Then he goes on to say:
One might suppose that this consideration, quite as much as the stated difficulties of projecting markets, entered into Mr. Sharp's decision to forgo longer term production targets.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that never entered into my mind. The words referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle are not a quotation from my speech but an interpolation by Mr. Meyer.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which in his absence his parliamentary secretary took as notice. The question was, has the minister a statement to make respecting the fact that nationalist China has been invited to participate in Canada's world fair while mainland China, with whom we have a very valuable trade, is not being invited? I wonder could the minister answer the question or make a statement today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, Canada is party to the international convention regarding world fair. Article 5 of the convention says that invitations to countries to participate in such world exhibitions must be made through diplomatic channels. We are bound by this international convention, as are all other countries that have put on exhibitions recognized by the international bureau. For this reason it would not be possible for us to extend an invitation to the Chinese people's republic, which of course is not recognized by Canada; but I do want to add that this has nothing whatever to do with our desire to carry on commercial dealings with that area.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Barry Mather: I wonder would the minister not agree that an invitation to participate in a world fair indicates economic and not necessarily political recognition, just as we now trade with mainland China without recognizing her politically?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear that we had entered into an international agreement which requires us to extend our invitations through diplomatic channels, and that stipulation is put in precisely for the purpose of preventing invitations going out to countries we do not recognize. We are bound by this convention, and so are all other countries participating in it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he would consider extending this invitation to mainland China through the diplomatic channels of either the British government or the French government, both of whom have diplomatic representatives in China?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question. The purpose of the convention is to limit the invitations. Otherwise, of course, there would be no point in having this limitation, and I do wish to repeat that this is a world fair. It is not an economic exhibition. It is an exhibition which will cover all forms of cultural and economic matters, and the international convention that we are a party to does prevent us from extending this invitation.


Mr.  H. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I wonder whether the fact that we are not going to extend an invitation to the People's Republic of China means that our policy toward China will remain static in the years between now and 1967.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the minister. Is it the intention of the minister to invite the Vatican state to participate in the fair?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check with the corporation before I can answer that question.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In

view of a report in the Winnipeg Free Press over the by-line of Victor Mackie concerning talks between the minister's department and the Manitoba hospital commission as to the possibility of the Manitoba hospital commission taking over Deer Lodge hospital, can the minister indicate the status of these talks, and might he also say whether it is a takeover or integration that is being considered?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to answer the second part of the question, because while conversations have taken place between the Manitoba hospital commission and some of the departmental officials, we are awaiting a proposal from that commission at the moment to see what they have in mind. Until I have received this it will be pretty difficult to deal with the second part of the question. Again this is one of those things on which I apologize to the hon. member for not being able to be more specific, but that is the situation at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. May I ask the minister if the fact that his department is entering into negotiations with hospital groups in various parts of Canada

Calgary, Winnipeg and other places-indicates that the Department of Veterans Affairs is seriously considering getting rid of the D.V.A. hospitals?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: As I indicated the other day in the house, I hesitate to categorically answer a question of that sort until we have taken a look at these proposals. I also indicated the other day in answer to the hon. gentleman that as soon as I was in a position to do so I would make a statement in order that hon. members might be as accurately informed as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the minister, and this also is based on Victor Mackie's report. Is the attitude of the department based on a general policy or is it a city by city approach?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This seems to be a question of the same kind as the one just asked, and I am somewhat at a loss as to how to answer it. This is an extremely difficult situation, and I do not want to reach a conclusion as to an alteration of policy in terms of administration. I want to be prepared to make a statement on the whole subject. I can only assure the hon. member that one policy has not changed, and that is to provide the veterans of Canada with the best hospital care available.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesl):: supplementary question, not based on Mr. Mackie's report. Is it correct to say the minister has assured the veterans affairs commit-

tee that no final decision will be made on this question until the veterans organizations of Canada have been consulted?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, I have given that assurance, and we are talking to the veterans organizations.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Can I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether the talks he has mentioned were initiated on the representations of his department?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Speaker. The talks were initiated by the minister of health for the province of Manitoba.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.  INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I do so in the light of the statement made earlier today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the sale of barley to China. My question is this. Has the minister yet made up his mind about an expansion of the grain elevator in Prince Rupert and, if not, will not this sale of barley be an additional spur to his reaching a favourable decision?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I can only say that this matter is still under consideration.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
1962-63 pools
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house on what date the farmers of western Canada may expect the final payment on oats and barley for the crop year 1962-63?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was informed today that the barley pool will close on Friday, March 6, with cheques beginning to be issued during the last week in March, and that the oats pool will close on Friday, March 20, with cheques beginning to be issued during the first week of April.



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising in part
Inquiries of the Ministry out of a statement made by the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary yesterday. I should like to know if the government has now decided upon the bargaining position which Canada is to take at the forthcoming round of tariff negotiations to take place in Geneva.


Mitchell William Sharp: During the last session of parliament I set out quite carefully the position that Canada intends to take in bargaining for greater access to overseas and North American markets. I really do not think it is necessary for me to do more than refer the hon. member to that statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement that Canada has already decided on the stand which it will take at that conference, can the hon. gentleman explain how it is that his negotiating team has now appointed a special committee to obtain the views of various sectors of Canadian industry about the stand Canada should take at this conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is most essential that we should have the views of Canadian industry on the specific response we should make to reductions now under discussion between the United States and the common market. The position we took was that we were prepared to make concessions in our tariffs equivalent in value to the cuts made elsewhere. It is most important that we should have from industry its estimate of the value of those cuts, have some indication of what is desired by way of cuts in various foreign tariffs, and the cuts in Canadian tariff that would be equivalent thereto.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If the estimate is adverse, does that mean the government will change the position which the minister says has already been adopted?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government will take full responsibility for the bargains entered upon. We hope to have the benefit of the views of industry, agriculture and of all those businesses-and that includes practically every business in Canada-having an interest in the outcome of these negotiations.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question which should more properly, perhaps, be directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house what progress has been made on the government proposal to erect a higher tariff barrier with respect to the importation from the United States of light aircraft of between 2,500 and 4,500 pounds? I believe the consideration is that there should be

Inquiries of the Ministry another 15 per cent added to the duty now payable on this class of aircraft imported from the United States.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minisler of National Revenue):: I do not think I could usefully comment on a subject like that on orders of the day.



PULP WOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I must apologize for not having given him notice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John James Greene: -but the matter has just come to my attention, though hon. gentlemen opposite may doubt that fact. I should like to ask the minister, in view of a story in the press yesterday under the by-line of Mr. Jacques Monnier wherein it was stated that Mr. Lucien Cliche, minister of lands and forests of the province of Quebec, had announced that he had precluded the export of pulpwood from the province of Quebec into the province of Ontario for the express purpose of forcing manufacturers to locate their plants in Quebec which, by its nature, is tantamount to an embargo or tariff barrier between the provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John James Greene: I should like to ask whether the minister is contemplating any action to investigate this type of tariff barrier between the provinces.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the hon. gentleman did not give me notice, and I would like to have some to consider the question.



SOUTH AFRICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does Canada still grant preferential tariffs to the Union of South Africa and, if so, is this not a contravention of our commitments under GATT?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the first part affirmatively. The second part I would have to refer to my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the answer to the first part?


Colin Cameron: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he could reveal the answer to the first part of my question which he is still clutching to his bosom.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not intend to clutch it to my bosom; I thought I had let it forth. The answer is yes.


Colin Cameron: I want to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell us if this is not a contravention of our commitment under GATT?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The answer to the second part is that I cannot, but I will try to get an answer tomorrow.



WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Having noted a recent reference in the press to a developing program throughout Canadian high schools, the students' war against yaws, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicate her interest in project SWAY, as it is called, and the manner in which it is hoped this very interesting development may go forward?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The students' war against yaws, or project SWAY, was initiated by the students of Mount Royal high school in Mount Royal, Quebec, as their way of marking Canada's centennial year. High schools across Canada have been invited to participate in the campaign against this highly contagious, disfiguring tropical disease, and already an amount of $1,400 has been raised and turned over to the director general of the world health organization which is attempting to eradicate this disease. The executive board of WHO passed a special resolution commending the high school children of Canada for their unselfish interest in the health of people in other parts of the world.
More and more high schools across the country are indicating their willingness to participate in this campaign, and I understand that a further appeal will be going out from the Mount Royal students within the next month or so. My department will certainly do everything it can in support of this commendable effort.
Yaws is a disease which now affects more than four million persons, and another one

hundred million are exposed to it. Fortunately, though, it can be treated successfully with a dose of penicillin equivalent in cost to the price of an ice cream sundae.
I support most enthusiastically the campaign of the Canadian high school students and look forward to an increasing measure of success in their further efforts.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: wonder if the Minister of National Defence would welcome the chance to say a word of commendation to the gallant crew of H.M.C.S. Athabaskan, who displayed exceptional bravery during the north Atlantic rescue yesterday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would indeed, Mr. Speaker. A signal of commendation has gone to the captain and crew of H.M.C.S. Athabaskan and also to the crew of the Argus maritime patrol aircraft, who were most alert when they sighted an oil slick on the sea, tracked it down to find a ship in distress, and relayed a signal to the navy who went at once to the assistance of the seamen. I think all the Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy personnel involved should be highly commended for their actions.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear.



CONTINUATION OF SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 the hon. member for Macleod asked me a question with regard to the possibility of continuing the subvention on the export of coal to Japan, and yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question on the same subject.
I am able to say that the government has agreed to a continuation of the subvention on 200,000 tons of coal to go to Japan on the same basis as the previous, standard 600,000 ton shipment was made available. This has been made possible by the policy I announced last June, during the previous session, regarding a five year security program. As I understand it, if the companies and the coal board agree on negotiations the contract will be now on a three year basis, but the overall subvention will be reduced from $3.15 to $2.73 maximum.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicioria-Carlefon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that there is a definite possibility of surplus potatoes being dumped this spring in the potato producing areas of New Brunswick unless appropriate action is taken to bring about the export of the surplus which apparently exists?


Harry William Hays: This has not been drawn to my attention, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago the exporters in New Brunswick were concerned about the large potato crop, but since that time I have not had any communication with them. However, I realize it is a serious situation, and when any representation is made to my department we will be glad to look into the matter.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday he said he intended to meet a delegation from the tobacco growers, and he hoped to offer them some help. I want to ask the minister two questions. First, what help does he propose to give to the tobacco growers; and second, will he consider paying the 47 cents deficiency payment directly to the individual producer rather than averaging it over the entire crop which is delivered?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question, yesterday I met with representatives of the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board, at which time the board outlined the difficulties that are being encountered in respect to the marketing of their 1963 crop. The situation is rather complex and the discussions are continuing. In addition I have made arrangements to meet tomorrow with the purchasers of flue-cured leaf tobacco and their representatives. Since the matter is still under discussion it is not possible to indicate at this time what the solution to the current problem might be.
In reply to the second question in connection with the support price of 47 cents on tobacco, this would be straying from the original intent of the stabilization board, and I would have to give this matter some thought.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the price being received by Canadian tobacco growers is considerably lower than that received by tobacco growers in the United States and Rhodesia, he would consider appointing a royal commission to see whether a tobacco cartel is combining to exploit both the growers and consumers of tobacco products in Canada.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a different and more comprehensive question than I should like to answer at this time, and I would have to give very careful thought to the suggestion before commenting on it.


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question has been answered by the Minister of Agriculture regarding the meeting yesterday with the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board. As a supplementary, may I ask him whether his meeting tomorrow with the purchasing companies will include a meeting with a delegation of the flue-cured marketing board as well? Is it a joint meeting?


Harry William Hays: This is a meeting between the board and the purchasers of tobacco.


James Alexander McBain: But it will be a joint meeting?


Harry William Hays: Yes.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I find that since the beginning of the session the Chair systematically refuses to recognize us in this corner of the house. Since the beginning of the question period, I have tried again and again to be recognized, but we are given the floor only at the end of the period.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention, and the attention of the house, to the fact that there seems to be discrimination on the part of the Chair against members in this corner of the house.
Since the beginning of the orders of the day, nobody else from our group rose, and I have just been recognized.
I feel that we enjoy the same rights as every other member; we are entitled to a fair treatment.
In the future, I would like our group to be treated as well as the Conservatives. They

are in greater number, it is true, but, nevertheless, proportionately speaking, we do have representation rights in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair simply cannot let a statement like that pass unnoticed. Any implication of partiality is totally unfounded. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman who made the last statement-which I do not accept either in part or in whole-[DOT] that he read a book which has recently been published called "The Speaker". It has only been on the market for a month or so. The hon. gentleman will see that charges against the Chair are in effect charges against members themselves. The person who occupies the chair is unimportant, but the speakership itself is very important. From the year 1300 to the present time it has always been the endeavour of every hon. member in the house to maintain the privileges and the dignity of the Chair. The Chair is in a position where it cannot defend itself against these unwarranted charges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Lessard: I agree with what you just said and if I said something that offended you, I regret it, but I hope that in the future I will not have to repeat the opinions that I just expressed.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In answer to telegrams he has received, will the minister clarify the situation with respect to the mortgage payments of the workers on strike in Saint John, New Brunswick who are now threatened with foreclosure by C.M.H.C.?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I might say that this morning I received a telegram from the local president of the oil, chemical and atomic workers international union on the same subject.
I am informed that several workers in Saint John have been involved in a labour dispute with their employers for some six months, and during this time corporation officials have discussed mortgage default with four families who had loans under the National Housing Act. In each case some

extension of time has been granted. In January a satisfactory arrangement between the union and the borrowers was worked out to provide for payment over a period of time. This arrangement provided for the regular monthly payment plus some reduction against the arrears, commencing February 1. This would continue for the period of the strike.
In February, when this commitment was not fulfilled, the corporation continued to press for its payment as arranged between the union and the borrowers. The corporation allowed a further extension until February 27. While the time of the last commitment has gone by, the corporation has not commenced foreclosure proceedings and I am sure will not do so if a reasonable effort is made by the borrowers and the union to live up to the commitment which they gave.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION BONUS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he inform us as to whether a preliminary report will soon be submitted to the house concerning the impact on unemployment of the $500 bonus incentive program for winter house building?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the address I gave a rather full account of the success of this particular program.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to purchase a pure jet aircraft of transport range for the personal use of the Prime Minister and, if so, has the government given consideration as to how such a decision would affect the sales of the CL-44 in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no basis whatever for the question, sir; therefore there is nothing to answer.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him whether the Canadian government has received from the Venezuelan government warnings similar to those reportedly given to the United Kingdom, France and Spain, to the effect that they must stop trading with Cuba if they are to continue to do business with Venezuela.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice, but I am not aware that the Canadian government has received any such communication from the government of Venezuela.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the acute shortage of hospital facilities in certain metropolitan areas in this country, which can and does have tragic consequences, has the government given any response to the urgent pleas of the metropolitan council of Toronto to match increased provincial and metropolitan contributions to the cost of hospital construction?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. As he will recall, he was present when the Minister of Finance and I heard certain representations from metropolitan Toronto, and I should like to assure him and other hon. members that this matter is receiving very careful and active consideration.
The unfortunate thing is that there is apparently a special problem in the area of metropolitan Toronto, notwithstanding the fact that the provincial minister of health has indicated in his own house that there is already a surplus of beds in the province of Ontario but that they just do not happen to be located in the right place. As a consequence, in attempting to work out a formula which can be applied to the appropriate places, the government is considering with great care the steps to be taken in this regard.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Does the minister not feel that this matter, which as she told us on December 6 was under active consideration, has now matured to the point where we should have a definite decision.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, when consideration has been completed and the decision has been taken I will be happy to advise my hon. friend.



FLUORIDATION-REQUEST FOR ENDORSATION BY PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that the last four presidents of the United States have made public statements in favour of water fluoridation, would the Prime Minister associate himself with their high statesmanship by stating publicly his and the government's endorsation of this vital public health measure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any useful purpose would be served in associating myself with the high statesmanship in this matter which has been referred to; and I could not very well deal with it because, it being such an important question, it should not be dealt with on the orders of the day.



NON-GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON RADIATION PROTECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would she advise the house who are the university and non-government members of the advisory committee on radiation protection?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not have information such as that in detail. I will ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the minister that I had an inquiry about this last week. I contacted her office, who were going to advise me. They have not advised me; therefore I have asked her in the house.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for an answer to the question I asked the Prime Minister yesterday regarding a bomb threat to the centre block of the parliament buildings. Has the Prime Minister anything to report now in regard to this bomb threat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received no such threat, Mr. Speaker, nor do I know of any.


James Ernest Pascoe: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister made inquiries in regard to this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Careful inquiries are being made, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State as the minister responsible for reporting for the C.B.C. Will the Secretary of State report on the commentary carried on the radio network this morning purporting to review the debate on the speech from the throne, with a view to calling the C.B.C. management's attention to erroneous statements regarding parliament and in particular to the part of the broadcast which conveyed the impression that a division had been forced on the government for the purpose of bringing on an election?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries of the C.B.C. and give an answer later.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the one asked the Secretary of State concerning the request to have the C.B.C. news program investigated. Will the Secretary of State inform the management of the C.B.C. that many members of this house do not want programs investigated every time somebody gets up here and so requests?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, who displays such a great interest in the maritimes. Due to her pending departure to upper Canada, will the minister consider stationing the 95 foot coastguard vessel Relay out of Saint John, New Brunswick permanently because of her firefighting capabilities so necessary to that port?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Much as I would like to oblige the hon. member for Saint John-Albert I would

not think this would be possible, because the coastguard vessel, as the hon. gentleman would assume, is for coastguard duties and that means for patrolling; but every effort will be made to co-operate within the limits of the duties of the vessels.


Thomas Miller Bell: As future coastguard vessels are constructed would the minister keep this matter in mind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be delighted to do so.



PASSAMAQUODDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if any further action is contemplated by the federal government as a result of the present action by the congress of the United States to harness the tidal power of Passamaquoddy bay?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear the first part of your question.


Robert Carman Coates: Is any further action contemplated by the federal government as a result of the present action of the United States congress in regard to the harnessing of the tidal power of Passamaquoddy bay?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It must be the fact that my hearing aid is not working today or that my hearing is bad. I have still not heard the first part of the question. I will take it as notice and reply tomorrow.



COLUMBIA RIVER


Paul Joseph James Martin: That the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, together with the protocol containing modifications and clarifications to the treaty annexed to an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States signed on January 22, 1964, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
He said: There are problems and rewards which I am sure we all recognize, for those of us in public life. As to the latter of these, perhaps the most satisfying is the sense, on occasion, of having been able to participate in and contribute to the achievement of policies or programs that can have lasting values and benefits for our country.
Columbia River Treaty
Today it is my privilege to invite all members of this house to share with me in this sense of participation and contribution. We have before us for our attention today, documents that comprise arrangements that will stand in history as a truly great accomplishment in the co-operation of two nations. There is no shadow of doubt, or hesitation in my mind when I say that I believe they represent a high point in the combination of legal, technical, and economic sciences for the advantage of both Canada and the United States, and when I say Canada, of course that includes the owner of the resource in Canada, the province of British Columbia.
So it is with real and deep pleasure that I bring the Columbia river treaty and protocol before this house for its consideration. The treaty was negotiated and signed by a previous government of Canada and the previous government of the United States. The protocol and the covering exchange of notes were negotiated and signed by the present government of Canada and the present government of the United States. These documents represent the best efforts of successive governments in both countries and reflect the wishes of the province where the Columbia river is located.
There has been much public discussion of the treaty, the protocol that has been negotiated in recent months to modify and clarify it, and the arrangements that are ancillary to these documents. It is difficult to deal with them without fear of restating things that are known or stressing what might have become obvious. However, it is equally clear from many comments that have been made that there is still a very great amount of misunderstanding and misinformation about the nature of the agreement. This is not surprising, since it is a very complicated question. It is doubtful if this parliament has had before it a document involving more complexities and technicalities. That being so, and recognizing the importance of this project, I trust that the house will bear with me while I try to set forth in broad terms what it is that the treaty and protocol are drawn to do. I shall not attempt to go into detail; that is something that I believe should be left for the work of the committee on external affairs. My statement, however, will be comprehensive because of the importance of the matter which is now before us.
Before going into the treaty itself, I should mention briefly the procedure that the government is proposing. It has been understood for some time that the treaty and now of course the protocol which is an essential part of it would be referred to the committee on external affairs. In addition, the committee will have available for examination other

Columbia River Treaty relevant papers, such as the supplementary agreement with the province of British Columbia, and the exchange of notes with the United States to which is appended an attachment relating to the terms of sale of downstream benefits. These documents are part of the information which the committee will no doubt be taking into account in its formal action on the treaty and the protocol. All of this and other documentary material has been assembled for the convenience of the house and the committee in the white paper which was tabled and distributed to this house yesterday.
The government will present to the committee a thorough analysis of the treaty and related documents, when the committee meets, and will provide expert evidence on all points at that time. The committee in turn will undoubtedly want to invite interested parties to present their views.
When consideration by the committee has been completed, the government will recommend to parliament the passage of a resolution approving the treaty and protocol. When that resolution is passed the government will be in a position to exchange instruments of ratification with the United States. It is expected that that will take place on or about October 1, 1964. Approval by this house, however, is needed at the earliest possible date in order that engineering, financial and administrative arrangements for the great work can proceed without delay.
Now, sir, the Columbia is one of the great rivers of the world. In North America its length and average volume of run-off are exceeded only by the Mississippi, the Mackenzie and the St. Lawrence. No river in North America exceeds it in energy potential: it is substantially the greatest river of them all.
The Columbia river and its tributaries drain an area of 259,000 square miles, the largest part of it in the United States. The sources of the Columbia itself and one of its major tributaries, the Kootenay, are in Canada. After rising in Columbia lake the Columbia river flows north and then at its great bend turns south through a total length of 480 miles in Canada. In the United States it flows a further 745 miles to the sea. In the course of that trip the waters of the Columbia river fall just over half a mile, to be exact 2,655 feet. It is that enormous drop combined with the great volume of water carried by the Columbia, the Kootenay, the Pend d'Oreille and tributaries in the United States that provide the tremendous energy potential.
Up until now there has not been one single installation on the main stem of the Columbia

river in Canada to provide either storage or the production of electric energy. In part, that fact is a reflection of the major character of the river. The requirements of British Columbia have until now been such that the great costs of harnessing this river have not been justified. The only installations to produce power on the entire system in Canada are on the lower reaches of the major tributaries, the Kootenay and the Pend d'Oreille rivers, just before they join the Columbia river, and on some of the minor tributaries.
In the United States the situation is quite different. Some of the largest storages and hydroelectric plants in North America have been installed. Power installations completed or under construction on the main stem of the Columbia now total approximately 10 million kilowatts of capacity. On the tributaries more than 5 million kilowatts have been installed. These totals are, however, only about half the potential of the system in the United States, which is estimated at 35 million kilowatts of installed capacity.
To give some idea of the magnitude of such a potential, it can be compared with the total present installed hydroelectric capacity of all Canada, which is just over 20 million kilowatts. In other words the Columbia system in the United States alone has a capacity 75 per cent greater than all our presently developed hydro in Canada; this fact is not without significance to the situation and in the course of our discussion and study of the treaty this will become increasingly clear.
To develop hydroelectric power effectively the water that falls through the turbines must be capable of control. Its flow should be controlled so that it passes through in just the quantity wanted at just the time wanted. As hon. members know, consumption of electric power varies enormously at different hours of the day and at different seasons of the year. Consumption goes up when factories are in operation during the day, when meals are being cooked and when the bustle of life is going on. Consumption drops during the night.
Normally in this country consumption is highest during the winter months when the days are short and cold, when furnaces consume electric power and when other energy needs are greater than in the summer months. Unless the flow of water can be adjusted to these requirements, it is not possible to realize the maximum value of the potential of this or any other river. Unfortunately nature takes no account of human requirements in its provision of water. In the case of some rivers such as the St. Lawrence, nature has been reasonably co-operative. The difference between high and low flows is only of the order of about two to one. This small seasonal

variation greatly minimizes the control needed to adjust the flow reasonably well to human needs.
In the case of the Columbia, nature could hardly have been less co-operative. The highest flows come in the summer v/hen the needs are least, and the lowest flows are in the winter when the needs are greatest. In addition, the variation of flow is fantastic. At the international boundary the extremes of flow have gone from an estimated high of 680,000 cubic feet per second to an estimated low of 12,900 cubic feet per second, a ratio of approximately 50 to 1. At Revelstoke further up the Columbia, the highest recorded flow is 99 times greater than the lowest.
It is not surprising that with these enormous variations the Columbia is not only extremely difficult to harness for electric power but is also, without maximum control, a great danger to the people living near it. We will recall that as recently, as 1948, a flood killed 50 people, left 38,000 homeless and destroyed a community in the United States numbering 18,000 persons. From these characteristics arise both the problems and the opportunities in developing the Columbia river.
I have referred to the installations on the United States section of the Columbia river. Some of the great power and reclamation projects of the world are there, such as Grand Coulee, Hungry Horse, John Day and Chief Joseph. The United States has already invested some $3 billion in these projects. However, because of the enormous variations in flow these installations cannot produce their full power potential. They require more storage than now exists on the river and its tributaries. For the development of the full potential there must be enough storage to level out the flows and change them from the fantastic feast and famine of nature into the controlled flows demanded by human requirements. If such control can be provided, not only will the production of electric power be enormously increased but the means will at the same time have been provided to eliminate a great flood danger.
There were two ways in which this problem could be approached. One would have been for Canada and the United States independently to develop their own part of the Columbia entirely for their own purposes and without regard to development on the other side of the boundary. Canada could have adopted this course. It would, however, have meant the construction of very costly storage dam sites and generating plants lower down in Canada. The result would have been expensive power in the early stages of development, so expensive that two engineer-
Columbia River Treaty ing firms have questioned whether development would be worth while at all.
At the same time that this expensive power was being produced in Canada, Canadian storages would have given the United States automatically, without any undertaking or obligation of the United States to make payment for it, a good deal of the regulation that they wanted, but not as efficiently as if it were planned jointly. Similarly, for the United States to go it alone would have meant the construction of storages of their own at costs much greater than for similar storages in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And flooded a lot of their own land.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Pardon?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And flood a lot of their
own land, which they are thankful not to have to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The common sense course obviously was to evaluate the advantages of working together, and to explore the possibilities of undertaking developments on a planned, co-operative basis. To get this appraisal, a reference was made to the international joint commission by the governments of Canada and the United States in March, 1944.
It was not possible for these studies to proceed actively during the war years or immediately thereafter. Studies of this kind are enormously difficult and, as my hon. friend from Kootenay West knows, very complicated. As a result, it was not until 1959 that the international Columbia river engineering board submitted its report to the international joint commission.
An abstract of the report is set out in the white paper which I tabled yesterday, and I would particularly draw attention to the following comments that set forth the findings based on many years of careful investigation. First of all, at page 26:
The water resources of the Columbia river basin can be developed for a variety of purposes. Maximum utilization of these resources can be achieved only by implementation of a comprehensive plan of development covering all parts of the basin.
Then, on the same page, the report goes on to point out:
The largest and most valuable tangible use of the water resources of the basin, either existing or in the foreseeable future, is for hydroelectric power production. Therefore, the full development of the hydroelectric power potential has been a primary goal.
And at page 27:
It is evident that if the goal of maximum hydroelectric power development can be attained, flood control will be assured, and it should be possible to develop all other water uses.

Columbia River Treaty
Then the board makes the following conclusions, as shown on page 37:
(k)	Three possible methods of developing the Kootenay and upper Columbia rivers produce potential benefits nearly equal in terms of total effect in the basin...In view of these factors, and having regard to the practical limits of accuracy of the studies, no one plan of development can be selected as representing the optimum use of sites and water resources.
Then at page 38:
(l)	The method of co-operative development of the Kootenay and upper Columbia rivers will be determined by considerations beyond the scope of this report, but the information provided herein on the alternative plans will provide a reasonable basis for discussion between the two countries.
And on the same page:
(p) For any further progress towards co-operative development, some measure of general agreement between the two countries should be reached with respect to principles for sharing benefits and costs. Project justification requires the use of such principles to determine the benefits and costs to be ascribed to individual components of an agreed plan of development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these conclusions which were caused to be made by a body set up by another administration, a body composed of men of great technical competence, are very basic to the presentation which is inherent in the treaty signed by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and the protocol which was recently signed in Washington, in January of this year.
Thus in 1959 the two governments had answers to their main questions of 1944. Cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin would be practical and in the public interest. That is the conclusion. They also had the definite indication that further progress would require agreement on the way in which benefits and costs could be shared.
The governments of the day of both countries next directed the international joint commission to recommend the principles called for in the conclusions which I have just read to the house, principles that should be applied in determining the benefits that would be derived from co-operative development and the apportionment between the two countries of such benefits, more particularly in relation to electric generation and flood control.
This direction was given in January, 1959, and in December of the same year the international joint commission made its report. That report is set out, beginning on page 39 of the white paper tabled yesterday, and I would particularly draw hon. members' attention to the following salient principles: Power principle No. 6.
The power benefits determined to result in the downstream country from regulation of flow by

storage in the upstream country should be shared on a basis such that the benefit, in power, to each country will be substantially equal, provided that such sharing would result in an advantage to each country as compared with alternatives available to that country.
Flood control principle No. 4.
The upstream country should be paid one half of the benefits as measured in flood control principle No. 3, i.e., one half of the value of the damages prevented.
Now, sir, at this point I would like to pay my tribute to the members of the international joint commission for their far reaching achievement in arriving at a set of principles of such significance. Above all, credit must be given to the then chairman of the Canadian section, General McNaughton, who had the wisdom, the foresight and the determination to achieve agreement on a body of principles that were basic to participation by Canada in a co-operative system of development. The principles were not, of course, binding on the two governments, nor did they go into any of the problems of specific application. They were, however, of great importance. As the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, said in a statement on December 30, 1959:
They would be of great value to the governments concerned in the negotiations which lie ahead.
At that point the stage had been set for the beginning of actual negotiations. On January 25, 1960, the then prime minister, the right hon. gentleman who presently leads the opposition, announced that negotiations would open on the following February 11. The operation that then began, and continued through until mid-January, 1961, was probably as complex and arduous a process of negotiation, co-ordination and consultation as has ever been undertaken in Canada.
While the negotiations with the United States were the responsibility of the government of Canada, it was obvious that the province of British Columbia, the owner of the Canadian water resources in question, had to be immediately and continuously involved at every step. In order to ensure that there would be full co-ordination, a federal-provincial policy liaison committee had been set up. Its membership was impressive. It included both federal and provincial ministers, the entire negotiating team, General McNaughton, legal, technical and economic advisers. That group had eight sessions of meetings in the course of 1960.
There was in addition a technical liaison committee which included federal and provincial engineers, economists and other technical experts. That committee carried out

specific investigations as required by the policy liaison committee, and advised it constantly.
The negotiating team representing Canada included not only the tour members announced by the then prime minister on January 25, 1960, but also a large supporting team of experts, and these were drawn not only from the federal and provincial governments themselves but also from the Canadian section of the international joint commission and, from time to time, included outside technical advisers on specific points.
Within the government itself a cabinet committee was established consisting of ministers most directly concerned to keep the whole development constantly under review and to consider all matters of policy.
The negotiating team held eight meetings in the course of 1960 and a ninth in January of 1961, resulting in the Columbia river treaty. That treaty was signed on January 17 of that year by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the then minister of justice, Hon. E. D. Fulton, and our ambassador in Washington, Mr. Arnold Heeney, on behalf of Canada. For the United States, it was signed by President Eisenhower, the secretary of state of the United States, Mr. Herter, and the head of their negotiating team, the then under secretary of the interior, Mr. Elmer Bennett.
At this point I should like to pay my own tribute to what was done by the former government, the government of that day, as well as by all those who were involved in this arduous operation. It reflects great credit on all concerned. Not only were the complex and infinitely trying negotiations pursued vigorously but, I have been told by many who were involved, Mr. Davie Fulton led the Canadian side with distinction from beginning to end. The treaty moved ahead to prompt approval in the United States where it passed the Senate on March 16, 1961. In Canada, however, differences developed between the federal and provincial governments. I think there is no purpose to be served in going back over the details of what these were or how they arose. In part, they were related to plans by the provincial government for development of the Peace river and to differences of view as to the priority that should be accorded to that development in relation to the Columbia river project. Whatever the source or the merit of the differences of view, one question that does occur is whether the situation could not have been avoided by ensuring that there was, in fact and beyond doubt, clear agreement with British Columbia before the treaty was signed.
Columbia River Treaty
Commenting on the situation in an address in Vancouver on October 2, 1961, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said:
The time has long since gone by when a federal government should sign an agreement with the U.S.A. or any other country which requires provincial action and co-operation for its implementation, without a clear and formal undertaking from the province concerned that the terms of the agreement are such that this co-operation will be forthcoming.
The Prime Minister went on to refer to the "kind of co-operation and action which was signed, sealed and delivered" between Ontario and the federal government before the St. Lawrence agreement with the U.S.A. was concluded.
Fortunately the differences of view did not impose any delay on the engineering work which had to be carried out to provide accurate and detailed information for the storage dams that the treaty contemplated. That work went ahead actively and with no loss of time. Several meetings and discussions between representatives of the federal and provincial governments occurred in 1961 and
1962.	In the latter part of 1962 there were also meetings at the official level with the United States to discuss possible terms for the sale of Canadian downstream power benefits in the United States for a period of years. The situation was, however, still unresolved when the present government assumed office in April 1963.
One of the tasks to which highest priority was given by the government was the determination of the action that should be taken to meet some of the criticisms that had developed about the treaty provisions. The essential question was whether it was desirable and practical to try to negotiate a new treaty, or whether it would be preferable to build on the foundation that had been laid. I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that the more I studied the treaty and the complex situation with which it was designed to deal, the more I became impressed by the achievement which it represented. I concluded that what we had to do was to make a basically good treaty better still. That, I am confident, we have done.
The first step was taken by the Prime Minister in his meeting with the late president of the United States at Hyannis Port in May
1963.	The Prime Minister and the president there agreed to initiate negotiations on a protocol which would embody clarification and adjustments in certain of the treaty arrangements.
Before negotiation with the United States could proceed, the present government felt that agreement with British Columbia was imperative. We could not have a treaty without agreement with British Columbia. I have
472	HOUSE OF
Columbia River Treaty referred to the Prime Minister's criticism of the failure to achieve such an agreement before the treaty was signed. In the same address on October 2, 1961, he said:
Should not the provincial and federal governments get together to see whether there can be found an agreed basis on which re-negotiation with the U.S.A. could be requested to make the treaty more acceptable to Canada while remaining fair to the U.S.A.? Any such re-negotiation-if it were found possible-would have to be completed without delay, so that the U.S.A. would not make effective alternative arrangements. Surely our resources of statecraft in this country are such that this can be done.
Meetings to achieve the kind of agreement the Prime Minister referred to were undertaken last June and July and resulted in the signature of an agreement on July 8, 1963. That agreement is set forth at page 100 of the white paper. It was subsequently supplemented by a further agreement of January 13 of this year and in those two documents there is a clear statement of the rights, obligations and relationships of the two governments in every aspect that is involved in the treaty, the protocol and the arrangements that will arise under them. Incidentally, although the previous government had offered to assist the province of British Columbia by meeting half the costs of the whole development, the arrangements which have now been made do not involve any financial contribution whatsoever by the federal government. In fact, paragraph 12(3) of the agreement of July 8 states specifically that "Canada shall have no obligation for the financing of these treaty projects". This accords fully with the objectives outlined by the Prime Minister in October, 1961 when he said:
We must establish in advance of ratification the export price of energy, not leave it to be negotiated afterwards. I do not see any advantage in using public funds to build power and storage dams merely for the purpose of making electrical energy available at exceptionally low rates in the United States.
Having achieved agreement within our borders between the owner of the resource and the Canadian government, it was possible to proceed with negotiations with the United States. These began on August 1, 1963 and carried on through a series of meetings and, at times, difficult negotiating sessions which arrived at a successful conclusion in agreement on a protocol. The protocol is attached to an exchange of notes that were signed by myself, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Secretary of State of the United States on January 22, in the presence of the Prime Minister and President Johnson.
At this point, I should like to express my deep appreciation to the many people who contributed greatly to the successful outcome of this work. My cabinet and parliamentary colleagues from British Columbia were very


much involved. To the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), to the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson), to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), who has had a long association with this project, and the hon. members from British Columbia I am greatly and deeply indebted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They were on the other side during the election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: From the provincial government, the premier, Hon. Ray Williston and Hon. Robert Bonner, along with the chairman of the British Columbia hydro and power authority and numerous experts from the authority and from the provincial public service, put in a tremendous amount of work. From our own public service the men who were attached to this project gave a measure of devotion and industry that went well beyond the call of duty. Personally and on behalf of the government of Canada, I want to thank one and all. Without them the task would have been impossible. This is a task that has been under way now, in one way or another, for 20 years and we are now given the opportunity to acknowledge our indebtedness to those who are responsible for an achievement of which we have every reason to be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sir, I have given this chronology of developments in the Columbia river project because I think it is not only of interest to the members of this house but is also of some importance in appreciating the degree of care and the amount of work that have gone into the whole plan. As I said at the outset, this great co-operative project is complex in the extreme. It has, however, been studied, examined, developed and negotiated with meticulous care over a period of many years by the best qualified people available. From that fact alone I think we can derive a large degree of confidence.
What is it, then, that is proposed in the treaty and in the protocol we have before us?
The basic treaty was described by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the press release which he issued as prime minister on January 17, 1961-which was tabled in the House of Commons on the following day and is reproduced on pages 82 to 97 of the white paper. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that in what we have since done we have not detracted in any way from that treaty, but have only improved on it and on the arrangements surr rounding it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Only by selling them cheap power for 30 years.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The main feature of the original treaty is its provision for construction of the dams in Canada at Arrow lakes, Duncan lake and Mica creek that will provide a very large amount of storage. No one knows it better than my hon. friend, whose interruptions help me along as I go from point to point. Part, though by no means all, of the storage will be committed for operation on agreed terms to produce power benefits in the United States which will be shared equally between the two countries, as well as substantial power benefits in and for Canada itself. Some of this storage will also be operated to provide flood control, and substantial payment will be made to Canada for flood damage prevented in the United States. The treaty contemplated in article VIII that downstream power benefits, if not brought back to Canada, might be sold in the United States on agreed terms.
The treaty also allows for the construction by the United States of a dam on the Kootenay river, near Libby, Montana, the reservoir of which will extend some 40 miles into Canada. The United States will pay the entire cost of that dam. All Canada provides is the relatively small amount of land that will be flooded on our side of the boundary. For that very small contribution Canada gets major benefits in flood control and increased power production after the river re-enters Canada. Those benefits are not subject to any sharing with the United States.
The treaty contains provisions regarding permissible diversions, the designation of operating entities, the establishment of a joint permanent engineering board, procedures for settling differences, provisions for restoring the pre-treaty legal position after the treaty has been terminated, and limitations on liability for damages.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What a hope.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "What a hope". Because of what has been achieved, he now has that hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All of these and the other provisions of the original treaty of 1961 have been fully preserved.
Now I come to the protocol. As I have indicated, the present government felt that it would be possible, while retaining the essentials of the treaty, to effect improvements that would remove points of doubt and, in some cases, meet specific criticisms that had been levied at the treaty as originally drafted. We have been able to achieve these goals. As the clarifications and improvements brought about
Columbia River Treaty in the protocol are of very real importance, I now propose to refer to them in some detail. The terms of the protocol itself are set forth, beginning at page 111, in the white paper.
Five of the paragraphs of the protocol deal in one way or another with the power benefits to which Canada is entitled under the treaty. Two of the provisions-paragraphs 8 and 10-increase the actual magnitude of the benefit in which Canada is entitled to share. Paragraph 8 provides that a 30 year period of stream flow record-from 1928 to 1958-shall be used as the basis of calculating the benefits derived from the Canadian storages. The treaty had provided for a 20 year period, from 1928 to 1948, unless otherwise agreed. The change that we have been able to effect is, of course, obviously of very definite economic advantage to Canada. The effect of including the additional ten years in the base of calculation is a substantial addition to our estimated energy benefits because in general the water flows in those ten years were higher than average, and consequently the benefits of storage are great. The net result is that the Canadian benefit is increased by approximately 500 million kilowatt hours annually. This amounts to an increase of about 18 per cent.
Paragraph 10 removes a doubt as to whether the electricity required for pumping at the Grand Coulee project in the United States is to be included as part of the load served there. It is to be included and the result is to add between 5 and 7 per cent to the Canadian credit in electrical capacity.
A criticism that had been directed at the treaty was that it gave the United States too great a degree of control over the operation of Canadian storages for power. Well, let us see what the protocol does about that. Actually, the treaty provides for joint operating plans which take into account the requirements of Canada for control of storages for our own power purposes as well as the requirements for downstream power. However, it appeared that there might be some room for doubt. The protocol removes any uncertainty in this regard by making the operating plans subject to the following conditions:
(a)	The plans will commit only the amount of Canadian treaty storage necessary to produce the downstream benefits credited to that storage;
(b)	The plans will be based on the same series of studies from which the benefits are calculated five years in advance;
(c)	Canada is given full discretion to decide from which projects storage releases will be made;
(d)	Canada is given full discretion also in the detailed operation which will give the monthly storage quantities required by the agreed operating plan drawn up five years in advance.


Mr. Churchill:: What was the reference to that?

Columbia River Treaty


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is paragraph 7 of the protocol.
A further provision with regard to power is in paragraph 5 and is directed at the benefits which Canada receives from the operation of the United States storage at Libby, Montana. Many of the critics of the provision for the Libby storage overlook the fact that Canada can derive from Libby a very large amount of power, more than 200,000 kilowatt years of energy per annum, at an exceedingly low cost and without any requirement to share that benefit with the United States. Article XII of the treaty had made provision for consultation where Canada thought that a change in the Libby operation might be of advantage. The protocol in paragraph 5 makes it mandatory to have co-operation on a continuing basis in the interest of co-ordinating the new operation of the Libby dam with the operation of the power plants on the Kootenay river in Canada.
Finally in connection with power, the protocol includes a most important paragraph which enables us to know in advance the precise return which can be derived from the sale of our downstream benefits. Article VIII of the treaty provided for possible sales of such benefits, it is true, but it did not provide for any firm arrangement in advance of ratification of the treaty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It provides for giving it away forever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite wrong. The protocol does not do that, as I hope at some time to have the opportunity of showing my emotional friend. This meant that ratification would have to take place before Canada could be sure just what kind of a sale could be made. This point has been criticized by, among others, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I refer to a statement which he made in Vancouver, when he said:
... we must establish in advance of treaty ratification the export price of energy...
That we have done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the date of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave it a few moments ago; it was in October, 1961.
The Prime Minister made a similar comment in Cranbrook, B.C. as reported in the Vancouver Province of May 3, 1962 when he said:
I am not necessarily opposed to the sale of downstream benefits, but I do oppose the sale without first fixing the price.
Now we have fixed the price and we have got a good and fair price.

Paragraph 3 of the protocol provides that an exchange of notes that is to arrange for a sale of power shall take place at the same time as the exchange of the instruments of ratification. As I shall describe in a moment, the terms of sale have in fact been worked out. As a result, we now know in advance of ratification precisely how much money the sale will yield and just how that yield will compare with the costs that Canada incurs under the treaty. I believe that that represents a very essential and important improvement over the treaty signed in 1961.
Three of the paragraphs of the protocol deal with flood control.
Paragraph 1 meets a criticism that had been levied that Canada would not have an adequate voice in determining whether flood control operation is needed in circumstances of special emergency over and above the basic flood control provisions of the treaty. In effect, the situation is that Canada is paid in advance a very large amount of money-$64.4 million in U.S. funds-for what is called "primary flood control" operation. There is a further provision that enables the United States to call for additional flood control in certain circumstances, and it had been felt that there was no adequate protection against misuse of that provision.
Paragraph 1 of the protocol requires that the United States entity requesting the additional flood control must submit its requests to the Canadian operating entity. The latter can accept, reject or suggest modifications to these requests. If agreement between the entities cannot be reached, the request is then submitted to the permanent engineering board, a joint Canada-United States body. The board's decision will be binding on both entities. If, however, the board fails to agree as to the need for the flood control, the request must be honoured so that the possibility of loss of life and damage to property will be minimized. The provision under the treaty by which Canada is reimbursed for loss incurred through such flood control operation continues in effect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the protocol is also quite specific as to when the United States can call for additional flood control. It not only specifies the degree of flood for which flood control protection will be provided, but requires that all United States storage in the basin be employed first before calls are made on additional Canadian storage.
Paragraph 2 of the protocol inserts a specific requirement that any operating plans for flood control to be carried out under the treaty and protocol must be prepared in a manner which will minimize flood damage in both the United States and Canada. While substantial flood.

control protection to Canada is automatic when the treaty projects are in operation, the specific inclusion of Canadian needs in the determination of flood control plans was not provided for in the treaty. This is an important clarification of that document.
Finally, sir, on the subject of flood control, paragraph 11 allows for the upward adjustment of the payments to Canada for flood control protection in the event that treaty storages are completed earlier than is called for by the treaty. This adjustment will be calculated on the same basis as the treaty payments.
I have dealt so far with the substantial improvements provided by the protocol in relation to the primary benefits that are to be produced and shared under this cooperative development project: the power benefits and the flood control benefits. A concern in the negotiation of the treaty was to ensure that, while securing these benefits, there should be no more limitation than was absolutely necessary on Canada's freedom to use the waters to meet other Canadian needs. In this connection, doubt had been expressed as to whether Canadian rights of diversion had been adequately protected. The protocol goes further than the treaty in ensuring these rights.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What article is that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is article XIII of the treaty. Article XIII is the article which deals with the question of diversion, and then the protocol to which I have just referred deals with the affirmative right of diversion. That is article XIII, part 1. Article XIII of the treaty gives Canada the right to divert the waters of the Kootenay river to the Columbia river for power purposes within specified times in the future. These diversions, if deemed economic by Canada, would in time permit the maximum diversions which have been advocated by certain critics of the treaty. Although it was intended that any diversions under the treaty could continue in perpetuity, there was room for doubt as to whether the wording of the treaty made this clear. Paragraph 6 of the protocol specifies unequivocally that diversions of Kootenay waters undertaken by Canada during the period stipulated by the treaty may continue forever.
In the course of careful study of the precise terms of the treaty, our advisers concluded that it might not be entirely adequate to protect Canada's right to make diversions of Columbia system waters for consumptive purposes such as irrigation, domestic and municipal needs in precisely the way that article XIII(l) of the treaty does it. Paragraph 6(2) of the protocol removes any possibility
Columbia River Treaty of misunderstanding on this point by affirming in positive terms Canada's right to make such diversions under the treaty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Except for hydroelectric
development.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is another point. The question of power is a matter that involves the ownership by the province of the resource, and it is quite a different matter; but we will deal with this, I am sure, in the course of our discussions.
A further criticism that had been directed at the treaty was that it might be taken to have established principles that would have application to other Canadian rivers when the same favourable conditions from the Canadian point of view might not exist. It had been suggested that the treaty would establish a precedent for the development of international rivers which would restrict Canada's freedom to determine, in the circumstances of each case, precisely how best to develop rivers such as the Yukon, in a manner most advantageous to this country. The protocol in paragraph 12 states clearly that the treaty does not establish any such principle or precedent and that it effects no change in the application of the boundary waters treaty to other international rivers.
Another provision of the protocol is important, if one considers $2 million a year to be important. Paragraph 4 eliminates an annual stand-by transmission charge that could range as high as that figure in the early periods of the downstream benefit sales to the United States. In effect the eliminating of this charge is likely to be permanent, since by the end of the sale period it is expected that there will be an electrical co-ordination arrangement. When that is established, the charge is dropped pursuant to article X of the treaty.
Another paragraph of the protocol, paragraph 9, is technical, highly technical. It clarifies the precise basis of calculation of energy and capacity credits. It can be gone into, if desired, when engineering experts are before the committee on external affairs. Those who have followed this matter will recognize this as a very important improvement indeed.
Now, I have mentioned the difference of view that developed in Canada in 1961 and 1962 in regard to the relationship between the Peace river development and the Columbia and arising out of that, with regard to the disposition of Canada's downstream power benefits. It had originally been contemplated that the Columbia river development would precede the Peace and that the power produced downstream on the Columbia would be needed to meet the load growth in British

Trans-Canada Air Lines Act
but we and the government of British Columbia have not lost sight of the welfare of those of our fellow citizens living in the Columbia area. Some people are, of course, bound to be dislocated; familiar scenes are bound to undergo change, and this undoubtedly is one of the factors that influences the judgment of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I recognize that it is no comfort to those concerned that the dislocations will be much less than those which were dealt with, I think satisfactorily, in the case of the St. Lawrence seaway. I am confident, however, that the flexibility allowed in the operation of the several storage dams under this treaty and the remedial works which can be constructed in some cases will keep the disturbance of people in the affected localities to an absolute minimum. Certainly the upsetting effects of the treaty arrangements will be much less than those under some other schemes that have been proposed.
In connection with the problem of dislocations the house will have noted the statement made on February 10 by the chairman of the B.C. hydro and power authority:
We at B.C. hydro are fully aware of the problems of the people in the Arrow lakes area, many of whom have spent their lives living and working in the area and who will now be required to move. It is unfortunate that momentous changes of this kind so often must involve disruption of old established patterns of life. But I can assure you that the hydro is not a soulless engineering machine and that it will deal generously and sympathetically with each person who has to move his home or his business. The government has repeatedly endorsed this approach to this serious human problem.
I will resume later, Mr. Speaker.


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



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING NAME OP COMPANY

Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, respecting the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the honour of being the first member to introduce a bill during the second session of the present parliament.
I moved the first reading of this bill during the last session and I am pleased to see that by chance it is the first one to be considered during this session.
It is a bill of national interest.
I should like to state briefly, Mr. Speaker, a few objective points in favour of this bill.


At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize some of the main factors behind the introduction of Bill No. C-2. First, the name Air Canada is certainly bilingual. It has precisely the same connotation and meaning in English and in French, the two official languages of our nation.
The name Air Canada is a shorter appellation which does away with cumbersome translation, as is the case with Trans-Canada Air Lines, which in French is Les Lignes Aerien-nes Trans-Canada.
Many countries of the world are already using a designation of this kind to identify their national air lines. This is the case with Air India, Air France, Air Liban, Air Algerie and Swissair, to name but a few. Originally the name Trans-Canada Air Lines served to designate an air line which serviced a domestic network of communications. This designation is no longer acceptable because the air line now services routes that go beyond the nation's geographical frontiers, indeed routes that touch many parts of the world.
In certain airports in the United States travellers tend to be confused because two separate air lines use the initials T.C.A. One is Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the other is Trans-Caribbean Air Lines.
Another bill, similar in nature and substance, was introduced in this house in 1961 by an hon. member from the province of Ontario-I am referring to the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) who has since been appointed Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to an editorial by Mr. Ayotte, published in La Presse on October 12, 1963, and which refers to an article published on the same subject in the Financial Post. It said in French:

"Even Toronto wants the designation Air Canada."
It is not only French Canada which is requesting that our state-owned air line should be designated only by the words Air Canada. The Financial Post of Toronto advocates it in terms much more pressing than those we used at any time we raised the question these last few years.
First of all, the editorial published in the great financial paper of Toronto is entitled as follows:
Be brave, Ottawa, be brave.
And it says, among other things:
The government and T.C.A. show a remarkable restraint in using the word "Air Canada", except in a limited way and in appropriate places.

But-adds the paper-why could the government not call this air service "Air Canada"? Why maintain a double wording that is unsatisfactory, confusing and quite unnecessary?
The Financial Post then observes that a French Canadian who would ask, a hundred miles away from his province, where is the nearest Air Canada office, would get the impression from the answer he would get that he is a stranger in his own country.
I should like to point out that those are the very words used in the editorial of the Financial Post.
Air France, Air Liban and Air Algerie are names which are understood throughout the world, and it would be the same thing with Air Canada. It would be much more simple and elegant than the long and complicated designation Trans-Canada Air Lines. Indeed, as has been pointed out, that name is no longer appropriate since the corporation's operations reach far beyond Canada.
We can therefore conclude with the influential Toronto weekly:
Air Canada would be a fine and prestigious designation in the world. Furthermore, it would indicate the bilingual character of our country, which is not an unimportant aspect.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to be as objective as possible in presenting a few arguments in favour of the designation Air Canada.
I feel that that name is quite acceptable, that its use would be advantageous throughout the world and that, in Canada itself, it would correspond to the bicultural nature of the country, not to mention the fact that it would indicate the international character of Trans-Canada Air Lines, a corporation which in a few minutes time, I hope, will see its name changed to Air Canada.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to the mover of this bill (Mr. Chretien). The hon. gentleman is well known to me since we are both members of the same bar association.
I know how objectively he introduced this bill which, last fall, attracted the attention of many newspapers, as he indicated a few minutes ago, in quoting the Financial Post.
We have reason to believe that the people of Canada do want to take a step which will show that bilingualism is a living thing in this country. Mr. Speaker, it happens only too frequently that while hon. members wish to express their views on some measure, they end up by killing the bill; but I am convinced that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche raised this matter first with his party colleagues and invited them to keep absolute silence.
20220-31J
Trans-Canada Air Lines Act
For our part, we are only to glad to agree with the comments of the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, for this is a wonderful opportunity to do something which would constitute a perfect example of complete bilingualism in this country. That name of "Air Canada" would show to all the peoples of the world, to all foreign countries, that, in a bilingual country, an expression may be found which can satisfy the different ethnic groups of which it is composed and indicate at the same time to the rest of the world that Canada has its own system of air transportation.
Since Air France, Air Algerie and Air India already exist, why can we not have Air Canada?
I am in favour of this measure and I congratulate its mover, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche.
I am convinced that the house will waste no time in adopting the bill which, in my humble opinion, will be the first official gesture in support of this bilingualism so strongly advocated by our hon. friends opposite.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking I approve of the views of the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). This matter was discussed in the sessional committee on railways and air lines owned and operated by the government, just last session, and the president of the company there stated that he was not opposed to this change but thought it should be introduced over a period of time.
I am not opposed to the passage of this bill, but I think there ought to be some consultation with the officials of the company because they may have some problems in connection with what the bill promulgates. I understand they have been using these names interchangeably, with a view to a possible switch in the future, and I suggest that if the bill receives the approval of the house consideration be given to bringing it into force at some future date which is acceptable to the company.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of this bill introduced by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) a bill which, to my mind should have been passed long ago.
I always wonder why we always meet with so much resistance on the part of all concerned when it comes to pass a bill as simple as this one. I realize that the three letters T.C.A. are a short abbrevation indicating the existence of Trans-Canada Air Lines. But,

Trans-Canada Air Lines Act apart from that advantage, which was mentioned by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, I see no reason for refusing the designation Air Canada.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) said that, from the legal point of view, there might be some complications if the bill came into effect within too short a time.
I might answer him that Trans-Canada Air Lines has already been using the designation Air Canada. As a matter of fact, I said at one time that I considered the use of those words illegal because the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act contains no provision authorizing the use of the words Air Canada.
Consequently, I do not see any complications from the legal point of view and I hope that, in the very near future, the company will use the designation Air Canada and stop considering it as a French name. It is, rather, a bilingual designation, an international name, an easy name and, above all, a name which correctly identifies the company.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, like those who have preceded me,
I think that Bill C-2 endorses feelings I would regard as Canadian nationalism since the proposed name "Air Canada" meets the requirements of both official languages in Canada, the French and English languages.
If I am not mistaken, the name Air Canada had been proposed in the house before, perhaps not in a bill but by opposition members when we had a Conservative government. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, Mr. McGregor, did promise to the committee that the name Air Canada would be used within two years.
So, I too congratulate the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for having introduced this bill.
We, in this group, will certainly not prevent the passing of this bill which is a definite improvement over the present name of the main Canadian air lines which from now on, in the country and outside, will have to be called, I hope, Air Canada.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: As
a member from a constituency with the regal name of Royal, and as an example of New Brunswick's recognition of the bilingual fact of Canada, I should like to go on record as being in support of this bill.
The change proposed can, after all, be supported not only on linguistic but on aesthetic grounds. It is a sensible proposal, and, as the hon. member who introduced it

said, many other countries have adopted similar forms for the names of their national air lines. I urge other hon. members to support the principle of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Name changed to "Air Canada".
Mr. Macaluso:: I move, seconded by my hon. friend from York-Scarborough:
That In the English text of Bill C-2, all the words after the word "Canada in line two, clause 1 be deleted and replaced by the following:
"or in any regulation, order, deed, contract, lease or other instrument, the words "Trans-Canada^ Air Lines", or "Lignes aeriennes Trans-Canada" or "Trans-Canada" appear, there shall be substituted therefor the words "Air Canada" and that in the French text of Bill C-2, lines 5, 6, 7 and 8 be deleted and replaced by the following:

-or in any regulation, order, deed, contract, lease or other instrument, the words "Trans-Canada Air Lines", appear or "Lignes aeriennes Trans-Canada" or "Trans-Canada", there shall be substituted therefor the words "Air Canada".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 2-Rights saved.
Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) pointed out earlier that the administration of this bill might involve some legal difficulties. I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Mac-Naught) whether the matter has been considered.
If this legal aspect is interpreted in the same way as the civil law of the province of Quebec, I do not foresee any difficulties, because the term Air Canada designates the new legal corporation; if the house grants it the powers, rights and obligations of the existing corporation, I wonder how legal difficulties could spring from a new name.
At any rate, in order to avoid any ambiguity, could either the Solicitor General or the Minister of Transport give us the assurance that a detailed study of that point has been made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe there would be any juridical or legal difficulties about the bill but there would be a practical difficulty in the absence of a certain modification which I believe one of my hon. friends intends to

propose. I understand that several years ago the board of directors of T.C.A. themselves, of their own motion, suggested that this would be a name preferable to the name "Trans-Canada Air Lines" because of the fact that the line had ceased to be what it was originally, that is, a line primarily across Canada, that it had become one of the great air lines of the world, and that it would be consonant with that position to describe it as "Air Canada".
That has the very considerable added advantage, of course, of saving the time of the translators-which I understand is pretty much taken up these days with translating other things-because by a happy accident these are the same words, though they are not pronounced in exactly the same way, in both official languages of the country.
However, there are many practical problems which would be involved in making the change. There would be a great many forms and documents that would have to be changed. Some time would be required for changing the form of the equipment, or even putting a new name on the equipment. I think we would want it to be clearly understood-because as a result of the Glassco report this government is very conscious of the importance of saving the taxpayers' money in every possible way-that we would not want T.C.A. to throw away all their existing equipment just because it had "Trans-Canada Air Lines" on it and buy new equipment until the old equipment was disposed of through being worn out, sold or by some other means.
The government is quite sympathetic, as I say-indeed, is entirely sympathetic-to the idea of the change; but I do think it would be desirable to frame the bill in such a way that the timing of the change was left to proclamation, so that we could carry out the very sensible suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, namely that there should be adequate consultation with the board of directors in order that this could be done in a businesslike way involving the maximum degree of practical efficiency and the minimum degree of dislocation. Just to take one example alone, there is the question of advertising, advertising contracts, and so on. Obviously you need time to adjust these things. I think once the principle was accepted, once it was known that this was going to become legal, the timing of it could very well be left to consultation between the government and the company.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Transport implying that this bill will not receive royal assent or that the date of its implementation will be left to the discretion
Trans-Canada Air Lines Act of the officials? As a matter of fact, it is no good adopting a bill which will be left on the shelf.
Is the minister implying that the use of a form bearing a name different from that of the corporate or legal name of Trans-Canada Air Lines would void contracts entered into by Trans-Canada and other legal, moral or physical bodies? If such is the case, I must say that I do not agree with him. I do not think that the reasons given for not wanting this legislation implemented until the existing forms have all been used, are legal reasons. Moreover, for the information of the house, it would be advisable for the minister to suggest a date for the coming into force of the bill by adding a third clause to that effect. In that manner, there would be no ambiguity for, judging by the remarks already made, it is to be feared that the bill may not be given royal assent, in which case it would not be effective.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman has perhaps not entirely understood what I have suggested. There would be two ways of effecting what I have suggested. One would be to pick some date out of the air and say that on January 1, 1965, or some date like that, this bill would come into effect. The other would be-and I think this is a much more effective proceeding when we are not quite sure what would be the most convenient date-to say that this act shall come into effect upon proclamation. I must say that from the point of view of the government we would prefer the latter, because once this bill receives royal assent and becomes an act of parliament, the government would naturally-and I am sure T.C.A. would want to do this-want the will of parliament carried out just as soon as it could conveniently be done, having regard to the considerations I have mentioned.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances, is it not the opinion of the minister that it would be better to insert a provision or add a clause to the effect that the bill will come into force following proclamation by the governor in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I am suggesting.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister might help us by commenting on two matters. Can he give the committee any idea of just what length of time is involved, from conversations he may have had with Trans-Canada Air Lines?

Trans-Canada Air Lines Act
The other matter that might be helpful to the committee in considering this bill-which I think we are all in favour of-is this. Is there any estimate of the cost of the changeover of the symbols of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which the minister mentioned would have to be changed, and all the forms, tickets, and so on? I think this might help us to better understand the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I could do any of those things. It is true that I have talked to the president of T.C.A. about this, but there has not been an opportunity since notice was given of the bill for the board of directors to give this matter the kind of consideration that it warrants. It was considered three or four years ago, but it has not been considered recently as an immediate problem, with all the details. This is precisely why I think it would be very much better for us not to attempt to fix a date but to make it come into effect upon proclamation.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. This may not be entirely relevant, but I wonder if the Minister of Transport can advise the committee whether the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping will be assembled reasonably soon, at which time of course this entire matter can be aired with the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is the desire of the government to get all the necessary committees in operation just as early as possible. However, as some of the experienced members of the house will recall, it is not always easy to find the parliamentary time to have these debates on the setting up of committees and at the same time get on with the legislative program of the house. As I am no longer house leader, this is a matter I would not like to forecast. But I may say, as Minister of Transport, that I hope to have the annual report of T.C.A. in my hands for tabling in the house this week, and as soon as possible after that I would like to see the matter come before the committee.


Mr. Fisher:: My first question, Mr. Chairman, should be to ask the minister if he will assure us that he will not talk the bill out before we reach six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not want to talk at all.


An hon. Member:: That's a change.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I love that interjection, Mr. Chairman. He didn't want to talk at all. Good old modest Jack. There are one or two points I would like to direct to the attention

of the minister. When this problem was considered before the committee in December, Mr. McGregor said there was one factor that might be considered in any change of name. That was that there were various policy rumours going around, particularly in relation to the fact that the previous minister was apparently more sure than the present one that there was going to be an air transport policy announced. Something seems to have happened since the new minister took over. The policy that we almost had has disappeared, at least for the foreseeable future. But when there was a foreseeable future in regard to an air transport policy in Canada there was a very strong suggestion that T.C.A. and C.P.A. in their overseas aspects might be linked in some new kind of proposition that would fit Air Canada, and it might be a little presumptuous or getting ahead of things to put this proposal through in connection with T.C.A. when some new arrangement with C.P.A. was anticipated. Everyone knows the pride that Mr. Crump, for example, takes in C.P.A.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone is crying order. This is a legitimate point, because if we could have under the new air policy a company which co-ordinates the two, C.P.A. might have some hesitation about coming in under this particular name which had already been applied to T.C.A. I suggest that the minister gives us an assurance that doing this will not get in the way of any proposed policy changes which might have been in the mind of the previous minister of transport but which have disappeared from the mind of this minister.
The second question I wanted to ask the minister is more frivolous. He did make the statement that it took some time to make these arrangements and changes, particularly with forms and with agencies, and so on. I should like to ask whether it is not the fact that we have been able to change the agencies used by T.C.A. very quickly, and also advertising agencies have been changed very quickly. This very speed would seem to indicate that that particular qualification is not a solid one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To answer the second question first just as facetiously, I think it took six hard years. As for the first question, I said when I became a politician that I was going to be a politician and not a prophet, and the hon. gentleman's indirect methods will not get any forecasts out of me which I do not intend to give directly.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I would like to move an amendment to Bill C-2, by providing in the French text the following clause 3:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.

I would add in English the following clause.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we are still on clause 2. Clause 2 should be adopted or amended before we carry on with the other clause.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay in any way the passage of this bill, but I would ask that it be not referred to the appropriate committee since its coming into force is a matter of urgency.

Clause 2 agreed to.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I move that Bill C-2 be amended by adding in the French version the following clause 3:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.

I would add in English the following clause:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I assume that we are going to go rolling along after this wonderful start to the public bills introduced by private members. I suppose the first thing I should say is that this is the kind of bill which is so acceptable to everybody and its sentiments are so fine that it will have no difficulty in passage. I would ask the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) whether
Agricultural Rehabilitation Act he really thinks it needs to go to the agricultural committee, or is it passable right at the moment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Silence gives consent.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I see the Solicitor General wants a few more minutes to make up his mind. This government which planned so carefully is not quite ready for this piece of legislation.
This is a very minor change to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. I understand the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) spent most of last session as a sort of shadow behind the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), and he was making himself informed on ARDA so I am sure he will be able to contribute to this debate that expert knowledge that an ordinary opposition member cannot supply. I will leave it to him to make comments on my proposed amendment from the viewpoint of its legality or propriety in relation to the act.
The reason this bill was introduced is to bring to the attention of the Indian affairs branch and the tribes or bands themselves the possibilities which exist under this act. If I may be allowed to make to the house and to the minister a point which everyone of us has discovered about ARDA, I should like to say that the initiative, if we are to accomplish anything, has to come from the provinces. I know this has been a rather bitter discovery in Ontario to many of us when we have realized that we have created this agency, have a good director and a wonderful piece of legislation, but yet have to mark time and wait for the provinces to come through. Some have done very well; others are dragging their feet. Ontario has just got into it recently. But the point is that this marvellous piece of legislation, which I think was the most inspired piece of legislation introduced by the previous government, requires some initiative on the part of the provinces. Indian affairs and band council affairs in the main have nothing to do with the provinces at all. They are a federal responsibility. But the fact remains that many of the reserves in Canada will fit within regional ARDA projects, or could in themselves be ARDA projects. I can give examples of this. I think of my neighbour in Fort William and of the Mission reserve where there could be all kinds of projects associated with ARDA projects, such as training the Indians in forestry and agricultural practices relating to the kind of land they have, and in equipping them to earn a better living, which is one of the key problems which the Indians have.
This is the reason why I introduced these amendments, because it would enable Indian

Agricultural Rehabilitation Act bands and the Indian branch, despite the fact that it is also another agency of the federal government like ARDA, officially to take the initiative and not have to wait for that provincial impetus that is required at the present time.
I know the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been watching ARDA and will be aware how difficult it is to get projects going under ARDA without a strong lead from the province. What it really means, and what is developing in most places, is that to a great extent the local communities have to develop some kind of general idea through professional groups such as foresters groups and farm associations, and then it has to be promoted on the provincial political level in order to get the provincial ARDA people into the thing. It is a long cumbersome process and in the meantime, to my knowledge, I do not know of a single case where an Indian reserve or reserve lands has been vitally affected by the application of the act. And I think this is a pity.
I have had returns over a number of years to questions I have placed with regard to forest lands and agricultural lands in Indian reserves of Canada, and to say they are in good shape from either a forestry or agricultural point of view would be a lie. As a matter of fact, forestry management of many Indian lands is still in an embryo stage, and the fact remains that many of the people who live on Indian reserve lands are not capable at the present time of intelligent forestry management or agricultural management of their lands because they have never been fitted into the kind of project that ARDA provides. I know from knowledge of my own area what a dreadful thing it is that so many of the adult Indians today are living on welfare. They are living from ration to ration because they have lost so much of their incentive and drive. I am bitterly disappointed, and I know this is shared by many members in this house, at the failure of the Indian affairs department to come up with any program other than a long range educational program to improve the economic lot of the Indians in relation to their land. This is one more reason why I feel it would be important to pass this bill.
I know criticisms can be made of the bill from the point of view that it really is unnecessary, since it would be possible to develop these projects without the amendment. My point is it will be much easier to get the projects; it will put pressure upon the Indian affairs branch and upon the bands, if the amendments are made. For that reason I would like to suggest to the Solicitor General that this bill, or its subject matter could be referred very properly to the agriculture committee, and if it was done very soon we could get a report on it.

I understand that the minister-I have forgotten what his title is, but he is the minister for eastern agriculture and forestry and so on -is not going to take over ARDA for some weeks, until some kind of legislative changes have taken place. It is for this reason I would suggest this measure should go to the agriculture committee rather than to the committee on mines, forests and waters, and I would appreciate it if the Solicitor General and the ministry would consider this very seriously. At the very least, sending it to the committee would be in no way a stamp of approval for it. The committee could make up their minds, and I think many members would like the opportunity when the bill would be before the agriculture committee to have an examination of the progress that ARDA is making, particularly in its relation to the hinterland areas where Indian reserves are a potential for ARDA projects, but have not really had an opportunity or have really not been pushed as yet.
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-
Laprairie): I, along with almost all members of the house, approve the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). The ARDA program is really the first approach that any government in Canada has ever made to the interrelated problems of agriculture, and the social problems resulting from the marginal areas of agriculture that are found in pockets throughout Canada, and to perhaps a greater extent the eastern part of the province of Quebec and the maritimes. I think this ARDA program is the first real hope that the people living in the marginal areas of agriculture have for improvement in their living standards.
The ARDA program combines a desire on the part of the Department of Agriculture to improve the agriculture in these marginal areas with a program which has its roots in the community affected. I believe the success of the ARDA program in any particular community is dependant upon the people living in that community. The local people must first come up with an idea, and present it to the Department of Agriculture which now administers ARDA. Later this idea, if it is approved, is developed in co-operation with the provinces into a federally financed self-help program. As far as the Indian reserves in Canada are concerned, the state of agriculture on almost all reserves in southern Canada has been at a low ebb since perhaps the turn of the century. For a period after the reserves were awarded to the various Indian tribes, a number of Indians were taught the skills of agriculture and settled down to fairly prosperous farming ventures. However, in the last 30 or 40 years, especially in southern Quebec

and Ontario, the Indians living on reserves have tended to drift away to work in the cities, and as a result agriculture on the reserves in southern Quebec and southern Ontario, has fallen into a complete state of disrepair.
The agricultural situation in the St. Regis and Caughnawaga reserves, which I represent, is best described as one where all the farms located on the reserves are weed-filled and growing over with brush, and the state of agriculture in both Caughnawaga and the St. Regis reserves is practically non-existent.
I think the ARDA approach would be helpful to both the Caughnawaga and St. Regis reserves, and I am told that somewhat similar situations exist on other reserves in southern Ontario. But I think we are fooling ourselves, and I do not really think this is the intention of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), if we think that the problems on the Indian reserves of Canada can be solved within the reserves. In my view most Indian groups in this country look on their reserves as their cultural home, but I think the day has passed when there is much hope of any Indian group in this country developing their reserve as a self-sufficient region capable of supporting any substantial percentage of the tribal population.
The Indian tribes were just beginning to engage in agricultural development when Jacques Cartier landed at Montreal. Hoche-laga was one of the first Indian settlements in eastern Canada to combine hunting and fishing with a considerable agricultural development. The North American Indians were just beginning to settle down into an agricultural type of society. Some of the Indians in the western part of our country had also reached this stage. However, I do not believe that a very large degree of success in agriculture has ever been achieved on any Indian reserve in this country, with the exception of some in British Columbia. There are a number of very successful Indian farmers today in British Columbia but with the exception of that province I do not think agriculture has been much of a success on any Indian reserve in Canada.
There is no reason why this state of affairs should continue. There is no reason why a few farmers at least should not develop the existing land area available for farming on many of the southern Quebec and southern Ontario reserves. In my opinion, with the proper community help approach the ARDA program might very well be integrated into the more general program at present being advanced by the government which is designed to combine the social development and 20220-32
Agricultural Rehabilitation Act advancement of Indian groups, to combine education with a type of social integration together with-


Robert William Prittie: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. I wonder whether he realizes that if he does not stop talking before six o'clock this bill may not get to the committee today.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie):: I have just a few remarks to make, Mr. Speaker.


Colin Cameron: Would you like some more questions?


Douglas Mason Fisher: This makes us cynical after the previous bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether I might make a few remarks at this stage that might be of assistance to the hon. member who now has the floor. This bill came before us rather unexpectedly, but since then I have had a chance to look at it and to study its substance and provisions. I might say even at this late hour that I have very serious doubts that the bill is in order at all. To my mind it is rather in the form of a money bill.
I am simply making these remarks at this stage by way of a caution because the debate has been allowed to go on, but I thought I should bring this point to the attention of the house so that when the bill comes before the house again there will be an opportunity at that time to make a ruling whether or not the bill is in order. At that time the hon. member for Port Arthur will also have an opportunity to express his views whether or not the bill is in order. Perhaps I might refer to the fact that the explanatory notes contained in the hon. member's bill read in part as follows:
This bill does not originate federal expenditures as, under section 7 (2) of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, no agreement under that act has force and effect until parliament appropriates moneys therefor.
I am informed that before the main bill could be introduced during the session of 1960-61 it was found necessary for it to be preceded by a resolution which commenced with the following words:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking jointly with those governments or agencies of projects for the alternative uses of lands that are marginal or of low productivity-
If a resolution was required when the main legislation was introduced, evidently a resolution would still be necessary at this time for the present measure in that if the bill were

Columbia River Treaty adopted it would force the government to have the moneys required voted by parliament. I am saying this by way of a caution at the present time, and the hon. member for Port Arthur will obviously be given an opportunity to express his views on the matter whenever the bill comes up again.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the view that in what you have said you are in a sense expressing very strong criticism of this parliament and the previous session. The fact is that I believe you were in the chair at the time this bill came before the house then, and at no time during that debate was this particular point raised. At no time was any indication given that this was the case. I certainly feel that the remarks you have made are a reflection on my capacity in introducing the bill, which you say does not meet the mark in spite of the fact that it appeared on the order paper and was debated in the previous session when you or your colleague were in the chair, and when you had the advice of the officials, just as you now have.
I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a very good argument can be made that the qualification in the explanatory notes does stand up. Obviously there is not time to go into it as it is almost six o'clock, but I certainly do regret the fact that you have put on the record a criticism of the bill that was not brought forward at the previous session when the bill was debated.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The hon. member may regret that, but if he understood my remarks he must have noted that what I said was strictly by way of a caution and I insist on the fact that when the bill comes up again for discussion he will then be given every opportunity to express his views whether or not the bill is in order. Certainly I feel he should be happy and satisfied with this suggestion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I would have appreciated it if you had raised the point before my hon. friends over here had talked out the bill.
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 the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river

basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, together with the protocol containing modifications and clarifications to the treaty annexed to an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States signed on January 22. 1964, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence which I have had from the area has not by any means been all of one view. A few months ago I received a considerable number of critical letters. More recently I have been receiving a large volume of favourable mail, including a petition received a few days ago with 4,000 or so names of persons from the area asking for immediate ratification of the treaty.
I have these petitions in my hand. They are formalized by a telegram addressed:
The Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, Prime Minister, Ottawa. Petition of urgency. We the undersigned citizens of the east and west Kootenays, province of British Columbia, hereby petition your government to place before the house as the first order of business the immediate ratification of the treaty on the Columbia river development signed by yourself and the President of the United States in Washington D.C. on January 22 1964, which has our wholehearted support.
Arrow lakes, Nakusp, New Denver, Silverton and Slocan.
Mr. Speaker, in taking note of these petitions, as these citizens have a right that I should, I can simply say to them that this item has been placed by the government before the house as the first item of our parliamentary business following the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
My friend, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in his remarks the other day ridiculed this petition and belittled this expression of views on so important a public project. I am not prepared to take so cavalier an attitude toward people who go to the trouble of setting down what they think and who are ready, on signing, also to pay toward the cost of the petition so their government and their parliament can know their views.
While I was in the locality last August I had several conversations with the people whom I met at the ferry, in the little village of Renata, for instance, and elsewhere along the way. The main impression I formed was that they wanted the uncertainty ended in order to be able to plan for the future and not continue living in doubt from day to day. I am confident that the arrangements now being made will work to their advantage.
It is not possible in a matter of this sort, involving as it does an agreement between three jurisdictions-two governments in Canada and the government of another country- to arrive at a settlement that can satisfy everyone. All that I can hope tc be able to

affirm to this house, is that with the help of my colleagues and my advisers we have reached a conclusion which we believe to be in the interests of Canada as well as in the interests of our neighbour and, of course, also in the interests of the province of British Columbia, the owner of the resource.
I have referred to the fact that there have been criticisms of the Columbia river treaty. Indeed it would be remarkable in a project of this magnitude and complexity if there had not. A vigorous and-


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: That was not your opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Pardon?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: That was not your opinion a couple of years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend will find that nothing I said a couple of years ago is inconsistent with the conclusion I have been able to help to bring about.
The vigorous and frank exchange of views on issues of importance to the country as a whole has always been a feature of Canadian public life. In the case of this vitally important matter, the Columbia river treaty, the debate has had useful results where there was substance, merit and practical possibility to the ideas brought forward. As I have said, many of these points have been met in the protocol.
Over the past year I have had several meetings and extensive correspondence with all of the principal critics of the treaty in order that I might be fully familiar with their points of view. Our objective was to produce the best possible result, recognizing at the same time that the result had to be capable of agreement with the United States. The bargaining has been very hard indeed, and I am sure that the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, would agree with what I say. There were times when it looked as though all would collapse; times even when we began to think of how to phrase a press release that would explain why no agreement was possible.
But to have failed would have been a major defeat, a defeat, not just to the negotiators or to the governments but to the application of reason and common sense to the solution of human affairs. It takes two to agree-or in this case three-and all must benefit if agreement is to result.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that all parties to this treaty and to the protocol, do benefit and benefit greatly in the contemplated arrangements. I am convinced too that the best possible negotiable plan has been 20220-32i
Columbia River Treaty worked out, not simply in the interests of British Columbia but in the broad interest of Canada. We have here-I am convinced of it-sound provisions and sound protections to ensure the wise use of this great resource in our national interest over the years ahead.
Some critics still argue that the best sequence of projects has not been chosen. Not a single group of professional engineers that has made a detailed study of the projects says so-not one. No one had demonstrated that any other sequence would produce better results, having regard for all the considerations involved.
It has been argued that the storages should have been built at Dorr, Bull river and Luxor in the east Kootenay and upper Columbia valleys rather than at Libby. These projects would have flooded over six times as much land as Libby, and displaced well over a thousand more people. In addition, the projects which are primarily for the diversion of water from the Kootenay to the Columbia river, have not been proved economical on the basis of the power they produce in Canada. They would be the last storages to be constructed in any orderly development of the river basin in Canada, if in fact they ever did become economic. The Libby arrangement, on the other hand, as devised in the treaty, gives Canada an early and most economic source of additional power in the industrialized west Kootenay area in Canada. It also provides flood control protection to that area. It does this with a minimum flooding of Canadian land.
It has been argued that the Arrow lakes dam is of no value to Canada. That is simply not so. Not only does it produce benefits of a value almost twice the cost of the project but it is also the key to the operation of the vital Mica dam.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You will hear more about that, later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says we shall hear more about that later. I am sure we shall hear a lot about many things later, but I hope that what we hear later will be consistent with the facts and will take into account, not prejudice, but the advice given by those with the technical and professional skill to give such advice. It is said-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: By whom? By the United States technicians who supplied the figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member asks: By whom? I am willing to tell him we have right here, in the service of the federal

Columbia River Treaty government, engineers who are, I believe, second to none. I have had an opportunity of conferring on this matter with people of engineering skill from the United States, British Columbia and other parts of Canada and, speaking for the federal government, I could name individuals whose devotion to the public service warrants the confidence that I have placed in them. Some of them are natives of British Columbia. Not only have we some of these engineers in the federal service, but there are individuals in the service of the government of British Columbia who have, by their long association with this project, and their engineering capacity, warranted our confidence in their skills pertinent to this particular matter.
The hon. gentleman seems to imply that we have relied on the engineering advice of people in another country. That is simply not the case-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They say so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and no one
knows it better than the hon. member who interrupts me at this very moment. I say, and I repeat what I have said, that it has been argued that the Arrow lakes dam is of no value to Canada. I say this is simply not so. Not only does it provide benefits which are almost twice the cost of the project, but it is the key to the operation of the vital Mica dam. Without high Arrow we could not enjoy both the great downstream benefits we are now assured of and the future possibilities of power development on the Columbia in Canada. That is the relation of the Arrow lakes project to the proposed dam at Mica.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Your member did not say that during the election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman makes happy interjections, and I have no quarrel with that. But I think he would agree with me that on a matter as important as this his interjections ought to be of such a character as would indicate he has a good appreciation of the problem.
It has been argued that we should not sell our downstream power benefits. Why not, if we have enough power in that part of Canada and will have surplus power for the years involved? To say we cannot terminate such a sale is nonsense and is not in conformity with either the treaty or the protocol.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What was the experience of Ontario?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The water of the Columbia has flowed to the sea for thousands of years and it will continue to do so for thousands more, long after the hon. gentleman and I have left this house. The sensible

thing is to make the best possible arrangement to turn that flow to our advantage. For 30 years, the best arrangement is to sell the benefits.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And the jobs.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There will still be benefits after 30 years and governments then, in their wisdom, can decide what is best to do. The right to full and unfettered control by Canada in the future has been amply protected in this treaty.
The situation which has been established is precisely the type contemplated by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the address of October 2, 1961, from which I have already quoted. He said:
Before we permit the export of power or any natural resource-including power-we must be certain that there will be no shortage for our own national development in the foreseeable future.
At the same time we must realize that increased exports to the United States, and elsewhere, are a vital necessity for our progress and development. A "dog in the manger" attitude toward the export of any commodity, energy included, would in the long run harm us more than it would the United States.
The sale in question is not an export of energy. I have already dealt with that point. It is an export of a service. However, the basic conditions that would be required for an export of energy are met in this case.
It has been argued that we should not commit ourselves to provide flood control benefits after the term of the treaty, even if the United States needs them. Let us look at that argument.
I have already pointed out that the dams in Canada will be paid for 100 per cent in advance, with money left over. Part of the advance payment is $64,400,000 (U.S.) for flood control in the United States. After the period of the treaty we say that Canada will continue to provide flood control if it is needed, and we now have a voice in determining that need. That is one of the consequences of the protocol. If it is really needed, because a flood is coming in the valley, and if we provide flood control, the United States must pay us our operating costs and any and all economic loss we suffer as a result of doing it. In short, we are to use dams that are paid for, to provide a service we are paid for, in order to help a neighbour to avert or reduce a disaster. Would Canadians prefer to profit from our neighbour's grief? Would Canadians want to traffic in human suffering and loss? I am happy to say that neither the previous government of Canada nor this government, regard these as Canadian aspirations or as the basis on which our relations with the United States, or, indeed, with any other country, should be conducted.

Another criticism has been that there is not adequate protection for the possible diversion of water from the Columbia river to the prairies for consumptive purposes. I have had a lengthy correspondence on this point with the premier of Saskatchewan

a rather temperate dispute, Mr. Speaker. I find that the matter was raised with the previous government and that they, like me, could not find themselves in agreement with the premier's concern. Diversions for consumptive purposes are clearly contemplated under the treaty and the provision is made more specific in the protocol. However, diversion from the Columbia river basin to Saskatchewan is only a far-distant and remote possibility. I feel some doubt whether British Columbia would find it an agreeable project, especially when some of the diversions talked of would take some 30 per cent of the water away from the generators at Mica Creek. I feel, too, that annual costs of $7.50 to $10.50 per acre foot to put water from the Columbia basin into the South Saskatchewan, plus compensation for power losses in British Columbia, are not likely to be attractive when, to use figures supplied by Saskatchewan itself, water can be put in the same river from the North Saskatchewan for 40 cents; from the Athabasca for $3.50; from the Peace for $4.60; and even from the Fraser at lower cost-$6. We should have vision and imagination in resource use, but we should have some sense of proportion as well.
Let me say only two things at this time about any continuing criticism. In the first place, there seems to be no agreement among such critics as remain. The things desired by some are completely inconsistent with the things devoutly wished by others. Second, those who still criticize the arrangement on the ground of some imagined impairment of Canadian sovereignty really seem to have the matter upside down. If anybody has accepted dependence on anybody else, it is the United States which has become dependant on us and our storages. In fact, of course, neither of our countries is surrendering sovereignty. We are each entering, quite deliberately into an arrangement which will be, in the careful and conscientious judgment of each of us, to our own advantage. We would really be accepting a limitation on our sovereignty if we were to consider ourselves incapable of joining in such a beneficial arrangement.
In the months gone by the critics of the treaty have helped us-and I acknowledge this-by raising points that had to be provided for, points that were not thought of by the negotiators. I thank them for that. The treaty and the protocol are better for their efforts. But now the need is for action.
Columbia River Treaty
The Columbia river development plans have been worked on long enough-for 20 years. They have engaged the attention of two Canadian governments. They have engaged the attention of the government of the province of British Columbia. They have engaged the attention of the international joint commission and of special bodies designed to report to that commission. They have engaged the attention of qualified men and women selected by the government to pass upon studies made by government agencies.
So with this background of preparation I say that we have before this house a treaty that should, and will, commend itself to the members of this house, as I am sure it will to the great majority of the people of our country. The plans that have been prepared are good plans. The engineering is nearly finished. The money to be paid by the United States will be raised in the coming weeks. It is for us to decide whether the fruit of years of effort is to be gathered for the benefit of the people of Canada now and in the years to come. I have no doubt, on the basis of the record, what the verdict of this parliament will be.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it will be a matter of extreme satisfaction to very many thousands of people in the province of British Columbia that we have arrived at the point where the Columbia river treaty is to be submitted to the external affairs committee of this house for examination. It is no news to hon. members of this house, I imagine, that the possibility of the development of the Columbia, the contemplation of the harnessing of the resources of that great river, has occupied the attention and the dreams too of many British Columbians over many years-in fact, not just years but even generations.
It has always been believed that if once a means could be found by which the tremendous resources of that basin could be utilized for the generation of power to be added to the economic mainstream of the province, there would flow from such development immense benefits for every man, woman and child in the province, and beyond the province benefits to Canadians in many parts of the country. Now we are at the point where a specific proposition will be presented to parliament, a treaty that will permit the multiple-use development of the basin.
I was interested to listen to the minister's very comprehensive presentation of the background and the history of the negotiations, the history of the signing of the treaty, the development of the disagreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, the new agreement that has led to the protocol that is the additional

Columbia River Treaty document submitted to us in this house today. I was interested in the minister's speech for a good many reasons. The first one I am going to deal with can only be critical. I well remember during the period when negotiations were going on with the province of British Columbia, when the former Conservative government was dealing with the present government of British Columbia, there was not always in B.C. the most wholehearted approval of Conservative actions by those who now sit on the government side. In fact, by their words and actions I contend that they contributed to the breakdown in the relationship between the Conservative government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stuart A. Fleming: They made this an issue in two election campaigns, in 1962 and 1963; and they cannot escape that responsibility, because the things they said then are nowhere reflected in the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) in this house this afternoon and this evening.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right. This is the member for Kootenay West speaking.


Stuart A. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispose of this portion of my remarks first. I would like to make it plain that we in the opposition do not intend to obstruct or hinder the passage of the treaty through the committee, but we do reserve the right, and will use the right, to scrutinize all the terms of the agreement, particularly the protocol, with the greatest care. We too want to see this immense development take place in British Columbia. We have the right to expect that. After 13 years of roadblocking, from March of 1944 until the Conservative government came into power in 1957, no progress was made and the former Liberal administration had virtually to admit defeat in this regard. It was under the Conservative administration that the first agreements were reached with the province of British Columbia and the 50 per cent return of downstream benefits were secured from the United States. Therefore we are not interested in obstruction. But we also have suffered as a party. Our integrity has been attacked; our actions have been villified by the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite and like to pretend that what the minister has said today has represented their viewpoint throughout.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hypocrites.


Stuart A. Fleming: On
February 28, 1963, one year ago, in the Van-
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke).l
couver Sun the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), who is described in the article as having headed the Liberal party's committee on power and energy development during the last parliament, wrote an article under the general heading "The problems of power". The headline was, "The present Columbia river treaty ties Canada's hands". The first paragraph of this article written by the hon. gentleman who is now parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister reads:
The present Columbia river treaty is not good enough. It amounts to a sellout of our Canadian resources.
This embarrassing treaty must therefore be renegotiated-renegotiated in such a way as to make low cost power available to us as consumers in British Columbia.
But it was not renegotiated. There is not a single change of principle, nor was principle ever discussed in the protocol-


An hon. Member:: Read the protocol.


Stuart A. Fleming: There is no change of principle in the protocol. The only principle change which was made was the agreement to sell all the downstream power benefits to the United States. Yet the principal consultant of the Liberal party said that it must be renegotiated in such a way as to make low cost power available to us as consumers in British Columbia. That is a repudiation of their whole position.
Then he said:
The U.S., which seeks flood control plus improved power development, could get early, major benefits by an altered schedule of works on the Canadian side.
There is not a single alteration in the schedule of work envisaged in the protocol. Then he said that under such new terms the Mica dam would be the best project with which to begin. The Mica dam is going to begin, as far as the engineering aspect makes it possible, simultaneously with both Duncan lake and high Arrow. Then the hon. member went on to say that there is no doubt that the present Columbia river treaty ties Canadian hands. He does not say in what fashion. Then he goes on to say:
It would flood thousands of acres of Canadian territory and it could prevent Canada from diverting the upper Kootenay into the Columbia and the Columbia into the Fraser river systems.
He was careful to say "could" because the treaty unrevised does provide for 1.5 million acres of diversion from the Kootenay river after 20 years. That was specifically written into the treaty and the protocol changes that in small measure, virtually in no effective manner at all. The hon. member goes on:
A good deal of scenery would be ruined and Canada might be obliged to hold back flood waters which would otherwise destroy property and endanger lives in the United States.

That is precisely what the treaty provided for. That is what the protocol provides for, and that is what would be necessary if we are to have a major development of a river in British Columbia. You could not develop a major river system of the size of the Columbia without changing the face of the land. To suggest as a criticism that thousands of acres of Canadian territory would be flooded is to suggest that this was a sufficiently bad thing to do away with the development.
Then the hon. member makes this suggestion:
We are obliged to build three storage dams costing around $400 million. The United States has to invest only $100 million in generating facilities and flood control payments to Canada. Yet the additional energy produced in the United States is split on a fifty-fifty basis.
The minister has just finished telling us that we do not want to take advantage of our friends' disadvantages. The United States has already spent $2 billion in developing the main stem of the Columbia and subsidiary rivers in the states of Washington and Oregon. Why would they be expected to spend an identical amount in the province of British Columbia at this stage of the development? It is as a consequence of the expenditure on that $2 billion development that there are already in existence downstream installations for us to derive power benefits from.
So it goes on, Mr. Speaker, and this was only one article; there were five in all. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to find it amusing that I suggest that what the minister said this afternoon and this evening amounts to a repudiation of Liberal policy. What about developing the Columbia river in the first place? The hon. member for Coast-Capilano in his second article, which was published in the Vancouver Sun on March 1, 1963, said:
Other local hydro resources remain to be developed around Vancouver and in the vicinity of Trail. Operated in conjunction with existing facilities they could be added for three mills or less. We can obviously get by quite nicely until 1975. So we should be in no rush to build massive dams on the Peace, the Columbia, the Fraser, or any other major river

We have heard from the minister today that this view is rejected.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will skip the third article, which mentions taxes, and I will come back to that a little later. I go to the fifth article, which deals with costs. The hon. member says:
Of course, our exports must be in surplus supply. They must be over and beyond our foreseeable requirements. Where there is the slightest doubt, these sales should not occur. And by all means let us keep our really low cost energy resources at home.
What has happened to this Liberal idea? First of all, we are going to sell power which
Columbia River Treaty we are told will be available at a cost of approximately 1.5 mills. That is the lowest cost power, I suspect, in the whole of Canada, let alone British Columbia, and we are going to sell all of it in the United States. Why? The minister has told us that British Columbia will have a surplus of power because of the Peace river development. You can get a surplus of power by building projects in all directions without regard to what it will cost. You can get a surplus of power very simply if you are not going to be bothered about what it costs to produce.
I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know whether they are going to get this Peace river power, which is supposed to make these downstream benefits surplus, at the same cost as the downstream benefits. Or are they going to be asked to pay 10, 12 or 14 mills for it? We want to know on what basis the government of Canada agreed with the government of British Columbia that this power is surplus to requirements. We have already seen the statements of the premier of British Columbia, issued at approximately the time when the province decided to go ahead with the Peace river development, to the effect that there will be a "brown out" in the lower mainland before Peace river power could be delivered. Because it is going to take more than six years to develop the dam and before any power can be fed into the provincial electrical grid. If the premier is correct when he said that there would be a "brown out" in the industrial regions of the lower mainland before Peace river power could be produced, how can you justify, Mr. Speaker, the sale of all downstream power benefits to the United States in face of this possibility of shortage of low cost power to British Columbia industry? That we must know.
We do know that the power increment in British Columbia increases approximately 8 per cent annually, which is a compounding increase. We also know that there will be a tremendous demand for power in the province. We are capable of producing far more power, of course, than our requirements. But in this, five, six, or seven-year period-because it will be eight years before the Mica creek will be ready for the installation of generators, and six or seven years before the Peace river will be generating power-what is being done to assure British Columbia that the lowest cost energy, until these other projects are available, will be provided? And why have we agreed to allow these benefits to go to the United States when the United States already had agreed with the former government that, if low cost power from the downstream benefits was required in advance of the completion of any of the three storage projects, it could be drawn on and then later

Columbia River Treaty debited to our entitlement at a future time? These questions are questions which must be examined. They are questions which the house is entitled to have answered and which we feel the people of British Columbia must have answered.
Those of us in opposition have already been through a difficult period. The minister drew attention to the criticism which has arisen in some quarters of the treaty. We have gone through a great deal of trouble as a consequence of the criticism of hon. members opposite, as represented by these articles from which I have extracted quotations. We have been further criticized as well. After the Leader of the Opposition, when he was prime minister, made his announcement on March 19,	1962, at the federal-provincial
conference on long distance power transmission, and when the Conservative government's position on the export of power was enunciated, there was an opportunity for the renewal of negotiations with the province of British Columbia, and the negotiations had been renewed. What was the reaction of the Liberal opposition of that day? On May 14, 1962, in a statement made in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the leader of the opposition of that time said:
The existing treaty is not good enough. A responsible government could have made a better deal with the U.S.
A better deal can still be made. The only possible reason for a sudden settlement at this point is a desperate desire to preserve Social Credit and Conservative votes in B.C. For that purpose ratification of the treaty now in its present form would be sacrificing the best interests of Canada.
There is the statement of the Prime Minister on this matter. The leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia on September 28 in a statement made at Victoria said:
The total and abject surrender of Prime Minister Diefenbaker and his cabinet ministers to the government of British Columbia and to Mr. Bennett on this issue of long term export of hydro power and the question of the Columbia river treaty is designed only to win the support of 30 Social Credit members.
The minister did not have to sell these downstream benefits to get the support of the Social Credit members in this house. If the reason for agreeing to the downstream disposal of power is the same as they suggested the Conservatives' reason would have been, it was a wasted effort. As the Conservative government throughout the negotiation with the government of British Columbia made very plain, we would not oppose the export of surplus power but it would have to be proved surplus to the requirements of the province and this was set forward at that conference to which I have referred, the federal-provincial conference on long distance

power transmission of March 19, 1962. At that time the prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition, said:
In December the government on the recommendation of the national energy board approved a number of power export licences. When a new block of power is brought into an original system, export of the surplus portion may be desirable or even necessary if the development itself is to be feasible, but the export should be confined to power that the national energy board is prepared to certify as surplus to Canada's requirements now and for the foreseeable future.
We do not argue with the export of surplus power but we do demand to know how it can be considered surplus and we come back again to the minister's statement on the Peace river. Certainly if the Peace river supplies the great load of power that it is supposed to provide for the province it is going to have not only power from that source, but further development of the Columbia will no doubt create a surplus that can be exported or, as we hope be fed into a national grid system to provide power to provinces without adequate supply at the present time, or not likely to have adequate supplies in the future.
We do not argue against export but we do feel that this downstream power, or the sale of it should have been considered by the national energy board. The minister contends that that power is not export, that it is generated in the United States, therefore it can be sold in the United States and need not be considered in terms of export. Now that power is generated by American installations only as a consequence of construction of Canadian works on the Columbia river. It is power created in fact by Canadian installations, because it would not be created without the Canadian installations and in that sense at least it may be considered an export. Certainly it is the property of the province of British Columbia, and I do feel that we must be told either here in the house before this debate concludes, or in committee, on what basis the decision was made to sell all the downstream benefits downstream, and what guarantee the government secured from the province of British Columbia that equivalent low cost power could be provided to the people and industries of British Columbia.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a question.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When looking at the hon. member who wishes to speak, I am wondering whether we have a new minister of labour and I call your attention to the fact that according to standing order 28, a member cannot ask questions unless he is at his seat.


An hon. Member:: Do the same thing you did with the Columbia river; get back in the stall there.


John (Jack) Davis: I wonder it I can ask the hon.
member a question?


Stuart A. Fleming: Certainly.


John (Jack) Davis: Is the hon. member aware that the dominion bureau of statistics has published a forcecast of a surplus, a substantial surplus of power in British Columbia over the next five years?


Stuart A. Fleming: I have had statistics provided to me in the past by the hon. member who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and if I were going to deal in statistics I am sure I could supply the hon. member with many that may come from equally reliable sources, and I could prove a great many points; but he has managed to overlook once again the essential point and obscures the situation, as the minister was doing. I know there could be a surplus. I know there will be a surplus. Is the Peace river power as low cost as the surplus we are going to sell? We could all instal Delco plants and make power in our backyards, but would it be economic? What we want to know is whether this power that is retained in the province to drive the wheels of industry and to light and heat the homes of the people, is as cheap as the power we are selling in the United States.
Somewhere in one of these articles I have referred to earlier the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) has said our hands were tied, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said this protocol that he has negotiated has given us greater freedom of action and movement and so on particularly with respect to diversion.
I would like to draw your attention to the statement made by the right hon. the prime minister of the former government at the time of the signing of the treaty. He said: The treaty makes provision for a number of diversions of water that may be made by Canada from the Kootenay river in its natural course in different circumstances and at different times. It will be possible, even if the United States exercises its option to build the Libby dam, to divert 1.5 million acre feet of water per year from the Kootenay river in Canada into the head waters of the Columbia river to increase power production in Canada. It will not be advantageous to do this until generators have been installed on our part of the Columbia, which will not be for some years. This right is exercisable by Canada at any time after 20 years from the ratification date. If the United States does not exercise its option to build Libby dam, the treaty provides that Canada has the immediate right to make a major diversion from the Kootenay river into the Columbia river that would send approximately 90 per cent of the
Columbia River Treaty flow down that course. There are also provisions for major diversions at the end of 60 and 80 years even if the United States has built the Libby dam. The permanent rights of Canada to the free use of the waters of the Kootenay river are thus protected.
To suggest, as the minister did suggest today, that the diversionary rights of Canada on the waters of the Kootenay were not protected by the treaty is not correct. This definition of what was contained in the treaty was clearly explained at the time of the treaty.
We can look at this protocol and note the summary that is contained in page 126 of the green book we were provided with during the past week. If hon. members seem to feel when I suggested there had been no negotiation of new principles that was an unreasonable statement, let us look at the summary here. There are new procedures, no new principles. The summary states, "Reconfirmation in positive terms of Canada's right to make diversion." You will note it says reconfirmation, not renegotiation-confirmation is all. The summary further states "Clarification of Canada's rights to continue in perpetuity any diversion to the Kootenay river in accordance with the treaty". Again you will note it says clarification, not new negotiation, not new principles. Further from the summary: "Confirmation of Canadian control of the detailed operation of storage for power purposes". It says confirmation, not renegotiation. It is confirmation of something that already existed in the other treaty. And so it goes. We have in fact had a very strong presentation by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He spoke well of the role played by Hon. Davie Fulton as head of the negotiating committee. I know that the work done by Mr. Fulton was looked upon by him with respect and regard as it was by a great many people in British Columbia, certainly by many in this party and by myself personally.
One of the things I had discussed with Mr. Fulton on a previous occasion and which I brought up in the house during the throne speech of May of last year was the question of whether it was possible to examine the development on the Columbia river as it is now projected and to have a look at the storage behind Mica creek to see if it is not possible that the dam can be built 15 feet higher than was contemplated in the original treaty as a consequence of a reassessment of costs. Here again there would be no necessity for changing the principle but it would be possible in the reconsideration of costs of the structure to make provision so that substantially greater storage can take place behind that dam and in that reservoir than had been contemplated.
494	HOUSE OF
Columbia River Treaty
If this is so, is it economically feasible? Could it be that a degree of the storage from the high Arrow project could be transferred to storaee behind Mica creek? If this additional height can be built within present cost estimates, if this water can be transferred, is it economically sound to suggest that part of the Arrow lake storage can be transferred to that reservoir? If so, it would be possible to eliminate a substantial amount of the criticism in British Columbia that now exists with regard to the treaty and the protocol because it would preserve some of the lands that are now likely to be flooded.
That is one idea. Also, in the course of his discussions with the province of British Columbia has the minister satisfied himself that the province has committed the development of the Columbia to an authority that will take into account all possibilities of development and not concern itself exclusively with power production and storages only? I ask this question because in British Columbia we know that the B.C. hydro and power authority has been charged with the responsibility of developing the river, but many of us feel the province should be designating a body with far greater authority and far greater terms of reference, something in the nature of the Tennessee valley authority under which recreation, conservation of wildlife and fish, conservation of forests and land and the redevelopment of beaches and recreational areas around the lakes and storages that may be created in time will be taken care of, a proper authority to consider compensation for and relocation of people who will be displaced by flooding, an authority that will take into account the tremendous impact on the towns in the Columbia river valley which will be affected by flooding, some of which will actually have essential public facilities such as sewage and water interfered with by the rising of the waters in the lakes and the river. There is also the matter of the impact of the tremendous influx of workmen and their families on these small towns which will have to provide housing, schools, medical services and so on for these people. What provision has been made for these things?
I realize at once that it is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) nor does it come within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, but I do feel that these considerations must be provided for. We have had no reassurance from any source yet that all of the aspects of this development have been taken into account or that the hydro and power authority of British Columbia has even been given the opportunity to provide for this sort of development. This is the sort of
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1

thing with regard to which I feel the federal government must at least use its influence in negotiations to be sure that wildlife, fisheries, recreation, forestry and all these other requirements, as well as human needs are being met. While I listened with interest to the statement made by Mr. Keenleyside, the co-chairman of the hydro and power authority, which the minister read and which I had also read myself, I am afraid it does not seem to go far enough because he says that hydro is not a soulless engineering machine and that it will deal generously and sympathetically with each person who has to move his home or his business. The problem is far greater because the economy of our towns and villages will be affected. The face of the land will be changed, and consequently the authority that does have the responsibility for this development in British Columbia must have a far wider objective than simply creating dams, controlling the flow of water and installing generators.
Finally, it is desirable to emphasize once again that if the treaty projects represent the whole of the Columbia development, then the development should not take place, but if they represent the beginning of the Columbia development and provide a foundation for the installation of generators at Mica creek and the building in time of dams at Murphy creek, Downey creek and Revelstoke canyon and subsidiary dams on the Kootenay between Nelson and Castlegar and possibly other installations in Kootenay east, if these things follow then the development of the Columbia is, as the minister said, a great achievement for Canada. But if it is no more than the building of these storages and one dam capable of producing power, then it is not justified. We must have the absolute assurance of British Columbia-I guess we had better have that in writing too-that the province intends to proceed with the full development of the river and thus provide the people of British Columbia with an immense opportunity, and also provide for Canada opportunities for employment and production in many of our great eastern factories, opportunities that are so great it is almost impossible even now to realize their full potential.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Columbia river treaty, which this motion will send to the external affairs committee for consideration is undoubtedly one of the most important measures that will come before this parliament. In fact, it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before any parliament in Canada for several decades because it deals with the lives of the people

and the economic well-being of a large area of the province of British Columbia not only for this generation but for future generations.
I think that this is a thoroughly bad treaty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it was conceived in avarice and born in apathy, and I do not think that the protocol has done anything to remove the worst features of the treaty. The previous speaker was quite correct when he said that the only fundamental change which the protocol has brought about is that the downstream benefits are now being sold for a lump sum paid in advance. That is the only change. As someone has said, this treaty is very much like an old hag putting on lipstick and rouge, not so much to enhance her beauty but to hide her ugliness.
I was interested in hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) say this afternoon that the Columbia river treaty which was signed on January 17, 1961 was a credit to the administration of that time and that he had been engaged in the task merely of making a good treaty a better treaty. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not what his colleagues were saying in 1961, 1962 and 1963. It is not what the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) were telling the people of British Columbia in the last two federal elections. In those elections people were being told that this constituted a sell-out, that this was the export of jobs, and that this was a betrayal to the interests of the United States.
Now, overnight, it has become a good treaty, a treaty, according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that was a credit to the government which signed it in January, 1961. It seems that as hon. members climb the ladder of political success the altitude has an amazing effect upon their convictions and their points of view.
There is no argument about the case which the Secretary of State for External Affairs put forth about the tremendous potential of the Columbia river, and what it can do to increase the well-being and raise the living standards of the people of B.C. and of the northwestern states of the United States. No one is quarrelling for a moment with the idea of developing the Columbia river basin. This is a great natural resource which can serve mankind for generations to come.
What we as parliamentarians have to be concerned about is whether or not this treaty is in the best interests of the Canadian people, whether this is like the chicken pie-one chicken and one horse; whether all the benefits are on one side, or whether it has been
Columbia River Treaty negotiated in such a way that the interests of the Canadian people have been safeguarded.
I ask the house to take a look first of all at what Canada will get out of this treaty. The treaty, and now the protocol, stipulate that we will get for our downstream benefits, sold in bulk, on October 1, 1964, $274.8 million in Canadian funds. Then we will get for flood control payments a total of $69.6 million, $12 million for the Duncan dam when it is completed in 1968, $56.3 million for the Arrow dam when it is completed in 1969, and $1.3 million for the Mica dam when it is completed in 1973. This will make a grand total of $344.4 million.
Then the minister, in his press releases, did some sleight of hand by which he said that by the year 1973, if you got interest on this money, it would be worth $501 million. Of course the fact is that most of this money will be spent before 1973.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is still valuable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The most important consideration is, what will this amount of money buy? It will take this $344.4 million to build the three dams and, if the engineering estimates are accurate, there will be $53.4 million left over. Personally I do not think there will be much left over. Most people's experience with engineering estimates is usually that actual costs are higher than estimates, and I doubt very much if there will be anything left. But assuming the figures are accurate, and there are $53.4 million left over, the minister's own press release says that this $53 million will pay half the generating installations on Mica creek, and that will have a value to the power users in B.C. of $16 million a year from 1973 to the year 2003.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, that will be more than offset if the Peace river power costs just one mill more than the power from the Columbia river; but even if we get $16 million a year of benefit, that will not begin to compensate Canada for the payments that will have to be made, to people who are dispossessed from their homes and places of business, for communities that are flooded, to say nothing of the fact that it will not begin to pay for the loss of the productivity of thousands of acres of land which will be flooded in perpetuity.
The $69.6 million which we are getting for flood control means that we are to supply 15J million acre feet of storage, most of it productive land, timber and agricultural land. All this will be taken out of production in perpetuity for $69.6 million.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a great point of the fact that the federal government was not being

Columbia River Treaty called upon now to make any federal contribution. Of course it is not, because what the government of Canada has done is to sell the downstream benefits for a lump sum, and that sum will do little more than pay for the construction of three dams whose primary purpose is flood control in the United States, and to increase power production in the United States.
What does the United States get out of this treaty and protocol? First of all they get flood control that it has been estimated in some quarters is worth some $500 million. Certainly Mr. Stewart Udall, the secretary of the interior, set the value of power and flood control at $710 million if the United States had to undertake it alone. He said about $150 million was for generating installation, which means that this flood control is worth over $500 million to the United States. The United States is now getting this by paying us $69.6 million.
The second thing she gets is greatly increased generating power that would cost her a great deal of money if she had to produce it in the United States.
I have here a copy of an address which was delivered to the association of professional engineers of Alberta, in Calgary, on Saturday, March 23, 1963 by General A. G. L. McNaughton, and in the course of that speech this is what he said:
The studies in the international joint commission and elsewhere have shown that the benefits to stream flow control which Canada can provide to the United States are so large that to match them within their own territory the United States would need to expend close to a billion dollars even if they could obtain permission to use the sites for the works required.
We sometimes speak of the Americans and ourselves having divided these downstream benefits on a fifty-fifty basis, but as General McNaughton said in his address to the professional engineers in Alberta the formula the Americans have used has resulted in their getting 60 per cent of the downstream benefits, whereas Canada is only getting 40 per cent, and the Americans' own published figures will substantiate that statement.
When, this afternoon, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) quoted the Prime Minister as having said in a speech in Vancouver that it was folly to spend large sums of money just to provide cheap power to the United States, I wonder what he thinks this treaty and protocol are doing? This is providing cheap power to the United States. All the United States is paying for is the downstream benefits in advance, and less than $70 million for flood control.
A third thing which the Americans get out of this treaty is complete control of the Columbia river basin. A great deal has been

said about the protocol but I ask the house to take a look at annex A of the treaty, and to look at clause 7. Clause 7 makes the situation very clear. It says:
After at-site power is developed at the site referred to in paragraph 5(a) or power generating facilities are placed in operation in Canada downstream from that site, the storage operation will be changed so as to be operated in accordance with operating plans designed to achieve optimum power generation at-site in Canada and downstream in Canada and the United States of America, including consideration of any agreed electrical co-ordination between the two countries.
Here is, really, the nub of the whole question-this matter of optimum power generation. I do not think I could do better, in trying to clarify exactly what is meant by this, than to refer to an article which appeared in the International Journal volume 18, number 2. I wish to read from an article written by General A. G. L. McNaughton in which he explains what optimum power generation means for Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the year of publication?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think I have the date.


An hon. Member:: Look on the front page.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for-is it Rosedale?-keeps trying to be witty and only half succeeds. This is what General McNaughton has to say in this article at page 158 of the International Journal:
Later on, when Canadian at-site generation comes to be installed, an even more unfortunate arrangement develops its adverse effect to cut down drastically the possibilities for production of power for the Canadian load. This derives from clause 3 of the preamble, which I have mentioned previously, and which defines the intent of the parties to the treaty as: "being desirous of achieving the development of the resources in a manner that will make the largest contribution to the economic progress of both countries and the welfare of their peoples of which these resources are capable."
These are the general's comments. He continues:
This is collective. It means that the regulation of flow from the Canadian reservoirs must he directed in making the largest contribution, to provide both in kind and amount the greatest possible total benefit in the basin. This is a perfectly laudable objective, no doubt, in integrated operations for one country, but when the result is "peaking power" to meet the larger U.S. interest while Canada requires "firm power", there is a clash of interest in which Canada as the smaller will suffer very seriously through the results of the objective of regulation specified in Annex A, paragraph 7.
That is the one I have quoted. The article goes on:
This calls for "operating plans designed to achieve optimum generation at-site in Canada and the United States" including-as a later stage-

"consideration of any agreed electrical co-ordination between the two countries". Basin "optimum" is largely the kind of regulation which the United States wants, not what Canada needs.
If one looks at clause 5 of annex A he begins to realize the tremendous control which this treaty will place in the hands of the United States. The clause says:
For flood control operation, the United States entity will submit flood control operating plans which may consist of or include flood control storage reservation diagrams and associated criteria for each of the dams. The Canadian entity will operate in accordance with these diagrams or any variation which the entities agree will not derogate from the desired aim of the flood control plan.
The latter part of the paragraph says:
After consultation with the Canadian entity the United States entity may from time to time as conditions warrant adjust these storage reservation diagrams within the general limitations of flood control operation. Evacuation of the storages listed hereunder will be guided by the flood control storage reservation diagrams and refill will be as requested by the United States entity after the consultation with the Canadian entity.
That is abundantly clear. There will be consultation, but the final decision with regard to this flow will lie entirely in the hands of the United States authorities.
Contrast that position with the agreement made in the case of the only dam which is to be constructed in the United States, the Libby dam, which will be built in Montana. Here, the story is different. Under the terms of article XII-and I shall read clause (5)- it is provided:
If a variation in the operation of the storage is considered by Canada to be of advantage to it the United States of America shall, upon request, consult with Canada. If the United States of America determines that the variation would not be to its disadvantage it shall vary the operation accordingly.
Surely, that is crystal clear. The Libby dam in the United States will be controlled by the United States. If it is not to its disadvantage, it shall vary the operation. But if it feels it would be to its disadvantage, then it does not have to vary the operation. This is why it is so completely meaningless to talk about the control we are going to have of the Kootenay. As I say, the Libby dam in the United States will be controlled by the United States, and the dams built in Canada will also be controlled by the United States. This is certainly a one-sided agreement.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this afternoon that the diversion from the Kootenay into the Columbia had been clarified by the protocol. This, again, is a matter of giving a legal right which has little or no value because since the Americans are the upstream nation in the case of the Kootenay, and since they will be operating a dam at the Libby, they will have the right to determine how much water would come into
Columbia River Treaty Canada, how much water would be available for development in west Kootenay, how much water would be available for power generation and, in addition, when we would get it, if at all. May I also point out that in spite of the protocol, article XIII of the treaty, in subsections (2) and (3) makes it perfectly clear that we cannot divert water until after 20 years have passed, and then only 1,500,000 acre feet out of a total of five million acre feet.
But the most important thing the United States will get out of this treaty is tremendous quantities of water, and water at flow rates dictated by the needs of the United States. The Americans have been 40 or 50 years ahead of us in recognizing that the day will come on this continent when water will be more important than gold. That is why the United States have spent the last 30 years impounding water. That is why the United States today pipes water hundreds of miles down into states like California, because the Americans know that unless you have quantities of water you cannot have agriculture, you cannot have industry and you cannot have large urban centres. I do not think the Americans are worried about the power. I think they are worried about flood control; but what they are primarily concerned about is to control a great volume of water, and this is what we are giving them by turning over to them the resources of the fourth largest river on this north American continent. And we are doing it, I may say, for a measly $344.4 million which is going to be used to build storage dams primarily to help the United States.


Mr. Basford:: And give jobs to 3,500 people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What an argument.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) says it will give jobs to 3,500 people. I want to tell him what will happen if this treaty is ratified and there is surplus power in the U.S.-as there undoubtedly will be, as the minister pointed out this afternoon-and an installed capacity of 35 billion kilowatts in the northwestern United States. The aluminum industry in the northwestern United States has only been held back by a lack of abundant, cheap power, and when they get this it will be the end of the aluminum industry in British Columbia. We will get 3,500 jobs all right because of the Columbia river project, but we will lose thousands of jobs through the loss of cheap power from British Columbia and by the fact that we are shipping our water across the border to make the United States deserts bloom like the rose.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In perpetuity.
4S3

Columbia River Treaty


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now I want to say a tew words about the kind of treaty that we think would be in Canada's best interests. Most hon. members are familiar with what is known as sequence 9A, which is more commonly called the McNaughton plan. The McNaughton plan, for those who have not taken the trouble to study it, is designed to do three things. First, to flood less land; second, to generate more power; and third, to place the dams where greater use can be made of them for power production after the expiration of this treaty.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, could 1 ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker; I have not unlimited time like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). I only have a very limited period of time to deal with this important question. I want to put my views on the record for the benefit of the house.


Mr. Addison:: When are you going to start?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) will be able to tell the external affairs committee all he knows in a very short period of time. Mr. Speaker, the whole controversy as to the relative merits of the so-called McNaughton plan and the plan which is contained in this agreement is best summed up in an article which was written by James G. Ripley, who is the editor of the "Engineering and Contract Record". I would like to read just a couple of paragraphs because I think they summarize the contrast.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In what article?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "Engineering and Contract Record".


Paul Joseph James Martin: What year and what month?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not the date here.


Mr. Macdonald:: You have not any facts either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My colleague tells me it is September, 1963. Mr. Ripley says:
The present treaty places three of the four major dams (high Arrow, Libby, and Duncan) virtually on the American border, where they are absolutely useless for any purpose except regulating U.S. flows. As the value of this regulation declines... we eventually are left with three useless structures. We cannot produce a kilowatt of at-site power for Canada at any of these dams. The fourth dam (Mica) will produce some power but will always sacrifice part of its potential output because the treaty says it must be operated primarily for U.S. regulation.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Then he says:
McNaughton would develop the Canadian half of the Columbia in precisely the opposite way by putting all major storages as high in the mountains as possible. (This is also the way the U.S. would develop the river if there were no international boundary. He would eliminate high Arrow, and Libby, and replace them with dams at Bull river, Luxor, and Dorr. The net effect would be that this water could be run through 1,280 feet of Canadian head before it reached the border. The Americans would get the same water, but Canada would use it first and would control the regulation.
I think that sums it up very well. We have the right to know why, when this treaty and the protocol were being negotiated, sequence 9A was not used as the basis of the negotiation. Why was it discarded? It had been accepted by the international joint commission, by both the Americans and the Canadians on that commission, and why was it not the basis of negotiation? Why was the harnessing of the Columbia river basin not based primarily on the needs of Canada rather than primarily on the needs of the United States? The minister has said a great deal about water diversion for the prairies, and in the press releases which he issued a short time ago he said, at page 5:
The protocol clears up any misunderstanding on this point by affirming Canada's rights to make such diversions under the treaty. This right would apply for example to any diversion that might become desirable to the prairie provinces for irrigation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry that I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may not continue his remarks unless he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I started at nine o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has 30 minutes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Forty minutes, on a motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate that. I am sorry.


An hon. Member:: Lucky.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am lucky, but the house is not. That statement about irrigation for the prairies borders on deception. What are the facts? The minister keeps quoting article XIII, clause 1, which says that water cannot be diverted for other than consumptive uses. But I would suggest that one ought to read

this in conjunction with article I of the treaty, which is the interpretation clause. Article I, clause (e) says:
"consumptive use" means use of water for domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes but does not include use for the generation of hydroelectric power.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does anyone in his right senses think you could divert water to the prairies solely for irrigation purposes? One tenth of the average flow of the Columbia diverted into the South Saskatchewan river basin would double the flow of the South Saskatchewan river.
British Columbia, of course, would have to be compensated for this, but it would have to be a multiple-purpose project. In great areas like the prairies the only way you can supply water is if it is used for power, for irrigation, for domestic consumption, for industry or for recreation. That is the only way the South Saskatchewan system could have been built. It would not have stood alone on any one of those uses, but when it is a multipurpose project it is possible for it to be economic. When the minister says that we have the legal right to divert waters to the prairies for irrigation, I want to point out that we may have the legal right but it is a meaningless right, because it would be uneconomic unless this water could be used for electrical energy as well as for irrigation and other uses.
The minister says that it is doubtful whether British Columbia would want to part with this water. I suggest that the day may come when the province of British Columbia will be glad to sell 10 per cent of the flow of the Columbia river, not only because of the revenue it would derive, but because the more people there are, the more products which are grown, and the greater is the development on the prairies, the greater will be the prosperity of British Columbia, which is the port for Alberta and the western half of the province of Saskatchewan.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I have not too much time.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I was wondering, in view of the fact that the treaty permits a 10-year notice of termination, and in view of the fact that notice could be given immediately after ratification, if this country saw fit this treaty would only go 60 years and one day. Would that change the hon. member's view on this irrigation point?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not prepared to wait 60 years before thinking of the needs of the parched prairies. The dust storms we have had
Columbia River Treaty in the last few weeks in Alberta remind us that the prairies are still a semi-arid plain, and the day may come again when the government of Canada will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the prairies fighting drought while the volume of the Columbia river goes flowing down to the United States to be piped into the northwestern states to help the United States make its valleys green and its industries expand. In my opinion this provision in the treaty is both improvident and profligate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You cannot have both sides.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not asking to have both sides. We are saying that we have complete control over a river which rises in Canada, a river over which we have complete control under the boundary water treaty act of 1909. We ought to co-operate with the United States so far as flood control is concerned. But the primary purpose of developing the resources of the Columbia river basin should be for the benefit of Canadians, and I suggest that that is not what this treaty provides. I believe that in this treaty the sharp Yankee traders took our naive and inexperienced Canadian negotiators into the camp and took them for "suckers".
I ask this house, Mr. Speaker, to remember that these resources do not belong to us. We merely hold them in trust for future generations of Canadians who will live in this country for all time. I say to the house that this treaty and this protocol means that we are selling our birthright for a mess of pottage, largely to satisfy the vanity of a provincial premier and to meet the needs of a power-hungry and water-hungry neighbour to the south.
I should like to remind this house that over 50 years ago the republic of Panama signed an agreement with the United States regarding a canal and the supply of water for that canal. At the present time it takes something in the neighbourhood of 1,000 million gallons a year to supply the Panama canal. As a result of that treaty the Panamanians now find they have not sufficient water for their own needs. This is why there is trouble in Panama. This is why the signs say "Go home Yankee". I want to tell the house that if we are so forgetful of our duty as to ratify this treaty, the day will come in Canada when generations not very far distant from today will curse the day that the parliament of Canada gave away this great heritage of the Canadian people.
I am glad that this treaty and the protocol are going to be referred to the committee on external affairs. This is a step which we urged on the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)
500	HOUSE OF
Columbia River Treaty
and I am glad his commitment is being carried out. We shall urge the members of that committee to hear all points of view and to allow prominent engineers who have expressed their misgivings about this treaty to appear and give evidence. I hope the committee, after it has investigated this matter, will recommend to parliament and the government that this matter be held in abeyance until the treaty can be renegotiated along the lines of the proposals set forth in the so-called McNaughton plan, so that the mobilization of the Columbia river basin resources will be predicated on the interests of the people of Canada to a degree which is not present in the treaty.
If the committee brings back this treaty and recommends its ratification, we in the New Democratic party will oppose its ratification, and will do everything in our power to prevent this parliament giving its assent to what we consider a great betrayal of the interests of the people of British Columbia in particular, and of the people of Canada in general. We feel that unless we register our objection we will not be true to our convictions, and we will not be keeping faith with future generations of Canadians.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) I should bring to the attention of the house that the hon. member's time has expired. Therefore no questions can be asked unless the house gives unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Davis: I should like to address a question to the previous speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent I will call on the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the various contributions to this debate, which is concerned with one of the most important pieces of legislation before the house in this session, with much interest. I have a very personal interest in this matter because as I stand at the most westerly point of my electoral district I can see the headwaters of the Columbia running to the west and to the south, the headwaters of the Athabaska running to the north, and the headwaters of the Saskatchewan river system running to the east. Anyone who has had this experience can understand the tremendous resources which are


ours in Canada as far as precious life-giving water is concerned.
I maintain it will be a very cold day in June indeed before western Canada is short of water. I very much welcome the speed with which the government has placed before us this important matter of the ratification of the new protocol to the Columbia river treaty. Contrary to the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I feel that it is a thoroughly good treaty, and rather than being a decorated old hag it is in my opinion a wild horse that has been running without control for many years through the valleys of the Rocky mountains, and it is now being brought under control to plow a mighty furrow for Canada in the development of its industry and commerce.
This is one of the most far reaching projects for the development of the natural resources of Canada that we have yet seen and the benefits that it can bring not only to British Columbia but to the entire nation of Canada are of such a magnitude that we who stand here at this point today cannot really fully understand. For this reason it is not our intention to enter into any lengthy debate at this time, and it is our intention at this point not to take any further part in the debate on the resolution stage.
I believe it is essential that this treaty and the protocol be brought before the external affairs committee at the earliest possible time, when we can hear the experts and when we can argue and discuss the details to our hearts' content. I believe at this point as well that it is right that we should pay tribute to the premier of British Columbia who, since his first election to power in 1952, has doggedly and in the face of many discouragements persisted in going forward with the development of this immense concept, and to whose credit must be laid many of the features that have gone into the making of this agreement, the price at which the power has been sold; the two rivers policy that has placed Canada in such a favourable bargaining position; the whole concept of downstream benefits and the ingenious and profitable manner of making payment incorporated in the protocol, whereby Canada will in effect be receiving the construction of her part of the project virtually free of charge.
I was much impressed by the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) today as he gave us a few of the statistics which relate to the project itself. The Columbia river project has a hydroelectric potential of some 145 billion kilowatt hours at its mean flow. This is greater than any other river in North America and it represents 15 per cent of the existing water

power in the entire world. Not only are billions of dollars involved in the Columbia itself, but the national policies of both countries regarding water, including flow control and power development of rivers that cross the international border, will be established by this treaty.
I believe that it is good for us while we listen to the negative aspects of this debate to remind ourselves of the positive side that the project represents. I have before me a document which probably most of the members of this house have in their possession. It is a statement on the Columbia river agreement by Dr. H. L. Keenleyside, chairman of the British Columbia hydro power authority, a man of no mean background and experience. He states briefly that:
Canada has undertaken to ensure that British Columbia will build three major dams on the Columbia river, and to use them to regulate the flow of water into the United States in accordance with an agreed plan of operation for a period of 30 years. For that time United States will have the use of the Canadian half as well as its own half of the extra power generated in the United States plants. Canada also agreed that the United States may build a dam at Libby on the Kootenai river in Montana in spite of the fact that this will flood some 40 miles of the southern Kootenay valley in British Columbia.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said that the McNaughton plan will flood less of Canadian soil than the present plan calls for. I think it would be well if he would examine his facts because it will actually flood three times as much.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


Robert Norman Thompson: In return for these services the United States will pay to Canada and Canada will instantly transfer to British Columbia the sum of $274.8 million on October 1,	1964 and an additional total
amount of $69.6 million will be paid in 1968, 1969 and 1973 as three Canadian dams come into operation at Duncan, Arrow and Mica.
I did not really intend to enter into too much of the controversy of this debate but again I find my hon. colleague from Burnaby-Coquitlam says that Duncan lake dam and Libby dam would not yield any power benefits for Canada. I do not quite understand this. The Duncan lake dam will have at-sit.e generation and the Libby adds about one third more generation to the west Kootenay plants in Canada. Let us keep our statistics straight when we come to criticize this treaty.
Dr. Keenleyside goes on to say this about the specific advantages:
What advantages will these payments bring to Canada and to British Columbia? They can be quickly summarized:
It is good for us to remind ourselves of them.
Columbia River Treaty
The total amount received from the United States will pay all the capital costs of the storage dams as they occur. It will pay about half the capital costs of the generators at Mica. It will enable a 1.8 million kilowatt generator installation at Mica to produce 6.6 billion kilowatt hours of energy annually for less than 1.5 mills per kilowatt hour.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) wonders what the at-site generation price is going to be for this power. Here it is. He wonders what responsibility the government of British Columbia will have for its own citizens that are affected under this development. I assure him that from their past record they will take care of the citizens of British Columbia very well as they have been doing for the last dozen years or more.
The corresponding cost under development without the treaty would be nearly four mills per kilowatt hour. The savings at Mica at full production will be about $16 million a year.
What more evidence does he need? The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam says that the cost of such projects always runs more than the actual engineering estimates. It is interesting to note that right now the Peace river development is $33 million under the estimates to date.
Going on with Dr. Keenleyside's statement, he says:
An alternative way of stating the advantages accruing to Canada and to British Columbia would be to say that the United States payments would during the 30 year periods of sale (i) pay off all the capital costs of the dams and reservoirs at Duncan, Arrow and Mica, (ii) pay all the operating expenses of these storage projects and (iii) leave a surplus of approximately $40 million at the end of the sales contract period.
The arrangements ensure that the storage projects in Canada will be debt free as they are constructed. This compares with a normal amortization period for such projects of 50 to 100 years.
Construction of the treaty projects on this basis with all costs paid will make possible enormous economic advantages to Canada and British Columbia which could only be attained, if at all, at much higher cost through development without the treaty.
These advantages make possible a number of very important features:
The installation of over 4 million kilowatts at points on the Columbia river in Canada which will produce energy at a cost of about 2 mills per kilowatt hour.
This is what power is going to cost. Where can you get it cheaper than that? The installed capacity will be more than 1J times the total present hydroelectric installation in British Columbia and about 20 per cent of what it is in all of Canada.
Reduction in the B.C. hydro system cost of generation from just over 5 mills today to approximately 21 mills by the time the Columbia river in Canada is fully developed.

Columbia River Treaty
Who is this going to help? Right now the prospect for the development of industry-in the interior of British Columbia is so overwhelming that it cannot really be seen at this point. This is simply because of the prospect of cheap power which we have to have if we are going to attract industry and which will have untold benefits for every part of Canada, not just the area concerned. Dr. Keenleyside goes on to mention other advantages.
Delivery of this power to centres throughout the southern half of the province at about 3 mills per kilowatt hour.
Where can you get power for that price any other place in Canada or in the world?
Prevention of floods in settled areas on the Kootenay and Columbia rivers in Canada.
Eeceipt at the end of the 30 year contract of payments from the still continuing downstream benefits of from $5 to $10 million annually.
Additional payments of up to $8 million by the United States for extra flood control if it is required during the treaty period as well as special flood control compensation for any emergency requirements of the United States during and after the life of the treaty.
Permit the creation of a Columbia-Peace high voltage transmission network that will bring the full resources of the two great rivers within reach of all major communities in the province.
We could go on and elaborate in detail the tremendous benefits that will come from the development of this important project involved in this treaty. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that never in Canada have we had such prospects before us in relation to the development of our natural resources and the provision of employment and opportunities for the citizens of Canada. If we had more of this in Canada we would double our gross national product every 10 years, our population every 20 years and the unemployment we have with us now would melt away like the snows are melting in the spring weather we have been having in Ottawa during the last few days.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that we have a tremendous opportunity to serve not only Canadian citizens of our day but those of generations to come as a result of this project. I would also remind hon. members that the United States does not have to have this. The waters that have been referred to today as being so precious have been running down into the Pacific ocean since the days of creation and they will continue to do so as long as the rains fall, unless we use our heads and permit the development of a project such as we have before us at the present time.
Within a few years the United States will be able to produce atomic power at rates that will be comparable to the cost of normal hydroelectric power today. If we are not

careful we will lose the whole opportunity that this treaty brings to us and all its advantages to Canada.
I am pleased that the government has shown such dispatch in concluding the negotiations and bringing these measures before us. This certainly represents quite a change from the rather less enthusiastic approach to the issue which resulted in the dragging out of negotiations fruitlessly for so many years before 1952 and then again after 1958.
It has been said that the people of British Columbia are opposed to this project. It was interesting to hear of the petition that was brought to our attention this afternoon, but I have a letter here from the Nelson chamber of commerce. Nelson is right in the heart of this project area and the people there know the benefits that can be realized. The letter is dated January 16, 1964. Listen to what it says:
We in the Kootenays needs this development. We are very serious when we say this...We in this area know full well that the development of the Columbia river will do much to boost the economy and give the very much needed employment, besides benefitting the whole country.
Our chamber of commerce Columbia river treaty committee, chaired by an engineer and with a picked committee, professional and others, studied the treaty word by word, spent many weeks on this, and were unanimously in favour of its ratification and the selling of the power.
On April 3, 1963 the same chamber of commerce unanimously passed a resolution at a special general meeting, and it reads in part as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the Nelson chamber of commerce support the Columbia river treaty plan and the agreement be ratified at the earliest possible date.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Davis, chairman.


Robert Norman Thompson: The opposition too, of
course, has declared itself in favour of the treaty, for essentially it is only an improvement on what was agreed to two years ago under the previous administration.


An hon. Member:: What is the improvement?


Robert Norman Thompson: Approximately $100 million. What was so advantageous to Canada then can hardly be less so with the improvements that have been made in the treaty since that date. We know that the prime minister of Canada of that day, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) issued a press release following the signing of the Columbia river treaty in Washington on January 17, 1961. That release read in part as follows:
So far as Canada Is concerned, the most important single feature of the treaty is the one I have already referred to-the recognition of the principle of division of downstream benefits. From that

principle all the great advantages that are possible for Canada as a result of co-operative development of the Columbia basin flow. Without that principle the entire arrangement would be fruitless for this country. Our predecessors in office had failed to achieve recognition of this basic point. We have succeeded. The treaty embodies the principle that downstream benefits are to be divided equally. That alone is a success of the most outstanding character.
We have been able to achieve this in a way which will fully respect the sovereignty of each country. By avoiding any complicated cost-sharing and by making the arrangement as self-enforcing as possible we have ensured that there will be no unnecessary intrusion into each others affairs across the international boundary.
Thus has spoken that great self-named champion of Canadian sovereignty, and I cannot quite understand how there can be any opposition from the Conservative party at this time that can make any more sense than to criticize the Liberals for something they failed to do. The time is drawing near to ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if it is the intention to continue this debate Wednesday and Thursday and, if that is the case, what he has in mind for Friday?
Business of the House


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government that the order already announced should be followed. This debate will continue and after the end of the debate on the resolution now before us we will be taking in order the motions for the establishment of special committees of the house. After that we will be taking the electoral boundaries readjustment bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The only thing is, Mr. Speaker, that it is helpful to the house to have the order recorded at the end of Hansard each day, and the order the house leader has mentioned was varied in a statement made by the Prime Minister.


Guy Favreau: I really do not know what I can add to what I have said. It is the intention not to deviate, if possible, from the order already announced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is in Hansard of last Friday.


Guy Favreau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 4, 1964