1964-06-05

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a very brief question of privilege having to do with Your Honour's ruling yesterday on the two points of privilege raised. The precedent set by Your Honour's decisions yesterday gave me a good deal of concern, and for the future I should like to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, fourth edition, 1958, page 57, where at the foot of the page in a very brief paragraph these words appear:
The Speaker's jurisdiction does not extend to words outside the house.
There is a reference there to May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition. I simply draw these words to Your Honour's attention because of the rather far reaching implications, in my view, that arise out of Your Honour's decisions yesterday on the two questions of privilege that were raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. Obviously I have not had a chance to read the reference he has just made, but I would point out that my quotation yesterday was from the sixteenth edition of May, and I believe he has referred to the thirteenth edition. However, realizing the importance of this matter I should like to take it under consideration and try to prepare a legal brief for my own satisfaction, if not the house.


Erik Nielsen: For the future guidance of members, when that brief is prepared would Your Honour inform the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The point is important and in order to render general satisfaction, I hope, I will be very glad to do so.



MR. RONDEAU    RECEIPT IN MAIL OF OBJECTIONABLE LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
tTranslation]
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I want to protest most strongly against the insidious, foul, pernicious and deceitful propaganda, entitled "Quebec 1967, a Canadian province or a clerical state", by Reverend Wilson Ewin, a Baptist minister of Jarvis street, Toronto, which we received in this morning's mail. That document, Mr. Speaker, is the most insulting I have read to date about the French Canadian nation, the Roman Catholic religion and the Roman Catholic clergy of Quebec.
In the name of all our Roman Catholic institutions, our clergy, our French Canadian entity and our Canadian history, I protest, and I want it to be known that I totally disagree with those comments, which can only be harmful to good understanding in Canada. [Later:]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Does he intend to inquire into the hate literature which is being distributed through the Post Office Department, as for instance the pamphlet sent by Reverend Wilson Ewin and which we received today in our offices?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



D-DAY ANNIVERSARY OF LANDING OF CANADIAN FORCES IN NORMANDY

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago tomorrow the men of the armed forces of Canada, along with the troops of our allies, assaulted the beaches of Normandy, beginning the end of a war that had tortured this world for five long years. I am sure that all members of this house want to take a few moments to recall and honour the heroism of the men who participated in that historic day, the longest day for all of them and the last day for many.

Anniversary of D-Day
We can best pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who served in varying degree in the struggle of the second world war by remaining faithful to the purposes underlying the cause for which they fought and worked, and died.
On this occasion, however, I think it is appropriate to single out for special honour two men who provided outstanding service and who are in a very real sense, I believe, symbolic of the great contribution made by our people in the war in civil and military roles. I have accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the approval of my colleagues in the cabinet, submitted today to His Excellency the Governor General advice that General H. D. G. Crerar and Mr. M. J. Coldwell be chosen and summoned to be members of the Queen's privy council for Canada. The Governor General has approved that advice and General Crerar and Mr. Coldwell will be sworn of the privy council in the course of the next few days.
General Crerar had a brilliant military career and was in command of the Canadian forces that landed on the coasts of France on June 6, 1944. He remained as general officer commanding in chief of the first Canadian army until the end of the war. He made a great contribution, along with the gallant forces he so ably commanded to the ending of the struggle.
Mr. Coldwell was, of course, for 22 years an outstanding member of the Canadian House of Commons. A veteran of the first war, during the second, his wisdom, industry and patriotism were an example of public and parliamentary service in the highest degree. I can think of no one who has better exemplified the standards that we hope to see embodied in the public and parliamentary life of our country.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this house will find it appropriate that we honour these two men and, through them, the people of this country whose military and civil efforts of 20 years ago made possible the victory of freedom over totalitarianism and gave us the chance to work for, and the hope to achieve, a better world of peaceful progress for all men.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion the house will be a cathedral of devotion to those who served, and to so many who died, in the service of their country 20 years ago. In this house there are quite a number of members who were present on that day when Canada took its place once more in the legions of freedom.

In honouring General Crerar, Canada will honour itself. It is well to remember that, according to the press dispatches of the time when General Crerar received the thanks of the Canadian people at the hands of, and from the lips of, the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. King, he reported that as he left the House of Commons and looked up at the red ensign floating over the tower, he heard from Mr. King the words that a national flag had been created-or words to that effect-as a result of the service and sacrifice of those whom we honour today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know the reason for the interruptions. I am simply reporting the facts.
So far as Mr. Coldwell is concerned, he is a fine parliamentarian who gave generously of his time, energy and ability. I know all of us would join with the government in the action taken in honouring him and honouring the privy council by his inclusion.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is most appropriate that the members of the House of Commons should pause in their deliberations to pay tribute to those Canadians who, 20 years ago tomorrow, took part in the landing on the beaches of Normandy. This was the greatest amphibious military operation in world history, and Canada is proud that Canadians participated in that great event. They took part not for military aggrandizement or for any territorial ambitions, but because the people of Canada were convinced that we had to devote all our efforts to destroy nazi tyranny and to prevent the spread of totalitarianism throughout the world.
Many brave men sacrificed their lives on that occasion and in the bitter and bloody battles that followed. Whether or not we are worthy of their sacrifice will depend on the extent to which we are able to build a world in which men can walk the earth with peace and dignity free from racial discrimination and religious intolerance. If we in this House of Commons, in concert with men of good will everywhere, are able to build a world in which there will be peace under the rule of law then these men whom we honour today will not have died in vain.
I want to commend the right hon. Prime Minister for the tribute which is being paid to General Crerar. During the latter months of the war it was my privilege to visit Saskatchewan troops in Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. I had the

good fortune to visit General Crerar's headquarters and, if I remember correctly, slept one night in his trailer out in the field. He was a courteous host, and I was very proud of the high morale of the troops who fought under his command.
This is a well deserved tribute which the government is paying to one of the great soldiers of the last war and I am sure, in accepting this honour, he is doing it on behalf of all the men who fought under his command.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for the honour which is being paid to Mr. M. J. Coldwell, who was the national leader of the
C.C.F. and today is honorary president of the New Democratic party. As one who came into the House of Commons with Mr. Cold-well in 1935, as one who has long been a close, personal friend and associate of his, I deeply appreciate this honour which is being conferred upon him.
Mr. Coldwell was a man of peace. I think the Prime Minister was in error in saying he was a veteran of the first world war; I do not think he was. During the years immediately preceding the war he was one of those who advocated that the free nations of the world should take collective action against nazis and fascist aggression, and when the war came he gave his support in this house and throughout the country in the struggle to establish the kind of freedom upon which we could build a social democratic world. All who love and respect Mr. Coldwell will, I am sure, be grateful for the well deserved honour which the government has conferred upon him.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years after the landing in Normandy, it is appropriate to make a pause to pay a tribute to the army, air force and navy men who fought in that French zone.
On this occasion I would like to recall the memory of the Chaudiere regiment which was the first to land in Normandy, where many of our French Canadian fellow citizens from the province of Quebec were covered with glory.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) said, we sent our troops to protect a way of life which we believe to be the best and especially to guard against another system which we felt was the opposite of the one prevailing here.
I hope those years of war during which we fought against nazism will not come back,
Inquiries of the Ministry but if we have to fight against another totalitarian system, socialism, we will be able to do so by peaceful means, without being forced to take up arms in order to keep on benefiting by the system we always had and appreciated on the American continent.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the landing of the allied forces in Normandy, it is appropriate indeed to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in paying tribute to all those who took part in that landing and who probably lived through one of the most dreadful and longest days of the century, giving their all for the triumph of civilization in the western world.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to add my wishes to those the Prime Minister and the members who spoke before me addressed to General Crerar, whose memory remains unforgettable to those who fought under his command in Normandy, France and Germany, and to Mr. Coldwell, who sat formerly in this house and proved to be a very able parliamentarian, for the honour bestowed upon them today.



GENEVA CONVENTIONS


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: the first reading of Bill No. S-25 (from the Senate), respecting the Geneva conventions, 1949.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would table copies of the form letters under the heading "Prime Minister" and "Premier Ministre" and over a photocopy of his signature, which are going out to Canadians who communicated with him as Prime Minister of Canada with regard to their views on the flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been getting a good many thousands of letters, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not want me to table the replies to all of them.


John George Diefenbaker: No; the form letters.
3974	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sending out different kinds of replies to different letters, but I will be glad to table the replies in order to give the right hon. gentleman the information he wants.


John George Diefenbaker: I would also like to ask the right hon. gentleman why it is that people who are definitely opposed to his flag design are receiving from him letters purporting to be signed by him "with kind regards" and saying "I wish to thank you for your warm support for a distinctive national flag". Why are people who are opposing the model that he has produced, or anything in the nature of a change, being subjected to letters on his part purporting to signify an approval of that which they condemn?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to satisfy the right hon. gentleman's curiosity about my correspondence, but the right hon. gentleman has been among the first to insist that the red ensign is a distinctive national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot wipe this aside that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I know that was the endeavour. But I asked him-and I have numerous examples that are being sent to me-about this because these people want to know why Lester B. Pearson signs a letter "with kind regards" and thanks them for the support of this flag that he produced, when in fact they have written him opposing it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I told the right hon. gentleman that I would look into my correspondence and table it. It might be important, perhaps, if, as a salaried officer of the house, the right hon. gentleman would table some of the replies he is making to the letters he is receiving.


John George Diefenbaker: I can tell the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I do not send out an unsigned letter with simply a photocopy signature and "with kind regards" thanking people for that which they did not put before me.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the arrangements being made for the flag debate.


I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of a short sentence on page 298 of Bourinot, fourth edition, which reads as follows:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
I do not ask him for a definitive answer at this point but I wonder whether he would discuss this possibility with the Speaker in case it might meet with the desire of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that rule and I will be glad to discuss it with Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister not say the other day that he was not going to divide the resolution, or has he changed his mind on this too?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did say the other day that we were not going to divide the resolution, and we are not.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no? Another backtrack.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him if he can advise the house now whether the government has arrived at a decision on the request of the national defence civilian employees to have extended to them special benefits similar to those now proposed for the members of the armed forces upon severance of employment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a decision has been conveyed on this matter, and I will be glad to deal with it on Monday.



NOMINATION OF LABOUR REPRESENTATIVE ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the Canadian Labour Congress has as yet submitted a name for appointment to the unemployment insurance commission. If so, who is that person?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The consultations with the congress have not come to the point where any individuals have been proposed.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, drawing his attention to the fact that there has been a 1 per cent decline in manufacturing production for the month of March, the first decline in eight months. In view of the fact that this decline is mainly in non-durable consumer goods, indicating a deficiency of purchasing power, is the minister contemplating any change in government monetary or fiscal policy to meet this situation?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think too much should be made of a 1 per cent decline in the statistics for a particular month.


An hon. Member:: Yes; what's a million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can assure my hon. friend that the economic situation in the country is being given daily attention, and I am also pleased to be able to tell him that it seems to me it is going very, very well indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the monetary and economic policies that have been pursued in recent months in fact within the past year have had very marked success.


John George Diefenbaker: Following our policies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this 1 per cent decline is in a specific area, and that this is the first decline in eight months when one would have expected an increase, does the minister not think this is a warning signal to which the government ought to be giving some attention?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the government pays attention to all the monthly statistical figures, but I am not prepared to interpret it as a warning signal. I think everything points to a continuance of the present upswing.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of what the minister has said as to the present state of
Inquiries of the Ministry the economy, can he give us a promise that he will not interfere and mess up the new set-up?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not find that question a very helpful one. I can give my hon. friend the promise that if action is needed to stimulate the economy or to direct it in one way or another the government will not hesitate to act.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ABOLISH POVERTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['They will be drawn to my attention now.']
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us what specific steps his government intends to take to suppress poverty in Canada, a question much talked about at the last national convention of the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question requires an answer far too long to be given on orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the withdrawal of a majority of the United Nations force in the Congo and of the steadily deteriorating situation there, could the minister inform us as to the number of Canadian army and air force personnel still in the Congo and when they are to be returned?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
In view of the brief reply he gave me yesterday to a question I was asking concerning the Quebec delegation in Paris, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs today clarify his answer, which gave rise to confusion in certain circles? For instance, did Quebec request of the federal government
3976	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that its delegation be treated on an equal tooting with the Canadian representatives, or have similar questions been raised during his conversations with Mr. Couve de Murville?
His answer was no tor both parts of my question.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have anything to add to what I said yesterday but I will examine the question once again and if I have additional information, I will gladly pass it on to the hon. member.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister say whether negotiations are going on between the Canadian and French governments to have Mr. Lussier, the representative of Quebec in Paris, enjoy the same status as Mr. Lapointe, as the province's delegate in that country?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. However, I would suggest that the hon. member examine the replies I gave this morning and the other day in that connection.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask a question of either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries, whichever one may wish to answer. I should like to ask either one of these hon. gentlemen whether their attention has been drawn to certain remarks in the Congressional Record of the United States by Congressman Tollefson of Washington to the effect that Canada is dragging its feet or is not willing to proceed actively with the negotiations over the so-called historic fishing rights of United States fishermen in what are now Canadian waters.


Mr. Speaker:: This is absolutely contrary to the rules according to the instructions given to me, under which it is improper to ask whether statements made in newspapers are correct.


Frank Howard: With respect, sir, I am not asking about a newspaper; I am talking about the Congressional Record of the United States of America. I am not asking the minister whether he thinks the statements are true;
I am asking whether they have been drawn to his attention and if he would comment upon them.
IMr. Cote (Chicoutimi).]


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: They will be drawn to my attention now.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which I trust is in order. In view of the great dissatisfaction which exists among the membership of local 400, Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers with respect to the signing of a memorandum of agreement between the S.I.U. and Northland Navigation Shipping Company Limited and all the surrounding circumstances, would the minister bring this situation to the attention of the maritime trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.



GREAT LAKES-NATIONALITY OF S.I.U. NEGOTIATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has an answer to the question I posed to him a few days ago with regard to whether the S.I.U. negotiating team is wholly Canadian.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have directed an inquiry to the chairman of the board of trustees on this point but so far I have received no reply. As soon as I receive a reply I will give the information to my hon. friend.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the type of literature to which reference was made some months ago, literature of a particularly putrid nature against the Jewish race and people, the Minister of Justice advised the house that the question was being looked into with a view to determining what action might be taken, and particularly with regard to whether the law as it presently exists is sufficient for the purpose; furthermore, whether

amendments to the Criminal Code would be brought in. Is the minister in a position to advise the house as to that?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the possible application of the law as it exists, and irrespective of what might be my own opinion, I have communicated with the attorney general of Ontario and it is understood that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will place at the disposal of the Ontario authorities any material which will have been uncovered in this respect so as to make possible the testing of the present provisions under the Criminal Code.
As to the answer which I have already given with specific reference to a certain type of hate literature, I may say that the matter is still being actively pursued by my officers and myself, but a formula which will reconcile freedom of thought and expression and also provide for the necessity to cope with certain situations has not yet been evolved in a manner which is satisfactory to me.


John George Diefenbaker: One further question in that connection. Recognizing the great difficulty there will be in the drafting of such legislation to assure, on the one hand, the maintenance and preservation of freedom of speech, and at the same time to move against those who commit a crime against the state when they go beyond the limit of what is regarded as freedom of speech, has the minister sought the opinion of outstanding counsel outside of his department in this regard, and have there been any draft suggestions brought to him from such counsel?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I am at liberty to divulge the actual nature or type of consultations which have been going on in this matter, but I must say for the moment that I have had occasion to read an opinion which has been given by one learned counsel at least to the Canadian Jewish Congress.


John George Diefenbaker: That is by Mr. Robinette, Q.C.?


Guy Favreau: Yes. But personally I have not yet sought opinions from outside the department; the discussions have been pursued under my responsibility as legal adviser to the government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Justice. Can he assure us that his department will take the same action against those distributing hate literature against Roman Catholic French Canadians in the province of Quebec, as mentioned this morning?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think the first characteristic of hate literature is discrimination. If, as regards this literature mentioned this morning and of which, personally, I had no knowledge, we did not take the same action as in the other kind of literature, then we would ourselves be making discrimination, which we do not wish to do. Consequently, the same procedure will be followed.



ALIEN INFLUENCES IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I too directed a rather similar question to the Prime Minister yesterday and today I give notice of it to the Minister of Justice.
I feel that it is extremely important that I should ask this question.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the reports to the effect that world communism is taking a very special interest in the terrorist activities in our country, has the government ordered a thorough investigation and does it have in its possession evidence of organized foreign influences within those movements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question was asked by the hon. member yesterday, or else this is a super refinement of the question which was asked yesterday. In any event, will he put it on the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to say that I recognize I asked a similar question yesterday, but the Minister of Justice is back in the house today. I gave him some notice, and I think we are both agreed that in view of the circumstances it is very important that a general answer be made. I believe the minister is ready to answer.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question.

Inquiries of the Ministry
However, I must say that I handed it to the R.C.M.P. Allow me to add this. During any investigation made about other terrorist movements, each time the police forces co-operated very closely with the R.C.M.P.
All information was forwarded to the police authorities; but I must advise my hon. friend that when investigations are made about terrorist movements, it would not be in the public interest for me to disclose specific information about such investigations until it has been submitted to the courts.
Consequently, I will have to refrain from answering such questions.



DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING FUTURE CORRECTIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a request for a meeting with the Canadian corrections association and associated organizations to discuss future correctional policy of the government before this policy has been finalized? If so, has the date for such a meeting been set?


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



CONTINUATION OF STUDIES BY FLQ MEMBERS IN PRISON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Did he receive a request from the members of the group called the FLQ who are now purging a sentence in Canadian prisons, to the effect that they be allowed to pursue their studies during their imprisonment? Does he propose to grant this request?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I shall just answer that such a request has not yet been brought to my attention, but that the question raised by the hon. member is a serious one.


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to ask the
minister whether it is his intention to have the matter investigated, and also whether the request has really been made and forwarded to him.


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Justice aware that the hon. member for Lapointe was frequently mentioned as the leader of the separatists in the province of Quebec?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the statement of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I must tell him that this is only a figment of his imagination, because there was no such suggestion with regard to me-even if I sympathize with some of their ideas-as head of the R.I.N.


Auguste Choquette: This was suggested, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my question is meant for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that section 10 of the Broadcasting Act requires a network to be basically Canadian, I would ask the minister if he intends to take steps against a television station which has rented broadcasting periods to political parties of separatist allegiance or whether he is thinking of amending the Broadcasting Act, since such a thing runs counter to the provision of a basically Canadian network.
I see the Secretary of State is not here at the present time, so I would ask that my question be put off until Monday evening at ten o'clock, when I can join our ten o'clock bogeyman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assomplion-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have no lesson to take from the hon. member for Lotbiniere. If I ask a question which is disallowed, I have the right to ask under standing orders that the matter be discussed after ten o'clock.
Instead of asking questions like the one he just put-I know he is a specialist in matters pertaining to the crown-the hon. member for Lotbiniere should ask the Prime Minister to keep a little discipline among his followers so that none of them insults others.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the press report from Quebec city to the effect that the Quebec provincial legislature may take a ten day break toward the end of this month, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government has any assurance from the government of Quebec that the resolution regarding approval of the British North America Act amendment that relates to the Canada pension plan will be dealt with by the Quebec legislature before it takes a break?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we expect it to be dealt with next week.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which relates to the resolution on the order paper with regard to two anthems for Canada, and with regard to the "O Canada" anthem. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the words of this anthem will be the French version and, if not the French version, which one of the English versions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these matters will be discussed when we debate the resolution on the anthem.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the overwhelming nuclear power now in the hands of the United States for military purposes, as disclosed by President Johnson, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government is now negotiating out of its nuclear role in accordance with the promise made by the Prime Minister over a year ago?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are proceeding, as has been announced to the house, regarding Canada's defence role in the years ahead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will disclose to the house the nature of the negotiations going on concerning Canada's future defence role. My question concerned getting out of the nuclear role, which the Prime Minister promised he would do.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously too large a question to answer satisfactorily on the orders of the day while negotiations are proceeding. My hon. friend has been a minister and he ought to know and does know, of course, that you do not disclose negotiations of this kind when you are in the middle of them.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON REORGANIZATION OF MILITIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether he has yet received the report of the Suttie committee.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members know, the Suttie commission were asked to study the reorganization of the militia. They have finished their work and are now preparing their report. I understand that the first part of the report is now being translated and it should be available within perhaps a week. There will be a second part of the report, which I imagine will appear toward the end of the month.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the typhoid epidemic now raging in certain parts of the United Kingdom; also in view of the fact that large numbers of tourists and other people are travelling between the United Kingdom and Canada, is the government taking any special precautions to see that this disease does not spread into Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not have notice of this question, but it is my understanding that we are taking note of every individual who comes to Canada from Britain. The federal department does not have jurisdiction to do other than what we are doing, namely to report to provincial health authorities the destinations to which visitors are going, so the provincial authorities will be able to keep a close check on whether anything is developing in these individuals.



COTTON-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the United States congress has taken action to provide a direct subsidy to the manufacturer of 6i cents a pound on cotton, which means that the United States manufacturer will receive the full raw cotton subsidy paid to foreign buyers, does the Canadian government intend to give consideration to apply a dumping duty?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it his intention to comply with the request made by Mr. Lucien Saulnier, of Montreal, on behalf of the city of Montreal, as regards the building of a third access road to the Champlain bridge in preparation for the world fair?


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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I gave notice to the minister that I wished to address this question to him and he agreed. He is ready to answer the question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
A moment ago I asked a fairly pressing question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I gave him notice of my question in order to co-operate with you and save the time of the house. Moreover, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was prepared to answer this urgent question which deals with the visit of Mr. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal.
I gave notice of my question to the minister and he was willing to answer it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you if it is possible to allow the Minister of Trade and Commerce to answer briefly, since I have already given him notice of my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I must confess I do not recall what the question was at this stage. However, if it is urgent and if the minister is prepared to answer briefly, he can do so with the consent of the house.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, at noon and during the early afternoon I will be having a meeting with Mr. Saulnier and Mr. Gerard Levesque, a minister from Quebec as well as officials of Expo '67 on the question raised by the hon. member.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. At a meeting which was attended by Liberal candidates, held in the Park Plaza hotel in Toronto just prior to the last election, did the Prime Minister state to the Liberal candidate for Hastings-Frontenac that he would see that the stockpiling of uranium would be continued until such time as it was required?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is much doubt about this question being in order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to serve notice that I intend to debate this matter at the next opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: If a question is out of order I do not understand how the hon. member can debate it.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask why the question is out of order. This is a matter affecting many people in Canada and the Prime Minister, it so happens, was able to announce a contract for his own constituency. Why does the same rule not apply to other constituencies and the members elected therefor?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it seems rather obvious to me that if we were to report and discuss every private conversation in every private meeting held outside the house we would never get any business done in the house at aU.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: This matter has been discussed for some days in the house, and is an urgent matter. Last evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce took the opportunity as has been usual with this government, to announce outside the house the awarding of this contract. I say to you, sir, in my opinion it is obvious that there has been interference by the Prime Minister beneficial to his own riding and detrimental to the rest of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that statement is entirely uncalled for and untrue.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following his visit to Her Majesty could he tell us whether or not Her Majesty will be present at the celebrations that will take place in Quebec city and in Charlottetown this year?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am afraid I will have to give the same answer to this question that I gave to the hon. member for Three Rivers the other day. Perhaps the hon. gentleman should read the privy councillor's oath.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.-TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for becoming aware of the far right wing of the opposition. I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a question asked him by the older member for Queens on May 25. Is he now in a position to give some indication as to whether the Charlottetown hotel will be transferred to management other than the Canadian National?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this question calls for a detailed answer and should be put on the order paper.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: The other day following the demise of Liberty magazine I asked the Prime Minister whether he had had any contact with Maclean-Hunter or the Liberty publishers with regard to their situation, and I wondered if he had checked to ascertain what representations he has had or any that he is about to have from these publishers of consumer magazines which may be about to cease publication.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have had no contact with the publishers of Liberty magazine, nor have they recently asked for any such contact. Some weeks ago I did have a meeting with a representative of Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company in respect of the position of Maclean's magazine.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister any plans in the immediate future to meet those publishers who have put forward to the public the view that Time and Reader's Digest are the main threat to their continuation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I have already received representations from them in the past, Mr. Speaker. If they have anything to add to those representations I would be glad indeed to receive them.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. Would he tell the house whether the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust which actually prevails between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources of the federal government (Mr. Laing) and the minister of natural resources of the province of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque, is the new tactic used by the government to promote smooth relations between both governments?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for information concerning the immigration case of Mr. Harold Nurse. The delays required to carry out the deportation of Mr. Nurse, who had entered Canada illegally, were brought about by representations made in his behalf to prevent his deportation and by procedures taken before the provincial jurisdiction courts by Mr. Nurse himself.
Mr. Harold Nurse, aged 31, married, is a citizen of Trinidad by birth. In 1954 he went to the United States and tried to enter Canada at Windsor, Ontario, on July 31, 1956. His deportation was ordered because he could not meet the immigration requirements in force. Mr. Nurse stated that he entered Canada illegally a few days later and has lived in this country ever since.
In August 1959 he married a Canadian and they have a five year old child. The couple have been separated for about two years and a half and Mrs. Nurse has the custody of the child. Mr. Nurse did not provide for his wife and child, and I understand that Mrs. Nurse initiated divorce proceedings on March 25, 1964. The authorities of my department ordered Mr. Nurse, in Toronto, on March 4 last, to leave the country and, in the meantime, Mr. Nurse was placed in custody. His appeal against that deportation order was dismissed by the immigration appeal board on March 20 last.
Before arrangements for his departure from Canada could be completed, representations were received in his favour on April 2 from the high commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago and from his lawyers. Other representations were received on April 6 and April 27.

I revised and studied those representations and confirmed the decision to deport Mr. Nurse, on May 5 last. In the meantime his wife signed an affidavit confirming that she did not intend to live with him in future, and she stated that she had no objection to the deportation of her husband from Canada.
On May 8 last officers of my department endeavoured to proceed with the deportation of Mr. Nurse, but his lawyers applied to the provincial jurisdiction court for a brief of habeas corpus together with a brief of certiorari. That request was rejected by the supreme court of Ontario on May 26 last.
On May 29 Mr. Nurse's lawyers advised my officials that they intended to take further action before the provincial jurisdiction courts and that very long proceedings might follow. Following those representations, the arrangements for the deportation of Mr. Nurse were cancelled accordingly and he was freed on bail.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the details. The man was taken into custody early in March and was held in custody until he was freed the other day. On what date was he freed?


René Tremblay: May 29.


John George Diefenbaker: And how many days was he in jail before he was freed?


An hon. Member:: Sixty days.


John George Diefenbaker: Sixty days of inaction.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to know my standing with you. Am I to be recognized in this house or not? I would point out to you, sir, that you recognized three people from the groups in the far corner, and I have been on my feet half a dozen times. I recognize that the Speaker has the privilege of recognizing or not recognizing members, but I do not want to be put to the trouble of getting up and down if I am not to be recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Gordon Minto Churchill: I simply suggest, Mr. Speaker, there are 95 members in the official opposition party.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Ten days ago I asked a question of the minister concerning a military exercise in the United States, and I am wondering whether the minister has had time to procure an answer to that question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman was referring to a military exercise called "Desert Strike". I can confirm that there was such an exercise but no members of the Canadian armed forces were attending as observers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister why it took so long to get an answer to that question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows that I have had the answer for two or three days, but with the pressure of the long question periods it has not been easy to get the floor and give the answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister why, for six days, he failed to rise to get the Speaker's attention to answer this question? I have kept a record of his attendance, and I have noted he made no attempt to answer the question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old bunch.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification of the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, and the consequent coming into force of the protocol thereto annexed to the exchange of notes signed at Washington on January 22, 1964, and that this house do approve the same.
Columbia River Treaty
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left at my disposal I want to deal briefly with the sequence of events which led to the change in the plans of the government of Canada with regard to this treaty.
It was extremely difficult in the committee to get clear and unequivocal statements from government witnesses as to the course of events in the negotiations, but it did become clear that at one point at least the alternative plan of the Bull river-Luxor diversion, the elimination of the high Arrow dam and the construction of the low Arrow dam at Murphy was the basis of the plans presented by Canada to the United States. They were, incidentally, approved by both sections of the international joint commission.
It would appear that at this point the government of British Columbia made an intervention which prohibited the following of that plan. There were at the time press reports, which were never denied, of the complete disarray into which the Canadian negotiation team was thrown by this intervention on the part of the government of British Columbia.
I think it is well that we should examine what possible reason there could have been for this intervention. The plan which was presented at that time would have produced, according to the Montreal engineering company, the cheapest possible power production; it would have afforded adequate flood control to meet the requirements of the United States, and it would have supplied the basis for financial arrangements with the United States concerning downstream benefits. It seems strange that there should be this intervention on the part of British Columbia, and one has to look somewhere for the reason.
I think the reason can only be that at that time Mr. Bennett became fully taken up with his Peace river scheme, and it was essential to his purpose to make sure there would be no immediate production of electrical power on the Columbia system in spite of the fact that power from the Columbia system, according to all expert opinion, would be the cheapest power available to the industrial section of the lower mainland of British Columbia. Had Peace river power been available at a cost which would have enabled the provincial government to supply low cost energy to the southern areas of the province there might have been something to this. There were a number of rumours put about, never with any sound technical basis, that it would be possible to deliver power from the

Columbia River Treaty Peace river to the lower mainland at reasonable, if not cheap, rates.
In recent days, however, information has been getting out that the government of British Columbia now faces a crisis because it has become evident, as was known, of course, to many informed people before, that power from the Peace river cannot be delivered to the settled areas of southern British Columbia for anything like an economic cost. The figures now being quoted as tentative estimates of the cost run in the neighbourhood of 10 mills per kilowatt hour.
I suggest to you, sir, that what we are experiencing now with this treaty is nothing short of a fiasco. The settled areas of British Columbia are being denied low cost power. British Columbia is being saddled with the high Arrow dam which produces no benefits to the province except a quick sale of downstream benefits at the cost of flooding an important section of the interior of British Columbia. The inclusion of high Arrow, according to Mr. Fulton, was the result of intervention by British Columbia. Therefore one can only assume that Mr. Bennett was interested in a quick dollar return from the high Arrow dam without consideration for the long range effects of this development. In spite of the fact that it was most difficult to get firm figures from the British Columbia witnesses who appeared before the committee, it is well known that the cost of the high Arrow dam has at least doubled since the original estimates were made, and that the increase has completely destroyed the cost-benefit ratio which was presented to the committee.
The outlook for industrial development in southeastern British Columbia now is left in a very precarious and dim position. The opportunity for low cost power has been abandoned by this treaty, at least for some 10 or 15 years, and this has been done purely at the instance of Mr. Bennett. The door has been shut to any diversion of water to the arid areas of central Canada, and I suggest that quite apart from the legal aspects of the interpretation of this treaty which were put by my hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) yesterday, common sense and experience tell us that vested interests are sure to arise in the vicinity of the Libby dam which would render it politically impossible for Canada to proceed with the sort of development which will be required in our own arid central areas. This situation also is the responsibility of those who are insisting on this treaty.
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).!
I should like to quote from an editorial in the Calgary Albertan of June 2 of this year, in which it is suggested that the three prairie provinces must stand shoulder to shoulder at this juncture and make all haste to present their case to the authorities in Ottawa before they lose their future by default. This is the attitude of fellow citizens in the prairie provinces which has been completely disregarded by this government and by the external affairs committee.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is not the case.


Colin Cameron: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says this is not the case, but he has not answered the argument. He has consistently refused to present a reasoned legal opinion to answer the contention of my colleague from Greenwood. He has also, it seems to me, dismissed altogether the common sense argument that vested interests will of necessity develop in the neighbourhood of the Libby dam, and he persists in asserting something to be true, as he did throughout these hearings, without producing the slightest evidence to support his submissions.
I may say it was a sad spectacle to see certain members of that committee who, by their past statements, knew perfectly well the shortcomings of the treaty, obediently coming to the rescue of the government and asserting that all was well because of the signing of a protocol which, I may say, did not alter in any significant way the conditions of which they had been complaining until a few months ago. To me it was a melancholy spectacle, and I am not surprised at the reluctance evident on the part of some of the hon. members of that committee to take part in this debate; the careful figure skating necessary to avoid the soft spots in the ice created by their past statements, would have been quite daunting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, may I say it is contrary to the rules to comment on the refusal or failure of a member to take part in a debate. The only reason other members have not taken part in this debate is because they feel there has been adequate discussion in the house. They recognize the importance of passing this measure, and it is a reflection on those members of the committee who have not spoken, to have it said, by the hon. gentleman, that they are afraid to take part in the debate because of the arguments he is using.

I can only say that the arguments used by the hon. gentleman were dealt with ad nauseam in the committee, and the hon. member knows it as well as any other hon. member who served on that committee.


Colin Cameron: I would point out that if it is out of order for me to comment on the actions of other members of the house in this respect, it is equally out of order for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to put forward his explanation of their failure to take part in the debate. I quite agree with his use of the term "ad nauseam". It was precisely ad nauseam to hear the same assertions repeated and reiterated without the slightest jot or tittle of evidence to support them.
I have outlined the manner in which the government presented this subject to the committee, how every witness they brought before us is involved in the development of the treaty plan, every one. Not one of them could by any stretch of the imagination be called an independent technical witness. I must say I admired the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I always derive great pleasure and great entertainment from his skill in weaving a web of words to cover up or get round, shall we say, embarrassing facts; and I can only conclude by expressing the hope that the hon. gentleman will be able to baffle the external enemies of Canada with the same ease as he baffled and obfuscated the committee on external affairs in the matter of this treaty.
I am aware that there are a number of members of the committee who sincerely believe that this treaty is a good thing for Canada. My regret is this, that they were afforded only the advice of those who were already committed to this treaty plan. They were not given the opportunity they might have been given of studying the matter objectively and reaching their own conclusions. The statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs made that quite plain.
I am convinced, sir, that within a very short time developments in British Columbia will prove beyond a doubt that this treaty has been a disastrous fiasco for Canada, and I for one do not propose to have my name connected with it in the slightest degree; but I also intend to make quite sure that those who support it will have their names connected with it for the future record.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this resolution might be approved by the house last night and it was for that reason that I hesitated to
Columbia River Treaty take part in the debate last evening. Unfortunately the resolution was not approved, and certain statements have been made during the current discussion which make it imperative for me to make a brief intervention in the debate at this time.
When the resolution was before the house for referral to the committee I spoke on that occasion and put my position on the record. In reviewing the words I used at that time, I can say that the viewpoint I held then is the viewpoint I still hold following the long period of deliberation and discussion that took place in the committee on external affairs. I summed up my remarks on that occasion by saying I was sure that the more questions that were asked and the more information that was revealed in the standing committee, the more the decision of the former government that this was a basically sound and good program for Canada would be vindicated.
I repeat those words, Mr. Speaker, because I still believe this is the case. In fact my opinion has been reinforced as a result of the careful examination that took place in the committee. I want to repeat, too, because I think this is important for the discussion, that I do not feel this is the perfect treaty so far as Canada is concerned. No treaty reaches the absolute peak of perfection when it involves negotiation in three sensitive areas of jurisdiction, and I refer to the federal-provincial area as well as that perhaps even more difficult area of negotiation, the Canadian-United States area. But this is a breakthrough in international co-operation as well as in federal-provincial co-operation, and notwithstanding the slight imperfections so far as the ideal arrangement for Canada is concerned, I stand firm in the view that this is a basically sound treaty; and furthermore this is the only treaty-and this has been said many times-that could have been negotiated. In other words, it was the treaty that we are hoping parliament will approve, or it was no treaty at all.
Certainly this is a more positive approach than that which has been taken by the opponents of the treaty, which would mean that the Columbia river, an international river, one of the great river resources of this continent, would continue to meander on its way to the sea without any of the important economic benefits being obtained that are being made possible by the treaty under discussion.
The reason I speak at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that I think it is perhaps still

Columbia River Treaty possible to persuade members of the house who remain critical that this is a good treaty. I was interested in the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday in response to a question asked concerning the petition of protest by eminent engineers in this country which was presented to the Prime Minister within recent days. The replies indicated that at least three of those distinguished engineers had changed their minds since signing their names to the petition. I recall the interjection of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he anticipated there would be further withdrawals from the petition, and I am wondering whether there have been such further withdrawals since yesterday. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer that question, Mr. Speaker?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think there have been. I will let my hon. friend know.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicates that there have been further withdrawals. When you can convince men with the engineering qualifications that were indicated in the information given to the house-Mr. Thomson of Calgary Power, for example, who is an outstanding hydro engineer-that there has been certain misunderstanding concerning the treaty even at this late date, I am sure it is still possible in the course of this discussion to convert a few of the unbelievers.


Mr. Byrne:: Don't be too sure.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the greatest conversion, however, was that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself; because during the three years this treaty has been under discussion he himself has come to embrace the viewpoint of the former administration that this is an essentially good, basically sound treaty for the government and the people of Canada.
We spent some time in the committee discussions considering this particular point, and I am not going to rehash the discussion at this time. It is to be found in the voluminous evidence for posterity for those who wish to pursue the subject. But I was interested in getting clarification on this point because I had some slight part in the early negotiation. I think it was demonstrated to the satisfaction of all concerned that the treaty was basically sound and good, and the protocol, on which a great deal of emphasis has been placed by the new administration, was merely a clarification of the principles that had been laid down by this treaty.


I say, Mr. Speaker, that this represents a very significant conversion indeed, because if we were to rehash the record-and I have it before me-we could indicate that the Liberal party which now forms the administration-and I see the hon. member-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There are conversions every day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) smiling at me because he knows what I am talking about at the moment-we could put on the record the strong opposition that the Liberal party, when it was in opposition, took against the treaty that had been negotiated by the former Conservative administration. As I listened to the statements by members of the New Democratic party it seemed to me that the position they take now is very similar to the position the Liberal party took when it was in opposition.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is correct.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The members of the New
Democratic party still have not been converted to the viewpoint that this is a basically sound treaty. The amendment they put forward yesterday indicates, I think, that they take an attitude very similar to that adopted by the Liberal party when it was in opposition; they want every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed so as to spell out the specific details of the program. This is what the Liberal party, when it became the government, attempted to do in the protocol. It wanted certain points refined and certain ambiguities eliminated. It seems to me this is precisely the position which is taken by the amendment which was put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood, because it referred to the negotiation of a further protocol or an exchange of letters clarifying the right of Canada to divert, and so on. In other words the hon. member wants to pinpoint a specific aspect of the problem.
This is a complex matter. All the engineering witnesses who appeared before the committee and who had anything to do with the negotiation of the treaty say that this is the most complex instrument which has ever been negotiated in the history of Canada. It is politically complex, it is scientifically complex, and it is quite impossible to spell out in infinite detail every minute aspect in this matter.
In negotiations between Ottawa and a provincial authority and Ottawa and the United States government there has to be a basis of mutual trust, confidence and faith. One could

go on drawing up protocols till doomsday and one still would not be able to guarantee that within the principles outlined by the treaty one would have the precise situation desired with regard to any particular facet of the agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question at this point?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, certainly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not a matter of dotting "i's" and crossing "t's". Since this is a treaty for 60 years and the legal terminology is important, are my hon. friend and the party with which he is associated satisfied that the treaty gives to Canada the right to divert water from the Columbia river if hydroelectric generation is involved in the consumptive use?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I intend to deal with this specific point. In fact I am going to spend most of my time dealing with this right of diversion, if I can delay my answer until that time.
I come now to the criticisms which have been raised. I am not going to deal with the engineering aspects as to the relative advantages of the various sequences. This is another point which is debatable, and the decision has been made to accept the treaty sequence. Neither shall I deal with the merits of the high Arrow versus the low Arrow, because that matter has been dealt with. Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I feel that this question has been dealt with in a very competent and comprehensive way by the engineers who appeared before the committee. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested that these witnesses were all prejudiced engineering witnesses inasmuch as they were from the respective governments which had negotiated the treaty. However, I would point out that the Montreal engineering firm is made up of a consortium of engineers of the widest experience.
With regard to the time factor, much was made of the fact that the engineer who appeared before the committee on behalf of the water resources branch was a comparatively young man of about ten years' experience.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps my hon. friend will agree that his testimony before that committee indicated his exceptional competence and his dedication to the task assigned to him by the government. I think it
Columbia River Treaty is only fair that we should say this, because of the suggestions which have been made that public servants have not discharged their duties conscientiously.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are taking my words right out of my mouth this morning and are anticipating everything I am going to say.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: This man is an outstanding public servant.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: However, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands made something of the fact that this gentleman had only ten years' experience in engineering, and this was entirely within the framework of the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. But I would point out that his opinion was strongly supported by this consortium of the most outstanding authorities who are identified with the Montreal engineering firm. I would say that the very fact that they confirmed the opinion of Mr. Gordon MacNabb shows his competence in the matter. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated, Mr. MacNabb performed in brilliant fashion before the committee. I worked with Mr. MacNabb when I was minister of northern affairs and when Mr. MacNabb was operating behind the scenes. I think this was the first occasion on which he had appeared in the lion's den in the form of the parliamentary committee on external affairs, and he demonstrated beyond shadow of a doubt that he was fully competent as an engineer to deal with the engineering complexities of this treaty.
I should like also to carry this question of criticism of the Canadian negotiators a little further. Some strong sentiments have been expressed that the Canadian team of negotiators were completely incompetent to wrestle with their more capable counterparts from the United States. We had the pleasure of listening to a former illustrious member of this house and member of the former government, Hon. Davie Fulton, who appeared before the committee to explain his role as chief negotiator for this treaty. I am sure that he too demonstrated a grasp of the subject that was more than impressive. He had been away from the treaty since he left this chamber. He had not been closely in touch with it for some two years, but he indicated it was no superficial knowledge that he had. He was able to pinpoint the trouble areas,

Columbia River Treaty the areas which had been criticized so repetitiously by the critics of the treaty, and I am sure he demonstrated that as the chief negotiator he had all the competence which was required.
Some remarks have been made concerning other engineers who appeared before the committee, remarks indicating a somewhat critical nature. I should like to compare- and I realize all hon. members have not had the opportunity to read the committee reports-the engineering competence displayed by the Montreal engineering representatives and by Mr. Gordon MacNabb as contrasted with that displayed by such critics of the treaty as Mr. James Libby and Mr. Larratt Higgins. It seemed to me that they were more concerned with political polemics than they were with the scientific engineering aspects of the treaty. I need only refer to a publication distributed during the course of the committee hearing, the Engineering and Contract Record, which bore on the front in bold red print the words "The Columbia River Scandal". This sounded more like an article in a lurid pulp magazine than an article in a scientific journal such as the Engineering and Contract Record. As I listened to these gentlemen I came to the conclusion that one of the reasons they had abandoned a strictly scientific approach to the problem and had begun to indulge in the sort of polemics demonstrated in this article was that they had been overwhelmed by the immense prestige of that distinguished Canadian, General McNaughton, who had in recent months taken a strongly critical view of the treaty.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. I noticed that the hon. member included the name of Mr. Higgins in his strictures with regard to certain witnesses before the committee. He also suggested that Mr. Higgins appeared as an engineering expert, but it was made perfectly plain that Mr. Higgins was an experienced hydroelectric economist, and it was in that role that he appeared before the committee. I think this should be made clear, and I object very much to Mr. Higgins being subjected to these strictures.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in addition to referring to engineering competence I believe I also referred to scientific competence, and I hope that term is broad enough to cover the representations of Mr. Higgins, who is a social scientist. He is a practitioner of the dismal science of economics. I was endeavouring to


be fair. We thought he was going to give scientific evidence, and instead he indulged in polemics. I can give examples if you wish.


Colin Cameron: I should certainly like to hear them.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: All right. I have in front of me a summary of an article by Mr. Higgins which appeared in the Globe and Mail on January 14 and 15, 1964. In that article he used words to the effect that "John Diefen-baker retained visions of immortality" and he "wanted to sign the treaty". This is Mr. Higgins' explanation of the signing of the treaty on January 17, 1961.


Colin Cameron: May I suggest that this is quite irrelevant. It was not said before the committee.


An hon. Member:: You asked for it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member asked for it.


Colin Cameron: This is typical misrepresentation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If I may be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to indicate that there were political polemics involved, and I have been trying to demonstrate that fact from the article written by Mr. Higgins which appeared in the Globe and Mail on the dates I have indicated. That was Mr. Higgins' point of view.
Before the committee Hon. Mr. Williston, representing the province of British Columbia, was asked specifically why there was seeming haste in signing the treaty on January 17. I asked that question with Mr. Higgins' accusation in mind. Mr. Williston said that British Columbia wanted to sign the treaty because they were afraid the treaty would have to be negotiated all over again as a consequence of the imminent change of government in the United States. It will be recalled that President Eisenhower signed the treaty just before the change of government in Washington. I say that Mr. Higgins' opinion was hardly an engineering or economic one, and that he was indulging in political polemics.
To go on with my remarks, I think these gentlemen were impressed and overawed by the tremendous prestige of General McNaughton, who has been one of the most severe critics of the treaty in recent months. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself came under the influence of the prestige of the same gentleman. I have a statement before me extracted

from the Globe and Mail of April 9, 1962, which reads as follows:
In a statement issued earlier from his office at Ottawa following General McNaughton's charges Friday night, Mr. Pearson said the treaty should be renegotiated at once by a Canadian government which would pay sufficient regard to Canada's interests. General McNaughton would have been a most effective person to act for Canada in the renegotiation of the treaty, which is now more necessary than ever.
The Prime Minister made that statement in 1962, and it indicates that he too was impressed and overawed by the great reputation of General McNaughton, who is a distinguished Canadian. But the Prime Minister has changed his mind. Many competent engineers have changed their minds, and I am hoping that before the debate concludes all hon. members will agree that this is the best possible treaty under the circumstances.
On the subject of General McNaughton's evidence I want to make it abundantly clear that his major opposition to the treaty came after the signing of the treaty on January 17, 1961, This was brought out in the evidence because, as Hon. Mr. Fulton intimated, when it was put to the members of the negotiating team whether the treaty should be recommended to cabinet for referral to the house for approval General McNaughton, while he criticized certain engineering aspects of the treaty, did not disagree with its referral to cabinet to be followed by the approval of parliament. Indeed, he did not come out as a strong opponent of the treaty until April of 1962.
Before I move on to the diversion question to which I referred earlier, there is another aspect of this problem I should like to mention. I think Mr. Fulton demonstrated his basic integrity when he was asked whether he had been a critic of certain aspects of the treaty. He indicated that he was still a critic of certain aspects of the treaty, but he said that he took the matter to the people of British Columbia in the most direct way possible, by way of a direct appeal to the electorate, and the people of British Columbia had made their opinion known in no uncertain terms and in a democratic society we must, after all, accept the verdict of the people.


Mr. Barnett:: I wonder whether the hon. member who has the floor, and who comes from another province, is aware that the question of the Columbia river treaty was hardly mentioned in the last British Columbia election campaign.
Columbia River Treaty


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have only to take the word of Hon. Davie Fulton, who campaigned in the province of British Columbia.


Colin Cameron: Some of us campaigned, too, and we never heard him speak of it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government except all other kinds, and we must accept the verdict of the people.
I come now to the question of jurisdiction, which involves the problem of diversion. I am not going to give any legal opinions here, but where there is a resource which basically belongs to the provincial authorities, and especially where there are areas of joint responsibility, there is no absolute legal opinion that can be rendered to clarify this point. It was for this reason that the former Conservative government in 1961 called together the resources for tomorrow conference. One of the most difficult and critical areas of discussion was this problem of jurisdictional dispute.
To assist in resolving the jurisdictional difficulty a resource ministers council was set up with a secretariat to advise and undertake basic research. It is hoped that from this new breakthrough the continuing jurisdictional difficulties will be resolved.
The question of diversion, Mr. Speaker, is one that I want to dwell upon for just a moment, particularly diversion to the prairies. Here is what Hon. Mr. Fulton said on that particular question:
The incredible thing here-as with the other criticisms with which I shall deal-is that those who make them show a blithe disregard for the specific, black and white provisions of the treaty -even after their attention has been drawn to them. Or at most they make a grudging admission-"Oh yes-you have safeguarded that right specifically in the treaty, but of course, because of the treaty we will never be able to exercise."
Then Mr. Fulton invited the committee to look at the facts in respect of three areas where this type of criticism is most often asserted. He dealt specifically with the alleged loss of the right of diversion to the prairies or for irrigation and domestic use there or elsewhere. Here is what Mr. Fulton, the chief negotiator, said:
The fact is that the only restriction is with respect to diversion for power purposes, and then only for the duration of the treaty.
This answers the question that was posed just a moment ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). Mr. Fulton indicated that he was fully aware of this

Columbia River Treaty problem of diversion, and the treaty was specifically negotiated to take care of all matters with regard to diversion with the exception of diversion for power purposes. Obviously this reservation had to be made because this was, after all, a treaty for the development of power, and there had to be a reservation of this character. There is no restriction on diversion for consumptive purposes-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is pure hypocrisy.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and that includes irrigation and all ordinary domestic uses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is just one other aspect with which I want to deal before my time expires. We must take into consideration the fact that this treaty was not negotiated in isolation. It was the hon. member for Greenwood who said that we wondered why he, a Torontonian, was taking part in this discussion. He has every right to take part in this discussion. The Columbia river treaty was part of a broad policy of national development of the former Conservative administration. A new policy enunciation to permit the export of power, was a breakaway from the old, outworn Liberal policy which had operated since after world war I. There was a decision to go ahead with plans for a national power grid which would make it possible to build, first of all on a regional and provincial basis and then on a national basis, long distance high voltage transmission lines which would make it possible to shunt power back and forth across the country. This makes power a basic consideration in relation to this treaty.
I have one final word, Mr. Speaker. I feel I should utter a word of caution about the importance of emphasizing the wise management and multiple use concept in any resource development. Critics of the treaty have indicated that there has not been sufficient provision for the intangible values in the treaty. I agree heartily and enthusiastically with this viewpoint. This is something that comes under the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia. We have had repeated assurances from the B.C. hydroelectric authority and from the representatives of the provincial government that these matters are being taken into consideration. This subject, of course, lies within the responsibility of that province. I am sure that if we look at this objectively, if we look at this without any narrow political bias, if we look at this in terms of the long term economic importance of the development of this resource,

we will all agree that the Columbia river treaty is a good treaty. It was negotiated, as will be revealed by a close examination of the evidence, with the new concept of the development of renewable resources, the wise management and multiple use concept, in mind.
I am not going to venture into the realm of prophecy as to how history will judge this treaty. This is beyond my ken and the ken of anyone. I think, having had the privilege of listening to such a large amount of evidence, I can safely say that within our capacity, within the capacity of the former government and the present government and the parliament of Canada, we need have no hesitancy in giving our approval to this treaty.


Mr. Pascoe:: I have a few words to say on this subject. May I call it one o'clock?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we go on for a few minutes and complete this speech?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
James Ernest Pascoe: 
Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There is no doubt about it, no doubt at all.


James Ernest Pascoe: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give us that assurance when he speaks. As for the brief submitted by the government of Saskatchewan to the external affairs committee on May 14, let me say I am not a member of that committee but I did hear some of the presentations. The arguments in favour of Saskatchewan's right to economically feasible water diversions were clearly presented. There are two questions I should like the minister to answer. I represent the city of Moose Jaw and a large part of the city of Regina. These two cities depend almost completely on water from the south Saskatchewan river which has been pumped over a height of land down the Qu'Appelle valley but which will flow down by gravity when the South Saskatchewan river dam is complete and the huge reservoir is filled. As Moose Jaw and Regina continue to grow, will the Columbia river treaty deny them the right to have water diverted from the Columbia if, as I say, this is feasible? The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) states that in his opinion the treaty does not deny this right. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) give us this positive assurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already given that assurance.


James Ernest Pascoe: Well, I should like to have the hon. gentleman stand up and put it on the record.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: In answer to the hon. member's question, as was pointed out in the evidence by many witnesses, including the former minister of justice who was the negotiator with respect to the treaty signed in 1961, there is no doubt that article XIII (1) provides for a clear right of diversion for consumptive use.


James Ernest Pascoe: Thank you. I wish to have that on record. I think I have heard the minister define what "consumptive use" means.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is provided for in the section on interpretation of the treaty.


James Ernest Pascoe: My second question concerns the stand taken by the government of Saskatchewan. The brief which the external affairs committee considered was put forward

Columbia River Treaty by the Lloyd government. Has the minister or the government received the views of the new Saskatchewan government? I would appreciate an answer to that question, also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In reply to that further question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I could direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are not in committee at this time and that if the minister speaks he will close the debate. I suggest that the minister reply to questions put by hon. members in the course of his closing remarks.


James Ernest Pascoe: Thank you. That is the course I thought would be taken. Would the minister take note, then, of those two questions to which I would appreciate an answer.


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: I hope to put on record one of the briefest speeches on this subject, though I hope it will not be the least pertinent, with regard to the resolution before us. I spoke on this matter on March 5, as recorded in Hansard on pages 585-588, and hon. members who recall that speech will recognize that as a member of the committee on external affairs which considered this treaty I entered the committee with a definite prejudice in favour of that treaty.
I did so because I had complete confidence in those who negotiated the original treaty. In particular, I had complete confidence in my predecessor, the former member for Kamloops, Hon. Davie Fulton. I had complete confidence, also, in the results of the 18 years of study which had preceded the negotiation of this treaty by the engineers, the legal advisers and the economists who helped prepare it on Canada's behalf. I had complete confidence, too, in the Department of External Affairs which negotiated the protocol, and complete confidence in the ability of the engineering staff led by Mr. Gordon MacNabb who looked into all the details of the negotiations.
For these reasons I entered the committee with prejudice. The question was studied during the hearings-there were probably 48 or 49 sittings through which I sat

and I came away more confident than ever that this treaty is in the best interests of Canada, of British Columbia and of everyone concerned. We studied it from the point of view of power, flood control and diversion, I do not intend to go into all these details; they have been adequately dealt with by other speakers. If any hon. member is still in doubt after

listening to the speeches already made on this subject, I suggest he refer to the large volume containing the records of our hearings where he will find that the matters I have mentioned are thoroughly gone into.
As I have said, I came away more confident than ever that Canadian rights are protected, that our sovereignty is protected and that this treaty is in the best interests of everyone concerned. So I stand here as the representative of one of the constituencies in the interior of British Columbia, thoroughly endorsing the treaty because of direct interest as well as national interest. I conclude by saying to the house once more: Let us get on with the job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before proceeding with the main portion of my remarks I cannot resist commenting on the observations made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby) with respect to his confidence in the terms of the original treaty-his confidence in the actions of the present government and in Mr. Fulton's magic. Does he not remember that when Mr. Fulton appeared before the committee and was asked if he still confirmed his previously expressed opinion that this was the biggest sell-out in history since Manhattan island was sold by the Indians, he did not withdraw those remarks?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he tell the house how those remarks originated? They were entirely in connection with the downstream benefits-the benefits being sold rather than returned to British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Quite right, and they are being sold today in the very circumstances about which the former minister of justice complained.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Different circumstances.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not answering any more questions. I have a lot to say. The only answer the former minister of justice had to make to the committee with respect to his change of view is that there was an election and it was the second time this tragic figure in Canadian political history, the former minister of justice, bowed his head to the premier of British Columbia in defeat. Certainly, there had been an election, but the election in British Columbia was not on the Columbia question throughout the province.


Mr. Macdonald:: On a question of privilege. Obviously, I hold no brief for the former

minister of justice, but what I do say is that the hon. member for Kootenay West is misrepresenting the situation. The former minister made it clear to the committee that he had changed his opinion on this matter, because with Peace river power going into the British Columbia system there would be no market for the downstream benefits of the Columbia project. That was his reason; not what the hon. member said.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The former minister of
justice said he had not changed his opinion or the reasons for his previous remarks. He said there had been an election, and he mentioned the Peace power development.


An hon. Member:: There was an election.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There was an election, but the election was not on this issue; the election was on the issue of highways, home owner grants and so on. Where there was an election on this issue, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, was in Kootenay West in the federal election of 1963; and the only candidate of the four running with me who came out in full support of all aspects of the Columbia river treaty was at the bottom of the poll, the Social Credit candidate, with something over 4,000 votes. The candidate from the hon. member's party came out against the treaty; he stood on the platform with me and that Liberal candidate and I were both denouncing this iniquitous treaty. That was an election where this was an issue, because I represent a constituency which is greatly concerned with this matter. I must get on, Mr. Speaker, or else the hatchet man from Rosedale will be taking my time, and I hope that if he does, Your Honour-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said I will be taking his time. I can assure him it would be much better used, if I did, than any use he would make of it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a matter of opinion; but that represents the quality of the hon. member's remarks to the committee. I would ask him to wait till I have finished what I have to say this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has been very quiet throughout this debate, you will notice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why don't you follow my example?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the worst thing I could do.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to express our complete opposition
Columbia River Treaty to this treaty as a very bad treaty for Canada. I say that from a completely non-partisan point of view, which point of view is supported by prominent Liberals, by prominent Conservative and some members of the Social Credit party in my own constituency, plus a large number of my party fans who have continued to support me throughout the vicissitudes of 19 years of political life. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote one of General McNaughton's recent statements which was supported and endorsed by Mr. Larratt Higgins, Mr. James Ripley, Mr. F. J. Bartholomew and other engineers. I am doing this, Mr. Speaker, in order to save my time and present in as few words as possible my basic argument. The question is, "What are the basic objectives for Canada?" In this connection General McNaughton said the following:
-too many people have overlooked the basic purpose of the treaty, which, for Canada, is to secure the best possible development of the Canadian section of the Columbia basin. The United States has developed its section in its own way. Our essential objective must be to develop our section in our own best interest, then share with the United States the added benefits that stem from co-operative use of the water.
No treaty on the Columbia can serve Canada effectively, unless it satisfies the following three principles:
1.	As much of the water which is stored in Canada as possible must be stored at as high an elevation as supply permits. This allows the best physical use of this resource for both countries and provides the most flexibility for all time to adapt to changing needs as these needs develop.
The first of these will be an increasing need for irrigation.
2.	Control of the waters stored in the Canadian part of the basin must remain in Canadian hands, just as the United States insists, rightly, on complete control of its flows.
3.	Over and above the development that each country does for itself, the further benefits that can be achieved by co-operative effort must be shared equitably.
The next question, Mr. Speaker, is, "Does the treaty meet the basic objectives for Canada?" General McNaughton said:
The...treaty offends...in almost every article.
1.	Storage at the highest elevation means the fullest use of reservoirs at Mica and Bull river-Luxor. The...treaty does precisely the opposite by placing most of the storage along the United States border in high Arrow and Libby, which are at the lowest possible points available.
2.	Control of the Kootenay flows is placed entirely in United States hands because Libby is in United States territory and Canada has no right under the treaty...to control the outflow. Control of the Columbia river flows is placed effectively in United States hands by.. .physically locating high Arrow at the border where it is of little use to Canada, and...making the criterion

Columbia River Treaty
of operation of Canadian storage the optimization of benefits for the entire system and by requiring joint approval of any operating plans that depart from system optimization.
This gives the United States a veto over anything we do in our storages, Mr. Speaker:
3.	The recompense we are to receive under the... treaty is far from equitable either for flood control or power. For power, we receive only 40 per cent of the downstream benefits and even this amount declines over the years while the actual value of our storage to the United States actually increases. For flood control, $64 million (in United States funds) is the payment for a service that would cost the United States $700 million to perform itself.
The next question is, "Has the protocol done much to improve upon the treaty", and General McNaughton said in this regard:
The servitude on Canada was serious under the treaty, as I have been at pains to point out and explain to Mr. Martin, and he has admitted the cogency of the warning X have given, but in the protocol he has indeed, in fact, made our position very much worse-
I was going to make a reference to Mr. Fulton on this subject, but the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby) provided me with an introduction along those lines. Once again let me say I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Fulton, who himself made this the issue in the provincial election, but that it was not the issue is clearly indicated from the results of his efforts.
We listened to the evidence presented to the committee by Hon. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I pay him a tribute as a great political engineer. I notice from the minutes of the committee proceedings that we heard evidence from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, officials of the various branches of the federal government, the government of British Columbia, with Hon. R. G. Williston, minister of lands, forests and water resources, Hon. R. W. Bonner, Q.C., attorney general; A. F. Paget, deputy minister of water resources, and Gordon Kidd, deputy comptroller of water rights. From the government of Saskatchewan we listened to one of the finest briefs that came before that committee. I am sorry that more hon. members have not read that brief thoroughly, or they would not be adopting the arguments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the question as to whether the rights of diversion into the South Saskatchewan river are preserved. Certainly they are, for consumptive uses, but they should ask the minister whether they can at the same time produce the hydro-
IMr. Herridge.J
electric power necessary to make this economical. That is the complete question.
Then we had evidence from David Cass-Beggs, general manager, Saskatchewan Power Corporation; J. W. MacNeill, executive director, south Saskatchewan river development commission; Barry Strayer, associate professor, college of law, University of Saskatchewan. Then, from the British Columbia hydro and power authority we heard from Dr. H. L. Keenleyside, chairman of the hydro authority, and other officials. In the report of the committee there is also mention of special witnesses, General Hon. A. G. L. McNaughton, C.H., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., former chairman, Canadian section, international joint commission; Hon. E. D. Fulton, P.C., Q.C., former minister of justice and chief negotiator, Columbia river treaty. He gave what I would term his political sunset address before the committee.
Then we had engineering consultants and firms and many other interesting witnesses, including Mr. Larratt Higgins, Mr. F. J. Bartholomew, Mr. Richard Deane, and numerous representatives of labour and other organizations. I just want to mention in this respect, before passing on, that the great concern of many people who have been interested in this treaty has been from the water aspect of it. Power can be produced in other ways in years to come, but the evidence indicates that water is becoming more and more valuable. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, June 2,	1964. The
article is headed, "Water distribution feared crisis of future", and it says:
The problem of distributing fresh water to the people of the world has not yet reached the crisis stage but it must get priority attention if a serious emergency is to be avoided, a U.S. waterworks engineer told the American water works association in Toronto yesterday.
W. R. LaDue, who lectures foreign engineers at the University of Akron, Ohio, said 75 per cent of the world's people live in communities with contaminated water.
He told his audience of waterworks engineers from most parts of the United States and Canada that the total of all the world's water does not decrease through use, but, as world population increases, the amount per person falls off. Distribution is becoming a major headache, he said.
Since yesterday I have had brought to my attention as a result of the excellent remarks on this aspect of the question by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) a report entitled "Natural Resources in 1984" by Mr. Michel Batisse, chief of the natural resources research division, UNESCO, Paris.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Where is the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) now?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is the hon. gentleman saying?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you keep quiet?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I said, where is the hon. member for Greenwood today?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I expect he is busy in his office.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He has not been in the house all day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where have you been most of the time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Unfortunately I must listen to your colleague.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member has the opportunity to leave if he wishes, but he seems to be leaning over his desk with both ears flapping in my direction. Mr. Batisse has this to say:
Leaving aside the need for hydroelectric power production, for inland navigation and for recreation, where no significant withdrawal or pollution of water is involved, the amount of water used, per capita, for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes varies enormously from country to country. It ranges, at present, from ten gallons per day in some underdeveloped areas, to the impressive figure of 1800 gallons per day in the United States, where only 6 per cent of this is for domestic uses, the rest being shared by industry and agriculture.
Then Mr. Batisse goes on to mention the tremendous crisis which is developing on this continent with respect to water and how water will cost more and more. He continues:
As a result, there will be many progressive changes in our habits of thinking about water, about its value, about the interrelation between its uses, about the interdependence of the people living in the same basins with all the legal and political implications this involves.
That is the situation in the Columbia river basin, and on the prairies.
There will be no shortage of water. It will Just cost more. And man will begin to realize clearly how much he depends on it. This will not be new in history, since the ancient Egyptians, the Romans and the Arabs knew the value of water. But for the first time, and forever, modem civilization will become water-conscious.
That is one of the reasons we are taking a close look at the treaty.
I also have an article which has been extracted from the Portland Oregonian of April 18, in which a former senator, Len B. Jordan, said, dealing with water resources:
Columbia River Treaty The best source of more water for the lower Colorado river basin is the Columbia river.
They realized that this is the great source of water for the future, and I do not blame them for their point of view.
I want to say that I wholeheartedly support the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), and I will not repeat, as far as I can avoid it, any of those arguments because this is a complicated and complex question but quite often one's argument goes from one aspect to another. However, I want to bring to the attention of the house something which happened during the committee meetings and which has come to my attention, because I see that the minister of northern affairs is now in his seat. Let me say that he was noticeable for his absence as head of a department which has control over water resources. But we overlooked that, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why. Whenever his absence was noted-and I do not remember seeing him attend one meeting of the committee while it was discussing the Columbia river treaty-even some of his own members said to me: "Well, I will tell you why it is; he is out praying for rain, so don't bother him at this time".
Then I noticed that Mr. Patterson, who is the director of the water resources branch, the man in charge, came in on occasion, but tiptoed out again. He peeped in to see what was going on, but left the defence of this treaty entirely to that young man whom I admire for his contumacy, Mr. Gordon Mac-Nabb.
Anyway, during the hearings Dr. Keenley-side criticized the right of members of parliament to criticize civil servants. I raised this question in the house. He said that it was constitutionally improper, which is of course a lot of rot. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you sustained my right as a member of parliament to criticize civil servants. We have not criticized the ability of our civil servants. We have not criticized their integrity. We have only criticized the fact that they had not sufficient funds or staff, and there is not sufficient planning which springs from adequate funds to permit them to compete with United States army engineers in planning over-all basin projects, the development of hydro, and so on.
1 might say in passing that this question was raised in the British house a week or two ago because some prominent members of the Labour party criticized some of the

Columbia River Treaty officials in the foreign office, an almost unheard of thing in Great Britain. They said they were hangovers from the Victorian era who should be booted out, and no one questioned their right to use that strong language in respect to civil servants. This subject may be developed in this house at a later stage in our discussions on estimates.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who has spoken the harshest words about the civil servants? The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), the present parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, said on December 13, 1962, as reported at 2642 of Hansard for that year, the following. Mind you, this is a man who now sits close to the seats of the mighty, and I hope that all those present who are interested will listen carefully to this. He said:
It will be remembered that the Canadian team consisted first of the minister himself-
That is Mr. Fulton.
-who has been described by some of the Conservative papers as a brilliant young man. With that I am prepared to agree in that he is a Rhodes scholar; but he is not a hydroelectric engineer and I am sure he has had very little training in engineering. Then there was Mr. Robertson, deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources. I question whether he has any training in electrical engineering or hydro development.
You should see, Mr. Speaker, the dozens of letters on complex engineering problems which Mr. Robertson signed, but I will come to that later.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Is my hon. friend referring to Mr. Gordon Robertson?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure my hon. friend agrees that Mr. Gordon Robertson's knowledge of this subject-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am saying this in fairness to a public servant.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is not referring to a public servant. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has the floor is not referring to a public servant but is reading a statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) with regard to a public servant.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Oh, I am sorry.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quoting your own side.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is when you were on this side criticizing public servants.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Kootenay East went on:
Another member of the team was Mr. Ritchie of the Department of External Affairs, a man with very little knowledge of hydroelectric development. Finally, there was Mr. Bassett, the deputy minister of lands and forests of the province of British Columbia.
I am not saying that, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to a number of dear old ladies in Ottawa who tell me that Mr. Ritchie is a wonderful young man and they are very fond of him. They speak of him in the highest terms and cannot quite understand why he has followed this path lately.
The hon. member for Kootenay East went on:
On the negotiating team for the United States there was Mr. Bennett, assistant secretary of the department of interior of the United States. In this capacity he has been working on power system administration for many years. He heads the branch that deals with and sells all federally generated power in the United States including such projects as the Tennessee valley authority, the Bonneville power administration and so forth. General Istchner has been concerned with the Columbia river since early 1950.
He is chief of the army engineers and head of the Pacific northwest division of the corps of army engineers, in which region the Columbia river is situated. In addition to being chief of the corps of army engineers he held the position of head of the United States section of the international Columbia engineering board, and he entered into the negotiations with complete and comprehensive knowledge of the subject.
He mentioned that to illustrate that he thought our people did not have complete and comprehensive knowledge of the subject.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly, if I do not have time taken off because of it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member not agree that is the identical information General Mc-Naughton supplied both to the hon. member and myself during those discussions and that I have subsequently said, having gained further knowledge, that I believe that the Canadian negotiators and engineers were some of the most important on this continent?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, that is quite correct since the hon. gentleman became a parliamentary secretary, but not before. Before, he tramped up and down Kootenay East telling the people that the McNaughton plan was the plan.


An hon. Member:: Tell the whole story.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will tell the whole story. 1 have a lot more to tell, old boy. We did not

make these personal remarks. We were just sympathizing. But what do we find is brought out in the evidence before the committee? There is this fine young Canadian, Mr. Gordon MacNabb, standing, with a shortage of funds and staff, almost alone facing his counterpart, General Istchner and the whole corps of army engineers. We can understand the circumstances in which he finds himself.
During the hearings of the committee we made an effort to obtain information as to what had transpired between the negotiators and we attempted to obtain the minutes of these meetings. They were denied on the ground that they were confidential to the cabinet and covered by the oath of secrecy. However, during the time that Mr. Barry Strayer was giving evidence before the committee for the Saskatchewan government, Mr. E. R. Olson of the Department of Justice sent a note to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) who read it and later tore it into 62 pieces. It was picked up and we have managed to piece them together again. I am going to read the note.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Let me say this before I read the note. These gentlemen from the Department of External Affairs, the water resources branch and the Department of Agriculture, all federal departments, were sitting at the back of the room and were sending up notes and whispering in the ears of Liberal members. The members of the New Democratic party never got a single note from any one of these gentlemen and they never whispered in our ears once. We feel a bit slighted about this. We think that civil servants should provide the opposition as well as the government with information.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You were not looking for the facts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have got the note here.


An hon. Member:: You were listening to McNaughton.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is beautifully written.
This note is addressed to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Mind you, this was written after we tried to get this information. I have the original and I am going to put it in my museum. This is what Mr. Olson wrote:
Could you ask him-
He is asking the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to ask Mr. Strayer this question. The government did not bring Mr. Columbia River Treaty Olson forward to give evidence to counteract what Mr. Strayer had said, the best legal evidence that was given. They thought it was best to keep Mr. Olson quiet.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that is another misrepresentation by the hon. member. Mr. Olson was brought forward and was available for examination by the hon. member for Greenwood if he had sought to question him on this point. In fact, at page 136 of the proceedings the Secretary of State for External Affairs specifically invited the hon. member for Greenwood to examine Mr. Olson on this question, and I invite the hon. member to point out to me anywhere in the hearings where the hon. member for Greenwood took advantage of this opportunity and pursued with the authors of the government's legal opinion the basis upon which this opinion was given.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: After hearing this magnificent testimony from Mr. Strayer we fully expected that the government would bring forward its legal shock troops in the form of Mr. Olson, and we were surprised that it did not. Let us get on with this note.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let us get on with the facts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Olson is asking the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to ask this question of Mr. Strayer:
Would your opinion re out of basin diversions be changed or subject to modification if it turned out that a prior draft of the treaty contained language supporting your conclusion but was subsequently replaced with the unlimited language of the actual treaty?
Then there is a note to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George from Mr. Olson in these words:
Such is the case in fact but if it is put hypothetically there is no disclosure.
The note is signed "E. R. Olson, Department of Justice". I mention this because we object to this disclosure of information that we were denied. I have inquired about the matter and I understand that the parliamentary secretary has no right to secrets that are held by members of the privy council. This information was asked for by the committee and denied on the basis that it was confidential, but then it was disclosed by Mr. Olson to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. We object to the information being given to one member and denied to others.
Before proceeding with related aspects of this development I want to quote the hon.

Columbia River Treaty member for Kootenay East again because there are some good quotations from his past history. On December 13, 1962, the hon. member for Kootenay East made these remarks, and I refer to them because there has been some question as to what was the original development with respect to negotiations, and it has been mentioned by members on this side and by others that in the first instance the government of Canada started to proceed to negotiate on the basis of the McNaughton plan. I want to bring the hon. member for Kootenay East to my support again, and this is what he said as found on page 2642 of Hansard:
These are the teams that came face to face in a highly technical discussion. Soon after the teams got to work it would appear, as I think the minister will agree, that they had come almost to the point of signing an agreement based on the original international joint commission principles which in effect comprise the preset McNaughton plan. They were about to sign what is now considered the McNaughton plan when Premier Bennett of British Columbia or one of his negotiators walked into the negotiations, pulled the rug out from under their feet and said that there would be no flooding of the Kootenays. This was the first doublecross.
We have proof positive from the distinguished member for Kootenay East of the basis on which the original negotiations started. I do not think there should be any further reference to that subject now.
I intend to deal with many of the aspects of this question as quickly as possible, and I wish to refer now to the telegraphed petition sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and signed by 19 engineers urging further consideration of the Columbia treaty prior to ratification by parliament. In reply to a question I asked him the Prime Minister informed the house yesterday that three of these engineers had withdrawn their names as a result of a telegram they had received from him. I wish to deal with this question for a few minutes.
I have a copy of the telegram to the Prime Minister from these 19 engineers. I have a photostat copy of the original signatures, but I am not going to take the time of the house to read the telegram. It urges the Prime Minister to reconsider this question before he commits the country to an irrevocable course of development for this river. I have a copy of the Prime Minister's telegram to these people. One can see from the length of the telegram that the Prime Minister was very concerned about these 19 prominent engineers urging delay in the ratification of the treaty.
[Mr. Herridge.l

Yesterday in reply to a question I asked he mentioned that Mr. P. M. Sauder had replied that he was not supporting the petition. He says in his telegram that he is going to leave it to parliament to decide the matter. He does mention that we should retain the right to decrease the allotments to the United States if Canada is short of water at any time for domestic, municipal, industrial or irrigation purposes.
Then, there is one from Mr. J. B. Stirling, vice president, and there is one from G. H. Thomson. I am not going to take the time of the house to read them.
However, the telegram from the Prime Minister is more ambiguous and more uninforming than the official statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) before the committee. You can well understand, having received this assurance from the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson), that these people might respond in this way to his appeal.
I have a copy of the metropolitan issue of the Globe and Mail which came in about half past ten this morning. There is an article in it entitled, "Commons Rejects N.D.P. Move to Add Rider to Columbia Pact." This article may be some guide as to why people have withdrawn their names. I quote:
The engineers, among 19 who signed the petition during the annual meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada in Banff, Alberta, last week, were John B. Stirling, of Montreal, Chancellor of Queen's University; P. M. Sauder, a life member of the institute, and G. B!. Thomson, president of Calgary Power Limited.
Mr. Thomson is also a vice president and director of Montreal Engineering Company Limited-


Colin Cameron: Where did we hear that name before?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, in the committee.
-a consulting firm employed by the government in support of its defence of the Columbia treaty.
I can well understand him withdrawing his name on an appeal from the Prime Minister. I continue to quote:
The president of Montreal Engineering, G. A. Gaherty is chairman of Calgary Power.
You see why there can be reasons for these names being withdrawn on appeal from the Prime Minister that they should be withdrawn, knowing that if this treaty goes through the parliament of Canada the government of British Columbia or the B.C. hydro authority will be needing consultants

on a very large scale. I just mention this to indicate possible reasons for the withdrawal of these names.
The people of Canada do not know what has gone on in connection with this treaty. I have had some experience with a professor at the University of British Columbia who sent a letter stating he was all for negotiation; that he wanted to see Canada get a better deal from the United States. Then, there was a communication to him from a certain person and he withdrew that paragraph of his letter. We have, too, the chancellor of Queen's University withdrawing his name from those who opposed the treaty. I wish I could tell this house what some of the employees of B.C. hydro and other organizations have told me in British Columbia. There has been a deliberate effort on the part of both governments to muster their forces in order to, shall I say, dampen down any technical opposition to this treaty.
Now before proceeding to deal with some of our objections to the treaty, I wish to emphasize the fact that while the government witnesses were either devoted civil servants or the representatives of mercenary institutions, all those who opposed the treaty were volunteers. In a good many cases, they were willing to serve Canada by giving consideration to this problem over a period of several years, and in some cases they spent their own money to inform the people of the circumstances surrounding this treaty. I wish to pay a particular tribute to the members of the trade unions, farmers organizations, chambers of commerce, women's institutes and rod and gun clubs in British Columbia, who have taken such an interest in this problem and in the various aspects of the treaty.
In contrast to that, I just want to make a short reference to a statement made to the press yesterday by Hon. James Sinclair, who is the leader of young Liberal thought in British Columbia. I never read such political cynicism in my life. I quote from this article:
James Sinclair, the dynamic go-go-go backbench Liberal M.P. who staged parliament's only "sit-out strike" to win his way into cabinet, was back on his old parliament hill political stamping grounds yesterday.
And with news.
To wit:
"Nobody, but nobody, believe me, on the west coast gives a damn about the flag."
And this is strange, he admits.
For only so very recently British Columbia was actually, as he describes it, "British British Columbia," almost rather an outpost ot the old empire, or at least the commonwealth, than a Canadian province.
But as British as British Columbia may have been, people out there on the Pacific, to hear
20220-254J
Columbia River Treaty Jimmy Sinclair tell it, have more to occupy their time than arguing over flags.
"We're all too busy making money to be bothered by that flag jazz," he reported.
"You can't beat a boom as a box office attraction, and we've got a dandy going for us."
"Nobody's seeing maple leaves or even union jacks, their eyes are too full of dollar signs."
Did you ever hear so cynical a statement from a Liberal, one of the leaders of young Liberal thought in British Columbia? Now, you see what is behind this treaty, the thinking behind it, in some respects. That is the dollar sign and not the welfare of Canadians as a whole, not the welfare of this and future generations. I say this statement is completely untrue. This is a libel on the people of British Columbia. I respect anyone's view. He may want a distinctive national flag or may wish to retain the red ensign or see some other national flag. I respect the views of these people as Canadians so long as they are sincere and they believe in these things. When people take these views, it means they are not thinking of the dollar as the only sign. They have devotion to this country and loyalties that stir their sentiments and their motives. What Mr. Sinclair has said is not true of British Columbia in respect of flags, whichever side the people take, or on this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we all want the hon. gentleman to give his views on the Columbia treaty and not to confuse them with any other subject.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister is trying to divert me. I have the river of criticism flowing in the right direction.
I mention this statement by Mr. Sinclair because I want to contrast that with the devotion of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists, members of farmers institutes, women's institutes, chambers of commerce and labour organizations, in B.C. and in Kootenay West. I want to mention the time they have spent dealing with this treaty, the meetings they have had, the literature they have published and the money they have donated to carry on a campaign against this infamous document, and I want to compare that with the cynicism of the leader of young Liberal thought in British Columbia. These people were not thinking about dollars, they were thinking about Canada and that is why we are objecting to this treaty at the present time.
I wanted to refer to something the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) mentioned. He criticized Mr. Ripley in quite harsh terms, and Mr. Higgins. He made some

Columbia River Treaty reference to Mr. Ripley talking politics or polemics, something of that sort. He did not advance any arguments for or against the treaty; he just gave a sort of gospel bell sermon. In order to indicate that there are engineers who agree with this position, I may say that there have been thousands of copies of this special issue sold in Canada to engineers and other persons. I have been asked for hundreds of them. People write in and say they have heard about this article. An engineer sent me a copy the other day and said he wished to bring to my attention this magnificent article, "Scandal on the Columbia". He did not realize I had already read it.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris criticized Mr. Ripley. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) talked about having him brought in front of the committee for contempt of parliament, as did the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). What happened?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The whole article was false.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Kootenay West, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I just complete my sentence, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was just going to say that I moved a motion to call Mr. Ripley before the committee. He came to the next meeting, and who voted against having him appear before the committee? The hon. member for Brandon-Souris did. After criticizing him, he was not willing to give him an opportunity to appear before the committee, and defend his article. He had the evidence with him to defend that article.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He could not defend it because it was full of holes, full of lies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting because I thought that surely some of the Liberal members who have been interjecting so frequently would want to give the house the benefit of their views on the Columbia river treaty and protocol.


Mr. Haidasz:: That was done in the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Apparently there is a conspiracy of silence among Liberal members. At the beginning of this debate the Secretary
[Mr. Herridge.)
of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) made a very short statement, consisting mainly of categorical assertions, many of which were completely inaccurate with no substantiation whatsoever, and that has been the sole contribution of the government members to this debate.
I would have thought that they would want to tell us about this treaty and the protocol. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) says that Mr. Higgins' article was full of lies and inaccuracies-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Ripley's.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that Mr. Ripley's article
was full of lies and inaccuracies, but I notice he has not made any speech pointing out these inaccuracies and alleged lies. Their constituents will want to know why these Liberal members have taken no part in this debate. Certainly the constituents in Kootenay East will be extremely anxious to know why their member, who fought the last election condemning the Conservative administration for the Columbia river treaty, is now supporting it, and without saying one word in this house about why he has done a complete political somersault. I think the constituents of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) will want to know why this champion, who wrote a series of articles for the Vancouver newspapers entitled, "The Sell-Out on the Columbia," has now completely reversed his position and is as silent as the grave when this matter is being discussed.
I have noticed the haste of hon. members opposite to keep saying carried.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They say "right", but I would point out that this treaty binds the people of Canada for 60 years. Moreover, the disposition of water, once made, when certain vested interests have been developed will not easily be changed after 60 years. In many respects the approval of this treaty will commit Canada forever, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said over and over again when he was debating this matter in the house back in 1962. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we make no apology for asking the house to take some time to consider what it is giving its approval to.
I want to express my amazement that on a matter so vital to the interests of people in British Columbia in particular and to the people of Canada in general, there has been complete silence on the part of hon. members opposite. Apart from the few trite words

uttered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Liberal members have said absolutely nothing. I hope they are prepared to go back and tell their constituents why they have taken the veil of silence on a matter that is of such vital importance to the people of this country.
It is advisable to look briefly at the history of the Columbia river treaty, to remember that the idea of harnessing the Columbia river has been under contemplation for two decades. It offered great possibilities for international co-operation between Canada and the United States because, on the one hand, harnessing it to generate power in Canada would be beneficial to us, and harnessing it to prevent flooding in the United States would be of great benefit to the citizens of that country. Therefore both countries had a laudable objective in working out some type of co-operative agreement for the development of the Columbia river basin.
One of the men who pioneered the work in this regard was General A. G. L. McNaugh-ton and he was successful, let it be said to his everlasting credit, when he was the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission. From time to time there have been some derogatory remarks made about the General. I say that those who make them in many cases are unworthy to untie his shoelaces, because he was the man who managed to get unanimous agreement, not only from the Canadian section of the commission but from the United States section, for the development of the Columbia river basin on the basis of sequence IX A which would have been of tremendous benefit to this country.
The finest tribute that has been paid to General McNaughton's plan was paid by a former minister of justice, Hon. Davie Fulton, who has repeatedly said that this was the plan the Conservative government would have preferred. As hon. members know, there was also a joint committee which submitted a report which was called, "The Report to the Governments of the United States and Canada Relative to Co-operative Development of Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin." That report was forwarded on September 28, 1960, and it laid out some of the basic principles upon which this international co-operation might be based.
Had the plan outlined by General McNaugh-ton, approved by the international joint commission and laid out in principle by this joint committee, been followed, we would be ex-
Columbia River Treaty tremely happy today to be standing up here in support of that treaty; but the first thing that happened was that the government of British Columbia objected to the McNaughton plan and very fundamental changes were made in it. I need not go into the details of those changes because this has all been thrashed out in the external affairs committee.
Hon. Davie Fulton, who was the minister in charge of these negotiations on behalf of Canada, admitted that the treaty as drafted by him was a second best, and on that basis the previous prime minister, Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, signed the treaty on behalf of Canada in Washington in January, 1961, and it was also signed by the President of the United States.
That treaty was not submitted to parliament, although that government was in office for more than an additional two years after the treaty was signed. It was not submitted to parliament because the previous government found that the British Columbia government, who they thought were in agreement with the treaty, balked at the idea of having the downstream benefits delivered to Canada in the form of electric power. The basis of that agreement was that 50 per cent of the increased power delivered as the result of building the dams would be delivered to British Columbia at Oliver, B.C., but Premier Bennett of British Columbia wanted to sell the downstream benefits for a cash settlement either on a continuing basis or a lump sum. And let it be said to the credit of Hon. Davie Fulton that he balked at that. He went through the length and breadth of British Columbia speaking against the idea of selling the benefits. He said in a speech at Prince George that this would be an improvident deal-that it would make us the laughingstock of the world. He refused to submit to the pressure of the government of British Columbia.
I imagine it was with a good deal of chagrin that he found that the speech from the throne in the fall of 1962 announced the intention of the Conservative government to permit the bulk sale of the power out of Canada. This, of course, pulled the rug completely from under Mr. Fulton.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the hon. member permit a question? I believe he is aware that the treaty itself allows for the sale of downstream benefits.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It does not allow for them on the basis on which Mr. Bennett wanted

Columbia River Treaty them, and this is the reason why Mr. Fulton had refused to agree with the proposition which Mr. Bennett presented. This is why he said it was an improvident deal. This was the situation at the time the previous government left office.
Throughout the two years between the time the treaty was signed and the time the present Liberal government came to office, Liberal members opposite had criticized this treaty both in the house and throughout the length and breadth of the country. I do not intend to waste the time of the house by reading back all the horrendous speeches which were made in December, 1962. I see a speech here by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) in which he criticized the government of that day for accepting a lump sum from the United States in respect of flood control, pointing out that this was of continuing value, and that to settle for a paltry sum represented negligence on the part of the government in looking after Canadian interests. In the same speech of December 12, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said the whole treaty should be renegotiated, and that the Libby dam and a number of others should be completely out of the picture. He said:
I believe that the treaty should be renegotiated in the matter of principles only, naming the entities responsible for the development on each side of the border, and naming the procedures, the sequences and the principles under which the results can be divided. But no more than that, and not naming projects, because we are getting into difficulties over the individual projects.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) made a speech on the same day similar to those he had made in British Columbia, and I have newspaper reports here outlining some of the statements he made. In this speech he came out as a champion of the McNaughton plan. He castigated the Conservative administration for approving a treaty which, he said, was a sell-out of Canadian interests. I do not wonder the hon. member has left the house. With the record of the position he took in December, 1962 set off against the position which the government is taking today I can understand any member going out and hiding his head until this debate is over. But he will have to hide his head a great deal more when he goes back to his constituency and talks to the people who elected him, as they elected some other Liberals opposite, on the firm commitment that they would renegotiate this treaty and do away with some of its worst features.
The government itself, as represented by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson),

committed itself during the election campaign to renegotiation of this treaty. Many people having in mind their criticism of the Columbia river treaty, and having in mind the promise of hon. members now sitting opposite that they would renegotiate it, gave them their electoral support. What have they done? Their renegotiation consists of producing a protocol-a protocol, Mr. Speaker, which does not remove any of the defects about which they complained in this house in the debates of 1962; a protocol which in the main is window dressing, a protocol which does not alter any of the basic facts of the treaty. As a matter of fact, if it had done so, then in all probability the President of the United States would have had to resubmit it to the United States congress. He has not done this, which would indicate that the protocol does not change the treaty in any major particular.
It seeks by assertion to say certain things. For instance, much has been made of the fact that there is now to be a right of appeal should any dispute about the water flow for flood control arise. What is this right of appeal? Well, the protocol says that a permanent engineering board will be established upon which Canada and the United States will be equally represented. If Canada does not agree with any of the representations made by the United States regarding the control of the water it may appeal to the permanent engineering board. But if the permanent engineering board does not agree to intervene- and it is hardly likely to intervene when half the membership is American-then the decision of the United States stands, and Canada must carry out the instructions received from the United States authorities. Is this a right of appeal? This, Mr. Speaker, is flim-flam put in to deceive the Canadian people into thinking they are getting something when they are actually getting nothing.
The other part of the protocol to which members opposite refer frequently has to do with diversion. Yesterday, for instance, when I was speaking on a point of order as reported on page 3953 of Hansard I said-and the exchange is recorded as follows:
We are dealing here with a treaty. Unless the government of the United States and the government of Canada are agreed as to the legal meaning of this treaty, then of course difficulties may arise in the future.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt about it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says there is no doubt about it. If there

Is no doubt about it, let him accept this amendment to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the protocol does that very thing.
And a few minutes later, as reported on page 3954, I said:
If the government is satisfied that the right of diversion is there, all it needs is a protocol signed by the United States government and the Canadian government to that effect and our fears would then become groundless.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It now has that very thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, let us see what we have in the protocol. The protocol says in paragraph 6 (1):
Canada and the United States of America are in agreement that article XIII (1) of the treaty provides to each of them a right to divert water for a consumptive use.
Mr. Speaker, what is the definition of "consumptive use" in the treaty? Article I(l)(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. Speaker, the fact that the protocol says that this country has the right to divert water for consumptive use is subject to the definition, and the definition limits the use of water for consumptive purposes to these things listed, domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes. It has left out many other items; it has left out the question of increasing water flow to deal with pollution problems; it has left out water replacement. It limits the uses to which water can be put for consumptive purposes. And it goes even further; it precludes the use of water for hydroelectric purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course it does; that is the whole point of the treaty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly. Now the minister says it is the whole point of the treaty-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has always been the point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to prevent water being diverted for hydroelectric purposes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As the primary use.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It does not say as the primary use.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes it does.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now we are coming to the essential point, Mr. Speaker, that the Secre-
Columbia River Treaty tary of State for External Affairs has been trying to foist on the Canadian people for several months, namely that if hydroelectric generation is not the primary use but is an incidental use to which the water is being put, then of course it will be permissible. But where is that in the treaty; where is it in the protocol? If that is true, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be here today with a letter from the United States government stating that, and he would be flourishing it in our faces. But he has not got it. I challenge him to produce one legal opinion from any responsible body or individual which will substantiate his claim that this definition of the term "consumptive use" will allow water to be used for hydroelectric generation purposes, provided there are other uses at the same time. No one knows better than the Secretary of State for External Affairs that you cannot divert water and transport it any great distance unless it is used for multiple purposes, unless along with domestic, industrial use and irrigation you can also pass it through turbines and generate power to help reduce the cost. Water cannot be diverted, as the Americans have demonstrated very ably, great distances unless it can be used for multipurpose projects. The only thing that made the South Saskatchewan river project economically feasible and practicable was the fact that it could be used for power, irrigation, domestic and industrial uses. There can be no diversion that makes sense or that is either practicable or economic unless that water can be used for many other things, including the generation of hydroelectric power.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while the minister goes around saying, "Well, we now have under the protocol the right to divert water", he knows that in practical terms we have given up the right to divert water. We have given up the thing that the joint committee agreed to in their report to the governments of Canada and the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not accurate, and my hon. friend knows it. That is completely inaccurate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will give my hon. friend a chance to tell me how inaccurate it is.


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker. I will accept questions from any members in the other parties who have taken part in this debate, but if the members on the other side want to

Columbia River Treaty express their view, let them get up and take part in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let them not sit here in silence acting as they do, as the lackeys for the government and taking no part in the debate, their only contribution consisting of interruptions and rather insipid questions. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Basford:: Why are you afraid to answer questions?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not afraid to answer questions, to take part in this debate or to express what I think. That does not cover my hon. friend, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker. The report-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Then accept the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend has anything to say, will he please get off his conscience and stand up. He has been sitting on his convictions for three days, and it is hard on him. The committee representing the two countries made their report on September 28, 1960, and set out recommended principles upon which the drafting of the treaty should proceed, and I would ask the house to remember that this was agreed to by both countries. One of the stated principles provided in part:
16.(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), Canada and the United States to refrain during the term of the treaty from
(a)	diverting from the Columbia river basin any of the flow of the Columbia river above the point at which it crosses the boundary between Canada and the United States;
(b)	diverting from the Columbia river basin any of the flow of any tributary which has its confluence with the river in Canada;
This was the beginning. There was to be no diversion. Then, because of the outcry on the prairies even from Liberal newspapers like the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix the government said with regard to this clause, "Ah, of course you can divert, but for consumptive purposes". That is in article XIII(l); but then in the definition consumptive use is defined so that in effect you cannot divert water because it is made uneconomic and impractical to divert it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs seems to think that if he keeps on repeating again and again that the protocol gives the right of diversion, somehow or other he will get people to believe it. He is like a witchdoctor who believes that by repetitive incantations he is somehow going to turn black into white. The fact is that this treaty and the protocol pre-


vent diversion in any practical or economic sense. It will allow some local diversion for stock-watering, but any large scale diversion is to all intents and purposes precluded the moment this treaty goes into effect.
What does this mean? This morning's paper carries a story of the concern on the prairies at the lack of moisture. On the prairies we have periodically gone through cyclical periods of drought. Water is going to be an increasingly scarce commodity on the great plains of western Canada, not only for irrigation but also for domestic and industrial purposes. Industries are growing up on the prairies. Water is needed if those industries are to survive and expand-water for petrochemical industries, water for solution mining of potash, which is rapidly becoming one of Canada's very important industries. I make the prediction that within the next two decades water will be the most precious commodity in western Canada.


Mr. Cooper:: One decade.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon. friend from Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Cooper), who has made a long study of this problem, says one decade, and I think he is right. But this treaty is for six decades, and the house ought to know what the treaty is doing. I am sure the country will realize what it is doing. We are now effectively blocking any large scale diversion of water from the Columbia to the prairies of western Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
fact.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister keeps saying that that is not the fact. Only a few minutes ago he said that the purpose of the treaty was to prevent water from being diverted for hydroelectric purposes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As the primary purpose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How can we divert water to the prairies unless it is used for hydroelectric generation? The minister says, not as the primary purpose; but there is nothing in the treaty which says that this is precluded only when the primary purpose is hydroelectric generation. If the minister really believes what he is saying and if he is not just trying to deceive the public, he will surely produce a legal opinion or a letter jointly signed by the Canadian and United States governments to the effect that the diversion of water for hydroelectric purposes will be permitted, if generation of water for hydroelectric purposes is not the

primary function. If he believes what he says all he has to do is to accept the amendment which we proposed yesterday.
The minister has put up the argument in correspondence with the government of Saskatchewan that, after all, this is not very important, because he said in a letter which he wrote to the premier of Saskatchewan on March 31, 1964, "alternative sources exist for obtaining water supplies for the Saskatchewan river system which on any foreseeable basis are considerably less expensive to develop than a Columbia river diversion into Saskatchewan." But all of the evidence presented by the Saskatchewan government indicates that if you take into consideration a cost benefit study the Columbia is probably the most economical means of bringing water to the prairies.
You cannot base the case on cost per cubic foot. You have also to examine it on the basis of where the water will enter the South Saskatchewan river basin and what benefits it will provide. It is not the function of this house to decide whether diversion of water from the Columbia to the prairies is less expensive or more expensive than diversion from some other river. That is not our business. It will be the business of whatever government is in Saskatchewan and whatever government is in British Columbia at the time to work it out, if they desire to do so. But it is the responsibility of this parliament to see that the right to divert water and the right is kept open for future governments in Saskatchewan and British Columbia to work out an arrangement for such a diversion. I say that this treaty precludes this happening. Because it precludes this happening I think it is a bad treaty, and that it will work great hardship on the people of the prairie provinces.
These people have been through cycles of drought. They have been limited by lack of water in the development of specialized crops. They have been limited as to industrial development. Already many of their urban communities have water shortage problems. Surely it is the function of Canada's parliament to safeguard water supplies so that these people may enjoy them in the years which lie ahead. If this treaty were only for five years I would not worry about it. But this treaty is for 60 years, and if sufficient commitments of water are made to the United States it is virtually forever. Because once we have made commitments and industries have been established in the United
Columbia River Treaty States on the basis of a stated water supply, we, or our children and our children's children, are not going to be able to divert water 70 or 75 years from now. I should have thought that members of the government would have given some consideration to an area of Canada which has suffered so much from drought and which fights against so many natural obstacles to its development, and would have seen to it that the right to divert water would have been retained, and not precluded as it is in this treaty.
I think my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say in closing that in spite of the lack of interest in this resolution which has been taken by government members it is of vital importance to the people of this country. Whether we take an interest in it or not, I predict that within a few decades there will be a storm of public disapproval against this treaty when once the full implication of its terms is realized by people of Canada. Unfortunately when that time comes their fury cannot be directed against those who are responsible because they will probably have passed from the political scene. Future generations of Canadians will look back to this day and will have a feeling of regret that we have so far forgotten our sense of duty and responsibility as to allow a treaty like this to pass without taking adequate steps to safeguard the interests of future generations.
As far as we in this party are concerned we have made our protest, and we have made it repeatedly. We made it when the matter was first brought before the house. We made it when the minister asked that this matter be referred to the committee on external affairs. Our representatives on the committee, the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Toronto Greenwood, day after day presented our point of view in that committee to the very best of their ability, and I think they did an excellent job. We have in this debate stated our position. We have made it crystal clear that we think this treaty and protocol ought not to be passed in their present form without some clarification of the right of diversion of water where the generation of hydroelectric power is involved. We have made our stand here, Mr. Speaker, and it is on the record. The other members of the house must accept their responsibility if approval is given to this nefarious treaty.
4006	HOUSE OF
Columbia River Treaty


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cooper).


Clarence Owen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in this debate having regard to the fact that we on the prairies need water from the Rocky mountains. Other speakers have dealt with the water problems of the prairies. I have been vice president of the Saskatchewan river development association since 1943 and we have always had it in the back of our minds that we would have to divert water from the slopes of the Rocky mountains in order to maintain our water supply on the prairies.
I can remember that a few years ago water was rationed in the thriving cities of Moose Jaw and Regina. If you used municipal water to wash your car or water your lawn there was a penalty imposed. We have had these experiences on the prairies, and in the last 40 years I have seen the water level going down every year. Lakes and streams where we used to hunt ducks and which were also used for water supply have dried up and in many cases farming is being carried on in those locations today. So we must look to other sources for water.
I am all in favour of water conservation by dams, dugouts and every other means that will conserve water in Canada. So far as diversion is concerned I agree with what the hon. member who just spoke said with regard to the treaty. I object to the rider providing that we can use the water for domestic purposes and so on but not for hydroelectric purposes. So far as the South Saskatchewan river project is concerned, we expect to divert some water from the Columbia into the South Saskatchewan river and when that project is completed next year we will have a hydroelectric plant developing 475 million kilowatt hours annually. What I am afraid will happen with this rider in the treaty is that when we want to divert water in 10 or 20 years the United States will say that under the treaty water is not to be diverted for power purposes. That is the main objection I have to the treaty and I conclude by saying that I cannot support the treaty with that rider in it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Once again I must warn the house that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaks now he will close the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, at one point in this debate, one hon. member observed that this was one of the most important matters to come before the house in a long time. With that I fully agree. It was for this reason that, after the most careful examination had been made of the project by two governments of Canada the matter none the less was referred to the committee on external affairs for further examination by the membership of the house. At the same time the committee had the opportunity of inviting the presentation of expert testimony by people with special technical knowledge both in and outside the government service of Canada and the government service of the province of British Columbia.
There has been an exhaustive inquiry. Fifty meetings of the committee were held and I attended many of those meetings, although I was not a member of the committee myself. After a long period of service in this house, I must say that I am sure we have not had in many years a committee that addressed itself so thoroughly to its particular assignment as did this committee. This was due to the earnest way in which members in all parties applied themselves to the difficult task given to them. What I say applies to those on the government side, to those in the opposition parties who support the treaty and the protocol and in equal measure to those who were and continue to be opposed to the treaty and the protocol.
After we came into office a year ago I had the responsibility as Secretary of State for External Affairs of negotiating the protocol with the United States. This is a vital matter, and I do not think we prove the point by having it suggested that only those opposed to the treaty or the protocol really have the national interest in mind. I am sure that every member of the committee and every member of this house, regardless of the position he takes on this matter, is as concerned about the propriety, validity and integrity of this project as any other hon. member. If I may say so to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I And it a little difficult to accept some of the direct and indirect implications of his remarks. Usually he does not let himself go in this way, and I can only assume that there

must have been influences operating today which affected the normally steady course which he takes in the house.
I have paid my tribute to the chairman and vice chairman of the committee. But because of things that have been said today and things that were implied earlier,-as this is the final statement before we vote-I should like to say that we have reason to be grateful not only to the members of the committee. All of us in the house and in this country have an obligation to recognize the contributions made by public servants in Canada's service and in the service of British Columbia over a long period of time, because this matter has been before the Canadian people in one way or another for 20 years.
Having in mind what I know about the work that has been put into the matter by devoted public servants, I would be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute to those who have done so much over the years to enable us, the legislators, to form a judgment on this matter. I am sure members of the opposition who formed the last government will agree with me that we have every reason to be proud of our public servants, and particularly of those in our public service who advised this government and the former government in the consideration which they had to give to this matter. Because some names have been mentioned today, I want to say that we in this country owe a great debt to the clerk of the privy council, Mr. Gordon Robertson, a former deputy minister of northern affairs, to Mr. Gordon MacNabb of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as brilliant an engineer as will be found in this country, who made such an impression on every member of the committee; to Mr. Ed. Ritchie, the assistant under secretary responsible for the economic division of the Department of External Affairs; to Mr. Olson of the Department of Justice; to Mr. Parkinson of the Department of Finance; and to Mr. Kingstone of the legal division of external affairs. While he was not here, there was a young Canadian engineer from British Columbia, Mr. William Chin, the son of a Chinese, a very brilliant young engineer, who spent ten years working on this project! These are the men to whom we have every reason to express our gratitude. I have mentioned their names only because, in the course of debate, I regret to say there have been suggestions of incompetence, which I believe were very unjustly applied. Canada has never been served more ably than by
Columbia River Treaty these men and perhaps by one or two other public servants whose names I have not mentioned. The same thing is true of a number of engineers in the service of the government of British Columbia who had much to do with the negotiations long before I had any responsibility for them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to cover all of the arguments that have been advanced in this particular debate. The evidence, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) pointed out, is before this house, some 1,500 pages of it. This evidence deals with every point that has been discussed in the debate today and yesterday, as well with many more. I believe that every point made today, and others not covered today, have been answered and, according to the majority of the members of this committee, adequately answered.
One cannot expect full agreement on a matter so complicated and so vital as this. But I think one should, after the careful study that has been made, at least be prepared to recognize that the majority are entitled to the same consideration as those of the minority who take a dissident position. This has not been the viewpoint, however, of some of those who have criticized the treaty and protocol. The critical arguments that have been used against the treaty and protocol in this part of the debate were not those, for the most part, that were used when this matter first came before the house on March 3.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said that the members on this side have not taken part in this debate at all. He tried to imply that there were no members on this side interested in the subject. My hon. friend knows this is not the case. He will recall that there was a debate on March 3 when I made a very extensive statement, the length of which was criticized by one of my hon. friend's own supporters. Many hon. members, whose interjections today represented their enthusiasm if not always their full appreciation of the way to get things settled, took part in that debate and were very active members of the committee.
There are members in the official opposition who did not speak in this debate but took part in the debate when the matter first came before the house. Some of them were very active members of the committee. There are one or two of them sitting before me in the official opposition now who have not taken part in this debate but who applied themselves energetically in the committee to the

Columbia River Treaty study assigned to them. I feel it is only fair to those hon. members, that as the final speaker I should point out that the absence of speeches at this particular time is due only to the fact that we want to get on with the business of the house. If every hon. member were to speak, we would never be able to discharge the public business. This is particularly true in respect of a matter which has been so thoroughly discussed from every angle, as this particular problem has been.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then, why did you introduce the flag issue?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend, who is my friend.
I know he has taken this matter seriously.
I think he will say that while I have not always agreed with him, I have tried to deal with him in this matter as fairly as I could.
I am not going to make any interjection in the dying days of this debate that might sever the bonds of a deep and lasting friendship.
But, Mr. Speaker, what have we had today? The arguments against this treaty were not the arguments made on other occasions. Today, the argument was essentially with regard to the right of diversion. There was no suggestion made that, by this treaty and protocol, Canada does not get very substantial advantages. No mention was made of the sum of money involved. No mention was made of the fact that all of the projects involved at high Arrow, at Mica and at Duncan are going to be paid for and that there is going to be a surplus, which will be for 50 per cent of the cost of the installation of at-site power at Mica. No mention was made of the tremendous advantages that flow from what I believe is a sound and equitable agreement which Canada was able-on behalf of Canada and British Columbia-to obtain from the United States.
The whole argument today was essentially on the question of diversion. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam noted that what we had to consider was the problem of water, water for Saskatchewan, water for the prairie provinces. I agree with him, that is a vital consideration. However, the hon. gentleman continued to misinterpret or to ignore the clear implication of article XIII(l) of the treaty and more particularly the refinement of it in the protocol in which the United States reaffirmed in positive terms Canada's right to make any diversion of the Columbia basin water required for consumptive needs, such as irrigation and municipal use. There
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
is no question about what this means; this was the view taken by the solicitors who appeared before the committee and the view of the former minister of justice, Mr. Fulton.
In answer to the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) who put two specific questions, I can say that there is no doubt in the judgment of the government. That judgment means we have considered this situation in the light of the opinions given by these experts and in the light of the examination of the documentation. The treaty permits consumptive diversions if Canada should ever find them necessary. If a diversion is for a consumptive need, then the diversion is permitted, even if incidental power is produced. There can be no doubt about that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? Will he quote that part of the protocol or treaty that corroborates just what he has said?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend is claiming that because there is not in the protocol or because there is not in article XIII(l), a provision specifically stating that you can have a diversion for incidental power, that you cannot have it. Well, that is a form of interpretation I would never accept. The treaty is clear and it says you can divert for consumptive use; whatever secondary use is made after that obviously follows. It did not require any special interpretation. He asked me questions, but if he would be good enough to read the evidence of General Istchner, instead of simply saying-


Mr. Brewin:: Would the minister permit a question? Has there been any written, reasoned legal opinion either produced in evidence or made available to the committee which supports the interpretation he is now giving?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked me this question several times in the committee, and he knows the answer. He is too good a lawyer to expect me to take that question as representing a serious import on his part, because he knows that is not the situation at all. I refer my hon. friend to the presentation material-


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is imputing that I did not ask the question in all seriousness.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: If I imputed anything I wish to withdraw it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If he can produce an opinion to controvert what I say, let him do so.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend is asking a question and he knows the answer to it. He knows I have taken the position that we do not need to have such a legal opinion. My hon. friend laughs. The loud laugh sometimes indicates the vacant mind. I am not suggesting that in this case, but I ask my hon. friend to remember what we did put in the evidence, which will be found in the presentation book at page 134:
In connection with the meaning of "consumptive use" it should be noted that a diversion carried out for a true consumptive use, such as irrigation, does not cease to be an "authorized diversion" merely because the water while en route produces hydroelectric power, either incidentally or even as an integral part of the diversion scheme. The essential question will be: what is the real and genuine purpose of the diversion? If it is a consumptive purpose, it is provided for.
That is as clear as anyone has the right to expect in a treaty between two parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I have just a few minutes and I want to finish. I have approached this question in the light of what I regard as a very important responsibility imposed on me as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the judgment of the government this treaty is basically a good treaty. We have sought to make it a better treaty, and we were able to negotiate a protocol with the United States which we believe added important modifications and improvements in that treaty.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) does not agree with my view about the importance of the protocol. Well, that is his opinion. I say that the engineers and those of us who spent a lot of time on this, believe we did get from the United States important improvements following the consultations which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had in the month of May last year with the President of the United States.
In addition, we were also able to get from the government of British Columbia, the owner of the resource-as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) reminded us yesterday-an agreement which we regarded as indispensable before we could embark on substantial negotiations with the United States. We got that agreement with the owner of the resource after some negotiation. As a result of it, we were able to negotiate with the United States for a price which we felt was
Columbia River Treaty essential to enable the building of the three projects, so that Canada would be relieved of a basic financial responsibility, and so that the owner of the resource would be able to develop a system of hydroelectric power which I believe is going to be to the advantage of British Columbia.
I believe that this project of the Columbia river-whether it be by a provincial government with which I do not always agree-was a great concept. Further, I believe that government deserves credit for having taken the step it did with regard to this specific project. I believe the project at the Peace river is going to represent a development in that part of the country that will cause many of the critics of this treaty to regret that they did not approve a project which I believe will be of major consequence to the development of Canada.
When I introduced this subject on March 3, I said that, after the careful examination we had made of this treaty, we had every justification for commending it and the protocol to parliament. I do that again. I do it today, backed up by the overwhelming support of the external affairs committee which has recommended to the government that this treaty and the protocol should be ratified. When this matter reaches the other place, we shall have set in motion one of the great projects that will take its place along with projects like the St. Lawrence seaway, and other great national development schemes, which will assist greatly in stimulating the economy of this country, adding to its structural strength, and enabling us to provide for the industrial growth of this nation.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Second best.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Someone says "second best". It is not a second best. This treaty is a good deal for Canada and I am proud to recommend it to the house.


James Ernest Pascoe: In my address I asked two questions and the minister only answered one. I said the brief from the Saskatchewan government was presented by the Lloyd government. Has he had any reports of agreement from the new government in this regard?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The delegation that came here came after the election and before the assumption of office by the present administration.


James Ernest Pascoe: Does it recommend itself to the new government?

Division


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I cannot say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion
carried.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I heard someone here say that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) was paired with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


David Orlikow: the second reading of Bill No. C-33, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tort-feasors, and moieties).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing this amendment to the combines investigation section of the Criminal Code because I believe the laws of this country should be fair and equitable and should treat every person in the same way whether he be rich or poor, whether he be in a position to obtain a high-priced, competent lawyer, or whether he is not. If a person is poor and, on going into a supermarket in the city of Ottawa or Toronto, or in my own city of Winnipeg, steals $5 worth of groceries and is apprehended, if it is his first offence he may get a suspended sentence on conviction. He would certainly be fined. If he committed the same offence a second time he would undoubtedly be sent to jail, If he committed it a third time he would go to prison for a fairly long term.
How different is the treatment we mete out in this country to individuals, most of them quite wealthy and important, who direct some of the largest companies in Canada and who have consistently ignored the laws of Canada prohibiting combines, not once but three or more times. These people have been prosecuted and convicted and have got off scotfree, the companies they direct being given a fine of a few thousand dollars, an amount which is insignificant when compared with the business done or the profits

made. Not once in the history of this legislation has the provision in the code which provides either for a jail sentence or a fine been acted upon in the sense that judges have thought the offence important enough to impose a jail sentence on the directors or officers of the company which has been proven guilty.
Since that is true I am proposing that the law be amended to make it mandatory that where the offence has been committed a second or third time there shall be a jail sentence required. Section 31	(3) of the
Criminal Code reads as follows:
A court may punish any person who contravenes or fails to comply with a prohibition or direction made or given by it under this section by a fine in the discretion of the court, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
That is a provision which has not once in the history of Canada been enforced. My amendment would provide that where such an offence has been committed a second or third time a jail sentence is mandatory; that there be a minimum jail term of one year for the second offence and a jail term of two years for a third or subsequent offence.
Our combines legislation has been with us for a long time. I have before me a pamphlet written by Mr. Grant Dexter, who is certainly not a wild-eyed socialist but a very respected member of the press gallery for many years as well as being a very prominent Liberal supporter, entitled "The Parties and the Combines Act". This pamphlet was published in 1959 and I should like to read a few sections from it to show how long we have had this law and who piloted it through parliament. He says that Mackenzie King introduced the first anti-combines legislation in the House of Commons in 1910, and goes on to say:
From the outset, the Liberal party has insisted that there must be free competition in prices. All acts which lessen competition are unlawful and Liberal governments down the years have vigorously and successfully enforced this concept of combines control.
I will try to analyse briefly how successful this has been; but this is what Mr. Dexter says in his pamphlets:
The success achieved by Liberal administration in uncovering, prosecuting and convicting combines is indicated by the fact that, between 1925 (when the first prosecution was launched) and 1957 (when the Liberals left office), 35 combines had been convicted in the courts and the fines imposed exceeded $1,600,000....
Thirty five represents a substantial cross-section of Canada's big business, since a single combine might embrace scores of individual companies.
Combines Investigation Act From a return to a question which I asked last session, which was tabled by the then minister of justice on July 10, 1963, and which listed the persons or corporations convicted by the court, the date of conviction and the amount of fine imposed, it will be seen that between 175 and 200 companies were convicted between January 1, 1939 and the time when the question was answered in 1963. To suggest, however, that this has in fact stopped the desire and the practice of big business to participate in combines is, of course, not true. In a book written by Professor G. Rosenbluth and H. G. Thorburn entitled "Canadian Anti-Combines Administration, 1952-60", the following appears at page 97 in connection with the way the law has been administered:
Under the St. Laurent-Howe administration, the backgrounds and personalities of the government leaders, their natural desire for financial support from business interests for campaign purposes, the remoteness from the electorate caused by the duration of the Liberal regime, and the general economic prosperity all favoured a certain solicitude for the interests of large corporations. In the field of combines legislation, the logical development of government policy would have been towards reduction in emphasis upon activities that might disturb major business groups.
We can say, Mr. Speaker, that this is true because recently during this session I put down a series of questions which asked what the government has done or proposed to do about these specific recommendations made by the restrictive trade practices commission, which had investigated combines. This commission found that there were combines existing and listed about eight of them-there are probably about 25 which have not yet been reported upon-and in every case the answer, in effect, was: "We are looking into them and studying them". So there has been little, if any, action.
If anyone doubts that the practice of combines is continuing, let me refer him to a small news item in the Globe and Mail of June 3, 1964 headed "Bids Identical, Chance Decides Winning Firm". This article says:
The Toronto transit commission found itself faced yesterday with three identical quotations of $8,425 on 8,000 bags of Portland cement.
I suggest that the possibility that this was a coincidence is virtually non-existent.
Let us take an example from my own city. In May of 1963 the city council of Winnipeg had before it a report from its committee on utilities and personnel having to do with the purchase of power cable. I should like to refer to five items. On item 1 there were identical bids to the penny in the amount of $5,568 by

Combines Investigation Act Canada Wire, Canadian General Electric, Pirelli Cables, Canadian Westinghouse, Northern Electric and Phillips Electric. On item No. 2 the same six companies bid $3,376. On item 3 the same six companies bid $4,128. On item 4 the same six companies bid $1,811. On item 5 the same six companies bid $4,815.
This is not an accident, Mr. Speaker. This is obviously a combine, and obviously not much is going to be done about it. I know that obtaining proof is difficult, but I suggest that the practice which the governments of Canada have followed of taking cases to court when they do get evidence and securing a fine of $3,000, $5,000 or $10,000 simply means that all we are doing is saying to these companies that this is a very cheap licence. We are saying to them: Once every ten or 20 years we will bring you to court, you will pay a very small fine and then you can continue doing business in the same old way.
There is no suggestion that we should issue an order to cease and desist. There is nothing in the law saying that people who have suffered can sue for damages, as is now being done and has been done very successfully in the United States. So we let this practice continue. I do not have too much time but I want to put on the record briefly just what happens.
In 1960 the Abitibi Power and Paper Company was fined $15,000 when their net profit was $154 million in 1962, $13.7 million in 1961 and $12^ million in 1960. What is a $15,000 fine to them? The St. Lawrence Corporation was fined $3,000 in 1958 and $20,000 in 1960. What were their profits? In 1959 they were over $6 million, in 1960 over $7 million and in 1961 over $7 million.
I want to mention some of the very respected and eminent directors of this company. One of them is Mr. Wilfred Hall who is not only a director of this company but a director of five other companies as listed in the directory of directories. Then there is Mr. C. M. Fellows who is a director of eight companies. Here is a real example, Mr. N. A. Timmins, Jr., a director of at least 20 companies covering banks, insurance, pulp and paper and food.
The Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Limited were fined $3,000 in November, 1958, and $20,000 in June, 1960. Their president, Mr. W. H. Howard, is a director of at least 20 companies. Mr. W. E. Soles is a director of nine companies and Mr. M. J. Foley is a director of six companies. This company has been fined $23,000 in the last three years and they have reported profits of over $4J>
million in each of the years 1960, 1961 and 1962.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
Let us take the E. B. Eddy Company. In 1954 they were fined $10,000, in 1958, $6,000 and in 1960, $20,000. In 1961 their profit was over $2 million. Their chief officer, Mr. George Metcalf, is a director of 10 companies. Mr. W. D. Moffatt is a director of three companies. The Gair Company of Canada, which is a part of the Continental Can Company, had a net profit in 1961 of $36 million. The company was convicted in 1940 and paid a fine of $10,000. In 1942 they were fined $2,500, in 1958, $3,000 and in 1960, $8,000. Their chief officer, Mr. James Stewart, is a director of 10 companies.
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was convicted twice in 1953 and paid a fine of $10,000 each time. In 1959 they made a profit of $2,300,000, in 1960 a profit of $2,900,000 and in 1961 a profit of $3,610,000.
Does the government think for a moment that fines of $10,000 are going to stop these companies for one minute? Of course they are not. And so it goes down the list. I am not suggesting for a moment that jail sentences are the only way combines can be controlled. I wish the government would take the time to read the recommendations made by the members of the restrictive trade practices commission and the officers of the combines investigation branch of the Department of Justice. If they have read them they have certainly ignored the recommendations that have been made.
But if we cannot get any basic changes which will tend to control the desire of some of the biggest corporations of Canada to steal from the public, I suggest that one thing we can do is to impress upon the directors of these companies that this law is just as important as the law which says that somebody cannot go into a supermarket and steal a couple of dollars worth of groceries. I suggest that the same kind of treatment should be meted out to the company directors, to the members of the Rideau club or the Manitoba club in Winnipeg, who are among the most respected people in this country. The same kind of treatment should be meted out to them as is meted out to poor people who find it necessary to commit much smaller crimes. Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons why I have moved this bill.


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, whom the good Lord hath joined together let no man rend asunder is a wise warning, but certainly the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code are mute evidence that all mergers are not made in

heaven. It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that war is too important a thing to be left to generals and possibly the administration of this, one of the most sophisticated aspects of the Criminal Code, might be left to laymen. While I am not a lawyer I should like to say a few words about the interesting bill my hon. friend has introduced.
The growth of anti-combines legislation on this continent is a reflection of frontier society, the great democracy of the frontier, of the man who was prepared to hew out his fortune with his might, determination and good spirit and did not want any of it forfeit to great combines which existed many thousands of miles to the east of him. We also had during the period of the growth of combines legislation, particularly in the United States, great industrial complexes, and we had the era of the robber barons and the business buccaneers whose business ethics left a great deal to be desired. It is said about John D. Rockefeller, Sr., that he told his Sunday school class: "Don't be a good fellow; it doesn't pay". The record of his son and his grandsons in public generosity and public service is eloquent testimony that we have moved into a new epoch.
The most interesting qualification of this trend in the United States before the second world war, Mr. Speaker, was the N.R.A. by means of which an attempt was made to suspend some of the philosophy, some of the rules and the famous traditions of legal jurisprudence against combines in order to attempt to stimulate economic recovery of the United States. In our own time, during the second world war, the wartime prices and trade board was a most interesting interlude in the transformation of anticombines legislation. Price controls, wage controls and a very substantial element of planning were introduced in order to accelerate the mobilization of the resources of this country for our great wartime effort.
I should like to make two references, Mr. Speaker, to points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He suggested that the few investigations-he thought they were few-that had been undertaken under the Combines Investigation Act was a reflection of the relationship of the larger parties in this country to big business interests. I should like to point out to him that the act permits investigations to be initiated not only by the authorities but by six individuals. Any six individuals can oblige the machinery of government to start working
Combines Investigation Act and to carry on an investigation. I do not believe it is sufficient, therefore, to speak of this act as if one is on the stump. Certainly the act provides plenty of opportunity for the citizens of this country, should they become impatient with the administration of the act, to initiate investigations should they make such a demand.
Another question is raised by the hon. member in his reference to identical bids. This is a very difficult problem in the administration of the act. The people responsible for its administration have found that in dealing with homogeneous products it is most difficult for them to establish that a combine in restraint of trade exists. Where there are homogeneous products, the chances may well be that such a conspiracy does not exist.
I want to say, sir, that I am most sympathetic to the view of the hon. member. I know that the purpose of his bill is to strengthen the legislation existing on the statute books of this country. However, I do not believe it really deals with the fundamental problem. I do not believe it really deals with society in 1964. We are not in these days emerging from the frontier era and the great struggles of William Jennings Bryan, and the great progressive movements that emerged from the west in our own country. They relate to another day. It seems to me we are in a period where we have to examine again the laws on the statute books of this country, and to promote the new thinking which is being expressed in this house and in the country.
I should like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from an article by the dean elect of the faculty of law at McGill University, Professor Maxwell Cohen. This article appeared in the McGill Law Journal for 1963. Professor Cohen has had experience in the service of the government of Canada in this particular branch. He says this:
Many pressures are now impinging upon the conventional wisdom of our anti-combines traditions and are compelling a re-examination of their validity. In a sense this policy has been paradoxically both a powerful and vulnerable instrument of indirect regulation of entrepreneurial activity and almost always it has been under a critical public and political eye. Then too. it is the one area where law and economic policy and theory touch with the directness of an embrace, for the objective of anti-trust law is the removing of restrictions on, and the preservation of "competition"; while, conversely, the existence of the "market", of competition from a general social point of view, is regarded as a substantial necessity for a free political order and social system. In no other field of legal studies, policy and

Combines Investigation Act practice-except for criminal law and criminology perhaps-is there such a frontal co-mingling of the disciplines as in this sustained effort to prevent, through law, [DOT]'undue" restrictions on competitive behaviour.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will deal a little later in my remarks with some of the problems which the entire question of combines regulation raises. I should like to say something particularly about the bill of the hon. member. He proposes, first, that we have obligatory minimum sentences for second and other offences under this act. I understand, however, that this is a practice contrary to the trends in the courts today. I think we want to be mindful of the current trends when we propose amendments to the Criminal Code. If the hon. member is critical of them, it seems to me he should have said so. This bill, Mr. Speaker, encourages the view that the policeman should be the agent of economic policy.
I believe this is one of the great weaknesses in our own system of law. We have, probably because of our constitution, a Combines Investigation Act which is an aspect of our criminal law. The United States practice has much to teach us. They have greater latitude by reason of the fact that the federal government can legislate much more broadly in the field of civil jurisprudence. When one talks about second and third offences, I think he should remember that the people with whom we are dealing, as the hon. member pointed out, are large corporations. If you are dealing with corporations, you are not necessarily dealing with individuals, and certainly not the same individuals for the second and third offences if there are such offences.


David Orlikow: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Marvin Gelber: Yes.


David Orlikow: Is a corporation an impersonal entity? Is there not someone who makes a decision that this action shall be taken, and is that person not responsible?


Marvin Gelber: Yes, certainly. I will deal with that. It is very easy for corporations, if these bodies get into difficulty as foreseen by the hon. member, to play an interesting game of musical chairs to avoid the particular regulation which he is asking this house to adopt.


David Orlikow: They do not have to; but you will not put them in jail.


Marvin Gelber: I am just dealing with the regulations as they appear. I agree with the hon. member that we must have more definite

administration within this area. I feel that the particular suggestion he put forward is not necessarily going to add to the chances we might have for getting more effective regulation. We not only have this problem of the corporation and the shifting of personnel by which it is possible to vitiate completely the proposal of the hon. member, but we have also this problem of second and third offences. The practice has been for the courts to regard offences on the basis of commodities and products, and a corporation having a number of different products to manufacture will be considered a first offender in so far as each product is concerned. This again vitiates the particular suggestion of the hon. member, and I feel that these offences, not being cumulative, the proposal really does not seriously advance the administration of the act.
Then there is the question of damages, and in this connection I would like to read from a judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Direct Lumber Co., Ltd. v. Western Plywood Co., Ltd. in which Mr. Justice Judson said this:
-this criminal legislation gives no civil cause of action for its breach-
Later on he says this:
The common law itself imposes liability for harm caused by combinations to injure by unlawful means but the common law never gave any cause of action for price discrimination unaccompanied by conspiracy.
Now, on the question of the next clause, I would like to read a section of the Criminal Code because I feel clause 8 of the bill is redundant. Section 21 of the Criminal Code says:
(1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a)	actually commits it,
(b)	does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it, or
(c)	abets any person in committing it.
For this reason I maintain that clause 8 of the hon. member's bill is redundant.
On two occasions in the past, parliament has attempted to depart from the criminal nature of this area of jurisprudence, in 1919 and in 1935, and this legislation was declared ultra vires by the courts. Criminal procedure definitely inhibits the government in administering the act. It definitely inhibits administering any combines legislation, and under existing law no civil proceedings are available to an injured party and there is no provision made for awarding damages. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is no civil procedure for obtaining a cease and desist order, only a criminal injunction or order of

prohibition against continuation or repetition of an offence.
There is no authority granted to administer any aspect of an industry. There is no provision for exceptions, discretionary or otherwise, to the operation of the law in particular cases. We all know that this is in very vivid contrast to the situation that exists in the United States, and we know that where there is a federal statute it certainly takes precedence over provincial statutes. The struggle for the right of labour to organize provided a definite exemption from the terms of this legislation, and we know that in England during the struggle for the right of association the common law was used to try to inhibit the formation of the trade union movement; but in our law we now have a definite exemption for labour. There is also the question of exemption for co-operatives, and exemption for the fishing industry.
In order to establish an offence there must be proven a tacit agreement. It is not necessary that there be an overt agreement, but a tacit agreement or understanding among the parties concerned, which would be considered sufficient to establish agreement. We also have to prove that a combine will unduly harm the public. That is also something which the courts require our authorities to establish.
Are the courts qualified to do the job which is required in terms of the administration of this type of act? I would like to read a statement from the judgment by Mr. Justice Spence in the Fine Papers case. He said this:
Surely the determination of whether or not an agreement to lessen competition was "undue" by a survey of one industry's profits against profits of industry generally, and a survey of the movement of the prices in that one industry against the movement of prices generally, would put the court to the essentially non-judicial task of judging between conflicting theories of economy and conflicting political theories. It would entail the court being required to conjecture-and by a court, it would be nothing more than mere conjecture since a court is not trained to act as an arbitrator of economics-whether better or worse results would have occurred to the public if free and untrammelled competition had been permitted to run its course.
That is the main weakness of our situation, and you know, Mr. Speaker, in the amendments that were brought in a few years ago, in 1960, there are certain options open. The attorney general can have a case heard in the exchequer court and informed people believe-though it has never been tested in the Supreme Court of Canada-that by consent
Combines Investigation Act there can be an agreement in a case to dissolve combines. However, none of these cases has ever come to the Supreme Court of Canada and therefore the jurisprudence is not established.
It seems to me that the bill of the hon. member, being well intentioned, deals with details, in terms of the policeman filling the gap, when actually what we lack is an important development in this very important aspect of economic policy. We heard a great deal, when the bill to establish the economic council was introduced, about indicative planning. With the combines act on our statute books I do not think we can say all our planning is indicative, but we have to do a great deal more thinking in terms of planning, of obtaining greater efficiency, in terms of providing a greater stability for our economy in our battle for markets against important combinations abroad. It seems to me with the liberal background we have in this, and which we must strengthen, we must look for development in new areas, new departures and new channels.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in the pleasant and relaxed atmosphere of Friday afternoon it is a very great pleasure to rise in support of this excellent bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The hon. member for York South (Mr. Gelber) said we should have an important and significant development in this field. The passage of this legislation would be an important and significant development.
I quite agree with the hon. member for York South in what I understood to be implied in his remarks, namely that the regulations of trade and the monopolistic tendency in trade by the federal government are unfortunately confined to the application of criminal law. It is an unfortunate thing perhaps that head 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act which gave, in effect, exclusive power to the federal parliament to regulate trade and commerce, has been so whittled down by judicial interpretation as to be practically meaningless and that this parliament is therefore restricted in its ability to cope with monopolies, and the efforts made to cope with them have often been ineffective by reason of this constitutional limitation.
Perhaps it is for this reason that Canada, according to those who have studied the matter, is one of the most monopoly ridden countries in the world. I think it was Professor Reynolds in a book called "Competition in

Combines Investigation Act Canada" who documented that statement. Of course, as a consequence of being monopoly ridden the people of Canada have to face an ever-increasing cost of living. However, until we get a new look at the constitution of Canada-and I hope this will not be too far in the future-we should revivify the power of regulation of trade and commerce which was given by the fathers of confederation to parliament; and until we do this it seems wrong not to take advantage of a bill designed to strengthen the only law we have, in its application to the criminal law, with penalties to attack the most obviously antisocial forms of monopoly.
At the present time, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has pointed out, the penalties, which are monetary penalties in most cases, are so small as to be totally ineffective. They are like a slap on the wrist. They constitute nothing more than a licence to carry on. There is no doubt that most combines, the activities of which fall under the attention of the courts in the course of lengthy proceedings, get some advice from good lawyers after a fine has been imposed and continue to carry on the same practices-


An hon. Member:: Good lawyers?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Not morally good, but good in their skills and techniques of evading the law. As a result this law is totally ineffective. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North has presented in this bill a means of putting teeth into the act. I can imagine nothing which would cause more serious thought among many of these respectable people of great wealth who are so often involved in breaches of this branch of the law than the prospect of spending some time in jail. This would indeed cause them to consider with great care-and I have some sympathy for them, I must admit-whether they should continue to break the law for a second time. After all, the bill before us only applies to second and consequent offences. Once they have been convicted they will think twice before repeating the offence, and I suggest that if we mean business by our combines legislation the amendment proposed by the hon. member represents the minimum we should enact in order to ensure that the law is enforced.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Gelber) indulged in some observations about the philosophy of the law, and said this bill was against it. Let me say that the purpose of punishment in any system of advanced jurisprudence is deterrence-to see that an

offence is not repeated. The present penalty provided under the law is not in any sense a deterrent. There is nothing punitive about the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. All he is trying to do is to deter, and to make sure an offence does not happen again; and he has, I think, found an admirable way of ensuring that legislation passed by the government of Canada is taken seriously. Indeed, I believe this parliament and the other law-making bodies should spend less time making general laws and more time in making sure that the laws they pass are capable of enforcement, because otherwise we place a great number of laws on the statute books which are disregarded in practice. For example, we have laws against combines in trade in Canada, yet we have more combines in trade here than in any other civilized country, relatively speaking, in the world. The hon. member for York South says: Very well, the bill is all right, but let us wait until we can take a longer look, a better look, at what is involved; let us put it off until tomorrow. This philosophy of always putting off until tomorrow a step which could be taken today is one of the reasons some people think parliament is becoming futile.
I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) armed with a vast number of books and no doubt he has some learning on this subject. I suggest to him he would be aiding the enforcement of the act for which clearly and definitely his department is responsible if he were to get up in a moment or two and say: This is an excellent bill; we are behind it; we accept the suggestion and we shall acquiesce in the passage of this measure in the remaining ten minutes we have.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege; the hon. member has mentioned my name. May I suggest that if I were to get up and say that, it would be an almost fatal shock to the hon. member's system.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the hon. gentleman was directing his comment to me, and I think he was, I would reply that I think this would be an excellent way of ending a parliamentary week, and if I did have to take some time recuperating, it would be well worth it.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Gelber) when he says that he does not think the bill greatly improves

the present legislation. I would like to deal more in detail with the tew problems he has raised, it it is still possible, of course, although he did expound very well up to now several of the arguments I had put down about this bill.
Clauses 1 to 6 of Bill No. C-33 presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) deal with minimum jail terms for second offences. I feel there is no need to insist too much on the difficulties involved in the application of such legislation, were it adopted, especially for the following reasons:
1.	Subsequent proceedings can hardly deal with an article of the same nature, as stated earlier by the hon. member for York South, in view of the fact that the courts decided a long time ago, as it should be, that each article had to be taken separately. For instance, in an industry which manufactures or sells electrical appliances, if proceedings are instituted with regard to a certain type of article, it is rather difficult to institute similar proceedings later on. That is why second offences, or at least prosecutions in this respect are a rare occurrence.
2.	The people who are engaged in the handling or manufacture of those various products, or even the directors of those various companies, in the case of corporations, change regularly. We all know about the delays and extended periods between a prosecution and another; it can often take five, six, seven, and even eight years between two prosecutions. It would therefore be rather difficult to believe that the same individuals are performing the same duties in such a case.
Then, the application of such an amendment would be rather difficult especially since most of the time, as mentioned by the previous speakers, those proceedings are only instituted against corporations. It is difficult to sentence a corporation to a jail term. [Text]


David Orlikow: How about their officers? [Translation]


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I trust that I will be able to discuss this question of officers in a moment.
Section 7 raises problems of civil and criminal jurisdiction which give rise to a legal controversy so important that it would seem difficult to expect a solution, at least an immediate solution. Consequently, from the practical viewpoint, it seems to me that it
Combines Investigation Act is of very little importance, all the more so as the injured party can always sue for damages before civil jurisdictional courts.
I do not think that the government authorities should interfere with the freedom of the individual to exercise his rights. The more so, since there is no appeal against the judgments of commissions while there is an appeal from the judgments of civil jurisdiction courts.
Clause 8 of Bill No. C-33 has certainly much merit, because I fail to see why section 38, paragraph 3 of the act itself does not apply to some offences. I know that the hon. member for York South mentioned the case and even quoted the jurisprudence concerning section 21 of the Criminal Code as regards collusion in cases of criminal offences.
He quoted jurisprudence concerning a person abetting another to commit an offence, or part of an offence. That may be the reason why I said earlier that section 38(3) only applies to certain offences, since section 21 covers those cases. Perhaps the various offences should be explained further, but I think that under the circumstances section 21 meets the requirements.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North would have made a better and more objective contribution had he suggested amendments so that minimum penalties, not only for habitual offenders, but also in the case of first offences, would be proportionate to the amount involved or the seriousness of the offence committed and also proportionate to the assets of individuals or companies found guilty.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North spoke earlier of minimum fines for certain large companies. It is true that those large companies can often afford to pay those fines and that sometimes they are not heavy enough. That is the reason why I suggest it might be advisable to levy fines in keeping with the seriousness of the offence committed or with the assets of indivduals or companies found Then, if the offence involved a sum of, say, $3 million, then the minimum fine would be 5 or even 10 per cent of this amount. I think that before breaking the law, those corporations or individuals would then think about it twice.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to approve of jail sentences for statutory offences.


David Orlikow: Especially for the rich.

Combines Investigation Act [Translation]


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, in view of what I said previously concerning appropriate fines and also the fact that I have considerable experience in the practice of law, I do not feel that a penalty of one or two years imprisonment is a sufficient deterrent to the commission of a crime. I know that there are two schools of thought in that respect and that both set forth strong arguments.
Mr. Speaker, I know, or at least, I think I do-and I am not the only one in that situation-individuals who have robbed banks or at least committed big robberies who would not mind to contravene this act and spend a year or two in jail after having collected $300,000 if they knew they could have an easy life afterwards.
Hence, there are two schools of thought in this connection, and a jail sentence of one or two years does not necessarily constitute an obstacle to the commission of a second offence.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I feel that my argument is as good as that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. And when he speaks of the wealthy, I think it is my duty to tell him that wealth is always relative, the more so that usually action is taken against very wealthy and very strong companies whose shares are held by the general public. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is the
directors of these companies who take the means-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I still have about 30 seconds to close my remarks.
As I said a while ago, I am against jail sentences, because the general public, under the law of supply and demand, is able to look after its interests; besides, that is what it does in most cases.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the house leader to record on Hansard, for the convenience of hon. members, the government's program of business for Monday and Tuesday of next week.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will begin the debate on the second reading of the bill to amend the National Housing Act, after which we will take the second reading of the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 8, 1964