February 4, 1955

CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, this bill is of particular interest to my constituents as well as to many people in British Columbia and many other Canadians. I was pleased with the logical explanation of the purposes of the bill given by the minister. I understand that its first purpose is to protect our national interests, to provide for the long-term development of our rivers, and to make certain that our international rivers are developed efficiently.

Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) I was pleased to hear the minister say he was going to recommend that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs. This is a rather complicated question for people to deal with, particularly those who have not a firsthand knowledge of the situation. I think the committee should have an opportunity to hear General McNaughton and the officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as well as other technical experts. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the government of British Columbia should be invited to send representatives, as well as the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. I am quite sure that the more daylight we can shed on this bill, the more convinced the great majority of members in the house will be that it is to the general advantage of Canada and in the interests of the Canadian people.

Mr. Speaker, since the Columbia was discovered in 1811 by Thompson that area has been rich in history, rich in events, and also rich in unusual people. In view of the present interests in the development of the Columbia basin I think it was most appropriate that last year there was unveiled at Castlegar a monument to the memory and the service of David Thompson and what he did for Canada when he discovered the Columbia in 1811.

I have had the great privilege of living on the banks of the Columbia for nearly 50 years, and I have witnessed many interesting developments and many changes. Like all old-timers in that district I have always retained great confidence in the possibilities for development of the area. Fifty years ago it was sparsely settled land, almost unknown. You might say we lived almost in solitude, in small communities in the silence of the forest primeval, short on cash, generally speaking, but long on hope and ambition.

Now our ambitions and hopes are beginning to be realized. It was a very different country in those days from what it is today. To illustrate the distance between communities I will tell a story in connection with my father, who was a rather interesting and unusual character. When the first aeroplane went over our property, I think it was shortly after the first world war, my father called me out and said. "You see that thing, Bertie?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you know what it means?" I said, "No." "Well," he said, "it means there's no damned privacy anywhere nowadays."

I remember listening to the late Sir Richard McBride, former Conservative premier of British Columbia, addressing an audience in my district and telling us that we lived in paradise, a garden of Eden, and all that was required was ambition and hard work to become well off. I also remember listening to the father of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who at that time was a member of the government of British Columbia. He also bucked up our spirits by telling us of the possibilities for getting rich by growing apples and so on.

I remember another occasion when a very well known governor general came to our district. I was on the reception committee. I remember him telling us that we lived in a paradise. And I shall never forget one old gentleman who was presented to the governor general, and the comments of that old gentleman. He was a well known Methodist and a very strong prohibitionist. I said to him, "John, what did you think of the governor general?" "Well," he said, "he might convince me that we are living

International Rivers

in paradise; but from the look of that nose he could not convince me that we can bank on his vote for prohibition."

Now the situation is entirely changed. Our district has developed a great deal in the last 20 years particularly, and there are possibilities for greater development in the future. Whereas 25 years ago the Columbia river basin was almost unknown, today it is receiving attention across Canada and in the United States, and I have even had considerable correspondence from Great Britain. I think wherever there is a discussion of possibilities for the development of power, interest in that district is aroused.

In passing I believe it is of interest to note that there are four members in this House of Commons who spent their boyhood days in the Columbia and Kootenay districts. I am referring to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons), and the hon. member for Kootenay West.

While we went almost unknown for many years, today the possibilities of our district are being generally recognized. I noted in reading the report of a committee of the congress of the United States the statement was included that from the standpoint of resources the Columbia is the mightiest stream on the North American continent.

I believe the interest of the federal government in the development of the Columbia in Canada commenced after the building of the Grand Coulee dam, when the possibilities for the development of power on the Columbia were demonstrated. It was as a result of that, I presume, that a reference was made to the international joint commission in March, 1944, by the House of Commons and by the congress of the United States. So far as I can gather, the information that has been obtained to date is perhaps the most complete and comprehensive concerning any river basin in Canada. Very good work has been done as a result of co-operation among various federal departments and the cooperation of the provincial government as well. $3 million has been spent to date. It will take about two years to complete the surveys and two years to compile the report. Then we should have complete and definite information as to the possibilities for power development on the Columbia.

While I am dealing with this question I should like to draw the attention of the house to some mistakes that have been made in the past. That is why many of us are greatly concerned lest serious mistakes be made in the future in connection with the development of the potential of the Columbia.

International Rivers

First of all it is fair to say that for many years all governments in Canada failed to realize the possibilities for development of the natural resources of the Columbia river basin.

Second, I think a mistake was made when the government of Canada failed to secure compensation from the United States for violation of article II of the Oregon treaty. I have mentioned that before, but I continue mentioning it because I think it is something that should be taken into consideration when we reach the point of negotiating arrangements with the United States authorities. Article II is as follows:

From the point at which the 49th parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers; it being understood, that all the usual portages along the line thus described, shall in like manner be free and open. .

In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always understood, that nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing, or intended to prevent, the government of the United States from making any regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers, not inconsistent with the present treaty.

Now it appears that when the Grand Coulee dam was built no representations were made by the Canadian government to the United States government. According to a letter I received from the Department of External Affairs the files were searched, and a review of the records disclosed this to be a fact. However, in the letter I received from Mr. H. H. Wright of the Department of External Affairs under date of April 14, 1949 he has this to say:

A review of the records has disclosed; (a) that a similar question was asked in the House of Commons and a reply given by Mr. Bennett in 1935. The record is contained in Hansard, page 3883, dated June 13, 1935. A copy of this extract is attached for your information; (b) that during consideration by the international joint commission in 1941 of the application of the United States government for approval of the construction of the Grand Coulee dam, the Canadian government did not present testimony. However, at a hearing in Spokane on February 21, 1941, the Canadian government reserved the right to submit later any claims for damage in Canada arising from flooding of Canadian property, and, at a further hearing in Trail, a spokesman for the government reserved the right for it to file a brief at a future date.

I mention that matter again because in talking even with United States officials I found they were surprised that the Canadian

[Mr. Herridge.l

government did not ask for some compensation for the violation of article II of the Oregon treaty. When we negotiate these big proposals for the development of the Columbia river with our friends in the United States I trust we shall not forget that we surrendered an extremely important right in article II of the Oregon treaty when the Grand Coulee dam was built, and that we are entitled to some substantial compensation.

Another mistake has been that up until recent years sufficient emphasis was never put on the recognition of the payment of downstream benefits in the nature of power. As I think the minister mentioned, the principle of recognition of downstream benefits is being adopted in the United States as a result of negotiations between one state and another in the development of power projects. But I want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the man responsible for the recognition of downstream benefits in the United States is General McNaughton, chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission. He has spoken on this question in the United States at meetings at Seattle, Spokane and other places.

When he first suggested the principle of downstream benefits it at least created a great deal of surprise among the people he was addressing. But as a result of his educational program, shall I say, with respect to the recognition of downstream benefits and Canada's rights in that respect, they are now recognized between state and state and it looks as though, in the near future, in our negotiations with the United States we shall have little difficulty in having the principle of downstream benefits recognized by the authority we are dealing with in connection with any negotiations for the development of power or storage on the Columbia river.

I am not going to deal with the constitutional position, Mr. Speaker. It was mentioned by the minister when speaking on the bill, and was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I think that is one subject into which the committee might make inquiry, that we may all be informed as to the details of the constitutional position of this bill. Personally I am convinced that the bill has a sound constitutional basis because of certain clauses of the British North America Act and as a result of certain practices and procedures that have become recognized as between the Canadian section of the international joint commission and certain provinces in Canada with respect to the development of certain rivers.

However, Mr. Speaker, I expect that another member of our group will deal more

particularly with that question as this debate proceeds. As I said before, to my mind there is no question as to the right of this parliament to pass this bill under the terms of the British North America Act. However, I think it is a subject that might well be discussed by the committee when it studies the bill.

I am now dealing with the purpose of the bill and its effect. One effect of this bill may be to discourage the building of the proposed Kaiser dam near Castlegar on the lower Arrow lakes. Because of that I want to deal with certain aspects of that proposal. I shall deal with it at some length because it is of great concern to many constituents whom I have the honour to represent.

The government of British Columbia has an agreement with the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation that provides for the building of a dam near Castlegar on the lower Arrow lakes that would return in power or taxes approximately $1 million per annum to the province of British Columbia; that is, if the company builds the dam. If, however, under the new plan the government financed the plan it would receive, according to the information I have obtained, an additional $600,000 per annum.

At this point I must say that in view of the constitutional position, in view of the federal government expenditures in the Columbia river basin totalling something over $3 million since 1945, and in view of the great interest of the international joint commission and the government of Canada in recent years in proposed developments on the Columbia river, it was most unfortunate that the government of British Columbia saw fit to conclude an agreement with the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation without consultation with the international joint commission and the government of Canada. I presume, Mr. Speaker, we must consider it an oversight due to lack of knowledge of the constitutional position, inexperience and possibly ignorance of the usual courtesies prevailing between governments or between governments and international commissions.

Extremely strong objections were voiced to the proposal to build this Kaiser dam on the lower Arrow lakes. Many of my constituents, supporters of all parties in this house, have informed me of their objections on varying grounds. Some are rather local in their grounds for objection, and some deal with the wider aspects of the problem according to the knowledge they have of the situation in general. Before I came to the house this session I was asked by certain business elements in Nakusp to call a public meeting

International Rivers

there. We called a meeting of representatives from all the points between Nakusp and the lower Arrow lakes, and a number of representatives from Slocan lake also attended. They discussed this question thoroughly. At that meeting over 300 people unanimously expressed their opposition to the building of the Kaiser dam.

Then on my way to this house I was asked by certain representative Revelstoke business people and others to address a meeting in Revelstoke. There were about 200 people at the meeting from Revelstoke and points between Revelstoke and Arrowhead. I was asked to address the meeting because I had been a resident of the district for many years, and I know what I am talking about when it comes to a question of flood levels and things of that sort and what certain elevations mean. That meeting unanimously voiced objection to proceeding with the Kaiser dam and urged the early construction of the Mica creek dam.

Then I have had resolutions and expressions of opinion from trade unions, farmers' institutes representing small communities, fruit growers' organizations, community organizations in Kootenay West and prominent industrialists all in opposition to the suggestion that this dam be built on the lower Arrow lakes. I have talked to several civil engineers in my district, and I have not discussed this question with a single engineer who favours the proposal at this time. In addition, the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, large dailies in British Columbia, have carried a succession of excellent editorials concerning this proposal.

There are those who are for this proposal, Mr. Speaker, and there are those who are against it. In a democracy I think it is all to the good that both sides of any question be thoroughly aired. I think in British Columbia this subject has been fairly generally aired to date. I may say that to my knowledge not a single organization of any type in Kootenay West has endorsed the proposal to build the Kaiser dam at the lower end of the Arrow lakes.

Our reasons for objecting to the building of this dam are several. First, we believe that the government of British Columbia should be dealing with United States public power authorities rather than a private corporation. In support of that argument I wish to quote from the minutes of the committee of congress which sat in 1933 and 1934 to consider the development of the United States portion of the Columbia river basin. We find the following in the committee's report:

We believe in private enterprise, in the expectancy of rewards for honest endeavour, labour.

International Rivers

initiative and daring, in the things that have made America great. But some things are too big for private enterprise, and the Columbia river is one of these.

We believe that power developments on the Columbia river in Canada should be undertaken by public authorities whether they be provincial or federal or a combination of both.

Our second reason for objecting to the building of this dam is that to grant the Kaiser corporation water rights on the Arrow lakes would upset the pattern of public power development of the Columbia in Canada and affect plans for the building of dams at Mica creek and between Castlegar and the United States border. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) dealt with some of these questions in an excellent letter which he sent to various organizations in British Columbia who were making inquiries concerning the government's attitude with respect to the proposal to build the Kaiser dam. I have a copy of the letter here, and the minister goes to considerable length to explain the government's position. I want to congratulate the minister on the very detailed and clear-cut explanation he gave of the government's objections to the building of the Kaiser dam. A number of people who received this letter are very grateful to have this detailed and exact information. I am not going to read the whole letter, but I do want to refer to some of the reasons given therein for objecting to the building of the dam. In brief the letter says that the principal objections are as follows:

1. It would be unwise to proceed with this project at this time. The power potentialities of the Columbia river basin are still under investigation.

He gave very good reasons for that objection.

2. According to what is presently known, the project does not provide for the maximum use of the storage potential at the Arrow lakes and of the power potential on the Columbia.

I want to refer to that reason because I presume the minister is giving the reason by way of criticism of the present proposal, but I am quite sure he knows as well as I do that we can obtain plenty of storage on the Columbia river behind Mica creek without going ahead at this time with any storage on the Arrow lakes at all.

3. The carrying out of the Arrow lakes project at this stage might delay for quite a number of years the realization of other alternative projects more important to British Columbia and Canada.

. 1. jjlj I

We agree with that reason. This is his fourth reason:

4. The terms of the agreement proposed by the B.C. government will have an unfavourable effect on the Canadian aluminum industry, particularly in British Columbia.

This is his fifth reason:

5. The terms of the agreement are bad for B.C. and Canada.

He then gives a long explanation of that and concludes with some interesting figures. We agree with the minister, Mr. Speaker, that to grant these water rights to a private company, the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, might have a serious effect on plans for the building of dams between Castlegar and the international boundary and at Mica creek.

Another reason for objecting to the proposal is that in the power-hungry United States there is a tremendous and immediate need for increased power production. There is tremendous pressure there for increased power production, and that need can only be met in full on the Columbia by storage in Canada. Canada is in the best bargaining position, as I see it, in Canadian history with respect to developments of this nature, and in our opinion the building of the Kaiser dam on the Arrow lakes would lessen our bargaining power for the building of a much greater development at Mica creek on the upper Columbia.

In support of that argument I want to quote briefly from the Trail Daily Times of December 28, 1954, which makes a brief reference to a speech by Governor Len Jordan of Idaho who is now chairman of the United States section of the international joint commission. The heading of the article is, 'Governor Pushes Plans for 'Columbia' Power". The dispatch is from Boise, Idaho, and this is what it has to say:

Governor Len Jordan was honoured at a dinner Monday night, a week before he leaves for Washington to become a key figure in water resource development negotiations between the United States and Canada. Jordan told reporters earlier he hoped to be able to speed up development of the Columbia river basin as chairman of the United States section of the international joint commission.

The Canadians are in the best bargaining position, he said, because they don't need power from the Columbia right away, while the Pacific northwest does. Their research as to power potential, he said, is at about the point the United States was in the late thirties when the army engineers compiled their comprehensive report on the basin.

We maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the granting of the right to build a dam on the lower Arrow lakes to provide power to certain United States companies would to some extent lessen the pressure and demand for power in the United States and to that extent

would weaken our bargaining position. We also believe that it is completely unnecessary at this time to consider building a dam on the Arrow lakes and cause any flooding there. The storage of 3 million feet of water on the Arrow lakes would certainly cause some flooding. Hon. R. E. Sommers, in a radio address over station CBU, Vancouver, on Monday, November 29, 1954, when dealing with the Kaiser dam proposal, had this to say:

Such a dam will not cause flooding of the Arrow lakes area as the water level will be held where it will not in any way damage existing communities, farm areas, or transportation facilities.

In view of statements made to the press by officials of the Kaiser corporation, who indicate that they intend to raise the Arrow lakes to the 1948 flood level; in view of the research that has been carried on by their employees with respect to the assessed values of properties that would be affected by flooding to the 1948 level; in view of the statements of their engineers when visiting various properties of constituents of mine that the company intended to flood to the 1948 level, it is hard to reconcile these statements, and as a result many of my constituents residing on the Arrow lakes are very concerned about this question.

If the level of the lakes is raised to the 1948 flood level it will mean, without any question, the flooding of many homesites. It will mean the flooding of considerable agricultural land between Renata and Nakusp. It will mean the flooding of industrial sites at Nakusp and Arrowhead and consequent loss of employment and investment in plants, homes, cleared land, etc. It will mean the covering of all beaches on the Arrow lakes for the greater part of the year. It will mean the destruction of all federal government investment in wharves and docking facilities.

My constituents, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned as to what will be the effect of raising the water in the Arrow lakes above normal. If it were raised to the 1948 flood level it would destroy a great amount of property, and would cause many people to lose their employment because of the closing down of several mills and things of that sort. As our people view it, they do not consider that the extent of this flooding and the ruin it could cause is justified by the return of a million dollars a year in power or taxes to the government of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the small mills and pole yards around the village of Nakusp on the Arrow lakes last year shipped out over a million dollars' worth of timber products. If the flooding were to the 1948 flood level it would mean that those industries

International Rivers

would have to go out of operation as industrial sites on the foreshore became unusable. That is another reason I am glad to know this bill is going before a committee. In that way we can get some exact information as to the water levels that are proposed as a result of the building of this dam.

On the one hand we have the minister saying there will be no flooding on the Arrow lakes. On the other hand we have the company officials making statements to the press and going to the Revelstoke assessment office to check up on the value of the property included in the 1948 flood level for compensation purposes. At the same time we have officials of the Kaiser corporation saying they are quite willing to compensate for any farm homes, industrial sites or other properties flooded. I cannot reconcile these statements. I believe careful examination of certain witnesses is required to get at the facts.

We are opposed to the building of this dam because this group believe that the power potential of Canadian rivers should be. first developed to increase industrial production in Canada and provide employment for Canadians. In that connection I should like to quote from the Vancouver Province of November 24, 1954. According to that newspaper the Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, when addressing the automotive retailers' association of British Columbia at the Hotel Vancouver, had this to say, and this statement is in quotation marks:

industry on this continent is looking for power '' he told the annual convention of the automotive retailers' association of B.C. at the Hotel Vancouver "So far, oniy 13-4 per cent of our hydroelectric potential has been developed. We must develop more, and the only profitable way to do this is to sell or export it to the United States " he said riefendmg the provincial government's stand on the Arrow lakes to supply the Kaiser interests mJhe,.iImted States wlth power, Mr. Gaglardi said, this move must be done before atomic energy becomes a reality."

We cannot agree with the minister of public works of British Columbia. While we may make some co-operative arrangement about the storage of water, we believe that power produced in Canada should be used to expand Canadian industry.

What is the experience in looking forward to power developments in the future in Canada and in the United States? I have read a good deal on this subject, and I find that when the Grand Coulee dam was built some people in the United States considered there would be a surplus of power for many years. In fact there was considerable criticism because of the surplus power available at that time. What is the situation today? There is a severe power famine in the very area served by the Grand Coulee dam.

International Rivers

Then again, on April 10, 1942, an order in council was passed by this government that actually provided tor the building of the Brilliant dam in the Kootenays for a public expenditure of approximately $10 million. At that time it was considered that the net return to the company on any investment in such additional plant would be negligible, and furthermore that after the war such a plant would probably be of little value to the company. Now, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate how careful we must be in looking to the future and, as the minister said, in thinking of future generations because things happen much more quickly now than they did a few years ago, I may say that in contrast to the opinion expressed by Consolidated Mining and Smelting at that time, the demand for power has increased to such an extent that the company has recently spent over $35 million in the building of another power plant at Waneta.

When addressing the Canadian-United States committee of the chambers of commerce at a meeting in Quebec last October, General McNaughton had this to say in part:

But, please, do not think that this means there is going to be power in Canada which will be surplus and to spare. This is certainly not the case, for the most carefully made predictions show that only a comparatively short time remains until we may expect that all our economically available hydro power will be in use.

In view of the experience of the past in the United States and Canada I prefer to listen to the opinion of General McNaughton rather than the short-term view expressed by the minister of public works of British Columbia. I repeat that we believe in power development in Canada to provide permanent employment for Canadians. For the reasons I have outlined, we are opposed to the building of the Kaiser dam on the Arrow lakes. We intend to support this bill because we believe its effect will be to promote the sound development of the power and water storage potentials of international rivers, such as the Columbia, in Canada.

Before concluding, I must draw to the government's attention the great support for the early commencement of the Mica dam north of Revelstoke, which investigations have proven to be a practical project. The average annual flow of the Columbia is about 50 million acre feet, rising to 90 million acre feet on certain occasions. This dam would permit the storage of between 10 and 15 million acre feet at Mica creek. The building of this dam would provide great power resources for British Columbia, employment for Canadians, ample storage for United States plants, and without flooding established agriculture and industry.

[Mr. Herridge.l

We are informed that United States interests have already offered to spend up to $250 million to construct a dam at Mica creek, which the people of British Columbia would own, and generators could be installed to meet the requirements of industrial development in British Columbia as necessary. This offer alone indicates our strong bargaining position, and should be a spur to co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in developing the vast water resources of the Columbia river in Canada. I believe this vast development demands the establishment of a Columbia basin authority in Canada as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.

I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, from my knowledge of the great developments ahead on the Columbia and their importance to the future of British Columbia and' Canada, that co-operation must be the watchword if we are to achieve success. There must be co-operation in this development between the federal and provincial governments, as well as co-operation with the public power authorities in the United States.

Nature has blessed us with a natural resource that can be developed to the mutual advantage of all concerned, Canadians and Americans. I plead again for the co-operation so necessary to bring the developments on this river to fruition.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speakers who have taken part in the debate thus far. Several comments made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are praiseworthy and should be taken note of at this time. One of the first that struck my ear was that we cannot afford to waste water. Since it has been established by the various speakers that this is more or less developing into a debate on the Kaiser dam, I think I am justified in taking a similar stand for at least part of my talk. When he says we cannot afford to waste water I would remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the Kaiser dam is proposed for the conservation and not for the wasting of water.

Another comment he made was that we should resolve any problem we have in a friendly and co-operative manner. I sincerely hope that in all the ramifications of this great bill and the many projects which are going to be entered into, that spirit will be remembered in deed as well as in word.

Another thing that struck me, Mr. Speaker, was that the rights of the individual are very important. I do not think there is anyone in this house who recognizes that any more than I do, but I should like to go a little

bit further. I maintain that the rights of the provincial governments should be equally respected. Right through the whole talk of the minister all I could sense was a centralization here in Ottawa of the authority that is going to control and give permission for any development that might arise in the minds of people anywhere in Canada in respect of waters that cross international boundaries. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) emphasized the fact that in British Columbia we have more of these problems facing us than in any other province, and therefore we are more vitally concerned. But I do not like the idea of this Canadian government setting itself up as an all-wise authority to say either yes or no to any project that might take form in the minds of people in any part of Canada, and that refers to other things besides the development of water power.

I also noted that at the present time we can transmit power a distance of up to 500 miles. I did not think we could transmit it that far. I am not at the moment disputing the minister in that regard; we will admit that is so. In what way is our power to go? There is only one way it can go for use, and that is to the south. It is admitted that British Columbia has the greatest source of power in Canada. In fact we are told that there are power sites surveyed in the province of British Columbia whose potential has been ascertained that could supply more power than is used by the entire Dominion of Canada today. Those surveyed sites, Mr. Speaker, are only a part of the great power potential. Let that suffice for what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say.

I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra cover the geography of this great question so well. He mentioned rivers that I did not know existed in the province of British Columbia. He covered the ground so well that he saved me the necessity of referring to these things. But he did emphasize a point that I want to emphasize also, namely that this is new and important legislation entering into a field of development that is going to concern our province more than all the rest of Canada combined, and therefore we demand that it be given serious consideration in the debate on second reading as well as when it goes to the committee on external affairs. I am glad to know that the bill is being sent to that committee.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra also mentioned the invasion of provincial rights. I shall have a little more to say about that. I kept a sheet for the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, but in his

International Rivers

40 minutes I found very little to write on it. The only thing I am going to do, for fear this house might think that everyone in this part of British Columbia is opposing the Kaiser dam, is to put on the record a short excerpt from a letter which I received dated January 20. This letter came from a reliable resident of a town not far from his, the little town of Burton. This is part of the letter:

Without opposition in the house I am afraid my friend Mr. Herridge could make it appear that the residents in general are all against this dam being built. This is not the case. Of course there is some opposition but that stems mainly from the C.C.F. party. A big meeting held in Nakusp on December 20 passed a resolution opposing the dam being built, but that was a C.C.F. meeting and, I understand, there was quite a lot of opposition at that meeting to the proposals of the C.C.F., so you can see it might be reported to the house as 100 per'; cent against the dam unless others like yourself know differently.

I believe it was so reported. I think the words used were "the decision was unanimous"; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I place this on the record.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the meeting the hon. member refers to was called at the request of several businessmen, and the chairman of the meeting was a gentleman who is not a member of the C.C.F.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. McLeod:

I should like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am reading only from a letter which I have accepted. I might also quote another paragraph:

As I stated in my letter,-

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

May I interrupt the hon. member and remind him of our rule that when a member quotes from a letter he must divulge the source. I do not think he has done that.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. McLeod:

Well, I vouch for the authenticity-that is a pretty big word.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

If the hon. member vouches for the authenticity he must not quote directly from the document. He must paraphrase it and make its words his own.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. McLeod:

Then I shall give you the name, because I have permission.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

If he wants to quote directly from the document he must divulge the source.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. McLeod:

I shall, Mr. Speaker, because I have the permission of the writer to divulge the name. It is Mr. H. W. Stones of Burton. He is a general merchant and a notary public. He writes:

I am not a Social Crediter, but just try and prevent me from voting for them at the next election as this British Columbia government has

International Rivers

done more for our part of the country since they have been in office than the other governments have done in the last 30 years.

I am not going to enter into any argument as to the mechanics of the dam because when I get talking about electricity, kilowatts and all the rest of it I do not know where I am. However, I am going to refer to the political aspect of the bill. My great opposition to the bill is that I believe it is nothing more nor less than a political instrument used by the government of Canada to thwart the province of British Columbia in a development which the people have a right to expect. I should like to read from a statement in the Vancouver Province under headlines so large that I think even the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) can see them. The headline is as follows:

Sinclair opens fight for Ottawa against B.C. over Kaiser Dam Plan

I am not going to read the whole article, but I would like to quote one or two excerpts. One thing that struck me is that the reporter said the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) took off his gloves. I was wondering why in the world he would do that, but after reading the article I came to the conclusion that he took them off so he would not get them soiled by the mud-slinging he was going to engage in. The minister was speaking at a meeting in North Vancouver, and in referring to the dam the article states:

The proposal, he said: "is bad for Canada, bad for B.C. and Mr. Howe (Right Hon. C. D. Howe) has notified B.C. that he is going to amend the act which controls the export of energy".

We need to go only a little further to see the political implication. I do hate smeary and dirty politics, and it is seldom that I stoop so low as to even quote things like these. He referred to the premier of British Columbia in these words: "in that wide toothpasty smile of his". That particular phrase strikes me because perhaps I am a little bit jealous of our premier. I just wish I had teeth that were so worthy of display as his. Then a little later the article states:

Premier Bennett is premier of B.C. only because of a last-minute decision to get on the Social Credit bandwagon.

I have before me the last issue of Maclean's magazine and I should like to refer to an article there. This particular article pays Mr. Bennett credit, though I have read others which have opposed him. I quote:

This remarkable change in Bennett's political fortunes is no accident. It's the logical outcome of a lifetime of study, labour and ambition: an object lesson in how to become a political strong man.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I do not object to the words in the magazine article in question dealing

with the premier of British Columbia, but in quoting that article the hon. member is not quoting something relevant to the principle of this bill.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

It is just as relevant as Mr. Jimmy Sinclair's remarks.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I did not hear the remark of the hon. member for Peace River. Would he be kind enough to repeat it, because to my knowledge the Minister of Fisheries has not taken part in this debate.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

He has not inside the house, but he has tried to take the debate outside the house. What was said by the hon. member is just as relevant to the principle of this bill as was the statement outside the house by the minister.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I must tell the hon. member for Peace River that when a minister or an hon. member makes a speech outside the house he is not under my jurisdiction. It just so happens, and perhaps it is unfortunate, that the hon. member who now has the floor is under my jurisdiction. It is with that that I am concerned at the moment, and I know the hon. member will want to cooperate.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. McLeod:

I appreciate your ruling.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Ten o'clock.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink
SC

George William McLeod

Social Credit

Mr. McLeod:

It is not quite ten o'clock; I have a couple of minutes yet. There is just one other item which does not deal with Mr. Bennett or any of the officials of the British Columbia government. The Minister of Fisheries said that the real head-on conflict is just coming to a boil. I have never heard of any conflict in British Columbia between the people of that province and the government of Canada. I am going to ask the government of Canada to get around the conference table and talk over this question. When they issue an invitation to the government at Victoria, as I hope they will, I am sure our premier will be quite willing to come here to discuss the matter with the government of Canada.

On motion of Mr. McLeod the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   MAIN ESTIMATES, 1955-56 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL RIVERS
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

?

Donald MacInnis

Mr. Maclnnis:

What will be the business on Monday?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

February 4, 1955