1955-05-12

Mr. Fleming:: 1.	What was the price paid by the government for the purchase of the plant of Renfrew Machinery Company in Renfrew, Ontario, and when was it paid?
2.	What amounts were spent by the government in alterations and improvements on the plant, and when?
3.	When was the plant sold by the government, to whom, and at what price?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The price paid for the plant of the Renfrew Machinery Company, including certain machinery and equipment, was $1,160,000 in September, 1951.
2.	The plant, as purchased at the time of the Korean crisis, was used for light commercial manufacturing. Alterations to the extent of $311,708 were made to the existing plant, and additional plant services (power house, electrical, air, water and steam) to the value of $605,572 were provided to service new machinery and equipment valued at $1,956,447.61, which was urgently required for the production of jet engine components.
3.	The land and buildings (excluding the above-mentioned machinery and equipment, title to which remains vested in the crown) were sold in April 1955, to Aluminum Castings Limited, 123 Hope Street, Glasgow, Scotland, for a price of $800,000.


A. V. ROE COMPANY  ORENDA ENGINES
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is the total aircraft production of the A.V. Roe company, Avro Aircraft Limited and Orenda Engines Limited, contracted for by the federal government, or any department or agency thereof? If not, what proportion is?
2.	Is Orenda Engines Limited obliged by the federal government to supply engines to other specified aircraft producers in addition to Avro Aircraft Limited? If so, to what producers?
3.	Is the A.V. Roe company, Avro Aircraft Limited, or Orenda Engines Limited, subsidized in any way by the federal government, or by any department or agency thereof? If so, to what extent?
4.	Has the federal government any other kind of financial interest in the A.V. Roe company, Avro Aircraft Limited, or Orenda Engines Limited? If so, what is the nature and extent of such interest?
5.	On what basis does the federal government or any department or agency thereof purchase aircraft from A.V. Roe company, Avro Aircraft
Limited, or Orenda Engines Limited? Are such purchases made at a flat price, or on a cost-plus basis?
6.	Has the government any information regarding the financial position, including the profit position of the A.V. Roe company, Avro Aircraft Limited, and Orenda Engines Limited? If so, is such information available to parliament?
7.	What proportion of the total aircraft production in Canada is undertaken by the A.V. Roe company, Avro Aircraft Limited, and Orenda Engines Limited?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. Canadair Limited for F-86 Sabre aircraft.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. Crown-owned capital assets, including plant and equipment valued at $65,057,725 have been provided to these companies for the carrying out of defence contracts. Of this amount, assets valued at $17,388,436 were subsequently purchased by the A. V. Roe Canada Limited, and equipment valued at $1,043,449 and $2,990,474 were transferred to MacDonald Brothers Aircraft Limited and York Gears Limited respectively.
5.	Contracts for the production of aircraft by Avro Aircraft Limited and for the production of engines by Orenda Engines Limited are negotiated on the basis of a fixed fee plus incentive bonus on savings under a target price arrangement, with a total profit limitation of 10 per cent of target. The A. V. Roe company is a holding company only and, as such, has no direct contracts with the government.
6.	Yes. The Department of Defence Production receives regular financial statements of these companies on a confidential basis, and has not made them available to parliament.
7.	During the fiscal year 1954-55, Avro Aircraft Limited and Orenda Engines Limited accounted for some 60 per cent of total expenditures for production of aircraft and engines in Canada. On the basis of empty weight of aircraft including engines and fixed equipment, the two companies produced 37-7 per cent of total Canadian production.
With reference to the foregoing over-all percentage figures, it should be noted that they are inclusive of production carried out by subcontractors which, in the case of the engines, represents approximately 65 per cent of the total, and in the case of aircraft, 20 per cent of the total.
3686	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


R.C.A.F.-PILOTS KILLED
Mr. Campbell:: 1.	How many student pilots have been killed in training during the past five years?
2.	How many pilot graduates have been killed in the same period within a year after graduation?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	31 members of the R.C.A.F. and 22 NATO students have been killed in training during the past five years.
2.	During the past five years, 59 members of the R.C.A.F. have been killed within a year of graduation.



CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Mr. Bell:: What is the percentage change in the level of capital expenditures from 1953 to 1954, and the anticipated change from 1954 to 1955 for each province as estimated by the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Mr. Dickey:: 



CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY PROVINCES 1953 TO 1955

[Stage Direction]
Value of capital expenditures	Per cent change
Province	

 
[Stage Direction]
1953	1954(i)	1955 (2)	1953 to 19540)	1954 to 1955(D$ millions	$ millions	$ millions	Newfoundland	
80-0	67-0	83-0	-16-2	+23-9Prince Edward Island	
17-4	18-3	19-4	+5-2	+6-0Nova Scotia	
157-0	160-2	162-3	+2-0	+1-3New Brunswick	
108-5	117-1	149-5	+7-9	+27-7Quebec	
1,374-4	1,299-9	1,393-7	-5-4	+7-2Ontario	
2,105-6	2,065-8	2,186-9	-1-9	+5-9Manitoba	
285-8	267-9	258-5	-6-3	-3-5Saskatchewan	
357-4	352-8	308-9	-1-3	-12-4Alberta	
729-2	610-7	659-2	-16-3	+7-9British Columbia	
626-0(3)	535-4	585-3	-14-5	+9-3Canada	
5,841-3	5,495-1	5,806-7	-5-9	+5-7
0) Preliminary.
(2) Anticipated.
(8) Includes Yukon and Northwest Territories.

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	In how many government departments is it laid down that officials may not furnish direct to a member of parliament any statistical information requested by him (even though it be not of a nature "classified" on security grounds) but must channel it through the minister's office or some other such intermediary?
2.	By whom was this policy laid down, and how long has it been in effect?


Mr. St. Laurent:: This is a question which is marked as one which the hon. member wishes to have answered orally. There is not, and I do not know that there has ever been, any general directive of the character

described in the question, and applying to all departments. Each minister has the responsibility for the administration of his own department and generally is looked upon as having the responsibility for any information that comes from that department.
Of course there are some matters about which inquiries can be made, that require merely statements of fact, that are not open to any controversy whatsoever. They are actual facts. With respect to statistics, many of these have to be made up involving elements of estimate, and I think it is quite natural that the minister would wish to know what kind of statements involving estimates and opinions are prepared by officials

Questions
in his department before they are issued as a formal statement on behalf of the department.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



R. F. WELCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the R. F. Welch Construction Company (British Columbia) Limited, since April 1, commenced work by extra gangs on the Calgary division of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, how many men are employed on each of such extra gangs?
3.	Has the said company been requested by the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees to hire sectionmen and B & B men who are for the moment laid off as regular Canadian National Railway employees on said gangs?
4.	If so, how many of sectionmen and B & B men laid off by the railroad company have been taken on the strength of the said gangs by the said construction company?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian
National Railways advise as follows: -
1.	On April 1 and 2 two gangs commenced work on the Calgary division, which was completed on April 25.
Since the first of the year R. F. Welch (B.C.) Limited has also had a small gang of 12 to 15 men doing miscellaneous work on the Calgary division. For the purpose of unloading steel rails this gang was later increased to about 22 men of whom 16 were immigrants brought to Canada by R. F. Welch (B.C.) Limited during the early summer of 1954 and are still employed by that company.
2.	Gang No. 1, set up on April 1, consisted of 73 men, of whom 61 were labourers employed by R. F. Welch (B.C.) Limited and 12 were Canadian National Railways maintenance of way employees, comprising foremen and machine operators recruited from the regular maintenance of way section forces.
Gang No. 2, set up on April 2, consisted of 70 men, of whom 58 were labourers employed by R. F. Welch (B.C.) Limited and 12 were Canadian National Railways maintenance of way employees, comprising foremen and machine operators recruited from regular section gangs.
3 and 4. So far as the management is aware R. F. Welch (B.C.) Limited has not been requested by the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees to hire sectionmen and B and B men who are for the moment laid off as regular Canadian National Railways employees on said gangs. However, there always has been an understanding with the Welch organization that laid off railway maintenance of way employees will be given preference in employment on Welch gangs. Moreover, roadmasters have been instructed to provide the employment office with names
of laid off men wishing to work on Welch gangs, and these men receive preference.
Only a few laid off maintenance of way employees are known to have accepted work on the Welch gangs. During the past month (April) there has been an actual shortage of sectionmen and since April 15 requests have been placed with the Calgary office of the national employment service for extra men to fill the requirements of railway section gangs on the Calgary division. Of the men employed on the three gangs above referred to 125 were recruited through the Edmonton office of the national employment service.



MCCULLOCH PROPERTY, TRURO, N. S.  BUILDINGS

Mr. Purdy:: 1.	Have the buildings on the McCulloch property at Truro, Nova Scotia, owned by the government, been sold?
2.	If so, (a) What steps were taken to secure the best possible price for same; (b) To whom were they sold, and what was the price obtained; (c) What were the conditions, if any, imposed on the successful tenderer?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Three buildings (frame dwelling, double garage and shed) located at 664 Prince street, Truro, N. S., (sometimes referred to as the McCulloch property) have been sold.
2.	(a) Advertisements were posted in ten local post offices in the Truro area requesting offers to purchase these buildings for demolition and removal, in June 1954 and in July 1954. In addition approximately 25 requests for offers to purchase were forwarded to individuals.
(b)	Mr. Lewis C. Reid, 300 Pictou road, Bible Hill, Truro, Nova Scotia. Price $125.
(c)	A restoration deposit of $1,000 was required from the purchaser to guarantee satisfactory removal and demolition within 60 days.



LORNEVILLE, N. B., BREAKWATER

Mr. Bell:: 1.	What was the amount of the contract for the construction of the Lorneville, Saint John county, New Brunswick, breakwater, when and to whom awarded?
2.	Has an investigation been conducted into the collapse of said breakwater in October, 1953, during construction?
3.	If so, what was the cause and on whom did the responsibility rest?
4.	Is construction to be completed? If so, when, by whom, and on what terms?
5.	Have temporary arrangements been made for fishermen and others during this further period of completion?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	(a) $196,115;	(b) September 9, 1952;
(c) Diamond Construction Company, Limited, Fredericton, N. B.
2.	Yes.

Orders for Returns
3.	The natural soil forming the foundation for the timber cribwork portion was less capable of sustaining the weight of the work than the borings indicated or than had been anticipated by departmental engineers. As a result, the outer end of the timber portion settled unevenly. The rubble mound approach and the inner end of the timber portion did not settle abnormally.
4.	The project has been revised. A contract was awarded for this work, on the basis of public tender calls, to the Diamond Construction Company, Limited.
5.	The stone rubble approach and the inner end of the timber portion provide some temporary facilities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What government employees are fingerprinted in addition to armed services personnel?
2.	Who does the work?
3.	What use is made or it?


IDENTIFICATION CARDS
Mr. Harkness:: 1.	To whom are identification cards issued in addition to the armed services?
2.	Where have the blank cards been procured from since 1950?
3.	What has been the cost of these blank cards per thousand?
4.	Have they been secured on a tender basis?


TRACADIE ARTILLERY RANGE
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What has been the cost to date for (a) purchase of land; (b) construction of buildings; (c) improvement made in connection with the Tracadie artillery range and camp at Tracadie?
2.	When was this artillery range last used by the Department of National Defence for training purposes?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to make further use of this range?


R.C.A.F. STATION, COMOX, B.C.-CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Mr. Barnett:: 1.	Under what job classifications are civilians employed at the Royal Canadian Air Force station, Comox, British Columbia?
2.	What are the weekly hours of work and the hourly or monthly rates currently paid under each job classification?
3.	What other benefits or indirect compensation do employees in each of the classifications receive?
4.	Were the rates and hours of work established as a result of a prevailing rate survey in respect to each of the classifications?
5.	If not, on what basis were the various rates and weekly hours of work set?


Mr. Blanchette:: Return tabled.


INDIANS
Mr. Michener:: 1.	What is the number of Indians (under the Indian Act) in Canada today?
2.	What is the annual rate of increase?
3.	What is the average size of Indian families or the ratio of children to adults?
4.	What is the total amount paid to or for the benefit of the Indians by each department of the Canadian government and the total of all such payments (a) in the last fiscal year; (b) as estimated to be paid in the current fiscal year?



FEES TO BARRISTERS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. MacLean:: What are the names and addresses of barristers, solicitors and advocates in Prince Edward Island to whom fees which total in excess of $200 have been paid by all departments of government, and what was the amount paid to each of them since the 1st of January, 1947?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to make a statement regarding the explosion at Valcartier Camp late last night, and the death of three persons following it?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I have just received a report on this accident, Mr. Speaker, and I think it covers most of the salient facts.
Last evening a party of four civilians, two men and two women, entered a road leading from the Camp Valcartier-Valcartier village road to the back of Valcartier Camp. They drove their car to a double row of large fence posts which had been placed across the road to prevent entry to the area, which is a rocket range and is out of bounds to all civilians. The telephone poles along the road are clearly marked "out of bounds". At both ends of the road there are signs marking the fact that it is national defence property. The range itself is clearly marked with large signs in both English and French reading, "danger, unexploded projectiles".
Notwithstanding these warnings, this party of four people parked their car at the double row of fence posts and went approximately one-quarter of a mile into the range beyond the fence posts and there began collecting inert rocket bombs on the range. After apparently loading the car with some 40 or 50 of these, it was found that the weight was too great for the vehicle. Accordingly some of the rockets were thrown onto the ground to lighten the weight; at least the lady

who was injured so indicated. One rocket exploded when thrown out and three of the occupants of the car, namely Mr. O. P. Daigle, Mr. Adrian Labranche and Miss Marie Clare-Daigle were killed. Mrs. O. P. Daigle was severely injured, but was able to walk to the camp, a distance of some two and a half miles, where she called at the first house where she saw a light shining. It happened to be the home of the medical officer, who immediately arranged for her to be taken to a hospital in Quebec city. The provost corps, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial police were immediately summoned and a full investigation is now under way.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. As the minister said, there are signs both in French and in English.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is it the intention of the department, knowing that people have this habit of picking up shells, to have more sentries on duty following this explosion?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In answer to the supplementary question asked by the hon. member, may I say that when the inquiry into this unfortunate accident has been concluded we shall then look at all the facts adduced and decide what, if any, further steps should be taken in the interests of public safety.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. Norway House, Manitoba, has received no mail service for over five weeks. What can the department do to speed up this service?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I made some inquiries about this matter one minute before I came into the house. The headquarters of the Post Office Department is not quite sure that the hon. gentleman's statement of fact is accurate, though it may be. It appears that there is a period when mail can no longer be taken in on the surface because of the break-up of ice and before it is possible to land planes. No one seems to have devised any way of getting the mail in during that period. I am told that this usually happens every year for a short period, and I have asked them to investigate at once to see if anything can be done to speed up mail delivery.
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Scottie Bryce: I have a supplementary question. I want to assure the minister that my information is accurate. I know the gentleman who wired me, and if he said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the right to ask a question.


William Scottie Bryce: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure the minister that my information is accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[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. In view of the concern of all of us, will the Prime Minister, on behalf of this house, personally investigate every aspect of the McCann-Drohan-Demp-sey-Frost affair to ascertain whether or not the Minister of National Revenue acted in complete accordance with his responsibilities as a minister?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should personally investigate an incident that seems to be of considerable partisan political importance in the course of the election that is taking place in the province of Ontario at this time. I am satisfied that the Minister of National Revenue has discharged his duties in accordance with the practice that has prevailed hitherto. I do not want to get into any controversy about it.
The hon. gentleman asked me whether I was going to make a personal investigation of the facts. I have heard the denial of the rumours that have circulated about the way this incident took place, and having ascertained from the Minister of National Revenue what actually did take place I do not think I need make any further examination of the problem.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. So that any misunderstanding may be avoided, because I might say it is our intention to defer an examination of this subject until the estimates of the minister are before the house and we can discuss it with a freedom that is not possible now, do I understand

Inquiries of the Ministry from the statement of the Prime Minister that he is fully informed in regard to the facts of this case in reaching the decision which he has stated?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All I can say is that I am fully informed in respect of the information that has been given to me. I cannot say there is no information other than that which I have received that might be given to me. I have formed my opinion on the information I have received, and I feel satisfied that it fully covered the incident.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Following the examination he made, does he not consider that it is a matter of impropriety, or at least an action that is apt to give rise to serious consequences, when a minister of the crown holding a portfolio is also a director of a company that deals with that department?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of National Revenue has been connected with this company, or with one of its predecessors that is being continued by the company under the present name, for some 42 years. He was Minister of National Revenue when I became Prime Minister, and I was very happy to have him continue because I knew of the efficient and painstaking way in which he had handled the responsibilities of that department, and I have never had any occasion to find any clash between his duties as the Minister of National Revenue and whatever connection he might have with this company, which I do not know has relations with the Department of National Revenue.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I do not think that answers the situation at all. Is this not the type of case which indicates that no minister should hold a directorship while a member of the government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter about which I inquired before I became a member of the government, and I was told there was no rule of law or even traditional practice that required anyone who accepted such responsibilities to sever any previous connections he might have had. I was told that was something for each individual to consider in respect of his own position, and he might feel that it was desirable to sever all connections. In fact I felt that it was desirable to sever all such connections to avoid occasions for the kind of criticism-which I feel is not justified-that is being directed against the Minister of National Revenue at the present time.

I felt that I should not accept the invitation which was extended to me to become a member of the government unless I did sever my connections with the commercial and industrial firms with which I had been connected previously, but that is a matter each one has to decide for himself. I am sure that each one when he takes office does his best to fully discharge the responsibilities implied in his oath of office.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the principles being enunciated by the Prime Minister are of importance beyond the case mentioned, would the Prime Minister tell us whom it was that he referred to when he was told about this position?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was invited by the then prime minister, the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, to become a member of his government. In the course of conversation I asked him about this and he told me there was no legal rule nor any traditional rule established by practice that would require me to sever my connections with the companies with which I had been associated; that that was a matter for each one to consider in the light of the position he would be assuming in becoming a member of the government.
I realized that there could be occasions for criticism, because in spite of my resignations it was suggested in this house that I had agreed to become a minister in order to carry out policies which were those of a board of directors with which I had been associated previously. In order to dispel that suggestion I had to assert in the house that the policy referred to in the criticism that was being made had never been mentioned in any way in the deliberations of that board, and that I had in fact severed my connections with that board before taking my oath of office.
In political life one must expect that any circumstance can be seized upon to direct what is frequently unfair criticism against those who hold office, and I wanted to leave as few opportunities as possible for unfair criticism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, to have the record complete? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister did resign all his directorships within a week after being sworn in as a member of the privy council, does he not think his colleagues should follow his lead?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think for the conscience of any others; I respect their concern for their responsibilities and reputations when they become members of the government. Each one has to make his own appraisal

of what it is advisable for him to do in order to have his position as honourably regarded as possible.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give the house details of the flood conditions which prevail in Saskatchewan, and what action the federal government is taking in connection therewith.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. All I can tell the house is that I received a telegram yesterday morning from the premier of Saskatchewan informing me that three of his ministers would be here on Monday with drainage plans and surveys or estimates of the damage, and asking if I would meet them with some of my colleagues. I wired back immediately that we would see them in my office on Monday morning at 10.30.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can report to the house that any progress has been made in instituting the 40-hour week for penitentiary employees?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can report that the matter has been considered carefully by the Department of Justice and a memorandum has been prepared for the government as a whole, which is now under consideration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, just previous to my return to the house this afternoon there was an interparty meeting on the steps of the parliament building, and it was suggested by some of my Liberal friends and one of my C.C.F. friends that I would make myself highly 50433-233i
The Budget-Mr. Hahn popular if I stated that I would not continue-my remarks on the budget. However, after discussing it with the members of one of the other groups we decided that as it is so hard to get the Liberals to understand things we should repeat, repeat and repeat them. I had quite a battle with my conscience, as-you can understand, but I decided finally that I would do my best to explain what I wanted to bring before them.
In the few minutes at my disposal yesterday I indicated that I supported fully what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) had said in respect to fisheries in British Columbia. I complimented the international fisheries commission upon the good work it had done. I pointed out also that there was a need for conservation of pink salmon and other fisheries. I mentioned something about the autocratic minister; and while I did not say so at that time, I must say now that I think possibly he is really a good man to send to Russia. One dictator would meet another.
First I should like to discuss the effect of the conservation methods which were formerly employed and what their results have been. On September 17 the fisheries council of Canada issued a bulletin. In that bulletin they referred to the question of whether Hell's Gate paid off. I am not very much ii. ^rested in how well Hell's Gate paid off, becu 'se this is not only the question of a means f promoting a dam, but of a conservation me '"re that was carried out at that time, the same type of conservation to which I am proposing we return. If Hell's Gate paid off, the conservation measure which was employed at that time necessarily must have played an important part in it. Part of this, report says:
Canadian and American fishermen are expected to take over 10 million fish from the 1954 Adams river run which is now being fished by the gill netters in the Fraser river. This is a quite different picture from the "flop" in 1950, although 1946, the previous cycle year, was very good.
. . . the results of conservation and regulation are impressive and it is gratifying that the press has devoted so much space to it since it will make it easier in future to secure funds for this type of work.


An hon. Member:: Why not bring it up under the fisheries estimates?


Frederick George Hahn: An hon. member has suggested taking it up under the fisheries department estimates. I had not decided how long I would speak on this matter, but he has just about made up my mind to spend my full time on it and possibly speak on it under the fisheries estimates and under supply as well, if he wishes.
The question arises as to who conserved these fish that made it possible for us to have
3692	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Hahn in 1954 the biggest fishing season in the history of the Pacific coast. It is apparent that it was the former action on conservation that made this possible. Here we had a group of fishermen who for years, with the assistance of the Department of Fisheries, had helped to conserve the fish in the Fraser river and made this huge catch possible. I say it is rather ironic, and certainly it is not right, that these fishermen, after they have conserved all these fish for all these years, should now be forced to put out to sea, much against their own wishes. The conservation program made it possible to protect the fishing industry and has given us the greatest season for fishermen in recent years.
On November 16 Mr. A. J. Whitmore, the chief supervisor of fisheries, issued a statement regarding Fraser river chum salmon fishing for 1954. At that time he said:
(1) Chum salmon fishing operations, both gill net and purse seine, have been intensive in the outside approaches to the Fraser, particularly the Johnstone strait area.
Section 3 goes on to say:
The main run of chums in the Fraser area normally occurs during the month of November. Surveys of spawning streams in the lower Fraser during the past few days show that they are practically devoid of chum salmon spawners from this main run.
That is a very pertinent statement, especially in view of the fact that we had begun in a modified way to put into practice the closure that was suggested last year by the minister. The escapement was not what the department had hoped for. It goes on to say:
The only chum escapement of significance so far has come from the early run which passed through the fishing area several weeks ago.
That was prior to the closure. Section 5 goes on to say:
To assist in meeting conservation requirements, it is therefore considered necessary that the period of the approaching weekly close season be extended from a three-day period to a five-day period . . . that all net fishing be closed commencing at 8.00 a.m. Thursday, November 18, to 8.00 a.m. Tuesday, November 23.
They have had to change the regulations as a direct result of their policy, which was not doing the job it was intended to do. One week later, on November 24 of last year, another bulletin was issued by the same man. I would direct the minister's attention to sections 1, 2, 4 and 7 of this report. No. 1 says in part:
It had been expected that considerable numbers of chum salmon would have escaped to the spawning grounds during the five-day closure in effect last week end. Further surveys, however, during the past week, do not show this to be the case.

So this additional closure did not help at all. Section 2 states:
The numbers of spawners visible on the grounds* at this time are alarmingly few; the smallest for a considerable number of years despite the closure of fishing above the New Westminster bridge for a considerable part of the season.
Here we have a condemnation by the fisheries department's own man of the policy that was set up last year. Despite the closure of fishing above New Westminster bridge for a considerable part of the season there were fewer spawners there than for the past several years. Then section 4 states:
Catches by commercial fishermen in the river below the New Westminster bridge and by Indians in the up-river area have been practically nil, indicating that there are very few spawning fish escaping past the commercial fishery.
We certainly cannot blame the fishermen on the Fraser river for being responsible for that condition at this time. Section 7 states:
It is, therefore, considered essential that all salmon net fishing in district No. 1, including Howe sound and Burrard inlet, be discontinued as from 8.00 a.m. Friday next, November 26, 1954, in the interests of conservation.
It was therefore found necessary to completely close the area to fishing until such time as we could get the fish up on the spawning grounds and provide for future fishing. That is the absolute opposite to what we found was true in former years when, through co-operation between the fishermen themselves and the Department of Fisheries, it was possible to conserve sufficient fish to build up the fisheries industry to the point where we find it today.
Later, on March 16 of this year-just two months ago-Mr. Whitmore issued another bulletin in respect to the salmon spawning report for 1954. On the first page of that he had this to say:
Developments ox special interest associated with the 1954 salmon migration and spawning escapement showed continuing improvement in the volume and distribution of sockeye spawning stocks in the Fraser.
Later in section 4 he says:
Fishing efficiency in the Johnstone strait and Discovery passage area is regarded as the major factor responsible for the light escapement of chum spawners to streams on the lower mainland coast, including those of Jervis inlet, Pender harbour, Howe sound, and Fraser river areas.
Just as it says, that would indicate that fishing efficiency is the major factor responsible for the fewer spawning fish going up the river. Then on page 2, there is a paragraph under the heading of spring salmon. This escapement I am speaking of now occurred while the upper Fraser fishing was going on in full swing. That is, in the spring escapement the fishing was being carried

on at the time the spring salmon were making their way up the river. It goes on to say this:
Spawning stocks of this species over the province were well maintained. The escapement of springs to the Fraser watershed was satisfactory; well up to average in the Kamloops, Quesnel and Prince George areas, and above brood year levels in the Chilliwack and Harrison areas.
So you see that when the spring salmon were permitted to escape while the fishing was being done on the Fraser river according to the regulations as set forth by the Department of Fisheries in co-operation with the gill net fishermen on the Fraser, a sufficient number of spring salmon made their escapement. It was only during the time we found the fishing period changed that we ran into trouble.
Then in his statement in respect to chums on page 3, at the time of escapement of chums the fishing season was closed to the fishermen above New Westminster bridge. Let us see what effect it had:
The over-all catch of chums was above average and with the exception of district No. 1 spawning supplies generally were satisfactory.
District No. 1 is the Fraser river district. With that exception, spawning in that area or in the over-all picture was satisfactory. This fact would indicate again that the argument that the closure of the Fraser river is in any way going to help in the matter of conservation of salmon at this time is not valid.
Let us analyse the reason for the effects of the closure as we now have it before us. The minister closed the fishing, that is above the Pattullo bridge, and after it was closed we lost spawning fish. The reason is quite apparent. If one were to stand on Pattullo bridge and look down the river, one could see the twinkle of many hundreds of lights on boats on the river. Just as we had earlier forecast, the fishermen merely went down river; and where we had a few hundred boats there before we added this huge number that had been up river up to that time. So we just doubled the number of fishermen below Pattullo bridge. I perhaps should not say "doubled", but rather that we increased the number of fishermen below Pattullo bridge. That merely meant the same number or more fish would be caught, for they could not get around the boats so well and the chances of fish escaping through the network of boats and nets were practically nil.
Then of course there was another factor, namely that more intensified fishing was carried on in outside waters, as the minister had suggested in his 1953 address to the
The Budget-Mr. Hahn fishermen's union. These fishermen were certainly doing an excellent job of netting them as they came around Vancouver island and into the Fraser.
Another reason for this closure not having the effect that it was suggested it should have is that only 1 per cent of the salmon are caught in that region above the bridge as compared with the other area, and it naturally could not have the effect that was hoped for.
What does this closure mean to the people of the area? The hon. member for Fraser Valley indicated something of that in his address yesterday, but I would say this. First, it means that those who were normally catching fish on the Fraser are now obliged to catch the same number, if possible, out at sea. This means that there is added cost to the fishermen. So the cost of fishing to these people is more. It means that a good number of these 600 and more fishermen in the area naturally enough do not have the equipment to go out to sea; therefore they just aggravate the unemployment condition in the area. It also means that community business suffers. The return to the fishermen will be less and therefore they would not have the money to spend in the community. It also means that those fishermen who were set up under the Veterans Land Act and who supplemented their income by getting something from this fisheries industry are being deprived of what had been their right for a good number of years.
There is one pathetic factor involved here, and that is that these same fishermen are not eligible for unemployment insurance. When they are in need and require financial help, they just do not get it.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a letter I received in reply to one I had written to Mr. Fred Rolley, secretary of the Pacific fishermen and allied trades union, gill net section. I think this is quite self-explanatory and needs little comment on my part:
Dear Sir:
Replying to your letter of February 8 asking for certain information as to the income of the fishermen of the upper Fraser, we have done our best in the time at our disposal to get you some information in this matter.
We have taken a cross section that we think would be average, neither the best or the worst of the fishermen and placed them in two categories, the first group containing an average cross section of full time fishermen who fished entirely above New Westminster bridge in both 1953 and 1954. The fishing effort of this group would be over a period of nine months in 1953 and eight months in 1954.

The Budget-Mr. Hahn Now let us look at these tables:
1953	1954
1	
$2,565.42	$1,915.442	
3,175.49	1,764.193	
2,707.64	1,794.984	
2,979.24	1,991.335	
4,027.92	1,800.796	
4,218.56	1,970.497	
5,124.29	2,474.008	
2,400.10	1,769.58
The above fishermen would be under an operating expense of very roughly $1,000 for each year.
With respect to these fishermen, their earning power was cut down to half or practically half in every instance. The letter goes on to say:
This second group of fishermen would have been fishing approximately six months in both 1953 and
1954.
1953	1954
9	
$2,754.81	$1,906.1510	
1,025.31	801.9411	
1,078.19	849.7512	
1,342.33	1,134.51
The story of the fisheries among these people on the Fraser river is sad. They have all had their incomes cut very materially. I know the minister can argue that these fellows are not real fishermen, and that if they went to sea they would get seasick. Possibly they would, but it does not necessarily mean a man is not a fisherman because he cannot go to sea. These men have been fishing on the river for years and making a living. They have conserved the fish over the years, and they see no reason why they should be deprived of that privilege. We might just as well argue that an airplane pilot is not a pilot if he happens to black out in the course of a dive. That does not mean he cannot fly an airplane.
These fishermen can fish. They have proven their ability to fish, as indicated in the letter from which I read. In some instances they have earned up to $5,000; and to be cut down to well below $2,700 because of the fisheries policy is not fair to the men in that area.
Is there a place for both seine and gill net fisheries on the Pacific coast? Certainly there is. The fishermen are agreed there is. All these men, no matter who they are, agree that the fishermen in the seine boats can carry on their fishing at sea and at the same time fish in the Fraser river can be conserved through the method in effect until last year. The answer is progressive closure in the early season to permit the salmon to go on up the river unmolested.
I said a good deal about the quality of fish in my speech on this subject on February 2 of this year. It can be found on page 778 of Hansard. I am not going to repeat what I said at that time, but I would suggest that


the minister take note of it. Another question has arisen quite recently in which I think the minister might be interested. It has to do with the problem of the conservation of fish on an international basis. Just prior to the opening of the house after the Easter recess, in fact on the Sunday before, the united fishermen and allied workers' union called a meeting of all interested United States and Canadian fishermen to discuss the problem of conservation.
I think that organization should be given some credit for its foresight in taking action at that time. To indicate who were there and that it was not a meeting of Canadian organizations only, I find in the minutes such names as Dan Assu, vice president, southern district, native brotherhood of British Columbia; H. Steve Stavenes, president of the united fishermen and allied workers' union; John Brown, president of the reef netter owners' association; Floyd Gregor, president of the reef netters' union, local 4 of the international longshoremen's workmen's union; Bob Cummings, secretary of local 3, international longshoremen's workmen's union; Joe Burrows, president of the Puget Sound gill netters' association; Lud Bretvich, vice president of the Puget Sound gill netters' association; and Dick Kink of the Puget Sound vessel owners' association.
I had been invited to the meeting, as was the minister. The minister could not attend, but I do not blame him for not being in attendance because he might have been asked for a policy statement which I do not think could properly have been made there. However, I did note with satisfaction that the minister had representatives at the meeting. For some time now it has been suggested that such a committee should be set up to study the problem of conservation.
I should like to compliment the minister at this point on having the foresight to suggest to the fishermen of British Columbia last year that they go out to sea off Vancouver island, do their fishing there and get their fish before the Americans got theirs. The salmon run through that water, and by doing that the United States fishermen would have their catches cut so much they would come to terms. Apparently they are ready to act, for the fishermen themselves do not want a race to deplete the fisheries industry.
As a result of that meeting a resolution was moved which I should like to put on record at this time. It is to be found on page 7 of the minutes, and reads as follows:
This joint conference recommends to all fishermen's organizations and all other interested fishery-organizations on both sides of the international boundary that the proposal of the U.F.A.W.U. for the inclusion of pink salmon into the jurisdiction

of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission for conservation, rehabilitation and equal division be given thorough study and support.
Be it further resolved all organizations represented here agree to hold further joint conferences at the request of organizations on either side of the line as soon as possible in order to work out the maximum unity and to agree on steps to implement whatever common program is adopted.
The minutes continue as follows:
The resolution was seconded from the floor and brother Bob Cummings of the I.L.W.U. spoke in favour of the resolution.
It will be noted on page 8 of the minutes that the resolution was put to a vote and carried unanimously. All the people who were there representing these various organizations were unanimous with respect to handling this fisheries problem we have in the Pacific northwest. I would particularly commend to the minister's attention the proposal that the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission should proceed to look after the existing problem. I am not alone in this suggestion. The British Columbian, a newspaper which speaks for the people of that area, had this to say in an editorial headed "Fishermen's Voice" in its issue of April 19, 1955:
Success of the work of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, which governs the catch and distribution of the sockeye salmon, should be enough to encourage the governments of Canada and the United States to work out a similar treaty on pink salmon.
Need of the treaty, to end a continuing battle between the fishermen of the two nations, is indicated by the strength of the voice of the fishermen at the week end.
American boats have long held the balance of power because of a larger fleet but as Canada's fleet grows the need of a treaty becomes more urgent. Organization and control of the fleets, protection of the runs by a commission established through a treaty will be necessary to maintain this important part of the salmon fishing industry. What the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission achieved for the sockeye-that is, fair distribution of the catches through adequate controls, building up of the runs through control and conservation, and a general elevation of the tasty sockeye itself-can be done for the secondary pink salmon.
The voice of the fishermen meeting at White Bock was loud enough to be heard at Ottawa and Washington, and should produce results.
I ask only that the minister take note of that fact, that this is a desirable thing, and I would ask him to support the fishermen's unions in this request.


Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate, and I had not intended to take part in it. However, I shall speak for only a few moments.
In rising to speak may I say that I feel I have some prescriptive right, if I may put it that way, because I would remind the house that for about a year I had asked the minister of finance to reduce the excise tax
The Budget-Miss Bennett on automobiles. Of course I was very happy, along with all members in the house and the people of Canada generally, to see a reduction. But may I say, with all due respect to the minister, that I think he should have gone further. I believe there should have been a full reduction of this 15 per cent tax, commonly described as a luxury tax.
One of my reasons for saying this is that not many weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said in the house that the upswing in business and employment in the United States was in no small measure due to the upswing in the automotive industry, and the increased production in that industry. What is true of that country would be equally true of this. I am told further that if the tax were removed entirely we would be able to produce cars in Canada as cheaply as they do in the United States. This would mean a tremendous increase and widening of the market for motor cars.
Singling out this industry in particular, it must be kept in mind that considering it in its primary stage, which is the production of motor cars, and also in its secondary stage, its tertiary stage, and all its other ramifications, the automotive industry is the largest employer of men and women in Canada. That means a great deal. It means that it is the largest producer of homes and of food and all those things required to maintain the population of this country. We must also keep in mind that not only is this a very important industry, but that at least 179 other industries in this nation are entirely dependent upon the production of automobiles. These various industries stretch from coast to coast, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They provide work and homes and all those things the employees require.
When one stops to consider the amount of steel, iron, aluminum, rubber, oil, textiles and products of the farm that are used in the manufacture of motor cars and all their component parts, and thinks at the same time of the farmers who receive additional income, one realizes just how important it is. Just think of the employees in the steel industry, the aluminum industry, the oil industry and the textile industry who need support and assistance at this time. I note the minister has just now entered the chamber, and I trust he will give this matter sound and diligent thought and consideration, to ascertain whether it would not be advisable, right at this time when we have unemployment in somewhat serious proportions, to consider entirely removing the 15 per cent excise tax from automobiles.

The Budget-Miss Bennett
I believe the country would benefit from such action. I believe the treasury would benefit by way of additional sales, additional employment and additional taxation. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that 90 per cent of the men and women driving cars in Canada are earning $3,000 a year or less. This means that 90 per cent of the men and women driving cars are on salaries in the lower brackets. They are the men and women who are moving from place to place, maintaining the mobility of labour. It was not so many weeks ago the Minister of Labour mentioned the fact that the mobility of labour in this country meant a great deal in maintaining the level of employment. We would greatly increase the numbers of car buyers if the prices of automobiles could be reduced through a further reduction in the tax.
I know the country must collect taxes; but it may be that we are at the point of diminishing return so far as the automotive industry is concerned. In my view the additional revenue that would come to the minister from other industries by way of income tax would more than compensate him. I venture to say he would be further ahead if the excise tax were removed, and in the meantime it is almost certain that several thousand more people would be given employment. When I say that I think I am speaking very conservatively.
I have said I would be brief, but there are one or two further comments I have to make, the first of which has to do with the royal commission the minister announced. I do hope that when it is appointed careful consideration will be given to processing our raw materials into finished products. I am sure it is correct to say that we are 25 or 50 years behind the times in this. respect. We are still directing our economy along the lines we followed when we were a young country, when we had tremendous resources which, it was felt, could never be exploited. In those days we had a small population and it was all right to send out our raw materials and allow some other country to process them.
But what has happened? Our supplies of iron ore are running out, and the same applies to our supplies of aluminum. The same can be said about our nickel and copper. All these are going to the United States to be processed. One outstanding example I would place before the minister for his consideration is that of asbestos fibre. Canada sells $60 million worth of asbestos fibre to the United States each year. In that country our asbestos is processed and turned into 
finished products for resale. The result is that the $60 million becomes $450 million in the United States.
Think of the homes that sum of money provides. Think of the building it makes possible. Think of the clothes and the food, the extent to which all concerned along the line benefit by this $450 million. I say we have arrived at a stage in this country when we must keep those raw materials within our own borders, and give to our men and women the benefit of the returns that can be obtained from those materials, and the labour opportunities that would be opened up.
Then I have one further point-it seems that I keep on saying I have one more statement to make-and this has to do with immigration. I hope the royal commission will consider immigration so we may have some over-all plan. This is a great and magnificent country. It can be said that in the last 50 years in particular the very foundations of what we have in Canada today, industrially, economically, socially and indeed morally, were laid by the newcomers to this nation, those who went out to our frontiers and opened up our farms, our mines, our forests and our fisheries. We should have some overall plan under which new people coming to this country would go to our frontiers, would man our new lands, would go to our mines, our fisheries and our forest industry.
What really is happening now, and it is a rather serious thing, is this. We see it down in the older parts of Ontario, particularly in the north of my county where a great deal of farming is carried on. These newcomers come in and they go on the farms. They stay there only a short time. Then what happens? They leave and go into the cities, into the crowded industrial areas, and there they try to find employment. During last year they helped to swell the ranks of the unemployed. The farmers are not really able to depend on their staying during the season when they need them most.
Therefore in this country we should adopt some real over-all plan under which these new people coming in will go out and make themselves worthy citizens, which they want to do, and at the same time further expand, extend and exploit this great land to the extent that it should be exploited.
This is the last point, Mr. Speaker. A great many things have been said in this debate, and they did not always refer to finance. This is becoming a very dangerous country in which to live. The other night the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) more or less raised a battle cry in this house. He said the gentlemen of the house should wear beards to protect themselves, I guess, against the women, to whom

he referred in not too complimentary terms, as I recall it. He said we have four women sitting in the house right now.
Well, you know, we have had a great many conflicts in this house, Mr. Speaker, over the years, many historic conflicts, but now we are about to have the greatest conflict of them all. I look across the house, I look to my left and I look to my right and I think of all these great men, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) himself and perhaps the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) who just went out. I can just visualize how they would look with beards. You know, Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think what is going to happen with respect to dislocation of industry. For example, barbers will be out of employment. Then the steel makers will be on short time, too, because they will not be making razors. The soap makers will be on short time because they will not be making soap powder and soap, or whatever these gentlemen use on their faces, to say nothing of the perfumeries. All these gentlemen use perfume and put these lotions on their faces, but sometimes you cannot tell whether it is a shaving lotion or what it is.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a tremendous displacement of industry just because the men of this house want to make themselves into Goliaths; they want to be Samsons. Let me remind them, before they embark on this venture, that for every Goliath there is a David and for every Samson there is a Delilah.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: A few
days ago, on the orders of the day, I asked the Minister of National Revenue a very simple question. I asked whether he would make a statement to the house that would clarify his position with regard to the Dempsey affair. The minister made a statement. I think hon. members will agree that the statement by the minister did not contribute much to the clarification of a very confused situation.
I should probably say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this affair, like the Ontario highways scandal and other such affairs that have developed in Canadian life, is due to a practice that has become fairly prevalent in Ontario. It may also be prevalent elsewhere. I refer to the practice of the government in power, whether provincial or federal, relying upon those who accept government contracts and those who profit from government business to finance their reelection to office.
That practice has become quite prevalent in Ontario, so prevalent, as a matter of fact, that while individual members personally 50433-234
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy are not concerned or affected or involved in any way, and while cabinet ministers in provincial and federal parliaments are not personally involved, the party machine does become involved and those recipients of government favours, whether federal or provincial, receive what actually amounts to a quota which they are expected to meet when election time comes around. I think that is the practice which is back of much of the trouble we see in this Dempsey affair and in other such affairs.
My point in asking the minister the question-as a matter of fact my whole concern-was to give him an opportunity to clarify that confused situation. It is a matter of interest to the house because it affects every man in public life in Canada. Here is the situation. A member of a provincial legislature of some ten years' standing, apparently a reputable citizen, makes a statement to which he says he is prepared to take an oath. A cabinet minister, also a responsible citizen, categorically denies that statement. In effect, what we have is two men holding responsible positions in public life calling each other a liar.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a situation which is not conducive to good government. It serves to undermine public confidence in public men, in both the statements and the actions of those in public life throughout this country. In the interests of government, in the interests of those of us who are in public life, this situation requires more clarification than the minister has yet chosen to give it.
I realize that the minister is in a difficult position; I realize that he has much information on this particular case which he is prevented from giving to the public. I still think there are some things the minister could tell us that would clarify his own position in this matter. It is not good enough for two men in such honourable positions as these two gentlemen occupy just to be content with each saying that the other is making a false statement. Even though it might be so, at least one of them says he is prepared to take an oath regarding the truth of his statement.
This is a matter that should be looked into further. Whether it is the Prime Minister's responsibility, or whoever else's responsibility it is, in the interests of this government and of this parliament we should have some further enlightenment on just exactly what did take place.
For instance there is the statement in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen in which Mr. Dempsey outlined the time and place and circumstances under which the Minister of
3698	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy National Revenue was alleged to have made a certain statement to him in which he indicated that the Department of National Revenue was quite prepared to forget the whole thing. The minister denies that categorically, and Mr. Dempsey comes back and says he is quite prepared to take his oath as to the truth of that statement.
This is all most confusing. While we in this house accept the minister's statement the Canadian public are not in the same position as members of this house, and they must be confused. As I have said already, the situation does not tend to inspire public confidence in men in public life.
There is another phase of this matter which I think needs clarification. I have no doubt the minister can give a satisfactory explanation if he wishes to do so. It is quite obvious from the knowledge we have that the minister was in possession of information that this donation had been made by Mr. Drohan. He came into the possession of that information shortly after Mr. Drohan's estate came up for settlement. The question we are asking is this. If that be so, why did the minister keep that information to himself for two years when the provincial treasurer, in the minister's own words, was legally entitled to it? Just why did he withhold that information from the provincial treasurer until a provincial election was called in Ontario and the person concerned is likely to be a candidate in a provincial riding?
If the minister was passing this information on to the provincial treasurer as Minister of National Revenue because there had been something irregular in relation to the payment of succession duties, there is no reason why that information should have been withheld for two years and then given out in the way the minister himself says it was given to the provincial treasurer when he was here in Ottawa to attend a conference a matter of some weeks ago.
On the other hand, if the minister's concern was that this man had violated the Ontario election act then it becomes more important that we should know why the information was withheld until after the announcement of an Ontario election. I think the minister owes it to the members of this house to tell us why that information was withheld from the provincial treasurer for a couple of years, and then imparted to him under such circumstances and at such time as I have indicated.
Otherwise, rightly or wrongly, the minister is bound to be accused of making use of information which he received as Minister of National Revenue for political purposes. That is the conclusion which is being drawn


across this country, that the Minister of National Revenue made use of information which came to him confidentially as Minister of National Revenue for political purposes, in order to defeat a candidate in a provincial election.
Personally I do not think for a moment that is the case, but I suggest once again that while this debate is proceeding the minister give us a statement in this house which will at least give some clarification to this situation.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on two matters which 1 think are of great importance, though they are widely separated in their content. I follow the hon. member for York South, who has again brought to the attention of this house the Dempsey case. I was most amazed at the incredible and amazing statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon in connection with this incident.
I do not think since I came to the House of Commons in 1945 there has been a statement made which was so incredible. I say this because of some of the words which I think the Prime Minister used in the answer he gave to the questions which had been asked. One of the phrases he used was that this matter was of considerable partisan importance. It is more than of partisan importance, it is important to the whole parliamentary system we have here, and indeed to our democratic system.
There have been so many statements and counterstatements that I submit this house is entitled to an investigation committee to determine the merits of the case. On the one hand we have the former provincial member, Mr. Dempsey, who states that he spoke to the Minister of National Revenue and had the conversation which is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 11. The Minister of National Revenue denies it. Then we have the counterstatement by Mr. Dempsey that he is prepared to swear under oath that he is telling the truth, and that the statement he made to the press and which appears in the Ottawa Citizen is correct. In other words he admits that he committed an indiscretion. In my opinion if what Mr. Dempsey has said is true, then the Minister of National Revenue has committed an indiscretion, and I think we should get to the truth of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this point the hon. member should be mindful of the rule that no statement by one outside the house can be introduced to contradict what has been said in the house. What the Minister of National Revenue has said in this house must be accepted by hon. members. That is the

position which I think the hon. member should take, and I intervene at this point merely to remind him of that rule so he will have it in mind during the course of his further remarks.


Edward George McCullough: I accept what the minister has said, but I think that the country is entitled to an investigation in order to determine the truth in regard to this situation. I agree with the remarks of my deskmate, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who stated yesterday that under these conditions the minister should immediately resign. The right hon. Prime Minister, instead of being satisfied with this situation, should be tremendously interested, so much interested that he would be prepared to set up an investigating committee of this house to look into the whole matter. If the. minister himself is not prepared to resign, then the Prime Minister should ask for his resignation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the other matter with which I wish to deal is one which I want to approach in the national interest. In the past the federal government under certain circumstances has declared national emergencies. During the past week we in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have experienced one of the worst storms in our history. Indeed, in a report appearing in the Leader-Post the premier of Saskatchewan has stated that the affected area will be over 2 million acres of land, and that between 12,000 and
15.000	people will be affected. In addition there is considerable property damage. Some of the estimates in connection with the flood damage are that as many as 30,000 to
40.000	farmers will be affected, and that between 50 and 80 per cent of the farm land will not be put into crop this year in Saskatchewan.
We have endeavoured to get the Prime Minister to do exactly what he and this government have done on previous occasions, namely to call this situation a national emergency and have the federal government co-operate with the provinces affected in doing a job of reclamation and trying to correct some of the damage which has taken place. I feel that this incident probably points out, as never before in the history of Canada, that we need something done in this connection. I am going to suggest today that what we need in Canada is a national drainage and dike authority, planned on the basis of the Tennessee valley authority, because I am convinced that this problem is going to recur across the country. This is not an isolated case. It is not a case which we can be sure is not going to recur.
50433-234i
1955	3699
The Budget-Mr. E. G. McCullough In the province of Saskatchewan from whence I come we have, in the past few years, been experiencing more and more precipitation. There are tens of thousands of acres of our best farm land where the water table has been coming up and there is no proper drainage. We need a drainage system, not merely on a provincial basis but on a national basis, working with provincial authorities. I am suggesting that under a national authority a complete survey would be made to correct our drainage and diking problems.
Our presenl position in Saskatchewan is not something that can be solved by provincial expenditure alone or by any provincial survey, without taking into consideration the general picture in the western provinces. Some of the water that is draining into the province of Saskatchewan comes from the drainage basin of the Rocky mountains and passes through parts of our province into Manitoba. The terrific flood damage we are experiencing in Saskatchewan today is something which can well be declared a national emergency.
In this connection, before I proceed I want to indicate to the house that we in Saskatchewan are not asking something special for our province, but only something which has been done on previous occasions. Every member of the house will recollect that after the Fraser valley flood disaster in 1948 the federal government came into the picture and used federal funds in order to assist the provincial authorities to correct some of the damage. At that time there was an expenditure of provincial and federal moneys to the extent of $11,440,000. The federal government came into the picture and, under the arrangement it made, paid up to 75 per cent; the province came in and paid the other 25 per cent on some of the projects. Altogether as I stated, over $11 million was spent following that flood disaster.
Then of course, we had the greater Winnipeg flood, and set up the diking board with a total expenditure between the federal and provincial governments of $4,559,000. The federal government paid $3,419,000; the government of Manitoba, $1,139,000.
We have those two flood situations, and we have the other instances which were declared national emergencies in the Rimouski and Cabano fires. In addition we had "Hurricane Hazel" and "Hurricane Edna", where again federal funds were made available and federal authorities worked with the provinces in order to correct some of the damage and pay the losses. That is the way it should be in Canada. We are not isolated provinces;

The Budget-Mr. E. G. McCullough we are a family of provinces working as -a dominion. When one province suffers a catastrophe it is only right and proper that the federal government should step in and take some responsibility.
In connection with the-Saskatchewan situation, we now have in my own constituency a lake 10 miles long and three or four miles wide which was not there two weeks ago. That is a condition which is going to put hundreds of farmers throughout that area in the position that they will not be able to put in their crop this year. It has been suggested by members of this group that some sort of program should be undertaken to alleviate the situation.
These farmers are not going to be able to put in a crop, and they are not going to be able to pay their taxes. In the last few years the municipalities have been in a very bad financial situation resulting from the farmers not being able to pay taxes, because of the increased precipitation over the province. I have had reports from all over the province which have indicated that highways were inundated, bridges were out, telephone lines and other communications and power lines were destroyed, and in Qu'Appelle valley many cottages have been taken away with the flood.
I believe my appeal is on a fair basis, that the federal government take some responsibility in this situation and assist the municipalities and the province to correct this damage. I might say I do not feel that in the past we have had any authority in Canada adequate to meet such situations as we find existing at times in this country. I feel that the time has come for proper utilization of our land and for proper conservation and that we should have, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, a joint national drainage and diking authority. This should be permanent and take into consideration in its surveys and work projects the watersheds throughout the Dominion of Canada and do the necessary diking, so we may utilize our farm land and make it possible to sow our crops year by year.
During the last by-election, when we were happy to re-elect the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), I had occasion to be up in the interlake country, which again is very badly flooded. Many farmers in those areas will not be able to put in a crop this year. There is a situation which is isolated from the flood condition due to the storm in Saskatchewan. Nevertheless these are problems that are all tied together, and can be solved only by the co-operation of the provinces and the dominion government.
In the interlake country we have lake Winnipeg, lake Winnipegosis and lake Manitoba becoming higher and higher and flooding much of the valuable land in that district lying between those lakes. It is my feeling, Mr. Speaker-and I say this without any fear of contradiction-that if this problem were tackled through a proper drainage authority, and if a program were instituted by means of which, throughout Alberta, Manitoba and perhaps British Columbia that country and that watershed were properly drained to the appropriate bodies of water so we could utilize our land, we would not have these recurring flood damages.
If this government would see the problem and take the necessary initiative, I believe that, together with the provinces, they could work out an authority which could undertake this project. In Manitoba, if proper drainage and dredging were done on the Nelson river, as an example, and proper water control put into effect there, I believe that river would perhaps serve to lower the level of the lakes in Manitoba, such as lake Winnipeg and lake Winnipegosis, so we would have proper control and conservation in that area.
I am therefore going to plead with the government and with the Prime Minister. When he meets with the authorities from the provinces-and he has indicated that the meeting will take place on Monday-whether the damage is $50 million as has been estimated by some authorities in Saskatchewan, or whether it is double that amount, I hope the federal government will see fit to cooperate with our provinces so that not only in the province of Saskatchewan but throughout all of Canada we shall have a program to meet these recurring needs of our people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott>
was unexpectedly called away. On *that account I paired with him. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Mr. Rowe:: On division.
Main motion (Mr. Harris) agreed to.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
Anderson
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Batten
Beaudry
Benidickson
Bennett
Blanchette
Boisvert
Bonnier
Bourque
Breton
Brisson
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Cannon
Cardin
Carrick
Cavers
Cloutier
Croll
Decore
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Dumas
Enfield
Eudes
Fairey
Follwell
Fontaine
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gagnon
Gardiner
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf) Girard Goode
Gourd (Chapleau)
Habel
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Henry
Hollingworth
Hosking
Houck
Huffman
Hunter
James
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Y armouth-Clare) Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun)
Lefrangois
Lesage
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
McCann
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McMillan
McWilliam
Maltais
Mang
Marler
Masse
Matheson
Meunier
Michaud
Picard
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Poulin
Pouliot
Power (Quebec South)
Power (St. John's West)
Prudham
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East) Roberge
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Ross
Rouleau
St. Laurent
Schneider
Shipley. Mrs.
Simmons
Sinclair
Stick
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
['the third reading of the bill.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.']
Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress, so that we may go on with the resolution we indicated the other evening.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 262, to approve an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 278, to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954.


Mr. Pearkes:: Is the minister going to make a statement on this bill?


Hugues Lapointe: The statement has been made. This bill was referred to the veterans

Veterans Benefit Act
affairs committee and was approved without amendment, and reported to the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Limitation.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I have some
comments to make on this bill. The minister is quite correct when he says it was before the veterans affairs committee and was approved without amendment. However, I would call to the minister's attention the fact that this bill provides that any person joining the regular services with the intention of making the army, the navy or the air force his vocation in the future will be denied any of the rights contained in the several bills that set out certain benefits for the special force. Anyone entering the regular forces after July 1955 will no longer be eligible for any of these benefits; and particular emphasis is placed on the question of unemployment insurance.
All service personnel, up to July 1 of this year, are entitled to unemployment insurance if and when they leave the service. When this bill was before the veterans affairs committee the secretary of the Canadian Legion proposed that the bill should be amended to provide that in future members of the services should be considered on the same basis as those employed in industry; and if because of any unforeseen circumstances they did not continue in the services the length of time they had intended, they should be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act in the way members of the special force are at this time. The exception was made that they should be brought in on a contributory basis, exactly the same as other employees in industry who come under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
At that time the committee did not wish to suggest any amendments for the simple reason that at least I felt that before bringing the regular forces under a contributory basis a study should be made to see whether the service personnel wanted to come in on that basis or not. However, there are arguments both ways. I merely wanted to say that our committee will recommend when the report is completed that the Department of National Defence and the Department of Labour, which have to do with the problem, should at least make an interdepartmental study of the matter to see first whether the service personnel want it on a contributory basis, and second whether it is feasible and practical to do the thing in the way suggested by the secretary of the Legion.

I know that the parliamentary assistant to the minister has that in mind. I hope that both he and the minister will continue to carry out what we have in our minds and what the Legion recommended, and what our report will recommend when it is completed. I merely wanted to put that on the record so that we would not forget it.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South has very well expressed what the attitude of the committee was with reference to this bill. The bill has to do with the special force that served in Korea. Since most of these men have been discharged from the force or are back home, it was thought by the committee that it was not necessary for the situation regarding them to be as it has been.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, we did hear representations from the Canadian Legion. I hold in my hand the recommendation of the Canadian Legion, and it might be well to place it on Hansard. The recommendation made by the Legion is as follows:
That the Department of National Defence make provision for members of the armed' forces to contribute to unemployment insurance so that they may benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Act in the same manner as do industrial employees.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendation was that the Department of National Defence make provision, not the Department of Veterans Affairs. The recommendation was considered by the committee and was unanimously agreed to in that regard, that the bill as presented by the Department of Veterans Affairs be passed and that, as has been stated, the recommendation be put in our report that the Legion's suggestion be carried out.
I might say that I had already recommended that in the House of Commons when the bill was up for second reading. When we were in committee I was very pleased indeed to learn that the Legion thought along the same lines as I did. The situation has certainly changed, but as the Legion pointed out, many young men will be discharged from the army for various reasons before their time of service is up. Those who are taken on strength up to July 1 of this year will be in an entirely different position from those who are taken in after July 1. As I pointed out before, we shall have two types of men in the army, namely, those who, when they are discharged from the army, will have the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and those who will not have the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

In addition to that, a great many young men are leaving insurable employment and are going into the army. When these young men leave the army they will not have the advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Like the hon. member who has already spoken, I do hope that this matter will be given very serious consideration. Frankly, I think there is a great deal of merit in the recommendation of the Canadian Legion. When the hon. member for Hamilton West spoke on the unemployment bill the other day she also mentioned this matter of the soldier. Her suggestion was that the matter should be given careful consideration.
As far as the bill itself is concerned, Mr. Chairman, we are in entire agreement with its contents.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 188, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1

Compensation.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour is not here this afternoon. Members of the committee were given a copy of one amendment which it was intended to put into effect and which, I might say, received the approval of the committee. However, there was another amendment. One of the clauses was supposed to be rewritten, and we have not yet had any notification of that. We have no copy of it; we do not know what is now proposed. Although it is a minor matter, it is a matter of making the clause more intelligible. I do not believe we should be asked to approve this bill until we have seen just what amendments the government proposes to make to it.


Walter Edward Harris: I was under the impression that the amendment had been prepared and made available. If that is not so, I agree with the hon. member.


The Chairman:: Order. Apparently there is a substantial amendment to a later clause in the bill. Would it be agreeable to proceed until we reach that clause?
12, 1955	3703
Government Employees Compensation Act


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is that clause 2, Mr. Chairman?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I see a minor amendment to clause 2. It appears to be merely the insertion of a comma.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. That was the first amendment that was proposed by the committee. Subsequently, the minister agreed that the whole wording of the clause was most confusing, and agreed to send it back to the Department of Justice for rewording. In view of the confusion that exists, we should report progress until such time as we can find out just exactly what has taken place.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think there is any confusion. Perhaps we can carry clause 1, to which I take it there is no objection, then we shall rise and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. Churchill:: It would appear to me that the bill would have to be reprinted in order to put before hon. members the amendments that were discussed during the course of the committee meeting. One amendment dealing particularly with clause 3 was rather involved. Until such time as we see it before us, I do not see much purpose in going ahead with this.


Walter Edward Harris: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Further than that, we were to have an explanation of one or two phrases contained in the bill which if not interpreted in the form in which we anticipated would affect other sections of the bill. I think it would be fair to let the bill stand until we have full information.


Walter Edward Harris: Stand.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.


PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters (for Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 306, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, the Precious Metals Marking Act deals with articles of gold, silver, platinum and palladium, and in addition with articles plated with either gold or silver. Under the Precious Metals Marking Act it is not mandatory that articles of or plated with precious metals be marked as to their content of precious metal. However, the act does provide that, where reference is

Precious Metals Marking Act made to the precious metal content, that content must be shown in a particular manner. For example, a gold ring or a ring containing gold may be sold as a plain ring, but if reference is made to its gold content that gold content must be indicated. If it is represented as being of carat quality, say 10 carat, then it must be 10/24ths gold by weight. In addition, where such quality mark, that is the precious metal content, is placed on an article, the article must also carry a registered trade mark or a trade mark for which application for registration has been made.
The present bill provides for two amendments to the act. The first deals with the method of applying quality marks to gold filled or rolled gold plate bracelets or, as they are sometimes called, wrist watches which have base metal parts. The difference between gold filled and rolled gold plate lies mainly in the thickness of the gold or the other precious metal covering it. In the former, that is in the gold filled, it is 3/1000ths of an inch, and in the latter, that is rolled gold plate, it is lJ/lOOOths of an inch of gold which is of at least 10 carat quality.
Under the act as it stands, when all parts of a bracelet watch case have a gold content the quality mark and the trade mark can be applied to any part of the watch, but it is usually applied in the most convenient location, which is the back. Where some parts of the case are plated or filled and others are of base metal the quality marking under the present act must be applied to those parts which are plated and the words "base metal" must be applied to those which are base metal. With the present size of the bracelet or wrist watches, particularly ladies' watches, it is difficult to place marks on the plated parts without damage, and in addition if they are put on they are often so small as to be unreadable. As a result, few wrist watches today carry any quality marks, and any quality declaration governing them is usually shown on a tag attached to the watch.
To provide informative marking on a watch itself, it is proposed in this amendment that the manufacturer be permitted to indicate on the outer side of the base metal back the quality mark of the other parts of the watch with an indication of which parts are base metal. No change is necessary where all the parts are gold plated or gold filled. This is an additional method of marking and it has the approval of the Canadian Jewellers' Association.
The second amendment is of a technical nature and results from the necessity under the existing act of applying to precious metal articles a registered trade mark or one for


which application has been made under the Unfair Competition Act. The Trade Marks Act proclaimed on July 1, 1954, repealed the Unfair Competition Act. The new Trade Marks Act provided that registrations under the Unfair Competition Act are retained as such and applications for registration still pending under the old act are to be dealt with under that act.
However, apparently there is nothing in the new Trade Marks Act to provide that the trade mark or application made under the old act, that is the Unfair Competition Act, shall be deemed to have been made under the new act, which is the Trade Marks Act. It is the view of the law officers of the crown that the Precious Metals Marking Act should be amended to refer to trade marks as having been registered and to applications for trade mark as having been made under either act. That is the sole purpose of the technical amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, while we approve of and appreciate the steps which are now being taken to have articles made from precious metals more clearly defined, and while we approve also of the second amendment which is of a technical nature, I feel that a great opportunity has been missed by the government to introduce a Canadian hallmark. For centuries British and French gold and silver articles have had placed upon them a hallmark, but Canada has never adopted this practice.
A hallmark is really nothing more than a stamp placed on an article by some legally appointed officer after a test of that particular article has been made. It is usually referred to as a hallmark. Centuries ago the manufacturers of articles made from gold and silver-gold and silversmiths-used to take these articles to the hall of the guild of the goldsmiths-Goldsmith Hall as it is called-in London. There the test was made and the "touch" was given-that is the term which was then applied-by the appointed officers, who were at first the guild of goldsmiths and afterwards the worshipful company of goldsmiths. They placed their mark attesting to the quality of the metal in the particular article.
The hallmark of Great Britain and the hallmark of France have been of unquestionable integrity for many centuries, guaranteeing the quality of the particular article. One can find, if one looks back into history-and there have been a number of excellent books written on this question- that the guild of goldsmiths was first recognized in Europe in the twelfth century, and that as far back as 1300, in the reign

of Edward I, the question of the quantity and test of gold was laid down in accordance with an old statute which defines the "touch of Paris". The "touch of Paris" laid down that gold had to have 19-J portions as applied to 4f of the alloy then used, which was an alloy of copper and silver, in order to make the gold firmer.
Following that, in 1327, the charter was given to the worshipful company of goldsmiths in London and they were given the sole right of placing the mark or touch on British gold and silver. Hence comes the description, the "hallmark", as being, as I have already said, the mark or punch which was placed on these articles when they were literally carried to the hall of the goldsmiths. In 1363 in the reign of Edward III, in addition to the mark which was given by the goldsmiths company, a mark was placed on these articles showing the maker's name. All through those centuries, right from the twelfth century, there has been this definite stamp or hallmark placed on articles made from these precious metals.
The modern hallmark consists of four ciphers. Usually each cipher is enclosed in a small shield. The first is known as the maker's mark, which really is the mark of the maker. That mark is registered at the goldsmiths company or at the local assay office. It shows the maker of that particular article. The second is the hall or assay mark which shows the town or assay office which has tested the quality of the metal used in that article. It identifies the office at which the assaying was done and fixes the person responsible for the tests guaranteeing the quality of the metal used. The third imprint is the quality mark which shows in the case of gold whether it is 22, 18 or 14 carat, or whatever it may be. It shows the quantity of gold in relation to the alloys which may have been used. In the case of silver it shows perhaps that it is sterling silver, which indicates the amount of actual silver which is used in each troy pound. Sterling silver, I believe, is 11 ounces 10 pennyweight to each pound troy. Then there is the date mark. The date marks are of a complicated nature, working in cycles and in most cases using the letters of the alphabet. These date marks are of immense value to collectors of old silver and dealers in antiques. A dealer can tell at once whether a piece of old silver is Jacobean or Georgian silver, and he can tell by looking at the hallmark the date on which the article was manufactured, where it was manufactured, the actual quality which has been used, and the name of the maker of the article can be traced.
Precious Metals Marking Act
We have in Canada no legal hallmark. When the French goldsmiths and silversmiths first came to Canada they brought with them the habit of stamping their silver. I quote from a work entitled "The Old Silver of Quebec" by Traquair:
The French silversmiths who came to Canada brought with them the habit of stamping their work with their mark. This was a personal guarantee that the silver was of standard quality, but as there was no guild or assay office in Canada, they could not obtain the warden's mint or tax marks. They either used a personal mark, or left their work unmarked.
The English silversmiths who came into the province also continued to use their personal marks, but to these they sometimes added pseudo English marks.
During the French regime, the silversmiths of Quebec used marks of French provincial types- initials surrounded by a crown or a fleur-de-lis, and sometimes with a small badge. Any piece bearing a maker's mark of this kind, with no other marks, and which is of French character, is possibly the work of a French-Canadian silversmith.
As regards the practice followed by the English silversmiths in the province of Nova Scotia, I should like to quote from the work by Harry Piers and Donald Mackay entitled "Master Goldsmiths and Silversmiths of Nova Scotia":
We must remember that there have never been in Nova Scotia any legal "hallmarks", or doubtless in Canada generally. In the British Isles there have been strict laws regarding the marking of gold and silver, which had to be of a certain degree of purity, and which had to pay duty, before it could be sold. For this purpose assay offices were therefore established in various towns; each of these offices stamped with its neatly-cut dies, what were known as "hallmarks", or "plate marks" . . .
In Nova Scotia, on the contrary, we have never had any such statutory regulations; and silversmiths, when they began to operate here, assumed the practice, but without legal authority, of themselves, stamping on their productions, certain pseudo hallmarks which intentionally (more or less), resembled those of the Old Country.
If you examine the articles which are produced by certain Canadian manufacturers today, you will find that imitation hallmarks are placed on the article sold by such well known firms as Henry Birks where they are using a system similar to the recognized system in Great Britain and are stamping their articles so that the articles sold by Henry Birks can be identified, particularly as to the year in which those articles were manufactured. I feel that it would be a great help to the legitimate dealers in articles made from precious metals, and to the goldsmiths and the silversmiths of this country, if Canada adopted an official hallmark. To look far into the future, when undoubtedly there will be collectors of old silver, it would be a great help to the collectors of old Canadian silver if they could identify the year in which the particular articles were manufactured.

Precious Metals Marking Act
In my constituency there are quite a number of dealers in antique silver and other articles of that nature. I have had representations made to me as recently as during the Easter recess-before I knew that this bill was coming before the house at all- asking that some steps be taken to get the government to give consideration to the establishment of a Canadian hallmark as it would give them or their successors in the future an opportunity of comparing the Canadian article, and of identifying the year in which it was made; that hallmark to be along the same lines as the established rules which are now recognized by every dealer and collector of old silver as far as the hallmarking of British articles and French articles is concerned.
While I do not imagine it would be possible for the government to consider an amendment at this time, I repeat that I think the government has lost an opportunity by not bringing in an official Canadian hallmark. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production that consideration be given thereto at some future time and that -preferably at the next session of parliament-a bill be introduced to establish what may be described as a Canadian hallmark showing that every article has been tested at some assay office so that the real value of that article, plus the date and manufacturer's name, can be easily established.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Article with quality mark also to have trade mark.
George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask whether consideration has been given to the introduction of a Canadian hallmark-or what difficulties there may be in the way of so doing-so that we could get a clearer definition of these articles?


John Horace Dickey: I am sure the committee appreciates the remarks made earlier by the hon. member in connection with the question of a Canadian hallmark. As he so properly pointed out, the established hallmarks of England and France are of ancient origin and have been extremely useful in the commercial world of precious metals and of ornamental and useful objects made of precious metals. Actually this particular amending bill deals with a type of article that would not really come within the purview of a hallmark. I am not able to indicate to the committee what if any consideration has been given to the question that has been raised. I know, on occasions in the past, there have been representations with respect to the


advisability or not of trying to establish a Canadian hallmark. However, I will assure the hon. member that his remarks in the debate this afternoon will be brought to the attention of the minister and the officials and that the matter will receive consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Walter Edward Harris: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 258, to amend the Municipal Grants Act.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is proposed to have this bill go to a committee. In that event there will be no opportunity to make any comments on it except when the Speaker is in the chair. As I should like to make a few comments, I suppose I should make them now.
The thing that strikes me about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it is really, as one might say, on the fringe of a substantial problem. It does not pretend to deal with the problem. Indeed, in a way this bill is a rather ridiculous affair, in my opinion, because it is cheese-paring; its effect is trivial and yet it is in the right direction. I want to make one or two comments on the bill, on the way it has been dealt with and also on the rather broader municipal problem.
As I say, it is small. The amounts involved, having regard to our total tax situation, are trivial. I think the expected addition this year is something less than $2 million, bringing up to approximately $6 million the benefits to accrue under the legislation whereas the total real estate taxes collected by our municipalities last year were some $614 million. As I say, it is trivial in the extreme. Actually one would feel that is the way it is regarded because it has

been dealt with in a rather haphazard, helter-skelter manner by the government. In the speech from the throne we read:
A joint committee of both houses will he proposed to examine, in the light of the Municipal Grants Act and possible amendments thereto, the financial and other relationships of the government and the federal district commission with the city of Ottawa and neighbouring municipalities.
In answer to a question on that point from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said on May 6 last, as found at page 3515 of Hansard:
It is now the feeling of the government that there are so many committees in operation at this time considering matters of great importance that it would not be possible at this stage of the session to have a committee on the scale originally contemplated-
Perhaps partly because of the conference that is to take place in October this bill, in the contemplation of the government, seems to have shrunken greatly in importance. To continue with what the Prime Minister said: -that the municipal grants bill now before the house might therefore be referred to the banking and commerce committee as soon as second reading has been completed; and that there might be an opportunity before the close of the session to establish the joint committee with a view to laying the foundation for a wider examination of the work of the federal district commission at the next session.
The federal district commission will have to look after itself, but whether that is satisfactory to them they are best able to indicate. In any event, it seems to me to fall in with the impression I have received that the municipal grants bill is now regarded as mighty small potatoes, as indeed it is. Indeed, the actual amount involved is so small one might almost suggest having a tag day to get the money. It has become so trivial.
The other thing I do object to is that it is a kind of hairsplitting. The government refuses to do what I think is its plain duty, namely, to pay its taxes, and relies on ancient privileges going back, I suppose, to the days of the kings and even disregards the admonition of the Winnipeg Free Press, which suggests they might abandon this privilege altogether.
Having said that as to what I regard as the trivial and rather unworthy character of the bill, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider for a moment what the dimensions of the municipal problem really are. I read now from the Globe and Mail of April 25 a report of a meeting of the Ontario municipalities represented by the association of mayors and reeves, which report has this to say:
The municipalities contend they are facing a financial crisis because they have been carrying the burden for matters they feel should be the
Municipal Grants Act
responsibility of other levels of government. The Ontario organization claims that approximately 10 per cent of expenditure by Ontario municipalities are for services that should not be their responsibility. If the municipal position were to be recognized it would relieve the communities of $33 million in costs for health and social welfare payments.
I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) were here to find out that there is actually somebody else who considers they have burdens to bear in this connection. Next I wish to read a report from the Globe and Mail of April 23 datelined Quebec and quoting a statement made by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis. It reads:
For the agenda-fixing which is expected to be the main work of next week's meeting, he indicated he will urge inclusion of two main topics. First by far is the problem of fiscal relationships between the federal and provincial governments. Second is the general problem of municipal finances, and what the Quebec government regards as the necessity of providing municipal corporations with more sources of taxation revenue.
I want to stress that. I might also refer in passing to an interesting remark made by the premier of Manitoba who suggested that the municipalities should actually be present at the October conference. I confess I see difficulties in that, but at any rate it is worth mentioning because it shows that in his mind the problem is a very important one and one in which the position of the municipalities should certainly not be disregarded. I should like to quote very briefly from the submission to the government by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities just because I think it would be worth having a short statement on the record. It reviews the principle that crown property should pay taxes and it has this to say:
. . . rigid adherence to the principle that crown property cannot be taxed had a threefold implication; 1. It meant that municipal governments had to provide services to properties from which no revenue could be extracted.
2.	It meant that the extent to which such property did not contribute to the cost of municipal services resulted in a narrowing of the base for municipal property taxation.
3.	It produced a situation wherein the municipal
taxpayers in those municipalities where there was considerable concentration of crown property and not the citizens of Canada as a whole, were required to pay the cost of municipal services rendered to such property.	[DOT]
Then there is this further word at page 21a of the report:
Consequently, the federation strongly recommends that the federal government consider, when the present qualifying formula is being revised, the provision of payment of grants in lieu of full municipal taxation on all federal crown property located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality.
I do indeed urge the government to stop this hairsplitting and to deal with this matter

Municipal Grants Act properly, although it will only be a comparatively small contribution to the larger problem. But why, when these municipalities admittedly are already in difficulty, are they to be denied what I think any fair-minded man would say was a reasonable thing, namely, the payment of their taxes? To suggest that the federal government should not pay full taxes on their properties because they confer benefits on the municipality is an argument that could be made with respect to any private enterprise in a municipality. It likes to be there, it is there for its own reasons, but nevertheless it pays its way.
As I say, when you come down to the facts, we are now dealing with $2 million which is about one two-thousandth of our total expenditure and the matter becomes very small indeed. So far as any argument about ex gratia is concerned, if the legalists want to cling to that position let them at least pay the amount they should pay in taxes if they want to go on saying that it is still ex gratia.
I want to point out in passing the extraordinary relative lowering of the position of the municipalities in the last few years by reminding the house that in 1930 the dominion had 38 per cent of all taxes raised and the municipalities 39 per cent whereas in 1948 the dominion had 67 per cent and the municipalities 12 per cent. We on this side of the house have been attempting to assist the situation. We have been saying for a long time that the conference which is now about to take place should take place, and I want to refer to one or two things in that connection. In 1952 our amendment to the speech from the throne included the following:
(d)	To conduct inquiries in consultation with the provincial governments, so that necessary information may be available for the dominion and provincial governments to consider jointly a national health insurance program;
(e)	To reach agreement with the provincial governments in regard to a clearly defined reallocation of taxing powers so that the provincial governments and municipal councils may have adequate financial resources to carry out their rapidly increasing responsibilities.
Later, although I shall not set it out in detail, we moved several times with regard to the reduction of sales and excise taxes on the municipalities, and although something was done it was not nearly enough. As I have already indicated, the municipalities are keen that that should be carried further.
I would like to say a word about the forthcoming dominion-provincial meeting. There is no question that the position of the municipalities grows increasingly serious. They are called upon to assume burdens which previously they had not assumed. As I pointed


out, their share of the taxes raised is merely a fraction of what it used to be. And so, as we approach the conference called for October, we have to hope and believe that a broad view will be taken so that the municipalities may be given a liveable position, where they can discharge their duties properly, and where they do not have to go back constantly to the higher levels of government for what are regarded by those levels of government as virtual handouts.
The provinces have assisted generously in certain cases. The richer provinces have been able to do more along this line. We know that the province of Ontario has given a great deal to the municipalities. But on the other hand there are provinces which do not find that quite so easy; and it is going to call for a very statesmanlike view to deal with this matter in October.
After all, these mayors of municipalities who meet together are responsible people. Perhaps they are much closer to government and its realities than some other people are. I do suggest they should be treated seriously, and their needs seriously dealt with.
I do not think I shall take more of the time of the house. The bill will go to committee, and we shall there deal with the clauses which are amended, and do our best to make what we can of it. But, as I said at the outset, this is only tinkering with a situation which has got far beyond the tinkering stage; and we must all look with hope and expectation to a real grappling with the problem in October.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure no one will vote against this bill. It makes a slight improvement in the formula under which grants are paid to municipalities in lieu of taxes. Even in this place we are grateful for small mercies.
When we get into committee on the bill there are some details concerning which questions will be asked. But even at this point I wish to state that we agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that this legislation is hardly a sufficient attack on the problems faced by the municipalities of this country. We all know of the excuses that are put forward as to why more consideration of the position of the municipalities cannot be given by the federal government. On some occasions it is pointed out that the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces and that, therefore, there cannot be direct dealings between the federal government and the municipalities. There is also the claim that the ancient right of the crown not to be taxed puts the federal government in a favoured position from which it can move only if it wishes to do so.

But, Mr. Speaker, surely the time has come when we should recognize the financial problem of our Canadian municipalities, both urban and rural, as a Canadian problem. Anything that is of concern to the people of this country as Canadians should be the concern of the federal government and the federal parliament. This legislation was a long time in coming, and it has taken still longer to get it improved, but I hope this legislation is an admission that here is a field which should be the proper concern of the federal government.
There are ways in which greater assistance could be rendered to the municipalities. This formula could be enlarged still further. There are other tax arrangements that could be made-for instance in the sales tax field- which could be of assistance to the municipalities.
Then, as has been pointed out many times, there is also the possibility of real assistance to the municipalities being made available by the federal government through the building of roads, highways and bridges. There is also the very important question, still unresolved, of federal aid to education. There is the further fact that real aid could be given to our municipalities and provinces under the general heading of health and welfare services.
Surely we all know-we have all said it in speeches throughout the country-that conditions in Canada have changed greatly since 1867. Our economy has changed. The whole base upon which our life is sustained today is totally different from what it was under the economic conditions of 1867; and it is no longer sensible or just to expect that the kind of services which, by the British North America Act of 1867, were made charges upon real estate taxation, can be carried by that same kind of taxation today. The problem of our municipalities is, I say, a Canadian problem that has to be faced; and I hope the government will give very serious consideration to it, and will realize that it has to go a great deal farther than is envisaged in this legislation.
It is significant that in the discussions which took place a couple of weeks ago in the railway committee room a number of those representing provincial governments dealt with this problem. In some instances municipal officials were in the delegations. I hope this means that at the federal-provincial conference this fall there will be a real examination of this important problem. After all, we should not get into the situation where the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments are treating each other as though they were
Municipal Grants Act foreign powers. Rather, these are various spheres, various media, through which we try to organize our economy and our society for the good and welfare, for the health and wellbeing, and for the best possible standard of living for all our people.
I feel we should not allow these constitutional and procedural barriers to stand in the way of progress toward something better. Let us remember the important part of our Canadian life, the important part of our economy, which comes within the bounds of our various municipalities. We welcome this slight improvement; but it only scratches the surface of a very important problem to which we feel this federal government and the provincial governments in this country should address themselves more vigorously than has yet been the case.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the proposed amendments commend themselves to the house as representing an improvement. My suggestion is that they might go farther. This problem is one aspect of a federal system. We are all familiar with it. In Canada we have three ranges of government, in fact, although only two ranges are sovereign governments. The federal government and the provincial governments are sovereign governments in their taxing powers under the British North America Act. As everyone knows, the municipalities are creatures of the provincial governments; but nevertheless they are forms of government, and very important forms of governments on the local level where they can be and are most effective, as has been recognized in this house in many pieces of legislation.
The larger problem of relationships of the federal government and the provinces is to be dealt with at a conference and I do not propose to discuss those larger problems, although they involve the municipalities very considerably because, as has been said, the municipalities now find themselves charged with greater responsibilities without corresponding means of providing the revenues with which to meet those responsibilities. It is to be hoped that this conference will take the position of the municipalities into account in whatever arrangements are made between the federal government and the provinces.
What I suggest here today, Mr. Speaker, is that one specific relationship of the dominion and the municipalities can be improved by this legislation, and that is the relationship of the dominion as a property owner in the municipalities. Let the federal

Municipal Grants Act
government accept the responsibility of property ownership as it accepts the benefits of property ownership in the municipalities of Canada. It seems to me that if it goes the full length in accepting its responsibilities, then it is meeting this problem as far as it can be dealt with as a tax problem of the municipalities. This bill does not go that far. It still gives the crown a preferred position as a property owner in the boundaries of every municipality. My suggestion is that in all fairness the crown, where it accepts the benefits of the municipal services which are made available to it, should assume the obligation of a property owner to the full extent.
I am not quarrelling with a reservation that appears in a clause of the bill which says that in assessing the value of crown property the ornamental features are not to be taken into account. I am not sure just what those ornamental features are. Perhaps we shall deal with this more fully when we get into committee. At times, one would be tempted to suggest that the assessment ought to be very substantial on crown property by reason of those ornamental features, because those features sometimes are not ornamental in the view of the citizens of the municipalities in which those properties have been built. However, that basically is I think a fair approach to this problem.
The crown as a property owner should accept the full responsibility of a property owner when it in fact accepts the benefits and privileges of ownership of property. It is a real problem for the municipality to service land which is not taxed. The Canada Year Book gives some interesting figures on the amount of exempt land that exists in the municipalities in the different provinces. It is astonishing how much land is exempt from taxation and from contribution to the services which the occupants of the land enjoy. Most of it is exempt because the exemption serves the purpose of the municipalities. It meets some of the municipal obligations with respect to education and so on to exempt schools and churches and other property from taxation. But the amount of exempt property seems to be on the increase rather than the contrary. In the province of Ontario, which I take as an example, and I quote from a table in the Canada Year Book for 1954 at page 1153, I find that from 1947 to 1951 the total assessable real property rose from $3 billion to $3,800 million, which is quite a substantial rise in four years. During the same period the assessed value of exempt property in Ontario rose from $639 million to $873 million. I cite these figures to indicate the extent of the effect on municipal finance of 
real property which does not have to pay real property taxes. In the case of Ontario, the house will see from the figures I have given that the assessed value of exempt property is 20 per cent of the assessed value of all taxable property in the province.
When one recalls that the great bulk of municipal revenue comes from real property taxes, the significance of these exemptions becomes apparent. My point simply is that the crown in the right of the dominion should not claim the exemptions which have been claimed in the past and which will still be claimed to some extent if this bill is passed.
If we take the year 1950, for which figures are available in the Canada Year Book, we shall find that the amount of taxes raised by municipalities in the whole of Canada was $574 million. That includes licences, contributions from public utilities, subsidies and other miscellaneous revenues of that kind. Of that amount the real estate tax was $400 million, which indicates the importance of real estate in municipal finance in meeting the problems of municipal government on its limited level. That $400 million on real estate may be compared with the total tax revenue of $478 million, if one excludes other revenues in the municipalities which are not properly called taxes. Taxes on real property amounted to $400 million out of $478 million in the year 1950.
The figures that I have cited for Ontario would apply to most of the other provinces of the dominion. In fact, it is a fair general statement to say that in all of the provinces of Canada the municipalities rely basically on the right to tax real property, although five of the provinces do exercise the right to tax personal property as well. They are the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. But basically, real property bears the burden of municipal services. It is real property we are concerned with in this bill, and real property only. I take it that personal property does not enter into it.
If this measure is good in the direction in which it travels, it seems to me it would be good to go the whole way and have the crown assume the full responsibility on property with respect to municipal taxation.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, as this bill is going to a committee I shall make only a few remarks on something that is not in the bill but which I think should be included. This is an old grievance which in fact goes back over the last 55 years. In order that I may finish by six o'clock I intend to read from a letter addressed to me by the city solicitor of Sydney, Nova Scotia, under date of March 24.

I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) is in his seat because this has to do with the Canadian National Railways, a crown corporation. The city solicitor has this to say:
It seems to me that there is one form of municipal taxation which should be given special attention over and above the grants in lieu of general rates and taxes, viz: frontage tax for local improvements. The city of Sydney has been trying without success to obtain payment of frontage tax for sewer, curb and gutter from the C.N.R. from 1901 to the present time. The answer has always been that this is crown property, exempt from taxation in any form.
The railway's position is probably sound from a legal point of view, but it does seem that an exception should be made in respect to municipal expenditures for local improvements which are of direct benefit to the railway and tends to enhance the use and enjoyment of its properties.
For the benefit of the house and the Minister of Transport I am going to put on the record details of expenditures that have been made:
Sewer Frontage and Curb and Gutter

Sewer frontage, Dodd st. Installed 1901 " York st.

(Louisa Gardens) "	1902		 422.00
" Frieght Shed		
(York st. Walker st.) "	1902	.... 38.95Curb and Gutter, Prince St. "	1931	.... 106.56" " " " " *	' 1931	.... 119.42Sewer frontage, Intercolonial	street	1945	
90.00Curb and Gutter, King st. "	1924	.... 204.001930	.... 217.27$2,066.20As the city solicitor points out in	his letter,
the answer received from the Canadian National Railways every time a tax bill is presented is legally correct because the act previous to these amendments and even with these amendments does not require the Canadian National Railways as a crown corporation to pay taxes of that kind.
The act is being amended and expanded and a new formula arrived at with respect to the payment of grants. I suggest to the minister who is piloting the bill, to the Minister of Transport as representing the Canadian National in the house, and to those hon. members who may be on the committee that consideration be given to a further amendment of subsections 2 and 3 of section 1 of the bill which defines crown property which would be considered in making grants under the bill. I realize that the eligibility for grants runs over into section 5.
If an ordinary citizen in a town or city decides to build a house he must automatically pay for sewers and frontage, and I think this principle should apply also to the Canadian National Railways. This is all I have to say, but I again recommend to those
Municipal Grants Act
concerned with this bill that they give consideration to including in the bill an amendment which would eliminate this grievance in connection with the Canadian National Railways, and I suppose there are many other cities and towns that could bring forward the same type of grievance. I might add that the city is not asking for interest.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate my group with the remarks which have been made by those who have spoken for the other parties. I would be glad to make more extended remarks but I realize the minister is anxious to get this bill to its next stage.
I shall say no more than to point out, as has been pointed out already, that the costs which are being brought to bear today upon municipalities are increasingly burdensome whereas the means of raising revenue to defray those costs is not increasing. This means that the municipalities simply must have more assistance from the senior governments. The provincial governments have not the financial competence to give this assistance, and consequently it means that this assistance must come from the federal treasury.
I know that the minister has so many demands being made upon him that he is at his wit's end to know what to do, but in all seriousness I suggest to him that if he cannot raise the money under the financial system under which he now operates he had better change that system. The ability of this nation to help cities and towns from Newfoundland to British Columbia and away into the Arctic must depend upon the ability of this country to produce goods and services. The capacity of this country to produce goods and services is almost limitless. Consequently for us to be talking about our municipalities being restricted and burdened with costs in an endeavour to develop facilities like schools, sewers and that sort of thing is to be fantastic in unreality.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not going to make a statement in closing the debate since he did not make one when it was opened?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not have an opportunity to make one at the opening of the debate. I would be glad to close the debate but I see it is six o'clock and we had better get the bill through. I will make my remarks if any in the committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister indicate what business we will go on with tonight?


Walter Edward Harris: We shall take the estimates of the department of northern affairs followed by the estimates of the post office and justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the house is to go into committee of supply at eight o'clock would it be agreeable if I left the chair now and have the chairman of committees take over?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: It is by leave since it is after six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
293. Departmental administration, $509,310.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: We are on item 293. Hon. members will find this item and the following ones on page 50, and the details will be found beginning on page 397 of the blue book.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should make a few very short general remarks at this point. First of all I should like to register a complaint as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned in his capacity as leader of the house, in that we had no notice yesterday of the fact that these estimates were going to be brought on this afternoon. As a matter of fact, I first heard of it at about 20 or 25 minutes past six. I know that a certain number of members of the house who were interested in bringing up certain questions with respect to this department perhaps had no notice that the estimates were to be dealt with at the present time. I think this is unfair to them. As far as I am concerned, I sat on the committee and had an opportunity to ask any question I wished, and so forth. But so far as the general membership of the house is concerned, estimates of any department should not be brought on without some prior notice. I understand that this situation arose because the legislation with which we were dealing this afternoon went through more rapidly than was expected, but I would hope that this sort of situation would not arise again-not that I am complaining about the rapiditv with which the


legislation went through. As everyone in the house knows, the committee on estimates had a considerable number of meetings dealing with the estimates of this department. There were in the neighbourhood of 11 or 12 meetings of some two hours or more duration each. During that time those of us who were on the committee had a full opportunity to ask any questions they wished. Officials of the department were there in large numbers, and perhaps larger numbers than will be the case with almost any other committee, owing to the fact that this department contains some six or more definite and distinct branches, each dealing with something which really in most cases has very little relationship to the other branches. As a result, the number of officials required to be present to answer questions was perhaps larger than would be the case with most departments.
At this point I should like to pay a tribute to the officials of the department who appeared before the committee. I believe that all of us who are on the committee were impressed with the ability of these officials, with the knowledge they displayed of their subject and with the way in which they gave their answers to the questions that were asked. Our coming into contact with these officials of this department did a good deal, as far as the members of the committee are concerned, to increase, shall I say, our confidence in the way in which the affairs of the department are being carried on by the civil servants whose duty it is to administer this department.
As I indicated previously, those of us who are on the committee had a full opportunity to ask all the questions that they had in mind and to which they wished to secure answers. Of course, the number of members on the committee is limited, and that essentially is the reason why these estimates need to be brought back into the house, so that other members who did not have that opportunity can bring up the subjects which particularly affect them and in which they are interested. Once more I regret that perhaps they have not had as much notice as they should-in fact, they have had no notice-so that they might be in a position to do that. As far as I am concerned, and perhaps also most of the other members of the committee, I have very few questions, if any, left to ask. From the point of view of the hon. members who did serve on that committee, I think that there is no question that sending the estimates to the committee will have served very greatly both to facilitate their passage in the house and to shorten the length of time it may take for discussion. Also, having dealt with these matters in the committee, it means that in most cases they

have received more thorough answers than would perhaps have been the case it we had dealt with them only in the house.
There is one other general matter about which I would like to say something. That is the general development of the north country. Perhaps all of us in Canada have been disappointed that our whole northern area-[DOT] you might say, practically the northern half of this country-which comprises the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory particularly coming within the purview of this department, but also, of course, the northern parts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and Labrador, all that large area, has developed so slowly and has received so little attention. I do not place the responsibility for that on the present minister or on anyone in particular. It has unfortunately been the case right through our history, no matter what government was in power and no matter what minister was in charge of the northern affairs of this country, that very little attention really was paid to what went on in our north country, and very few real efforts were made to open up and develop that country.
There is no question that we need to bestir ourselves to a much greater extent than has been the case in the past if we are to make any real use of the northern half of this continent for our own people and thus to provide even, shall I say, a reasonable excuse for us as Canadians to continue to hold and administer that area. With the very considerable amount of overcrowding of population which exists in so many parts of the world, it is, without any need of demonstration, an anachronism that approximately one-quarter of this continent under our control and administration should contain at the present time something in the neighbourhood of 25,000 people.
It is an area which could support quite a large population, as evidenced by similar sorts of areas in Europe and Asia, areas which lie in the same degree of latitude and in many cases have much the same type of climatic conditions and so forth. The minister may say that the eastern Arctic is an extremely inhospitable area and is not capable of development in this way, that way or the other way/ I agree that that is probably the case as far as many parts of the eastern Arctic are concerned and that the best we can hope for is certain mineral developments and its use as a reindeer pasture or something else of that sort for the providing of meat. But the western Arctic is a very different proposition. There are possibilities for forestry and mining and-I do not think that there is any doubt about it-for oil development, agricultural development and
Supply-Northern Affairs so on in the western Arctic. In order to make that development possible, the essential thing-and I found there was no disagreement on this in the committee-is the provision of better methods of transportation.
In other words, before the country can be opened up, or before it can develop in any way to any great extent, we must have roads up into that country. In the committee I was disappointed to find that the amount of road building which is projected this year is almost negligible. It seems to me that this department should be taking a much more imaginative view of the possibilities of this north country, without counting particularly the cost of putting in a certain number of miles of road-whether it is 5 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles or 100 miles-at the present time and saying, "That is not going to pay for itself in the next year or two", and so forth. I think we must take a much longer term view than that and must begin to provide transportation facilities on a much broader scale than that on which they have been provided so far.
When the estimates of this department come down next year, instead of there being really nothing in the estimates to provide for road construction, except the provision for certain bridges to be built, I would hope that, considering the total amount of the budget we would have a reasonable provision for the building of roads in that area.


Mr. McLeod:: Like the hon. member who has just spoken, Mr. Chairman, I also had the privilege of serving on the committee on estimates and I should like to make a few general remarks at this time. When the affairs of this department were before the committee on estimates, I believe the consensus was that the minister was tackling the many problems of the Canadian north with conviction and courage, and we look for better things in the years to come.
In the committee there was an expressed feeling that sufficient emphasis was not being placed on northern development. We are all aware of the great potential wealth that is dormant in this part of our great country. There are huge resources in minerals, petroleum products and forest products. It has been shown quite conclusively to this committee that heavy expenditures will be necessary to develop access roads to the centres of raw materials and to provide railroads to solve the very acute problem of transportation. It is an economic question on which there is argument on both sides. There are those who say that it would be unwise to make the necessary heavy expenditures while more settled parts of Canada are crying for these same services. On the other hand,

Supply-Northern Affairs there are those who say that if we do not develop our great north, there are others who may take a more active role and beat us to it. As I say, this is just a matter of opinion and there is great argument on both sides. It is gratifying to know, however, that the minister is paying more attention to the north, that heavy outlays for survey and study are being made and that definite action will follow this planning.
The department, in co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, is doing a vastly improved job in looking after the Indian and the Eskimo population. This is a great humane problem, and the sensible program to adopt, it seems to me, would be one that would provide facilities to make these people self-supporting. This seems to be the general plan that is being followed.
Efforts are also being made to improve the living conditions of all our people who, by necessity or by choice, live beyond our provincial territories. As proof of this statement, may I say that the federal government makes an annual average expenditure of approximately $1,500 per head of population for our northern Canadians whereas the over-all average expenditure in Canada is about $300.
I should like to say a few words about national parks. We have the Revelstoke and Glacier parks in the part of British Columbia that I represent and I am glad to see that a small expenditure-and it is a very small one-is being made this year. In comparison with the amount provided for other parks across Canada, we are certainly not being treated overgenerously. A larger program should be inaugurated to make these parks of more use to the citizens of the interior of British Columbia and to Canada generally.
I should like to suggest to the minister that the possibility of providing a road-even if it is open only in the summer months-into Glacier park might be studied more carefully. I would also suggest that the two parks could be united into one larger national park. Failing this, a road connecting the Revelstoke and Glacier parks and going on to Golden should be carefully studied. I am sure the government of British Columbia would be interested in this matter. Such a road I believe would be one of the most scenic in Canada, would prove to be a tourist attraction of great interest, and would be of great value to the Revelstoke and Okanagan areas.
I am glad to note that the question of federal-provincial co-operation in conservation and development of natural resources is being carefully studied and that this matter

will be discussed at greater length in a conference that is to be held later on this year. I hope this problem will be openly and carefully canvassed so that a program in the best interests of the provinces and of the people of Canada will be laid down for future guidance.
I could say something about the engineering and water resources branch of this department. However, in view of the problem that is being studied in another committee in this house at the present time, I think we shall leave until a later occasion any remarks on this subject.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would make the same plea that I have made on many occasions in this chamber, namely that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the provinces work together harmoniously for the good of all.


Mr. Thatcher:: I have only one or two comments to make on these particular estimates. I contend tonight, as I contended in the estimates committee, that Canada's northern development is lagging far behind that of other Arctic countries including Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. According to the evidence which we were given in the estimates committee, and as emphasized by the hon. member for Calgary North tonight, the whole population of the Northwest Territories today is between 25,000 and 26,000 people. I think that number includes 7,000 Eskimos and about 4,000 Indians. In other words, since 1945 our population has increased very little, despite the expenditures of fairly substantial sums of money.
I think this parliament should realize that today in the north Canada has a real population vacuum. I am told that in Russia there are 50 cities each with a population of 50,000 or more. Whether the minister wants to admit it or not, I think it is fair to say that Russia and the Scandinavian countries are doing a much better job of opening up their north then we are doing. What is the reason for this lack of progress? As I see it the reason is fairly apparent. Both the Scandinavian countries and Russia are consciously and deliberately opening up their north on a planned basis. In Canada we are remaining virtually indifferent to our Arctic areas. This government's policy towards the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is a kind of "laissez-faire" policy, a "leave alone" policy. I think it lacks aggressiveness and imagination.
Let us look for a moment at the money we are proposing to spend on the north, as indicated by these estimates. According to

the estimates we are proposing to spend $7 million on northern development. That amount is about -16 per cent of our total budget. I contend that such a small amount is completely inadequate. I say it compares most unfavourably with what is being spent by other Arctic countries. I have a clipping in my hand from a recent issue of Time magazine which I quoted in the committee on estimates. I should like to read it to the house. It has to do with what Norway spent on her northern areas in the last year, and reads:
Norway, with less than a quarter of Canada's population, is now spending $40 million on the economic development of the Norwegian Arctic.
In other words, Canada, a far richer country than Norway and with an Arctic of far richer possibilities, is today spending on northern development less than one-fifth of the amount Norway is spending.
In my opinion one of the major weaknesses of the department is that it has no colonization policy. It has no particular plan to get settlers to move into northern Canada. Whether or not we want to admit it, social conditions on our frontiers are still very primitive. In most cases it is a case of the lone settler struggling against raw nature. I say these conditions are not good enough. The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned a highway program. I think it is shocking that in the whole Northwest Territories, Canada has only 130 miles of highway. Moreover I am told that many of these miles of highway are in poor shape. Apart from the Alaska highway, we only have 400 miles of highway in the Yukon. Surely it is time we started to open up that country.
As I said a moment ago, the Scandinavian countries and Russia have an over-all plan. They are opening up the northern parts of their countries on a planned basis. When they proceed to open up new areas they send in bulldozers first to clear the land. Then they send in carpenters to build houses, schools, theatres, stores and the like. Finally they move in the people. The minister said in the estimates committee that much of the Russian development is done by forced labour. I am quite prepared to admit that to a degree his statement may be true, but it is obviously not entirely correct. I do not think parliament should allow the Russian bogey to affect us to such an extent that we are not willing to learn from the progress they have made.
I think Dr. Stefansson is one of the best known explorers of the world's Arctic areas
Supply-Northern Affairs today. Not long ago he addressed the Canadian Club in Toronto and, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail, he had this to say:
. . . there is no real reason why large communities cannot be developed in Canada's north which are either fully self-sufficient or better integrated into the national economy. Dr. Stefansson, who has spent more than ten years of his life within the Polar circle, said it was a fallacy to suppose that agriculture, cattle and manufacture, could not be undertaken in the far north, though these activities might vary from the accustomed practices. Just this very sort of colonization has been successfully accomplished in the Soviet union . . .
I suggest that we are living in dangerous times. If we do not do something to colonize our north then, as has already been suggested, someone else may come along and do it for us. For purely defensive reasons we should be doing more to get people to go north. Because if Russia or any other country should suddenly decide to attack us from the north, they would go through those territories like a hot knife through butter. I say the time has come for the government to decide to spend more money on northern development, and to adopt a plan for colonizing the north. The time is rapidly approaching when some action must be taken.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I want to say a few words on the first item because in considering the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources I believe we are dealing with one of the most important departments in the whole gamut of government operations. It was my privilege to be a member of the estimates committee, and for the first time I had the opportunity of really becoming familiar with the possibilities of Canada's north that have been referred to by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. But in addition to northern affairs the other items we have before us tonight are, in my opinion, of equal importance because under this department we consider lands, water resources and forests. That just about covers everything of significance so far as our natural resources are concerned.
Then we also have to consider the national parks branch, under which come tourist activities which, as most hon. members know, are one of the largest sources of United States dollars. From that standpoint alone it is of tremendous commercial importance. As I said in the committee, I was inclined to agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that Canada has been somewhat deficient up to the present moment in developing its remote northern regions, particularly in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. I was astounded to discover, for example, that actually there has been an over-all population decline since 1901. In

Supply-Northern A fairs 1901 the total population of the districts of Mackenzie, Keewatin and Franklin, including Eskimo, Indian and white, was 20,129 whereas in 1951 the number had been reduced to 16,004.
The same pattern is evident in the Yukon Territory where in 1901 the population was 27,219 and in 1951 9,096. I was glad to learn from the discussions in the committee that since 1951 there has been an upward trend. That is a hopeful and encouraging sign for the future. Like the hon. member for Calgary North, I was also impressed by the enthusiasm and grasp of affairs displayed by the officials of the department who appeared before the committee. I say this particularly with reference to the deputy minister, who is a comparatively young man. He particularly seems to have an eye to the future so far as the potentials of the north are concerned. Recently he has been making statements in optimistic terms with reference to northern development. One occasion was on March 15, 1955, when he addressed the forest products research society. He foresaw a development of the north not unlike the development of western Canada and said that climate was not likely to be any obstacle. The deputy minister went on to point out that the five-month average temperature from November to March was more than two degrees warmer in Whitehorse, Yukon, than it was in Winnipeg. Those are encouraging words. I had my first opportunity last fall to have a brief glimpse at the community of Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory. I am sorry the hon. member for that district was not in the vicinity at the time because I had looked forward to seeing the area more extensively. However, I can say from firsthand experience on the occasion of my visit that certainly there should be tremendous development in the immediate future. With reference to the deputy minister's statement concerning development of the western prairies the northern territories are not the only regions in Canada that have been very slow in developing. I would suggest that before we can see the results suggested by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre we will first have to fill up the wide open spaces in the midcontinental region of the prairies. I feel certain that before we can leapfrog into the Arctic regions we first have to meet the needs for industrial development and population growth in our three prairie provinces.
It is true that Russia and other European countries have moved ahead very quickly in exploiting the possibilities of their northern regions; but we must remember that, in the first instance, their population resources are much greater than ours and that, too, there
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

are certain climatic differences in that to some extent they are subject to the influence of the gulf stream and are able to approach the development of that area from the ocean rather than from the land area. On the other hand, in our northern region we are pretty well faced with a solid, frozen mass, so far as the ocean area is concerned. I suppose that is what accounts for the comparative coldness of climate in the city of Winnipeg, largely as a result of the indentation of Hudson bay deep into the interior of the Canadian section of the North American continent.
Returning to this problem of the development of the prairie region, in terms of land, forest and water resources, I should like to deal briefly with the continuing necessity for conservation and a co-ordinated and organized program in respect of the conservation of these basic resources to which I have referred. We had a discussion on this subject on February 16, I believe it was. Unfortunately that discussion took place on a Wednesday, which is a half-day in the House of Commons, and we were not able to carry it very far. I believe it is fundamentally important that we take immediate action to have a co-ordinated and organized conservation program that would embrace these three important resources which come under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
We are forcibly reminded of the need for handling the water resources problem by the periodic floods that take place each year on the prairies. During recent days we have been hearing again of flood conditions in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The water control problem has two sides to it. At certain stages in the water cycle we have drought, while at other periods in the cycle we are faced with surplus supplies of water. The two measures that have emerged in solving this problem have come as a result of one crisis or another, either a drought crisis or a flood crisis.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which does not come under the supervision of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources-and I must say there seems to be some confusion as to the respective responsibilities of that department and the Department of Agriculture in this connection -was organized to deal with a condition of drought. On the other hand, during periods of flooding we have certain dam developments to meet critical emergency situations.
I suggest that if we are going to deal with the problem of the control of our water resources we will have to do so, not on an emergency basis, but under a long-term plan,

with some over-all national co-ordination. During the discussion last February the usual difficulties connected with jurisdictional responsibility were raised. I am referring to the respective responsibilities of provincial and federal authorities. This seems to suggest that a topic of this kind might well be included in any dominion-provincial conference, such as is contemplated in the immediate future.
Moving to another aspect of this over-all conservation program, we are faced with the necessity of doing something about our forests. The preservation of our forests is basic in any over-all program of conservation. Actually, the history of Canada has been staged against a forest background. Certain progress has been made in connection with programs of reforestation; but, again, these have been on an unco-ordinated and individualistic basis.
I was interested in listening to a radio discussion the other night to note the emphasis placed in certain European countries upon the importance of wood stands in agricultural areas. In fact there are some farms, in countries like Sweden, which are actually forest farms; and in considering the sale value of such farms the wood stands hold a dominant position. Here in Canada, particularly in the western section, we place very little value on our wood stands. In fact the few wood stands we have in the prairie region to a great extent have been the result of man's activity, as he has attempted to deal with the problems of soil erosion and soil blowing that have occurred during the periodic water cycles of drought and flooding conditions.
I suggest the department might well provide leadership by means of educational programs and through the use of the various facilities in the department to encourage an individual approach to the problem of maintaining and preserving our forest reserves. Unless we do maintain a proper balance there can be no hope that we can meet successfully the continuing problem of soil erosion and the loss of our valuable land resources.
I should like to place one or two statistics on record in connection with this problem of the preservation of land resources. Up to the year 1941 western Canada had abandoned 4 million of its arable farm acres as a result of recurring drought. Then, between 1921 and 1940, 267,938 acres of land in Manitoba alone went out of cultivation, largely as a result of soil erosion. This came about as a result of drought, as I have indicated, and it also came about as a result of periodic flooding, because with the periodic recurrence of flooding there is a tendency
Supply-Northern Affairs to destroy the fertility of the soil; a reduction in the organic matter of the soil occurs and when the organic matter in the soil is reduced, then the workshop for the billions of bacteria, which in turn manufacture the elements essential to plant life, disappear.
In other older parts of the world we are made vividly aware of this problem, because of the desiccation of those lands. In some areas the desiccation has advanced to the extent of producing man-made deserts. We, even though we are blessed with limitless natural resources, cannot guarantee that that happy state of affairs will continue unless we take immediate action to have some national planning in regard to this problem.
To wind up this brief discussion, I should like to emphasize that in regard to northern affairs and national resources we must take a long-term view. We cannot overcome the deficiencies of the past in the north in the matter of a brief decade or even two decades. I was impressed with the attitude of the minister and his departmental officials as we considered those problems in committee, but these attitudes must now be carried into action. I should like to suggest once again that the land resources, the forest resources, the water resources, belong to the past; they belong to the present; they belong to future generations yet unborn, and we today have a responsibility as custodians of these God-given opportunities.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I was very happy to hear hon. members of the opposition speak as they did. They are still true to form, especially the hon. member for Calgary North. They all commended the young minister and his officials on the splendid job they are doing. It is music to hear the minister commended. It is not music when they are asking something else from the minister. I said they were true to form. The department was doing a good job but was not spending enough money in opening up roads, in increasing transportation, in making it possible for the natural resources of the whole north country to be developed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Leaving too many unemployed.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Then I thought of the thousands of acres in Ontario where the climate is fine and the soil is productive, and yet we have not a large enough population to develop it. I have a good reason to be interested in the cold north country for my boy was up there for about four months flying. Was he not glad to get back to civilization and to a place where he could freeze without seeing his breath all the time?
3718	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
I could go on along this line for some time. It just shows how big Canada is from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the north to the south. In the next 20 years, if you and I look that far ahead, we shall see great developments, and if the opposition continues to advise the young minister and his department in the way that they have tonight I am sure it will be a splendid stimulant. It will be something like what was said of the Minister of Finance. It will be a shot in the arm.
What I rose to say, Mr. Chairman, was that we want the minister or some of his officials, when they are passing through Fort William next summer, to visit mount McKay. We think it should be a national park. I have tried to get it as a national park but I have just been beating the wind.


William Earl Rowe: That is what you have been doing most of your life.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The dominion tells me that the province must purchase mount McKay and then hand it over to the dominion government if they want it as a national park. So, between the two, I just fall to the ground. Mount McKay is one of the finest sights in Canada. I have travelled all across the country and I have seen some great scenery, but I have never seen men and women so awestruck as when they drive up to the top of mount McKay, pass a little bluff and then see that great panorama, that beautiful scenery. It just holds them spell-bound and they cannot get their breath for a minute. It is the greatest scenery in the world.
As I have said before, we have our water system away up there. You common people get your water from down below; we get our water from up above, 800 feet above the level of the city. We have the finest ski jump in Canada, the finest runs for slalom. We put on skiing championships that are second to none in Canada.
I tell the minister that it would bring money to Canada if we developed that area as a national park. Thank you for listening to me.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up much of the time of the committee on this matter, but I should like to bring to the attention of the minister an island in the middle of lake Erie. I did this last year. This island has a lot of snakes and a lot of pine trees on it. I gave a long history of this island last year and I do not intend to repeat it tonight. We are always accused of being repetitious in the house and I shall try to avoid that. However, as I said before, this island is called Long Point island. It consists of approximately 19,000 acres and is 

situated in the middle of lake Erie and stretches out from the Canadian shore.
At present, this island is owned by a corporation which is composed mostly of stockholders in the United States of America. The corporation operates a clubhouse on the island which the members visit very occasionally, usually in the duck-shooting season of the fall, and they employ a force of gamekeepers to act as a sort of private police to keep people off the island.
When the island was purchased around the year 1866, there was very little population in the southern part of Ontario, and it did not make much difference at that time. There has been a great increase in population in southern Ontario, and it is increasing at such a rate at the present time that summer resort spots are at a premium. People have to travel many miles over the week ends and this causes traffic deaths and traffic jams to get some place where they can enjoy the beauty and other advantages of our Canadian climate in the summertime. This island is readily accessible to the main centres of population in southwestern Ontario, such as Hamilton, London, Brantford, Galt, Kitchener, Woodstock, Tillsonburg, Stratford, and many other places. It is not more than an hour and a half's drive from any one of them.
If this island were to be made into a national park I am sure the summer resort problem would be overcome in that area. Wildlife, which has remained on the island in a virgin state, would be protected. There are trees and shrubs of various kinds and native plants on this island that are not found any place else. They are still in their native state. There are eagles on the island.
I mentioned previously that there are more snakes there than are found any place else in the world. There is also as well some of the best bass fishing and duck shooting to be found anywhere in North America. The bass are being greatly depleted every year. In fact, the catch is getting less and the size is getting smaller. If this island were taken over as a national park it would give an opportunity to the people of the country to enjoy these things in the future. Control could be exercised over the take of fish and the number of birds taken every fall.
I mentioned before, but perhaps it is not clear enough, that if this island is taken over as a national park the rights of the Long Point Company need not be completely taken away. They have looked after this valuable piece of property for nearly 100 years and in many ways have done quite well, but I suggest that a handful of people do not need 19,000 acres of land such as this right in the heart of the most thickly populated part of

Canada in order to go duck shooting. They could do very well with 1,000 or even 2,000 acres; they certainly do not need 19,000 acres.
There are one or two other clubs which have been there for many years and I think they might well be left alone also.
The government should consider the acquisition of this land as a national park. I know the minister is going to ask "Why the federal government?" He is going to ask why the department of northern affairs should be concerned in this matter. There are other parks operated by the federal government on lake Erie and on some of the other great lakes. As I have mentioned before, this island is about 20 miles long by about a mile or 2 miles wide and it stretches out toward the international boundary from the Canadian shore. The Department of Transport operates a lighthouse and lifesaving station at the end of the island, and I rather hope that in the not too distant future we will have a coastguard station there. Nothing of that nature exists at the moment but we can always hope.
I know perfectly well that the province of Ontario would have to acquire the land in the first place and then turn it over to the federal government, but there is no reason why the minister should not enter into negotiations with the provincial government with a view to making an agreement to acquire this land.
There is one thing that has come up which I think is worthy of note since I made my remarks in the house last year on this subject. I have mentioned that there are a great many resources on the island. There is a fine stand of timber and there are many native plants. It is true that the proprietors of this island employ private gamekeepers, but they are not able to look after fire protection.
Last summer part of the island was swept by fire which apparently had been set by some people who had landed by boat. The gamekeepers were unable to control the fire and a large part of the end of the island was burned over. Native stands of timber and other material were destroyed.
As the population increases in this part of the country more and more people will find their way to this island. If there is no fire protection what happened this summer may happen again and before we know it these valuable resources will be destroyed. We should take action before it is too late.
I do not think there is anything else I want to say at this time. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will give the matter favourable consideration.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, in the
interests of economy I am not going to invite the minister to create a national park in any part of the riding which I represent. We have one or two prospective apartment house sites and if the minister could see his way clear to take them over it would probably settle a problem which is bothering the city council. There are so many beautiful places outside of Toronto that if the minister were to be given a free rein as he travels about the country there would be so much of it nationalized that there would be little left for the rest of us.
We do appreciate that this department deals with some very beautiful resources in the form of scenery, some most interesting resources in the form of historic monuments and sites, and it also has the tourist bureau which helps to bring people to enjoy all these resources. I have two or three brief comments to make and I do not think I will have much to say on these specific items.
As was pointed out in the committee, the tourist balance sheet is rather unfavourable. I am not saying that that is due to any lack of effort on the part of the tourist bureau, because I feel that Mr. Dolan and his staff are doing a good job; but the fact is that Canadians spent $380 million last year in the United States while Americans spent only $300 million in Canada, which leaves us with a debit balance of $80 million, a not inconsiderable item in a balance sheet. There is a lot of work to occupy the department in extending tourist activities and encouraging travel throughout our national parks and perhaps into our northland. It strikes me that there are many people in this crowded world who would enjoy the northland as a vacation ground in the future and perhaps they have not been invited to do that in the past.
A word as to highways. On a visit which I made to Yellowknife I found that they have only 18 miles of highway, but I was astonished to find that with their small population of some 3,000-I am not sure of the exact number-they have 38 taxicabs. There is no point in having any more highways because there is no place to go, but the 18 miles do serve that community well. It gives an opportunity to travel by taxi throughout the length and breadth of that famous gold mining camp.
I should like to say a word about the hydrometric services and flood warning activities of the department. It seems to me that there is much to be done in co-ordinating these activities with the meteorological services in order to give proper warning against such flood conditions as can be foretold. If the amount of rainfall were measured

Supply-Northern Affairs accurately I am sure that much loss of life could be prevented, and in this connection I would refer particularly to the flood which occurred in the Humber river valley.


Mr. Lesage:: Could I ask the co-operation of the hon. member to discuss this matter when the officers of the water resources branch are here.


Daniel Roland Michener: I shall be glad to do that. I concur in what the hon. member for Calgary North has said. In the committee we were given an opportunity to find out about the work of this department and we received the greatest co-operation from the officials who were called there to give an account of their administration. I think the hon. member for Fort William went a little beyond what was implied in the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North. I am sure that the minister does not expect loud praises from this side of the house, and I am confining my remarks to the officials of the department.
In the committee we were able to review thoroughly the work of this department and therefore it should be possible to approve the estimates in a very short time. We were not satisfied on every point. For example, some of us were concerned that a house for a superintendent should cost $32,000 when it did not seem to be any more substantial than a house costing $18,000 here, but by and large we did get our information and that is what the committee was for.


Mr. Kosking:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the minister to the necessity of a park near the largest city in Ontario, possibly the most important city in Canada. No doubt when the St. Lawrence seaway is completed the city of Toronto will be one of the major cities on the great lakes. We have at the present time the best opportunity for placing one of the best parks close to one of the large metropolitan centres that we will ever have. I would ask the minister to see the Minister of National Defence and arrange in some manner or other that the rifle ranges which are situated on the lake shore road running from Hamilton to Toronto be converted into a park. If that vast expanse of unbuilt-up land ever becomes industrialized we will have lost the last opportunity of putting close to the city of Toronto a park that that huge metropolis should have. It would be the only place where there is a beach on Lake Ontario. There are hundreds of acres there which are going to be abandoned, we hope, by the Department of National Defence in the next year. Before anything happens to that land, I would ask 

the minister to get in touch with the Minister of National Defence to see what could be done to salvage a most valuable piece of land and turn it into a park which would be appreciated by the thousands and thousands of people who live in both Toronto and Hamilton.
As long as Canada is a country, if this is done, this project will be appreciated more than almost anything we could do and certainly by more people. I would call that to the attention of the minister and ask him to use his usual forcefulness to see that this piece of ground is saved before it is built over and lost to the people for all time.
There is another matter which I should like to call to the minister's attention. I suggest that he find out whether something cannot be done to speed up some of the projects that we carry out in conjunction with the province. I should like to speak for a moment on the subject of the Conestogo dam.


Jean Lesage: Could I ask the co-operation of the hon. member? Would he defer his remarks on this subject until the officials from the water resources branch are with me? Hon. members will realize that there are so many details in the department that I cannot possibly know what point we have reached on such and such a work unless I have the proper officials of the branch here.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I shall be delighted to
acquiesce in the minister's request, and I certainly hope that he will acquiesce in my previous request as willingly.


Jean Lesage: I shall look into it very carefully.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear an hon. member from outside the metropolitan Toronto area express such interest in our welfare.


Henry Alfred Hosking: In the national welfare.


John Borden Hamilton: I am not sure whether it comes from the heart or whether it might have some connection with an election that is in the offing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We are not all political.


John Borden Hamilton: In any case it is unusual that we have two hon. members from Toronto speaking tonight about areas in the far north. I too have had the opportunity over the last five years to visit the Northwest Territories a few times a year, and last summer I got as far as my hon. friend's riding in Yukon. I honestly believe that, before we can see the development of this country on the scale to which it is destined, it probably

will be necessary for all of us to see those far-flung areas. Only in that way can we realize the great potential that lies before us in this country's development. No matter what any other speaker has said tonight, the true development of the north can take place only with a sincere and real attempt to provide adequate transportation for those areas. In these remarks I am echoing the words of the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie), whose long experience in transportation matters in that area has led him to make the same type of statement. When we talk about transportation in that area we must talk about air transportation, because, no matter where you go in those areas, the prices of the products which you buy are determined to a great extent by the cost which is tied up in the air transportation charges for getting the products there. In addition, of course, it is not going to be possible to induce the necessary population to go to that area unless there is easy access in and out.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) mentioned his son's anxiety to return to civilization. I would probably frown on that remark in so far as it describes conditions. I think that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) was closer to the mark when he described some of the realities of Yellowknife and the fact that taxicabs are as numerous there as they are in the most populated cities in the southern areas. But at the same time we must recognize that, even in connection with population, it is necessary to see that easy movement of personnel is possible into and out of the northern areas.
How are we going to accomplish this? There are those who will say that it is probably necessary to subsidize some type of air transportation system. Frankly, I think we have waited so long that that period is now past and that the air operators of this country are in a position without help to provide the transportation which is required. I do not want to spend too much time on this particular phase of my remarks, because I hope to have a great deal more to say about this when we get to another department with which it is more vitally connected. But it seems to me that it is necessary for the government to provide at least a lead to the private air operators so that we will go ahead with the development which should take place. In other words, I do not think that transportation should lag behind; it should be in the forefront; and it is absolutely necessary that it should exist in order that proper development may take place. In connection with the policy which might be pursued, I should like to read a paragraph from "Civil Air Policy'' as enunciated in the United States 50433-235
Supply-Northern Affairs in a report by the air co-ordinating committee by direction of the President. Here are the words which are used in that report:
In determining policies appropriate to air transportation, it must be kept in mind that this is an industry affected with a public interest. The responsibility of the government, however, is not to carve out some predetermined role for air transportation and then attempt to force the industry into such development. Rather, the government must provide a general background of sound regulatory and promotional policies within which the industry itself will have the greatest possible opportunity for finding its own proper mission in competition with all other forms of transportation.
What has been the policy of our own government in this connection? It has carved out the fields and has told people more or less just what they will do with them. It is not possible to provide the expanding services on the basis of a policy which provides some type of monopoly east and west for a government-owned system and which has all aspects of the same type of monopolistic system north and south for one large operator. We should expect more than that. In reference to what we might expect, I should like to quote from an address by the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, then minister of transport, on November 10, 1952, to the Air Industries and Transport Association, in which he said this:
. . . with the substantial growth of traffic within Canada it is no longer necessary to insist on monopoly conditions with regard to regional scheduled services and government policy will not forbid the gradual development on a regional basis of a reasonable amount of competition between scheduled air services. Any such development must be based upon findings of public convenience and necessity as required by the Aeronautics Act and any changes made by the air transport board in this direction will be very gradual and related to maintenance of conditions which will establish a sound economic position for the operators while ensuring the services that the public require.
Yet since that date there has been no indication that any other policy is being pursued in connection with transportation in the north than a straight monopolistic policy.
There is now an opportunity that is being given to the north, and I hope that hon. members of the House of Commons will continually remind the government of it and will make sure that the north will have both the benefit and the advantage from it. In connection with the construction of the distant early warning line we are now engaged in probably the largest mass type of air transportation that has taken place anywhere in the world. It has involved the use of every available transport aircraft in Canada. It has involved the use of aircraft imported from other countries and it is involving the use of the aircraft of the air forces of both


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, here is a third Toronto member making an excursion into the north, as far north as Fort William, anyway.


Jean Lesage: That is not very far.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have had an interesting speech tonight from the hon. member for Fort William. The hon. member for Fort William might fairly claim-and I doubt that there would be many competitors-that he has administered more genuine adulation to members of the government than has anyone else in the short time I have been in the House of Commons. The hon. member not only praises ministers, but he praises anyone who looks like a minister, anyone who looks as though he might become a minister, anyone who has been a minister or anyone who is related to a minister. Tonight, however, I think he almost outdid himself.
In so far as the requirements of his calling would permit, he launched out into a criticism of us here in the opposition. The criticism was interesting. As far as I can make out, what he was criticizing us for is that we had ventured to suggest that rough people-people who could take it-should go north and live there. He described his own son-to whom I hope he did an injustice; I am sure he did so-as having gone to the north and come back, not able to take it but wanting to be snug in Fort William.
That raises an extremely serious question about the minister himself. I am sure he will not mind my being personal. I was interested in an article on the north last summer which depicted the minister. I regret to say that, not following the advice of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, the minister did not have a beard; he did not wear a hunting shirt; he did not have a knife stuck in his belt; and he did not have leggings. Indeed, he was just a dapper city slicker.
That is all very well. I must say that the writer of the article praised the minister for

being up in the north country, as I do. But I think that if he could only adopt the costume that I have suggested and the tonsorial arrangements which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has suggested, he would be even more convincing to those of us who follow with interest his excursions to the north.
I now want to say a word or two about a discussion which I find in the minutes of the estimates committee. I was one of the people who were accused of not being too enthusiastic about the estimates committee, but I find here an extremely interesting discussion and I wish to quote from it. It is to be found at page 438 and one of the new independent members who is not here at the moment was cross-examining the minister in a way which made me feel that he perhaps was fairly independent still. That was something that was very nice to think. As reported at page 438, we find this discussion:


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes. Mr. Minister, can you tell me roughly what the population in the Northwest Territories was at the end of the war and roughly what it is today? . . .


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: As to the population of the north, there are about 16,000 in the Northwest Territories and about 10,000 in the Yukon.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Then, what plans has the government got to encourage northern settlement? Obviously it is not having much success in getting people to go up there. Have you got any definite plan?
The answer of the minister is one that I find to be extremely interesting, and there are one or two more like it.


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: People will go up there when there are jobs and opportunities available.
To me that seems to be like saying that you will go in the water when you can swim; or it seems to be like saying that the hen comes before the egg or the egg comes before the hen, I am never quite sure which, but you never get anywhere. I read on:


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But in Russia and these other places they are making jobs available.


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: They are making jobs available mainly for forced labour.
That strikes me as a very interesting comment. I submit to the minister in all friendliness that that is a defeatist argument. Surely we would not like to admit that in a free country, where I am sure there are any number of people with the same kind of adventurous spirit they showed in other circumstances 12 or 15 years ago, these things cannot be done. It is not possible for me to believe that these things which are being done in Russia under forced conditions or under slavery conditions, cannot be done here if the conditions are made right. I read

on, and this is the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre again; I am all in favour of this independent member. I think he is very good so far:


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, Mr. Minister, is there any fixed policy which the government has to bring people to the north or try and get it settled?


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: It is not a definite policy necessarily to bring people to the north, but it is a general policy ol encouraging economic development in the north which will bring up people.
Also, which is very important, it is a policy of using manpower possibilities that we have already in the north. I am thinking especially of the natives at the present time.
The minister nods his head, and I understand why. In a way, that is an unexceptionable statement, but on the other hand, when I go back to what the minister says about Russia, namely that we in Canada can do this thing when we force people to do it, it seems to me that there is a great contradiction between that and what he says later. First of all, he suggests that the reason we have not been able to get people to go there is that you have got to force them into it-


Jean Lesage: What is that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With regard to the
minister's remarks about Russia, I say that a fair implication of that first answer that I read is that we do not get people to go to the north because, in order to get them to go to the north, you have got to force them to go.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am drawing my inference.


Jean Lesage: It is yours, and you can keep it. I do not agree with it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister can argue against it if he wishes to do so. I am just saying that, in answer to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre when he speaks about people going north as in Russia, the minister says "They are making jobs available mainly for forced labour". Now I come back to the second point. This is to be found at page 439:


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, would it, Mr. Minister, be fair to describe the policy of the government at the moment as a kind of laissez-faire policy?


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: It is definitely not a laissez-faire policy, it is an active and vigorous policy of bringing education to the north, and doing everything possible to reduce freight rates in order that the cost of living will be brought down and in order that further economic development may be stimulated by various measures.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Minister, there is no policy for colonizing the north at the moment?


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: Well, if colonization means settling people on farms, there is no possibility of colonizing except in the Mackenzie valley . . .
Supply-Northern Affairs
I am not going to read all that. I continue, later:


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But we have a population vacuum in the north; are you doing anything to try and rectify it?
I am not going to detain the committee while I read at length. The minister makes answers which he will defend and which I think I understand, but I do suggest that as one reads this one comes away with the feeling that there is a great negation, and all the more because later on at page 440 the minister becomes rather mysterious and indicates there are certain things "cooking". That is my word, not his. I will read one sentence in the middle of the page. The minister is being questioned by the member for Calgary North. The passage reads:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, in that case then you have no definite plans or even proposals at the present time for a railway from Grimshaw up into that northern area?


Hon.   Mr. Lesage@: No, it depends on quite a number of factors which are being discussed at the present time.
I am not going to pursue that now. 1 was interested in that conversation. We are on the first item, and I take it we will have a chance to ask further questions when we come to the relevant item. Am I correct, or is this the relevant item?


Jean Lesage: The relevant item would be item No. 312. That is where the development of the north was discussed at length in the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What item are we on now?


Jean Lesage: The first item of the department. We are on departmental administration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What number?


Jean Lesage: The one I suggest is the first item under northern administration. In the meantime the hon. member will find a full statement of our policy respecting northland development and dealing with the problems of the north at page 535 and following of the report of the proceedings of the committee. At that time in the committee we were dealing with northern administration. The discussion the hon. member just referred to, from which he quoted a few extracts, was a discussion on the first item of the department. As a matter of fact, a full discussion of northland development took place when we reached northern administration, and it is reported on page 535 and the following pages of the proceedings of the committee.
While I am on my feet, I wish to thank all hon. members who have spoken for their suggestions and the appreciation they have

Supply-Northern Affairs expressed of the work of the department. I will be very careful to exclude myself, to please the hon. member for Greenwood. As I said, northland development was discussed to quite an extent by various members, and I do not believe I could add anything to what I said in the statement I made in the committee, to which I have just referred, in the answers I gave in the committee, and the answers that were also given by the officials of the department. There is this exception that at that time I said we could expect there would be a reduction in the rates for air transportation in the north. This reduction has been announced by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I also said I was expecting a reduction in freight rates for water transportation. Since that time the Northern Transportation Company has announced certain substantial reductions in their rates.


Mr. Simmons:: My remarks are going to be very brief inasmuch as I also had the privilege of serving on the estimates committee where all items of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were discussed at length. It has been most gratifying to listen to the interesting remarks of the previous speakers. They go to prove beyond doubt that it is the considered opinion of hon. members, regardless of party affiliation, that every effort should be made to populate and industrialize the north country wherever possible.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I have not
decided yet whether or not I will take much time.


An hon. Member:: Do you need some help?


Frederick George Hahn: No, I do not need much help. I have had the pleasure on several occasions of drawing to the minister's attention the desirability of establishing a park in the region around the monument at Point Roberts. Recently the minister gave me to understand, and rightly so, that the monument itself comes under the department of northern affairs and technical surveys.


Jean Lesage: No, not the department of northern affairs. The monument to which the hon. member refers comes under the jurisdiction of the international boundary commission, and the international boundary commission is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. This department has nothing to do with the monument my hon. friend has mentioned. I thought I had explained to the hon. member that we had nothing to do with that monument.


Frederick George Hahn: I used the wrong term. I was going to refer to the minister later with

respect to the desirability of creating a park in the area surrounding the monument. It would appear that the United States government has seen fit to take some 7 or 8 acres on their side of the monument for the purpose of creating a national park. We on the Canadian side are being told-at least, I was so informed as recently as three o'clock this afternoon-that the international commission is going to look after the monument because it is on the international boundary, which is quite understandable. They are going to clean up the brush around it and so on. However, it is going to be quite unsightly resting as it does on the boundary in view of the fact that the Americans are going to have a park in that particular area.
I strongly urge the minister to discuss this question with his colleague-there is not too much land involved-to see whether or not there is a possibility of creating a small park comparable in size with that on the United States side so that our part of the grounds will not look too shoddy compared with theirs. On the international boundary at Douglas the provincial government has a peace monument, and I must say it is certainly an outstanding piece of work. The minister has probably seen it. I am satisfied there is one of the finest parks there in the northwestern part of the continent. I would not expect anything quite so grandiose in the region surrounding the monument at Point Roberts. However, the monument is of such a historic nature, as the minister will realize and as his colleague realizes, that I feel if they could get together possibly something could be worked out whereby the people in the community could be satisfied and it could be made a part of the general tourist attractions on the lower mainland of British Columbia.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am not entirely satisfied with the statement the minister gave us as to the policy of the department to populate northern Canada. As I said a moment ago, our population has been stationary since 1945. All the minister has said is that they have got Canadian Pacific Air Lines to lower transportation rates, and the Northern Transportation Company to lower freight rates.
Surely the department is not so bankrupt of ideas that they have not some kind of plan. Are we going on for another ten years without getting more people into our north country? I certainly think the minister should give the house a little more satisfaction before this first item is passed.


Jean Lesage: I refer the committee and the hon. member to pages 535 and following of the committee on estimates.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Oh, I was on the committee.


Jean Lesage: I gave full answers to all questions.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But surely that is not satisfactory. Just because we put the estimates before a committee is no reason why the minister should come to the house and refuse to answer questions. The minister simply has not answered the questions which have been asked tonight, and before this item carries I think he should do so.


Jean Lesage: I do not believe I should use the time of the house in reading the reports of the committee on estimates.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Just tell us what your policy is.


Jean Lesage: It is in the report, sir.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take much time-although we do not owe it to the house leader to push things through tonight, because he caught us by surprise when he brought forward this department, without notice.
So far as the minister is concerned, I think he will find that things will go reasonably well, in view of the fact that the department has already been before the committee on estimates. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Greenwood administer a rebuke to the hon. member for Fort William, who offers praise on all occasions and to everyone who happens to come within the orbit of his views. I would draw to the attention of the house the remarks of Mr. Adlai Stevenson who said that flattery is fine, if you don't inhale. Cabinet ministers opposite seem to acquire very early in life the bad habit of inhaling; so I think we should be careful about offering too much flattery.
Consequently I am not here to praise the minister. As a matter of fact-


Jean Lesage: I never expected that from you, especially.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was interested to note that the minister was somewhat disturbed when the hon. member for Greenwood drew an inference from his statement in the committee, because the minister is so ready to draw inferences from statements I made. I was glad to see the tables turned.
However, I was going to say that the committee on estimates was very interesting for this reason, that it shows how ridiculously easy it is to be a minister. You have, as this minister has, very competent and efficient staff officers who support you. And with such competent and efficient staff work in his department, so far as the minister is concerned his task must be extremely easy. It 's more difficult for us, who have to dig up
Supply-Northern Affairs our own information. Sometimes, if he is wise, he just keeps quiet and lets the officer of his department who knows the information give it.
However, as I have said, the staff of his department is very active and very competent. I do make this suggestion to the minister, that his is one of the very interesting departments of government. The minister recognizes that, as we all do. If on another occasion the estimates of this department are sent to the committee on estimates the minister should arrange for at least one or two meetings in a large committee room, such as the railway committee room, and there have on the wall one or two maps of the northern territory. Those maps should be large, so that we would have the picture completely before us while the committee was sitting. I grant that there is a very useful map published in the annual report of the department, but I am thinking of something of a good size, such as we now see in the railway committee room where there is a map of Canada showing thereon the railway lines. Of course it is only 30 years out of date; but, still, it is there, and it gives a picture of the country.
With the growing interest in the north country, I think something along these lines might very well be done. We could then follow on such a map the important things up for discussion when the estimates are before the committee. I have in mind questions of waterways, highways, air routes, mining developments, areas of population and things of that nature.
Similarly, so long as the department deals with the national parks, a map would be very useful in any discussion of that subject. It would take just a little imagination to offer a display that would attract attention to the work of this department, and I think it would be essential if our north country is to receive the attention it deserves.
I will conclude my remarks by repeating in part the criticism I offered when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, when I referred to the report that comes from the committee on estimates. I repeat this, because we find that unless we say things two or three times, no one pays any attention. My suggestion, again, is that if the committee on estimates meets another year and publishes a report, something in the nature of an index should be provided in connection with the report so that members of the house could find readily the information they require, and so that the minister, in his turn, could readily draw the attention of members to that information.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: All I wish the minister to do is to take about ten seconds to answer the question I asked him. I would like to know what the government's policy is in connection with populating our northern country. I would like to know, if we spend the amount of money for which the minister is asking, if we will have any more people up there a year from now than we have today. I, for one, am not satisfied with the growth of our northern country since 1945. I would like to see something done that would encourage a lot more people to move up there.
I do not think I have asked a difficult question. What is the policy? What does the minister propose to do about it? If the department does not propose to do anything, then let him say so. But I do think the minister should answer the question.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I believe the only way we will get more people in the north, as I said in committee-and I was quoted by the hon. member for Greenwood- is to create an economic climate up in the north which will attract people to that area.
Let us not forget that, contrary to the situation in Norway, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, our southern areas are not completely settled. In Norway, for instance, most of the timber resources are situated above the 60th parallel. A good part of the fishing in Norway is done above the 60th parallel. There is a pressure of population below that parallel that creates a necessity for the expanding population to go north.
But, as yet, we do not have that in Canada. It is only 50 years ago that real settlement began in our great western territory. The northern parts of the provinces are far from being exploited to their full capacity. It is only natural that the people of Canada, before moving farther to the north, will in that process of going north stop first at those places south of the 60th parallel where they can find some better possible economic advantage. Again, we do not have the pressure that they have in other countries. It is only by creating economic conditions that will attract people that we might expect a great increase in the population of the north. Unless we have a much greater pressure in the south we cannot expect a very large population in the north in the immediate years to come.
We have a population of about 15 million people in one of the largest countries of the world. A few years ago what was Canada but a thin red line of population along the United States border? It is only in very recent years that great thrusts have been made up
'Mr. Churchill.]
north in the development of our country. We have had iron ore development in northern Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And in Labrador.


Jean Lesage: And in Labrador; I am sorry. We have had the development of the Kirkland Lake and Abitibi regions in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec; we have had the Lynn Lake development; we have had developments on lake Athabasca; we have had the Kitimat development. Well, these are in the provinces. I do not believe that between the 55th and the 60th parallel in the provinces there are proportionately very many more people than there are north of the 60th parallel. It is natural that the population should go up north as the necessity warrants it.
What we have had as developments in the north up to now that have attracted people other than the natives have been the mining developments only. That is where they are. As to other activities, I explained in the committee in very great detail the program of education and vocational training that we have for the natives in order to try to provide them with occupations in the north. I have said that we have prepared plans and we are studying the possibilities especially of improving transportation in the north, because transportation is the key to economic development, as the hon. member for Calgary North and others have said; not only air transportation, but land transportation which is very important for economic development and for the exploitation of the resources of the north. That is the key. But you do not accomplish that in a moment; it takes a certain time.
We started the settlement of the west 50 years ago, and it is far from being completed. That cannot be done in a few months; but I say that we have to see to it that there is transportation to the north at reasonable cost. When I was in the committee I said that we have intervened vis-a-vis the air lines and vis-a-vis the Northern Transportation Company.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Not very effective.


Jean Lesage: A 20 per cent reduction and the freight rates diminished. That has been done since.
I said that we were studying and surveying road construction.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Before the minister goes on, may I ask one question. The minister said that we have been 50 years developing the Northwest Territories. He mentioned that 130 miles of highways had been built which

is less than three miles a year. Would he consider that that is the kind of development the people of Canada have the right to expect from the government?


Jean Lesage: I do not know where the hon. member gets the 50 years. Fifty years ago I was not born.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister said we have been developing the Northwest Territories for 50 years.


Jean Lesage: No. I said we started the great development of the west 50 years ago but it was far from being fully settled yet. I was referring to the western provinces.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There are still only 130 miles of highways in the whole of the Northwest Territories.


Jean Lesage: I did not say the Northwest Territories; I said western provinces. Moreover there are much more than 130 miles of highways north of the 60th parallel. There are a thousand miles in the Yukon, sir.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am talking about the Northwest Territories.


Jean Lesage: In the Northwest Territories there is a highway running from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake.
Normally, the means of transportation are those which are the most economic and suit the region best. Up to now the main economic means of transportation in the Northwest Territories have been the waterways, and they are still used to a great extent for heavy freight. As far as other transportation is concerned, it is the airways that are used. But there is a highway from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake, and we are now studying the possibility, following the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Mackenzie River, of starting a highway from Hay River or somewhere on the Mackenzie highway to Mills lake farther down on the Mackenzie river.


John Borden Hamilton: Will the
minister not admit that the promised reduction in air freight rates came only after the threat of competition to the companies in question? Is that not true?


Jean Lesage: No, I do not know about that.


Mr. Leboe:: I am interested in transportation in the northern part of British Columbia. Would the minister be prepared to use his influence with his colleagues in respect to railway development leading to the north?


James Aubrey Simmons: The minister just mentioned a proposed road from Hay River to Mills lake. Can he tell the committee what difference that road would make in the length of
Supply-Northern Affairs the navigation season on the Mackenzie river? I believe it would mean a difference of six weeks or longer, would it not?


Jean Lesage: Approximately one month's difference, we hope.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Has the minister an answer to the question I asked him?


Jean Lesage: The department does not build railways in northern British Columbia.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I thank the minister for answering my question. I do not think it was a very good answer.


Jean Lesage: I do not agree with that.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Regarding highways, I find that on page 445 of the evidence the minister was asked what highway construction had taken place in the Northwest Territories. I quote from the record. He answered:
About 130 miles in the Northwest Territories; and in the Yukon-the Yukon is more advanced as you know-over 400 miles, not including the Alaska highway.
The other point I want to make is this: 130 miles after years of development in the Northwest Territories is not a very good record for this government. It is time that they adopted a more aggressive policy on highway construction and other developments in the Northwest Territories.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I feel that this matter of populating the country is of vast importance, and I do not feel that the answers that have been given here tonight are adequate. I am sorry to say I have not had the chance to read through all the evidence given before the committee, but I want to say very firmly my understanding is that we are not inhibited in any way from asking questions in this committee of the whole house merely because it has been before the committee on estimates. Our rights are absolutely unimpaired in any way. We should resent it here very much if we are told to be good boys because a special committee has looked at it first.
I want to read from page 538 of the evidence. The minister referred me to page 535, where the report begins. I want to read from the top of page 538, which deals briefly with an aspect of immigration, stimulating of industries:
Economic development and increased defence activities is already bringing, and will continue to bring, opportunities for employment. At the same time, plans are proceeding for the stimulation of small industries, such as boat building, etc., which I mentioned a few moments ago. The natives will not, however, be able to take advantage of these and other opportunities unless they have some schooling. Primary schooling is the minimum requirement and vocational training is needed by

Supply-Northern Affairs many. Given the necessary education and training there is no reason why Eskimos and Indians cannot satisfactorily fill many of the jobs in northern Canada which would otherwise have to be undertaken by people brought in from the south, often at high cost.
That seems to me to be a self-destructive paragraph. First of all you say that you are stimulating industry, that the time will come when local people can man these industries. Then you go on to say that it takes a lot of time to do that. Does that mean that you are stimulating industry solely for the purpose of employing people there? Further back, if I remember rightly, you said that people would not go in until the going in was good, until the economic climate was good. It seems to me that there is kind of an impasse there. Are you going to stimulate industry solely for the local inhabitants and hope that what they do will be the means of bringing in other people? That does not seem to me to be very adequate.
I do not want to underestimate the difficulties but it seems to me, with all the unemployment we have, that for us to have people banging their heels down here if there is work to be done up there is most unsatisfactory.


Jean Lesage: It is too bad the hon. member for Greenwood was not a member of the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not so sure.


Jean Lesage: I made a trip to the north last summer and when I came back my deputy, my assistant deputy and I examined the situation closely. Contrary to what an hon. member of your party said, that I know nothing, I really learned quite a bit.
I came back with the conviction that there were two problems in the north. The one is economic, the problem of developing the north so that we can take advantage of the vast natural resources that exist there. I think the way to develop the north economically is to try to create an economic climate which is favourable to the development and exploitation of those resources. The key to that development is transportation.
There is a second problem, a human problem which faces the population up there. This is a most difficult problem. What the hon. member quoted a few moments ago was from the second part of my statement before the committee when I was dealing with the human problem which faces the natives. I dealt more specifically with the economic problem on pages 535, 536 and 537. On page 538, from which my hon. friend quoted, I was dealing with the human problem which faces the natives.

I was saying that we have to try to interest the natives in small industries. My expression may not have been the best, but I was referring to small industries and trades, teaching them to be carpenters, for instance. Then if we had to build a school in a community we would not have to import carpenters from Edmonton at great cost.
There was a separation of the two problems in my treatment and at that particular time I was dealing only with the human problem facing the natives.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate what the minister says. No one has anything but the most complete concurrence in the idea of doing everything possible for the natives, but that still leaves the question of whether there is a broader plan for development which can be brought about more quickly than the natives can do it, a plan which would have to be carried out by others.
My leader knows more about this than I do, but my understanding is that the development of northern Ontario was hastened by the operations of the geological survey. That survey did not go out prospecting to discover mines; what they did was to cover the geology of the country and indicate where prospecting might be good. I am not as familiar with that part of the country as the minister, but I assume that there must be huge undiscovered resources up there. I mention this only as an instance of the most fruitful co-operation between a government department and the most private and individual kind of private enterprise.
I do not want to see this item carried tonight, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre may still have other questions to ask. As I read the questions and answers earlier in the summary I felt that it was still worth while to discuss that all-important point.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member was dealing with prospecting and geological surveys-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I gave that only as an example.


Jean Lesage: Geological surveys are being carried on in the north in a very substantial way. These surveys come under the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. They will be carried on this year in the Queen Elizabeth islands. This is called the Franklin operation and was announced by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Last year there were a number of survey parties around Baker lake, and also considerable survey work was carried out in the Yukon.
This work is going on all the time. My department is not the only department concerned with the north. The Department of

Mines and Technical Surveys sends out its geological survey parties; the Department of Transport has establishments in the north, and of course the Department of National Defence.
What we try to do in my department is to create an economic climate under reasonable terms of expenditure. I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood will agree that we should not go to the extent of creating an artificial development which would be more costly than sound economics would warrant. In order to create a favourable economic climate I said, and I repeat, that the first thing to do is to bring down the cost of operation and reduce the cost of living. We have attacked the problem of transportation costs and plans are under way to provide better means of transportation.
Other possibilities are being looked into, such as the allowance of longer time for depreciating the cost of power plants in the north. There is also one thing that is often thought of, but to which we have not yet
Supply-Northern Affairs been able to give a practical answer: would it be possible to adjust taxes on a basis which would have any relation to the parallel of latitude on which an industry is situated or where an individual lives? My hon. friend could answer that question much better than I could, in view of his experience, but I am afraid that he would not dare to go into that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this tomorrow and take post office and agriculture.


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


Friday, May 13, 1955