1956-08-03

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me today that we might facilitate the business of parliament by changing the order of business a little bit to dispose of the first three items on the orders of the day so that in the other place they might be considering these matters while we were going on with other things. I would suggest to the house that we take the third reading of Bill No. 388, third reading of Bill No. 349 and third reading of Bill No. 343 this morning in that order, and then go on with the estimates as I indicated last evening.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States issued a communique last evening after their conference in London. I just received the text of the communique a few moments ago, and perhaps because of the importance of the matter involved it might be of interest to the house to have the text read into the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It reads as follows:
The governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States join in the following statement:
1. They have taken note of the recent action of the government of Egypt whereby it attempts to nationalize and take over the assets and the responsibilities of the Universal Suez Canal Company. This company was organized in Egypt in 1856, under a franchise to build the Suez canal and operate it until 1968.
The Universal Suez Canal Company has always had an international character in terms of its shareholders, directors and operating personnel and
in terms of its responsibility to assure the efficient functioning as an international waterway of the Suez canal. In 1888 all the great powers then principally concerned with the international character of the canal and its free, open and secure use without discrimination joined in the treaty and convention of Constantinople. This provided for the benefit of all the world that the international character of the canal would be perpetuated for all time irrespective of the expiration of the concessions of the Universal Suez Canal Company. Egypt as recently as October, 1954. recognized that the Suez canal is "a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of international importance", and renewed its determination to uphold the convention of 1888.
2.	They do not question the right of Egypt to enjoy and exercise all the powers of a fully sovereign and independent nation, including the generally recognized right under appropriate conditions to nationalize assets not impressed with an international interest which are subject to its political authority. But the present action involves far more than the simple act of nationalization. It involves the arbitrary and unilateral seizure by one nation of an international agency which has the responsibility to maintain and to operate the Suez canal so that all the signatories to, and beneficiaries of, the treaty of 1888, can effectively enjoy the use of an international waterway upon which the economy, commerce and security of much of the world depends. This seizure is the more serious in its implications because it avowedly was made for the purpose of enabling the government of Egypt to make the canal serve the purely national purposes of the Egyptian government rather than the international purpose established by the convention of 1888.
Furthermore, they deplore the fact that as an incident to its seizure the Egyptian government has had recourse to what amounts to a denial of fundamental human rights, by compelling employees of the Suez canal company to continue to work under threat of imprisonment.
3.	They consider that the action taken by the government of Egypt, having regard to ail the attendant circumstances, threatens the freedom and security of the canal as guaranteed by the convention of 1888. This makes it necessary that steps be taken to ensure that the parties to that convention, and all other nations entitled to enjoy its benefits, shall in fact be assured of such benefits.
4.	They consider that steps should be taken to establish operating arrangements under an international system designed to assure the continuity of operation of the canal, as guaranteed by the convention of October 29th, 1888, consistently with legitimate Egyptian interests.
5.	To this end they propose that a conference should promptly be held of parties to the convention and other nations largely concerned with the use of the canal. The invitations to such a conference to be held in London on August 16th, 1956, will be extended by the government of the United Kingdom to the governments named in the annex to this statement. The governments of France and the United States are ready to take part in the conference.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The list annexed to the statement is as follows:
Following Is list of countries to be invited to conference:
Parties to the convention of 1888.
Egypt, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R.
Other nations largely concerned in the use of the canal either through ownership of tonnage or pattern of trade.
Australia, Ceylon, Denmark, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Sweden, U.S.A.
At the same time I received a personal message from Sir Anthony Eden explaining the real difficulties they have had in settling the list of countries to which invitations should be sent in order to have a basis which would keep the conference within reasonable limits and expressing the assurance that in spite of the fact that within that criteria Canada was not included we would be kept in the closest touch possible during the conference. I can only say that this government supports strongly the objectives of the conference as stated in this communique, and that I am replying to Sir Anthony Eden's personal communication to me that such is the attitude of the Canadian government.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will comment on the accuracy of the report that appears today as a Canadian Press dispatch and which came over the Canadian broadcasting news this morning, to the effect that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has said that natural gas will not be available in Brandon and points east until the summer of 1957, whereas Winnipeg and Brandon had expected to have natural gas this winter?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I can hardly understand the concern of the opposition considering that they fought like tigers to have no start made on the pipe line. I cannot understand their concern about delay, if there is delay.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will tell you what the concern is. It is that you should be held to the assurances you gave to the house; that is the concern.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are you speaking on the orders of the day? I communicated with the vice-president in charge of construction, and he has authorized me to make this statement:
No authorized representative has made any statement to anyone that gas will not be delivered in

western Canada this year. The company is laying pipe and expects to continue to lay pipe just as long as the supply of pipe and weather will permit. Trans-Canada has not given up hope of completing the section to Winnipeg this winter nor has it so indicated to anyone.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the information given the minister is that the telegram referred to in the dispatch as having been issued over the name of Mr. Bernard Low, vice-president in charge of sales for Trans-Canada, was not authorized?


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Low denied it himself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Low himself denied sending such a telegram as was reported on the radio. If my hon. friend had listened to the broadcast he would have noted that fact.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman, any expressions I used were taken from the press dispatch concerned.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice, but the idea was of too recent birth to be transmitted by messenger. It concerns an appointment that is intriguing many people in Ottawa. I shall ask three questions in order to save the time of the house, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the house that he "very soon" would be appointing a woman to fill the vacancy on the civil service commission. Would he tell the house today:
1.	Whether, among the many "well qualified candidates" he spoke of as being available for the position, he has considered the appointment of Miss Charlotte Whitton?
2.	Whether he would not agree that Miss Whitton's appointment would be well justified both on the grounds of her unquestioned qualifications, and of providing the commission with a strong-minded and vigorous administrator?
3.	Whether he has considered the other advantages that might accrue from Miss Whitton's appointment, not excluding that of having Miss Whitton campaign in the coming election as a Tory candidate?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank the hon. gentleman for all the implications of his question. I can assure him that they will be considered, but

Inquiries of the Ministry
that the appointment to the civil service com- held by one minister, or is it his intention mission will not be made by me but will be to have each portfolio held by a separate recommended by me in consultation with my minister as soon as possible? colleagues. This recommendation will not Mr# st. Laurenl (Quebec East); l can only involve any consideration of who may or repeat that the intentions of the government may not be a candidate in the Ottawa region	be ma(je known by the actions taken,
at the next election.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister given consideration to a brief submitted by the western management committee of the national house builders' association? Will he comment on their representations, particularly this one, that unless mortgage funds are available not later than September 1, 1956 there will be a very serious unemployment situation in many centres throughout Canada during the winter of 1956-57?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having seen the brief, but in commenting on the last statement made by the hon. member, I do not think I can add to the statements I have already made in the house.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that Brigadier Allard's rejection of the Prime Minister's invitation to join the cabinet is known to be complete and final, does the Prime Minister intend to consider his own followers in the house as possible candidates to fill the vacancy which exists in the cabinet at the present time, or does he intend to continue to look outside in an attempt to find a suitable man to fill this vacancy?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's intentions will be made known by the actions that will be taken and I can assure the hon. gentleman that in considering members of the house I had not thought of considering the hon. gentleman.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I had not really thought that he had. May I ask him a supplementary question? Is it the intention of the government to continue to have the portfolios of post office and veterans affairs



PUBLIC SERVICE-REQUEST FOR HOLIDAY ON AUGUST 6

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since members of parliament are working tomorrow and Monday in preference to taking holidays, is consideration being given to making holidays tomorrow and Monday available to the maximum number of civil servants owing to the fact that they worked over the Dominion day holiday?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I realize the inconvenience that arises because of our being here on holidays. It has been our practice to do that when parliament is sitting, but I am quite sure we shall be able to work it out in such a manner that there will not be too much inconvenience to those who have to service us while we are here.



MEMBER FOR MOOSE JAW-LAKE CENTRE   ALLEGED AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I think in view of the present mood of the house this is the time for me to ask my question. I would like to direct this question to the Prime Minister and ask him if his original agreement with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) upon his joining the government side of the house contained any release clause so that he could return to his original party now that it has changed its platform?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement; there was merely applause for the action of the hon. member.



REQUEST FOR HOLIDAYS FOR PAGE BOYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that you are in charge of the House of Commons staff I would like to direct this question to you. As it appears that the present session will last almost until the time that school starts-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: -I wonder if some arrangement could be made for the page boys in order that they could have a rest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is a very bad habit for anyone to remain on his feet when the Speaker is on his feet. If the hon. members were saying "order" it is because the hon. member indicated he was directing a question to me and according to the practice and the rules traditionally followed in this house no questions are directed to the Speaker from the floor by hon. members. See citation 302, Beauchesne's third edition.
LLater;]
On the orders of the day:


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works which perhaps he will relay to the proper quarters. In view of the fact that it appears likely the present session will last almost until school starts and that the page boys have been working throughout the session, will someone give consideration to allowing them to stop work at six o'clock? I think we can get along very well from eight o'clock until ten o'clock without the page boys.



PAMPHLET DISTRIBUTION BY SOVIET EMBASSY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, has the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce been drawn to a pamphlet recently distributed by the Soviet embassy to all hon. members of this house which he might find most helpful? It is entitled "On Overcoming the Cult of the Individual and its Consequences".



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I was able to send him notice of it only a few minutes ago, and if he prefers to take this as notice and make a statement later it will be all right. It is in reference to the report from the tariff board which was received by the government, I believe, some time earlier. Will the minister make a statement indicating the government's intention with reference to tariffs on United States potatoes entering Canada on and after September 1 next? Will they permit United States potatoes to come into Canada free of duty? In case the minister wishes to take more time, my next question would be: Are any negotiations under way between our


government and the United States government in connection with the equalization of duty so that the duty will be the same both ways; or, on the other hand, free of duty both ways?


Walter Edward Harris: may have something to say about this on my estimates.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is there any foundation to a report in the London Free Press of August 1 to the effect that the railway service between London and Palmerston, and Stratford and Goderich, is to be reduced after September 30?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have made an inquiry of the Canadian National Railways on this subject and we have not received a report as yet.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask a supplementary question? I wonder whether the minister would look into the matter to the extent that he might find out whether or not this line has shown increased revenue over the past year?


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). The Canadian Press reports that an official of the railway has announced that railway service will be cut in our district and this will curtail the service from Palmerston to Kincardine and from Palmerston to Southampton. My question to the minister is this. Is the minister aware that Bruce county has subsidized the Canadian National Railways greatly over the past number of years?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, if an investigation of the facts reveals that the statement the hon. member has just made is well founded I shall indeed be very greatly surprised.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to direct to the minister. Is the minister of the opinion that the population of Canada will increase rapidly in the near future?


Mr. Fulton:: And if so, what is he doing about it?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to express a "no" to such a question as that; in fact, I think that would be the lowest form of pessimism.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I have one more question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if he thinks it is wise to curtail train service into Bruce county at this stage when it is expected by all economists in Canada that the population of this country is going to increase very greatly.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I could not answer the question in the general terms in which it was put. I think every case must be considered on its own merits.



REPORTED CURTAILMENT OF SERVICE IN BRUCE PENINSULA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the anticipated increase in lake and rail traffic when the seaway is opened is it wise to curtail traffic in Huron, Bruce, Perth and Wellington counties on the Canadian National Railways?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of any intention to curtail services in those counties. Until I know what are the facts I prefer not to comment.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister tell the house if any change is contemplated concerning mail service from Palmerston to Kincardine and from Palmerston to Southampton?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot say that any changes are contemplated. If this question is based on the information concerning changes in train service and how this would affect the Post Office Department, I can assure the hon. member that should the train service be curtailed the transportation of mail will be provided through other means.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Because of the
Navigable Waters Protection Act number of residents of Burnaby who work in the grain elevator at New Westminster, British Columbia, will the minister order the dredging of the channel which is required in order to allow deep sea vessels to have access to that elevator?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I take that as notice.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of Bill No. 388, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest a minor amendment in order to correct a situation which was brought about as a result of a change made when the bill was in committee. Hon. members will recall that at that time section 6 of the bill which dealt with section 10 of the act, was dropped. There are three words in the preceding section which refer to section 10 which would no longer be applicable. I should like to ask my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, to move that there be deleted from the preceding section, line 20, on page 3 of the bill the words "and in section 10".


Mr. Prudham:: I so move.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order; I am not raising this in order to delay matters but I am under the impression that in order to make an amendment to a section of the bill it would be necessary to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole. I am quite sure there would be no interference with that process.


Robert Henry Winters: I was aware of that and I canvassed the situation. I spoke to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). They agreed on behalf of their parties to having it done this way. The amendment I am recommending at this time is not one of substance, it is simply to correct a situation which was overlooked when the bill was in committee of the whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order; I am not raising any objection to this being done and I do not think it would take more than two minutes at the outside to do it according to the rules. Would it not be better to have it done in the usual way?

Supreme Court Act


Mr. Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent the amendment could be made in this way. Of course if there was not unanimous consent there would have to be a motion the effect of which would be that this bill be not read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in one particular. The bill could be amended there and returned to the house, when there could be concurrence in the amendment and then the bill could go on for third reading. However, if there is unanimous consent the rule may be dispensed with. I take it that it is merely a verbal amendment and that there is general agreement about it.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, clause 6 of the bill, which would have had the effect of enacting a new section 10, was dropped at our suggestion, and it is perfectly obvious that the amendment required now to clause 5 of the bill is purely a technicality. Therefore we are perfectly willing to have it done in the quickest possible way.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the amendment proposed agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


George Carlyle Marler: the third reading of Bill No. 349, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. J. J. McCann (for the Minister of Justice) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 443, to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we have some amendments to suggest with respect to this bill and I had proposed to move them in the usual manner, namely, by moving that the bill be referred back to the committee, but if the government would prefer that I move them on third reading, following the practice in the earlier bill this morning, I would be quite happy to do so.

The purpose of the amendments can be stated quite briefly. They would accomplish the same result as we attempted to accomplish in committee of the whole a day or so ago when the bill was before the committee, namely, to prevent the passage of the proposal to raise the floor on the amount that must be in issue before an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in a civil case will lie as of right. The proposal now is to raise it from $2,000 to $10,000. We object to that proposal.
The other objection we have is that the government has not provided in the bill that appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada in capital cases shall be as of right. I am not going to restate the arguments with respect to the matter of the increase from $2,000 to $10,000. The objections were quite adequately discussed when the bill was in the committee. But I think I should say a word or two more about the failure to provide that appeals in murder cases shall lie as of right and the government's proposal instead to continue the process of requiring an application for leave to appeal and now providing that that application will be heard by a quorum of five.
One reason why I think this matter requires some further brief discussion is a thoughtful editorial in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, August 1, which expressed the view that the government's proposal was an adequate safeguard and went as far as was necessary to ensure that those cases of merit would be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. With respect, I believe that those who hold that view, and of course the minister and the members of the government obviously do, do not quite appreciate the points which are advanced from the other side.
On an application for leave to appeal the full merits of the case will not be automatically before the Supreme Court of Canada and therefore before the judges who hear the application. The application must of necessity involve technical considerations and would properly be opposed on technical grounds. While I imagine that the judges in their character as human beings would be inclined to permit counsel for the applicant to stray somewhat outside the strict field of his application in order that they might hear something about the merits, nevertheless in their capacity as judges of the court they would be properly urged by counsel for the crown to confine the hearing within the narrow limits of the application itself. Therefore it cannot be said with certainty that in every case the hearing of the application for leave to appeal is in effect the same thing as though they were hearing the appeal

itself. If that could be said, then I think there would be the strongest argument along the lines of that advanced in the Globe and Mail editorial and put forward by the minister here that the rights and interests of accused persons are adequately looked after in the government's proposal.
In our view that is not the case for the reasons I have stated, and we feel that nothing short of an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada will meet the needs of the situation. With respect to the argument that may be advanced that this would involve a heavy increase in the burden of the court because their time will be taken up by hearing appeals in murder cases, I suggest there is very little difference between the proposal we advance and the government's proposal because I think it is strongly arguable-of course, only experience will prove-that in the great majority if not all cases applications for leave to appeal will be made. Certainly in any case where counsel would have recommended an appeal on the case he will also, if he feels there is any chance of success, apply for leave. You are not going to cut down the number of issues before the Supreme Court of Canada. You will merely alter the form. If our proposal carried, it would be the appeal itself. Under the government's proposal it will be the application for leave. The only difference is that an application will be heard by a quorum of five and the general practice with regard to appeals is that they would be heard by the full court.
I do not think there is going to be very much difference in the burden of extra work that will be put on the court under one process as compared with the other. Personally I do not believe it is a tenable argument that the court would be overworked. I do not believe the court or the minister would advance it but it has been advanced in other quarters, and therefore to meet it I say that there will be very little difference in the number of applications that come before them and very little difference in the amount of work imposed on the court as the result of the fact that an application is heard by a quorum of five instead of by the full court.
A quorum of five means that there are four judges not engaged in hearing an application. As far as other cases are concerned the quorum is never less than three in hearing a case, and I do not think there would be any difference in the amount of work or saving of time or advance in the efficiency of the court simply because you provide that an application shall be heard by five judges. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the
Supreme Court Act
whole with instructions that they have power to amend the said bill as follows:
(a)	by deleting section 2 thereof and renumbering the following sections accordingly;
(b)	by amending present section 19 thereof to provide that appeals from convictions in capital cases shall lie to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. Shall the main motion carry?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

The Chairman:: I understand that resolution 294, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, was allowed to stand last evening. Shall I call that resolution now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
National parks branch-
294. Branch administration, $90,852.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the minister spoke at some length in connection with national parks but most of his remarks were of what I would call a general nature and did not, I think, meet the very numerous criticisms which have been made of national parks administration, particularly in western Canada and the province of Alberta where the two largest parks are located. The criticisms which have been made of the way in which parks are administered, of course, are not new. They have been voiced in this committee in I think most years since the war.
First of all, there is the matter of roads. I am glad to hear that there is a program which involves the spending, as the minister has said, of some $60 million over the next eight years in order to improve the roads in the parks. I think that is all to the good. I hope it will be successful in giving us sufficiently good roads in the park that tourist traffic will not be discouraged as has been the case in the past. The road from Banff to Jasper has been a sore point ever since it was first constructed. The road is
now to be rebuilt, I understand, as part of this program and I would hope that a considerable amount of that construction might go ahead this coming year.
Last year and the year before I brought up the matter of better maintenance of these roads. The minister assured me last year that improvement would be made in this regard. However, last year I again heard a very large number of complaints about the condition of that road, so I would take it that there was still not a sufficient number of graders put on that road to keep it in reasonable shape. Another thing I would draw to the minister's attention so far as roads are concerned is that the road in Banff itself, leading immediately into the town of Banff, has been very rough and full of potholes for some years. It seems to me there is no excuse for that particular road especially being left in that condition. I do not know whether any work has been done on it this year, but if none has been done these potholes and the general rough condition of that road should be corrected immediately. It gives an extremely bad impression to the very large number of people coming into Banff to have their car wracked to pieces just on the outskirts of the township and within the town itself. I think there is no doubt that as far as making the parks available to Canadian citizens and citizens from the United States and other places is concerned the provision of good roads is perhaps the most important thing if you are going to get any return business. People come into one of these parks and they strike bad roads in it. It is very unlikely that they are going to come back. Not only do they not come back themselves but they tell all their friends about the bad condition of the roads and thus discourage a _ large number of prospective visitors from coming to the parks.
The next matter in which there has been considerable lagging behind is that of accommodation. There 'is just not enough tourist accommodation in Banff particularly to accommodate the number of people who go there. Many people have to sleep in their cars every night. One of the reasons for the lack of accommodation is the extreme difficulty people have in trying to put up motels, tourist cabins and things of that sort. They have extreme difficulty in getting a piece of land from the park in order to erect tourist accommodation. They run into difficulties of all sorts in trying to erect buildings, once they have secured permission to get the land. Perhaps there may be some fault on both sides as far as this is concerned; but the basic reason there is not more tourist accommodation is the way in which the administration is carried on, the slowness

with which decisions are made and the difficulty people have in trying to do anything along that line in the national parks.
There is also the need for considerably increased facilities of various other kinds. There has been a need for many years for a civic centre and auditorium in Banff. Nothing has ever been done about it although propositions have been put up frequently. There is the necessity there for at least one outdoor movie. There is land available where such a thing could be put up, but permission to construct an outdoor movie has been refused up to date.


Mr. Lesage:: Yes, sir, and it will be.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The situation with regard to people having anything to do to amuse themselves in the evening, particularly in Banff, is very poor. They wander around. Once darkness has fallen they cannot see the scenery. The movie accommodation is extremely limited and very frequently there is really nothing else for people to do.
Another thing which is lacking is ample picnic grounds in the summer time. The picnic ground at Banff is dreadfully overcrowded and many people who want to get into it are unable to find room on the picnic ground. There is also need for improvement as far as hiking trails are concerned. I have spoken about this, I think, for the last 10 or 11 years in this house, the provision of more trails on which people could hike in the summer time and on which they could ski in the winter time.
Another project which a group of people wanted to put into operation was the construction of a gondola lift up Sulphur mountain. We have been refused permission to construct that lift. Why I really do not know. There is a ski lift up Norquay mountain but it is the type of lift which is not very easy for older people particularly to ride up in and many of them are afraid to ride up in it. In view of the fact that a gondola lift up Sulphur mountain would give an opportunity to anybody who comes to Banff, no matter what his general health and physical condition is, to get up on top of the mountain and be able to see the magnificent views which are available from the tops of the mountains, it is very difficult to understand why there has been refusal to construct this lift. There has been consistent refusal to allow this gondola lift to be constructed. I think the excuse that was given was that the road to where the lift would start would not be sufficient to handle the traffic. Well, it seems to me that this is a very poor excuse. To begin with, the road could be improved
Supply-Northern Affairs or widened and I doubt whether there would be any severe difficulty from that point of view, in any event.
I think a whole lot of the difficulties in the national parks come from the fact that you have administration by remote control. In attempting to meet this point yesterday the minister said that decisions have to be taken at Ottawa because they may affect more than one part. I agree that general policy decisions have to be taken at Ottawa. That is quite correct. We should have a general policy which applies to all the parts and I think general policy decisions should be taken at Ottawa, as the minister said. But this is an entirely different matter than every decision being taken at Ottawa as to whether a man is going to build a house or a tourist cabin, or whether he is going to do any little thing at all. As a matter of fact, the same thing should apply as applies in almost every other department, or applies in any business. There should be decentralization. Whilst the general policy is laid down in Ottawa, the local application of that policy should be left to a much greater extent than has been the case before in the hands of the superintendent of the park. The way the thing has been going on, with all decisions having to be taken here in regard to any matter I think involving expenditure of more than $100, it means that the whole business of getting anything done is terrifically slowed down. It is extremely difficult for people to do anything which would help to improve the facilities and the amenities in the park.
As to the situation that prevails there, a letter appeared in the Calgary Herald last November 29, as a matter of fact, written by a man who has been a resident of Banff for the last 51 years. I should like to read some excerpts from it to give the committee an idea of the situation which does prevail. The letter reads:
On your editorial page November 23 you reprint an article from the Camrose Canadian in regard to the tourist attractions at Banff, and having lived there for the past 51 years, I can heartily endorse the criticisms that are made. Once a visitor has taken a dip in the hot springs or the cave and basin, and perhaps taken a ride on the chair lift on Norquay mountain, there is not much left to do, as the small picture theatre cannot accommodate one-tenth of the crowd which lines up for five shows per day.
The parks department in Ottawa has, for many years, adopted a policy to prevent and slow down any improvements or private enterprise whatever.


Jean Lesage: Commercialism.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I continue:
They have refused any idea of a drive-in theatre, though there is a magnificent site on the slopes of the lower town of the ghost mining town of Bankhead.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I am not going to read all the letter; I will leave out a considerable part of it:
Every suggestion by private enterprise to build houses and homes, motels or service stations has been met by opposition from the parks head office at Ottawa. The local superintendent has never been allowed any discretionary power more than a chief clerk, and has to refer every detail to Ottawa.
There is a need for many more attractions at Banff to keep people there, and yet the parks department has refused a permit for the erection of a gondola-enclosed lift up Sulphur mountain from the Upper Hot Springs, making excuses that the road would not be wide enough for the traffic.
Scores of people wish to retire and live in Banff, but cannot get a building site, the government stating that they will only consider applicants who have lived in Banff for 18 months. Yet, they are opening up building lots by the dozen for their own employees or those of the public works department on the trans-Canada highway, and allowing cheap houses to go up which do not meet the requirements they have set for other applicants.
The only major improvements in the Banff park since the war have been two small blocks of building lots put up for tender, with priority to Banff veterans and Banff residents of 25 years or more, and the outsider has no chance to come here to live, yet he is told he may file on a lot after he has been a resident of Banff for 18 months. Where is he to reside during these 18 months?
D. M. Soole.
Mr. Soole is a very well known old-timer in Banff. As stated in his letter, he has been there for 51 years. As a result of all the complaints in connection with Banff the Calgary Herald sent a reporter out there to conduct a thorough investigation of these complaints. Following that, the reporter wrote a series of articles in which he outlined the various things which were wrong so far as he could determine. One of the articles is dated December 12, 1955 and it reads:
There is no vote in this town. What is life like where you have no vote, no say in your municipal government, where your daily affairs are controlled by a bureaucracy thousands of miles away?
In Calgary's own backyard, in the town of Banff, 3,000 persons live under this kind of regime. It is a national park, walled off from the province and run from Ottawa.
There was a series of articles but I do not intend to read all of them. I shall just pick out a few headlines and an occasional interesting excerpt to indicate what is the actual situation. There is no date on this article but it reads:
Remote Control Stifles Growth of Rockies Gem- A. lot of people would call it dictatorship, the way this town is run. Even the more moderate person readily agrees it's a tough place to earn a living, under the iron grip of government control and no appeal against its all-powerful edicts.
This is what the Herald found in an- investigation prompted by recurring and increasing complaints during the past few years of government management of the town of Banff-a federal island inside our province.


Jean Lesage: If they are not satisfied they can always change place. We do not force them to live in the parks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It found people wary of discussing their problems in fear of government disfavour; it found evidence of inequality in administration of the law; it found evidence of high-handed tactics and sometimes inexplicable interference with the normal conduct of business.
The minister has just indicated that-


Jean Lesage: Sure, I agree with that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -if they do not like it there they do not have to live there.


Jean Lesage: Surely not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, surely that is no defence for carrying on the administration of the park in a high-handed dictatorial manner.


Jean Lesage: I do not agree that this is the case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the minister said yesterday, these parks exist for the enjoyment of the people of this country.


Jean Lesage: Another advocate for commercialism in Banff.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a secondary thing, the parks increase tourist traffic in this country. If the parks are not to be run in an efficient way, if they are not going to provide the amenities which people want, they are not going to attract people and they are destined to fail in their purpose. It is absolutely useless to say that if people do not like it in the park they are not required to live there. That is no defense at all for the numerous complaints which have arisen concerning the way the administration is carried on. The article continues:
.	.	. Here are some of the complaints. What
would a Calgarian say if he returned home in the evening to find a civic official parked in his living room, having entered uninvited?
That goes back to the bill which the hon. member for Bow River, in whose constituency Banff lies, introduced this year.


Jean Lesage: That incident occurred ten years ago; you know that. It has been discussed in this house many times; it is an old bogey. It is nothing but a skeleton which is taken out of the closet every session by the opposition because a member of the park administration in Banff made an error for which he was punished. He had no right to do what he did and he was punished for it. The incident took place ten years ago and there has been no recurrence. Please stop taking old skeletons out of the closet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says there has been no recurrence but that is not my information.


Jean Lesage: Then your information is wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At any rate the law allows this to be done. It is for that reason the hon. member for Bow River introduced his bill this year to amend the law to prevent this being done.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member knows very well that he is misinforming the house. The only time-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?


Jean Lesage: That is misinformation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who has the floor, Mr. Chairman?


Jean Lesage: The hon. member is misinforming the house-


Mr. Byrne:: The Calgary Herald has the floor, as far as I can see.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member is one of those who want to make of Banff a Coney Island.


Douglas Scott Harkness: By the fact that this bill was introduced this year it seems quite clear there have been considerable complaints concerning this matter in the town of Banff.


Jean Lesage: That is no indication at all.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Let us hear from the Herald.


Jean Lesage: Why not say something for yourself?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Southam press is heard from again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Another reads:
Take Away the Scenery. What Have you Left?
Bump your way into town and gape at mountains; there's little else.
That is in connection with the failure of the administration to provide the various amenities the need for which I referred to previously. I will read just one more excerpt from an editorial dated December 22, 1955 which appeared in the Calgary Herald. It reads:
Anyone who has visited Banff at the height of the summer season is aware that it has outgrown the facilities which it has to offer. There is little to do for the person with small income, for it is a high-priced town where almost every form of recreation requires money. The picnic grounds in the town, on a weekend, are hopelessly overcrowded. The number of trails which are open for people who want to take a walk, not a hike, are few. The park around the public buildings is very nice, but after that what is there for the nonathletic, budget-conscious visitor to do?


An hon. Member:: Stay home.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are some of the very numerous complaints concerning the administration of Banff national park. These complaints and this situation have been in existence for many years. It seems to me it is useless for the minister in charge of this department, whoever he may be, to say each year, "Well, perhaps we will look into this and see what can be done," and then allow the same situation to prevail year after year.
The roads are bad and the administration is extremely slow in its operations. The people who want to improve the facilities are discouraged or prevented from doing so. In other words, it is long past the time for what I would call a thorough shake-up in the administration of the national parks.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I believe that I might be permitted to deal immediately with the criticisms raised by the hon. member for Calgary North.
The first complaint of the hon. member is that the road leading to Banff has potholes

Supply-Northern Affairs and is in bad shape. The information which the hon. member has seems to be insufficient or he has not been to Banff since last summer because the road was reconstructed last fall. As to Banff avenue, which the hon. member mentioned also, there is an item of $250,000 in the estimates to reconstruct the services of Banff street, Banff avenue, Marmot street and Wolf street in Banff townsite. These streets are to be completely reconstructed to take care of present day traffic.
Mi. Harkness: I am very glad to hear that.


Jean Lesage: Before criticizing, the hon. member should get the right information as to what is being done.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has not been done yet.


Jean Lesage: The road to Banff, which the hon. member criticized, was reconstructed last fall.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How far was it reconstructed?


Jean Lesage: Up to the entrance of the townsite.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about the townsite?


Jean Lesage: I have said that there is a (-quarter of a million dollars in the estimates .to reconstruct the facilities in the townsite at no cost to the local people, and I would like the hon. member to take that into (account when he talks about lack of self-igovemment for the people of Banff.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Every year we get these stories about the roads that are going to be reconstructed the next year, but they always are left in this particular shape.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member says that there is a lack of amenities and facilities in the park. If there is not enough of these to attract people into the park, how is it that the popularity of the park has increased every year? The number of visitors has increased from year to year and this year there have been still a greater number in spite of the bad weather. Is that because there is a lack of amenities and facilities? INTo, it is because the people who go to our national parks or to Banff park know very well that they are not going to see an outside movie or all the things you can find at Coney Island; they go to our national parks to benefit from the beauties of nature.
I am afraid the articles in the Calgary Herald on which the hon. member bases his criticism have been dictated by commercial interests who are interested in only one thing, in the making of profits out of this great asset
IMr. Lesage.]
we have in the form of natural grandeur in the west. As I said yesterday, as long as I am in charge of this portfolio there will not be a drive-in theatre in Banff or any other park. You can find those in the cities.
I consider it my duty to see that our national parks are preserved in their natural beauty as much as possible. Visitors will be provided with the essential facilities but not with the ugly things that the commercial interests would like to put up there.
The hon. member referred to the gondola lift. I am sure he is familiar with Sulphur mountain road which leads not only to Sulphur mountain but to the hot springs which are very popular. I do not know whether he has been at the hot springs in the summer and has seen the traffic congestion that creates a hazard on that winding road up to the mountain. I feel that if we had a gondola lift there would be so much more traffic that the hazard would be increased and accidents would be inevitable. There would be traffic jams every day.
We decided that before we asked for tenders for the establishment of a gondola lift we would have to widen the road. I was in Banff in 1954 with my deputy minister and we decided to spend about $25,000 each year in widening and straightening the road. This year we are providing $70,000 so we can finish the road and then be able to call for tenders for the gondola lift.
Then with regard to the picnic grounds. Those grounds may be crowded perhaps on one or two days in the year but they are sufficient. They are being improved constantly. Every year since I have been in the department we have spent large amounts of money improving and expanding the facilities at Tunnel mountain and elsewhere. Last year we spent $50,000 and this year we expect to spend a similar amount. We are always increasing the facilities for the people who want to visit our national parks. We have a limited budget and we must follow strict rules. In spite of what the hon. member for Calgary North has said, and what the Calgary Herald, with the interests behind it, has said, I certainly will not adopt any other course.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I did not plan on getting into this discussion, but I feel the hon. member for Calgary North has indicated a very parochial point of view. The minister has a responsibility as minister of the department and as a citizen of Canada I have an opinion which I feel should be expressed for what it is worth. I may say that I visited the Alps in Switzerland and Austria before I visited the Canadian Rockies. I think it is important that Canadians should

go to Europe before seeing our own country, because then after having travelled they will see why they have reason to be proud, particularly of our parks at Banff and Jasper.
The people of Calgary should realize that these national assets belong to Canada rather than to the Calgary Herald or the people of Calgary. It is hard to understand why the people of Calgary get so excited about the lack of democracy in Banff where the people do not have the right to elect their civic ruthorities. If that is what the people of Banff want, then they can go to reside in Calgary. The hon. member for Acadia is not here, but I am sure he would not object to my saying that he has decided to retire and live in Banff rather than in Calgary. He tells me that even with the disadvantages that may be considered to exist Banff has the lowest taxes of any place in the west and the fishing is very good.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister will stand by his commitment and will never permit a drive-in theatre in Banff as long as he is minister. I can see a drive-in theatre at Tisdale or a dozen other places on the prairies where they have nothing else to do but to go to these theatres. But to ask the people of Canada and the United States to come to our Rockies in order to see cheap Hollywood pictures in drive-in theatres is I think the last suggestion that should be taken seriously.
The hon. member for Calgary North is complaining because people have to stand in line in order to go to a theatre in Banff. I hope the minister is not going to be influenced by the free enterprisers who would like to make Banff trashy by putting up a lot of cheap theatres to present an artificial picture of life in Hollywood when we have there the most majestic scenery I know of anywhere on this continent. I think the minister is quite right in refusing to yield to those greedy interests in Canada who would like to change Banff into a cheap Coney Island type of place rather than the holiday place it should be for people who want to go to Banff because of the scenery there.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to take part in this debate. However, my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River because of illness is unable to be here today and, as the minister knows, any discussion concerning Banff national park is something in which he is very keenly interested. As has already been mentioned, he placed on the order paper this year a bill to amend the National Parks Act. He did so for a reason. He spent a considerable amount of effort and time studying the existing situation in Banff national
Supply-Northern Affairs park, and I am satisfied that many of the arguments advanced so capably this morning by the hon. member for Calgary North would have been supported by the hon. member for Bow River had he been here.
I have visited Banff and I am prepared to admit that it is one of the nicest parks to be found on the North American continent or anywhere else. The scenery is there, the mountains are there, and wild life as well. On the other hand, I think the minister must admit that in order to accommodate the huge tourist traffic visiting Banff during the summer months something more could be done without destroying for one minute the natural beauty that is to be found in the area. I can well remember one word that made an impression on me when I visited Banff the first time. It was as much impressed on my mind when I left Banff as were the mountains, the hot springs and so on. It was the word "occupied".
One evening my wife and I spent hour after hour going up one street ?nd down another trying to find a place to sleep, and we wound up sleeping in the car. Tourist accommodation is not ample in Banff, and I suggest that the minister should give the matter some consideration. Any tourist whc* goes there without sufficient funds to stay at the Banff Springs hotel or the other hotels finds it difficult to get a place to sleep. The minister must know that.
Roads have been mentioned. It is not too long ago that the hon. member for Bow River spoke about the oil on the road leading into the town of Banff. I am very happy to note that the minister has assured us that something is being done to improve that road, and I can only suggest to him that he take in kindly fashion the advice given to him by men such as the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Calgary North. They are not out to destroy the beauty of Banff at all. They are out to make it a better place for all Canadians to visit.
I live close to another national park in the province of Alberta, Elk Island park. We have there the largest remaining buffalo herd, I believe, with the exception of Wood Buffalo park in northern Alberta, to be found in the world. It is a fine park. It has not been destroyed at all by modem buildings. People go there by the thousand to visit the park and to see the fine herd of buffalo. It is located along highway 16 running from Winnipeg to Jasper. I have one suggestion to make to the minister. I suggest that he consider or have his officials consider very seriously the building of a buffalo paddock along the highway with a little road

Supply-Northern Affairs leading off the highway so that tourists in a hurry to go on through can stop and see the buffalo.
This came to my mind last winter as I was travelling to Edmonton. I was in a bus and I noticed buffalo in large numbers along the fence. I heard people say that this was the first time they had ever seen buffalo. The buffalo were there because the salt licks had been located along the fence. I suggest again that the minister give consideration to the building of a small buffalo paddock, perhaps near the main entrance to the park, so that tourists travelling through can see a few buffalo anyway living in their natural state. Perhaps it would encourage them to go into the park and see the fine herd there.
Finally, I should like to make this comment with respect to the national parks I have visited in Canada. I have always been treated with courtesy, and I think that by and large the officials of the minister's department administering the parks are doing a fine job to the best of their ability within the confines of the act under which they must operate. I suggest to the minister that during the holiday season, which we hope will be coming soon, he give serious consideration to a thorough overhaul of the National Parks Act and the regulations associated with it so that when we come here next session we will have something definite to consider.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Calgary North certainly seems to have plenty of troubles. He reminds me of certain cartoons I have seen on this particular aspect of life, but I do not intend to describe them. One has to do with an old milch cow that is in very serious difficulties. It was difficult to understand whether the hon. member was the member for Mackenzie, the Yukon or Calgary North. I am happy that he is not too familiar with the national parks in British Columbia because the type of publicity he has given to the national parks today was anything but good. I am sure that the boards of trade in the Banff and Jasper national park regions and certainly in the vicinity of Kootenay and Yoho parks would be very angry if they read his speech. I hope that the last part of his speech will be relegated to the garbage can where it belongs. It has been said that there has been tampering with Hansard, but the hon. member certainly has my permission if he wishes to do so to remove the last portion of his speech from Hansard entirely. He has done a disservice to the national parks and to the people who live there.
I had occasion recently to visit Kootenay and Jasper parks. While the road conditions are not of the very best they are good when
[Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1

one considers the amount of reconstruction that is taking place in those parks. The hon. member seems to forget that the construction season is very short in the national parks. The parks are in many cases in the higher mountain regions, in this instance in the Rocky mountains. Snow is found at the very edge of the highways even in mid-summer, and that is the period when the traffic is heaviest. One cannot rush in with a large amount of equipment and do the road jobs in a very short period when the traffic is heavy. The time for such work is very limited.
I was certainly happy to learn that the minister has a progressive plan to spend $60 million over the next eight years to improve the roads in the national parks. I am sure that much of that will be spent in Banff and Jasper where a great deal of construction is taking place at the present time.
There is one thing about the national parks in British Columbia, particularly Kootenay park. It does not receive the amount of publicity that is accorded to the other two parks where they are sponsored by the two large railway companies. But certainly if one had to resort to the type of publicity that has been given to Banff and Jasper here in the house today, we would be pleased to do without it and to struggle along as we have been doing in the past.
The hon. member for Calgary North has two difficult problems. Because of the roads he finds that no one is returning to the parks. Yet on the other hand he finds that there is no parking place and that throngs of people have to return to Banff. Let us have some consistency. Let us be fair. Criticism is fair when it is constructive and is directed towards doing something for the benefit of the area concerned.
There is one problem respecting the operators of Kootenay park and Yoho park which I feel is sufficiently important to demand the attention of the minister. While it is not something that comes entirely under his jurisdiction, I would hope that he would make representations to the minister of municipalities in the province of British Columbia. Last evening the minister pointed out that an operator in Banff, with an establishment to the value of $13,000, would pay about $225 in taxes. I should say that an operator in Kootenay park would pay approximately the same amount of tax to the federal government for the various services which he receives and for the concession that he has established. However, in addition he must pay

to the province of British Columbia an improvement, school and hospital tax. This the operator in Banff and Jasper parks is not obliged to do.
The operators have no objection to paying school and hospital taxes, but the improvement tax amounts to about 50 per cent of their total tax, so that they are discriminated against in this way. Their establishment is rated by the department and they are allowed to charge a certain rate for their accommodation, and it is identical in both provinces. Yet I am sure that an operator with the $13,000 establishment would pay in the neighbourhood of $500 in addition to the provincial government, so that in all he would be paying some $700 while the operator in the Alberta parks would be paying about $225. I know it is not something on which the minister can take action on his own, but I would ask that he make representations to the appropriate minister in British Columbia.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister seems to think the fact that the number of people entering Banff national park has increased is the answer to all the criticisms about conditions there, as did the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Such an idea is ridiculous. The population of this country has increased very materially in the last several years. The population of the city of Calgary has gone up -including its immediate environs-to about 200,000 people. You have enough people in Calgary alone, if they made two or three trips a year,-and a large number of people do so because it is the closest place for the people of Calgary to go-to constitute the total number of people that have passed into the park, apart from people from other parts of the country.
In addition to that, the thing which brought many people into the park, with really nothing being done as far as the park department is concerned, was the establishment and development there of the Banff school of fine arts. But to say that, because the numbers of people going into the parks have increased, there is no cause for complaint and so on is just completely begging the question. The point is that if Banff park had been operated in a really efficient manner the number of visitors would be well over twice what it is at the present time. I do not think there is any question about that.
The minister expressed some scorn and opposition to the idea of an outdoor theatre in Banff.


Jean Lesage: A drive-in theatre.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why he did that I do not know. I would say that both he and the hon. member for MacKenzie just do not know
Supply

Northern Affairs the facts of life particularly as far as Banff is concerned. They both put great emphasis on the fact that people go there to enjoy the beauties of nature. That is quite right. That is one of the main reasons they go there. It is the main reason, perhaps. Some people go there for the hot sulphur springs and things of that sort. In the wintertime, of course, people go there primarily to ski. Those are the three main reasons for people going to Banff. But as I pointed out to the minister previously, after 8 o'clock at night at the present time-and soon it will be seven at night-you cannot enjoy the beauties of nature. Darkness has fallen by that time and you just cannot do it.


Jean Lesage: If you want to see the beauties of nature early in the morning, you have got to go to bed early at night.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What are people going to do in the evenings? That is one of the difficulties. In the evenings particularly there is little for visitors to Banff to do, and that fact makes them discouraged. They do not know what to do with themselves.


Jean Lesage: That is tough! Nothing to do in Banff!


Douglas Scott Harkness: They crowd out the beverage rooms and things of that sort. I think it would be only reasonable to provide an outdoor theatre in order to give at least one more means by which people might enjoy themselves during the evenings in Banff.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member tell me whether what he has in mind is an outdoor drive-in theatre or an outdoor theatre?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact I think there is a need for both. I think there is a need for an outdoor theatre which would preferably be placed perhaps on the grounds of the Banff school of fine arts and where, in connection with the work they do at the Banff school of fine arts, this outdoor theatre could be used as a means of presenting plays and so on outdoors.


Jean Lesage: That is sensible. That would be a good idea.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There would be the possibility of accommodating there a large number of people. I see that the minister nods his head. Apparently he agrees.


Jean Lesage: Surely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to that outdoor theatre I think there is a need for a drive-in theatre.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Jean Lesage: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Without spoiling any of the beauties at all, it could readily be placed on the site of Bankhead which was a mining town. There is a sort of natural ampitheatre there where it could be placed. It certainly would not detract from the general natural look of the whole area around Banff. I do not think there is any question as to the need for something along that line in order to provide additional means by which people may occupy themselves during the evening in Banff.
In addition to that, there is the matter of an auditorium which I mentioned previously and on which the minister did not comment. There has been quite a strong demand for a sort of civic centre including an auditorium. It would probably also include bowling alleys and things of that sort which would be available for use particularly when it was raining and people could not use the outdoor theatre, for use in the wintertime by people who go out there to ski and things of that sort. One of the greatest ways in which Banff has fallen down is in connection with attracting skiers. We have there the natural facilities for the development of one of the greatest skiing areas in the world. The number of people that use it is very limited. They are mostly local people from Calgary, as a matter of fact. They constitute the bulk of the people who ski at Banff. The number of people who come from other parts of Canada is very limited. One of the reasons why it is very limited is the lack of facilities which should be provided.


Mr. Brown (Brantford):: I should like to say a word or two in connection with the historic sites service of the department. I was wondering whether consideration should not be given soon to acquiring the homes of former prime ministers and eminent Canadian statesmen. Now, I know that this would cause the department to embark on a considerable expenditure, but it occurs to me that it might be worth while to consider now projects of this kind. Canada is growing very fast. We have now a considerable number of historic properties and they are increasing in number. I feel that it would be worth while for our Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to consider this matter.
In making whatever tours I have made in the United States I have found that the homes of former presidents of the United States have been nearly all kept as museums and are open to the public to visit and to enjoy. Here in Canada as yet we have not begun projects of this kind. For example, in the town where I was born I remember very
[Mr. Harkness.l

clearly the residence of the Meighen family, the parents of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, a former prime minister of Canada. I think it would be wonderful if some day that property could be purchased. It seems a shame that we have a lot of premises like this that have to be obtained through private subscriptions. I think it would be worth while for the government to consider expending money in this way from time to time to acquire properties across Canada and not merely erect monuments around the parliament buildings at Ottawa. I mentioned the Meighen property because I know about it. Although I am a Liberal member, I would be very proud if our government would consider honouring a former Canadian statesman in this way.
Now, at Brantford we have a large property which I believe was the former summer residence of the Hon. George Brown, one of the fathers of confederation. It is one of the largest farms in Canada, but it is a very interesting property. I am just thinking generally, and I do not want to pick out any particular persons. We all know there are houses right across this country that are of historic interest. I believe it is time we began to consider acquiring some of these properties so that the past of Canada will be brought before this generation and kept as something of which we are all proud. I believe that, although it will cost us money, it will be eminently worth while. Every time I have visited the United States and seen these historic properties I have thought, why do we not have something like that in Canada; why do we not preserve the records of the past? I am only bringing this to the attention of the minister now as something about which I have thought and which I should like him to consider some time in the near future.


Mr. Thomas:: Some days ago I received a letter from the scout master in Lacombe, Alberta, which is in my riding, regarding a group of scouts who are taking a tour through Banff and Jasper parks. I gave the minister a copy of this letter for his consideration. However, I should like to mention it again. These boys worked during the first six months of the year to get sufficient funds to pay their way on this trip. They worked rather than rely on getting the money from their families. They took the trip in a school bus. It might be just as well if I were to read the first paragraph of this letter which, incidentally, is signed by David Rodger, the scout master.
He says:
Throughout the first six months of 1956 the first Lacombe troop of boy scouts was preparing for

its annual summer camp. Every boy was working hard, individually and in group enterprises, such as the scouts bean supper, and selling confections at the local ball tournament, since the proposed 1956 camp was a very ambitious undertaking comprising an eight day camping tour of Banff and Jasper national parks. On the eve of departure when all was in readiness, the boys received a rather severe jolt:	Word from superintendent
Strong that the school bus, the scouts' proposed means of transportation, would be charged l cent per passenger mile for passage through the park. It was too late now to call off the plans and the tour proceeded in hopes that some means of avoiding: the toll could be arranged at the park gate. This was not the case, however, and the 32 boys, after eliminating all proposed side trips and by robbing funds originally designated for swimming and other group activities, scraped together the 36 dollars required to get them from the Banff to the Jasper park gate.
Now, I should like to urge the minister to take into consideration group activities such as these, particularly as applied to boys and girls groups, the scouts, C.G.I.T. and other youth activities, because it is a very commendable thing when a bunch of boys go out and earn their own money to take these trips. They were forced because of the regulations-I agree that the regulations were such that superintendent Strong had no alternative but to charge them the fee-to use up their money to pay that toll. They denied themselves group activities, swimming and side trips that they wanted. I am sure that these boys take a rather dim view of the regulations. I can understand why the regulations should be made to apply to commercial vehicles because they are taking these groups through the parks and making money. It is only right that they should pay. However, these boys could have borrowed the family car and taken the trip through the park at the regular $2 fee. Rather than do that they earned the money to hire this bus and because of these regulations were denied the right to take the side trips into these scenes of beauty which the minister described the other day. I would urge the minister to give consideration to the exemption from the regulations of such group activities, the boy scouts and other groups, so that they could take advantage of the tours through the parks to see the wonders of these parks without having to pay commercial tolls.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I will try to make my remarks on this item of the estimates as brief as possible. This morning I was very interested in the remarks made 67509-441
Supply-Northern Affairs by the hon. member for Brantford regarding marks and traditions of our national heritage. In any young country such as Canada, if physical marks of historic interest are swept away, we lose a great deal of our national heritage. In a country as it grows, I think hon. members will be prepared to admit, it is items such as these, visible signs of our past history, that build up national pride and national character. In this respect we have a building in my constituency which I think should be preserved, namely, the city hall of Woodstock, Ontario.
The city hall was granted a plaque by the historic sites and monuments board about a year ago. Only last night the city council of Woodstock approved a motion to allow the plaque, which was granted by the historic sites and monument board, to be placed on the city hall this coming fall. You may ask, why should the Woodstock city hall be singled out by this board for this honour? Well, the reason is this. The Woodstock city hall is the only city hall in Ontario which has been continuously in use as a city hall since it was built. Perhaps I should say it is the oldest city hall which has been continuously in use as a city hall since its construction, which was in 1853. It has served as a city hall ever since that date.
It is interesting to know, Mr. Chairman, that when Upper and Lower Canada were combined the Baldwin act was passed in 1849, and the Baldwin act was the basis for municipal government in this country. It set up municipalities and gave them powers of self-government, and so on. We believe the Woodstock city hall-we have not completely verified it yet-was the first city hall built after the passage of the Baldwin act and, as I mentioned before, it still serves as a city hall and has served continuously as such since that date. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you might say that Woodstock city hall is the original forum of democracy on the local level as we know it, in what was the original nucleus of Canada, namely, Upper and Lower Canada.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say I think you will agree-I hope the minister will-that this building should be preserved. There has been some discussion at the local level, I know, of building a new city hall because obviously when it was built Woodstock was very much smaller than it is now, and the present building has become inadequate to serve the purposes of a city hall at the present time. There has been some talk of possibly tearing down the building. A great many of us in the area are very upset about this and wish to preserve it. It has been mentioned many

Supply-Northern Affairs times in the house, Mr. Chairman, that municipalities-maybe the federal government is at fault; possibly the provincial government is at fault, I do not know-are pretty hard up for money these days. When you have a valuable piece of property in the middle of a city, while the city may wish to retain a valuable historic building like this, for financial reasons it may not be able to do so. I would certainly hope that the minister might consider, not this year, of course, but next year, placing in his estimates an amount to purchase this building and thus preserve for posterity what was the original seat of local government in a physical sense in Canada. It would be a great shame if this building were to be lost.
There is another matter that I should like to mention very briefly. It is a subject that I have brought up in the house numerous times before; therefore, 1 shall make my remarks on it very brief, as I have already placed on record the pertinent facts about this place. I refer to Long Point island in lake Erie. Hon. members may recall that this island was purchased in 1866, one year before confederation, by a company composed of quite well-off United States citizens, who have since used it as a hunting preserve. The island is in the middle of lake Erie. It stretches out from the Canadian shore. It is 19 miles long and is composed of approximately 19,000 acres. In my opinion this island should certainly be acquired as a national park for the following reasons. Firstly, it has about the finest sandy beach anywhere in the country. Secondly, the water for bathing and swimming purposes off this island is always warm. The reason is, of course, that lake Erie, unlike some of the other lakes and certainly the ocean, being very shallow, never gets very cold. It is an ideal place to bathe in. Since it is very shallow the area is safe for children and people who do not swim very well. More than that, the population of southern Ontario is increasing by leaps and bounds. As hon. members know, it has become a highly industrialized and specialized agricultural part of the country. With the increasing rise in the standard of living and the increase in leisure time, people must have some place to go to spend their vacations and leisure time. While there are many fine beaches on lake Huron and lake Erie, most of them are pretty well taken up. Here we have this island situated within driving distance of an hour or so of London, St. Thomas, Woodstock, Stratford, Galt, Guelph, Brantford, Kitchener and Hamilton, and a thickly populated rural area around. This island is denied to Canadians. It is owned by very few people, most of them from New York.

One or two Canadians belong to this company, called the Long Point Company, that owns this island. They keep private police on the island and do not allow anybody to get on it at all. They use hardly any of the territory. They come there, I understand, only about 10 days in the fall to do some duck shooting. That is all the use they ever make of it.
I am not suggesting that this company, which has kept the island in a fine state of preservation for 90-odd years, should lose all its rights and privileges. I am not suggesting that for a minute. That is not fair. But I am suggesting that the minister make some arrangements with Ontario to acquire a large portion of this island so that the Canadian people may make proper use of it for vacation and recreation purposes. It could be kept as a national park and the wild life be preserved.
I may say that the island is considered one of the best bass-fishing and duck-shooting places in the country. When the bass fishing season opened on last July 1, 25,000 bass were taken in a day adjacent to the island. In addition to this, as I say, this island ought to be made a public place. With the proper restrictions, wild life and game could be looked after. At the present time this island is covered with bush and, as I mentioned, gamekeepers are employed by this Long Point Company. In spite of their looking after it, people do land on the island, and about a year or so ago a large portion of the island was burnt over and some of the original timber was lost forever. If the island were taken over as a national park the timber would be preserved.
I hope that the minister may find it possible to come and have a look at the island. I cannot invite him; I am not one of the exclusive set who own the island, but they would probably let the minister come and look at it. It would not look like Banff national park, which we heard so much about this morning. It would not have mountain peaks. However, I am told that more snakes exist per square yard on the island than in any other place in the world. I am told that there are about 30 varieties and some of them are quite big, about seven feet long. The minister need not be alarmed. I am told that some of these snakes get quite friendly. I remember hearing a story about a young man who was trespassing on the island one evening and sleeping in a sleeping bag. He woke up in the morning and found one of these seven-foot snakes sleeping in the bag with him so I promise the minister that if he should visit the island he will not be in danger.

Then, as I said, duck shooting is still very plentiful. If it was a national park with possibly restricted days with a minimum bag it could be open to the public, as Pelee island is, which is a national park at the other end of lake Erie and which is open to the public for pheasant shooting on certain days. They tell me that at Long Point island you do not even have to take a gun in order to get ducks. There are so many ducks there that they fly into the lighthouse at the end of the island and fall to the ground. If you stand there in the evening when the light is on you can simply pick the ducks off the ground after they have flown into the lighthouse. I have mentioned this matter many times before. I am sure the minister is familiar with this problem and therefore I shall conclude my remarks at this point.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, anyone who has been outside in the summer sun today will say that this is an appropriate time to be discussing parks with their cooling streams, wading pools, their swings and the lovely drives in and out; it is very refreshing indeed. As the opposition is showing some inclination to speed up the conclusion of the business of the house I shall just speak for about three minutes.
I hope that some day I will have the opportunity of thanking the minister for the establishment of a long overdue park at Fort William. We have an outstanding site there but it is on the Indian reservation. I am referring to Mount McKay.
No doubt the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has driven over that mountain and looked out over Thunder bay with its beautiful scenery and all its charm. We have a ski jump there that is not second to the ski jump at Calgary. There is beautiful skiing there and splendid ski trails which are second to none in Canada. This beautiful Loch Lomond about 15 miles around supplies the city with water. It is 800 feet up.
I do not think we have any site in Canada to excel Mount McKay. Of course, the difficulty is that the province and the dominion own this mountain and arrangements would have to be made through the department of Indian Affairs. I hope to see the minister out there this year. If he does come out to see us we will introduce him to something which he has not seen anything to excel.


Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate I shall be very brief. I spoke about this matter to the minister at noon.
I would like to see a small park near Fenlon Falls in Victoria county in memory of Champlain. The old Champlain trail which runs from Simcoe lake to Balsam lake has 67509-441J
Supply-Northern Affairs been preserved by the province and the road has been preserved along the same trail. In fact, it is still called the Champlain road and it always will be.
Up near Sturgeon lake there is a place known as the Champlain camping ground. The first house built in that part of the country still stands there. The people who owned it for a number of years kept the house in relatively good repair and although it is not in an excellent condition now it could be cheaply fixed up.
I believe a park could be provided there and that it would not run into much money. I think the province and the county could share with the dominion in the cost and it could be done on the basis of a three-way split in some way or other.
I would like to see a small national park provided there in remembrance of Champlain, the first white man to travel in that country. He made more than one visit to the place and this particular spot was always his camping ground.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries I would like to draw the attention of the minister briefly to one aspect of this branch administration with a reference to historic sites. A moment ago the hon. member for Oxford discussed a historic site in his constituency with the minister and I would now like to draw the minister's attention to another historic site which I think is of even greater importance and about which I spoke on another occasion.
The definition of a historic place in the Historic Sites and Monuments Act is as follows:
"Historic place" means a site, building or other place of national historic interest or significance, and includes buildings or structures that are of national interest by reason of age or architectural
design.
I repeat the words:
... of national historic interest or significance.
Then, under section 3 of the act, the minister is given power to preserve these sites by marking them with plaques and under sub-section (e) he can provide for the administration, preservation and maintenance of any historic place that has been acquired, and so on.
I am thinking of a historic site that does not have to be acquired, one which is presently vested in the department, and located at the foot of parliament hill, the old Supreme Court of Canada building. I can imagine no building which more closely falls within this definition of historic interest and significance than the building in which the supreme court of this country was first established.

Supply-Northern Affairs
When I say "first established", I am not overlooking the fact that at one time the court met in the railway committee room in the former House of Commons. It may be if tradition is justified-I presume prime ministers are often confronted with many problems -that the then prime minister had to placate people and it may be that the then chief justice of Canada did not like the then prime minister too well and the then prime minister did not like the chief justice of Canada too well, and it may be that the chief justice was promised if he moved into this old building that shortly afterwards the new supreme court building would be built.
If that is so, so much the better and all the more reason for preserving this building. If tradition is correct and that building was first used by stonecutters who were cutting the stone for the predecessor of this building, and if afterwards it was used by coachmen who kept their hands and their horses warm while waiting for the cabinet ministers of the day, Sir John A. Macdonald and Alexander Mackenzie, whoever the cabinet minister may have been, then this serves to enhance the tradition, because out of that old building has been evolved the Supreme Court of Canada.
What do we find now? Within three minutes' walk of the old supreme court building which first served as a shed and later served to house the supreme court we have the present magnificent supreme court building. What better symbol could there be of the development of this country than the preservation of these two buildings located within a stone's throw of each other?
In our present Prime Minister we have a gentleman who was a former president of the Canadian Bar Association. He knows and appreciates, as does the minister concerned, the value of tradition and of law and what it has done for this country. Out of the principles of law has evolved everything we preserve and value. I think that of all buildings of historic importance this old supreme court building should be preserved, because, to use the old legal and constitutional expression, the warp and woof of our constitutional development is contained within that building. There is not a lawyer from the Atlantic to the Pacific, nor is there anyone interested in the law, who does not value that building and believe that it should be preserved.
As someone once said, writing of another building:
A nation is not built of stone, to be sure, but it is built essentially of memories that have more force than any statute law or public policy. The stone laid by ancient, nameless masons long ago

and inhabited by the men who made Canada contains the nation's most important asset-its myth.
One might substitute for "myth" the word "tradition". This building is now vested in the crown and I was rather shocked to read the other night that one minister announced that it is shortly to be destroyed. Why is it going to be destroyed and what is going to be substituted therefor? A parking lot. It is proposed to replace this cherished building with a parking lot which could perhaps accommodate 20, 30 or 40 automobiles.
On parliament hill we have a statue of Sir Wilfrid Laurier looking down at the great hotel which bears his name, the Chateau Laurier. We also have here a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald looking at the parliament buildings. He contributed so very much to the establishment of our parliamentary system. We are also going to have a statue of Sir Robert Borden, one of Canada's great constitutional lawyers, and if the proposal I have referred to goes through he will be surveying a parking lot. I hardly think that is in keeping with his station in life, particularly since the old supreme court building can be preserved at very little cost. The building may need a little repair but not very much.
Someone may ask, "What can you use it for?" I would reply by asking why the people of the United States preserve so many buildings in that country. They preserve them as part of their tradition and history. In the city of Philadelphia one can see a little brick building located in the centre of the city. One is almost required to take off his shoes and remove his hat as he approaches it because those people value and treasure it as a part of their national tradition, a symbol of their national development.
There are many hon. members here who lay great emphasis on the necessity of our having a Canadian flag, and with them I do not quarrel. They want all the trappings, shall we say, or many of the tangible signs and symbols of our national development to prove we are a nation. We will not become a great nation and preserve that nationhood unless we preserve the traditions of the past, and that can be done in connection with this building down here more than any other building in Canada. The minister has a responsibility to preserve that building. It is true that there may be some conflict with the ideas of the federal district commission and there may be overlapping jurisdiction with other departments, but for five months I sat in on the committee dealing with the affairs of the federal district commission and

I can say that there is no hard and fast rule that the dicta of that commission shall apply and necessarily be binding. Without taking up further time on this matter I simply want to re-emphasize that in my opinion this building should be preserved and it is the responsibility of the minister to preserve it.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and urge the minister to take appropriate action with regard to this building. It must be the oldest building among the group on Parliament Hill if it was built originally for the stone cutters and carpenters engaged on the other buildings which grace this site.
Not only is it possibly the oldest building on this site, it has a tradition extending back 60 or 70 years as the home of the Supreme Court of Canada. Special interest should be taken in this building and I deplore any suggestion that it be torn down simply to provide parking space.
The building lacks some of the architectural grandeur of the other buildings, but nevertheless the exterior is of the same material. If there was some care taken in fixing up the roof and windows the building would look much better from the outside than it does at the present time. There is some value in keeping that building as it is and restoring it to make it more suitable than at the present time. It may be used for other purposes, but I suggest that it should be restored to its original condition as the old home of the supreme court. At least one portion should be open for those who are interested, as are so many Canadians, in the past history of our country.
In looking over the records of the Supreme Court of Canada I find that in 1890 an article was written in a United States journal by Mr. Robert Cassels about the Supreme Court of Canada. In describing the building itself, he says, and I quote from page 255 of this publication:
The building in which the court meets is at the extreme westerly end of the government grounds. It is built of the beautiful Nepean sandstone, but without architectural ornament of any kind, having been originally erected for use as government workshops, and since altered to suit the temporary requirements of the judges and the court. The accommodation is quite inadequate to the needs of the court, with the exception of court-room, which with its arched roof and fittings of naturai coloured pine and large Gothic windows is bright and cheerful; it is also easily ventilated and heated, and possesses excellent acoustic properties.
And then at page 241 is to be found a picture of the supreme court room which has just been described in those words. There people can see that court room as it was
Supply-Northern Affairs originally set up and used at the time when there were only six judges of the supreme court. In the American Bar Association Journal of 1946 is an article by E. K. Williams, Q.C., now chief justice of the Queen's Bench, in Manitoba. This deals with the move of the supreme court to its new building, and referring to the new building he says in the concluding paragraph:
The building a photograph of which is reproduced on the cover of this issue of the Journal, is a worthy home for the Supreme Court of Canada, but even so the barristers of Canada, who have appeared before that august tribunal in the comfortable and friendly atmosphere of the old court room, with its faded hangings but excellent acoustics, will think, with nostalgic longings, of the glories of the simpler days now gone, of the great judges who presided and the eminent counsel who pleaded before them, and while rejoicing in the new, will still fondly reminisce about the old.
I submit that this building might very well be preserved as a national shrine in order to give due importance to the judicial branch of the government of Canada. A little pamphlet dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada has this to say:
The government of Canada consists of three branches, the legislative which enacts the law, the executive which administers it, and the judicial branch which interprets.
The Supreme Court of Canada represents the judicial branch. I shall conclude by suggesting that consideration be given to the preservation of this building, the restoring of the central portion containing the old court room to the condition in which it was in the early days, and the making of this building an historic site to which many people could come to see the beginnings of the Supreme Court of Canada. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, the contrast between the old and the new buildings will be immediately evident. Here we have a chance to preserve an important historic site in Canada. As it is situated right in the centre of our national capital on Parliament Hill, we would be well advised to take steps to preserve this building and make it another national historic site and museum; emphasizing the development and growth of law in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government giving any consideration to taking over Garibaldi park as a national park? It is within easy reach of Vancouver and of at least half the people of the province of British Columbia. For many years the suggestion has been made that it should be taken over as a national park. Of course at the moment it is a provincial park. I remember nearly 20 years ago when the Honourable Mr. Crerar was the minister in charge of national parks he flew over this particular park because the question was being discussed at that time.
6940	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
Last month the Minister of Fisheries was interviewed while at the west coast about the taking over of this park. According to press dispatches he stated that he still wanted to see it developed as a national park. From time to time there have been statements from Ottawa indicating that the federal government would be willing to take it over on certain conditions. Can the minister state whether or not the federal government would be willing to take over this park on certain conditions and, if so, what are those conditions?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I believe my reply can be quite short. When I was in Victoria at the beginning of July I mentioned the matter to the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, and he authorized me to say that the development of the park by the province was now receiving consideration.


Howard Charles Green: So there is no possibility whatever of the dominion making an arrangement with the province to take it over as a national park?


Jean Lesage: I do not know. I am just reporting what Mr. Bennett told me and what he authorized me to say if I was questioned in the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before the item carries I .-should like to ask the minister one question. 'The minister knows that we have had some [DOT]discussions and correspondence with respect -to the proposed acquisition of the park at *Grand Pre as a national park. I know that inegotiations are in progress, and I wonder whether the minister could make a short statement telling us exactly where the matter stands at the moment.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made a motion for the production of all correspondence with respect to this matter. Since the correspondence was tabled the following events have happened. I have had a meeting with Mr. Adelard Savoie, president of La Societe Nationale l'Assomption. We have discussed the conditions under which a national historic park could be established there, the main condition, which I outlined last year when I spoke at Grand Pre during the Acadian celebration, being that La Societe Nationale l'Assomption turn over to the department the museum in the middle of the park and also the land of the museum. Up to recently La Societe Nationale l'Assomption has not been ready to transfer to the department such land and museum.
However, after my conversation with Mr. Savoie, he went back to Moncton and the directors of La Societe Nationale 1 Assomp-tion had a meeting. On June 29, I received


a telegram from the secretary, Mr. Daigle telling me that following my conversation with Mr. Savoie La Societe Nationale l'As-somption had passed a resolution authorizing the transfer to the department. I immediately advised the Dominion Atlantic Railway of such acceptance by La Societe Nationale l'Assomption so that the offer of the D.A.R. would be held open, and two or three days ago I received a letter from the president, I believe, of the D.A.R. telling me that the offer was open.
As I said, the telegram was dated the 29th of June. Last week, the letter containing the conditions not having reached me yet, I took it upon myself to write to Mr. Daigle the secretary of the society, to ask him to inform me what the conditions were. That is where the matter stands now. As soon as I get the letter and if the conditions are acceptable-I believe they will be because I have a good idea of what they will be-we will proceed to acquire the property of the D.A.R. and of the society and will hold the park and maintain it.


Mr. Barnett:: I should like to return for a moment to the subject raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Can the minister say whether the discussion with the premier of British Columbia to which he referred also included any reference to Strathcona park on Vancouver island?


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: We will proceed now to item 300.
Canadian wildlife service-
300. Wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $472,331.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will remember that about two years ago we had a discussion in the house concerning wildlife in the Northwest Territories, and at that time he gave us a report with regard to the muskox and the government reindeer herds. Apparently reindeer are not considered as wild life, but perhaps the minister could deal with that situation at the same time. I raise this matter because five years ago there was a very interesting article in Maclean's magazine by Vilhjalmur Stefansson in which he had this to say:
As far as reindeer are concerned the United States department of agriculture estimated some years ago that Alaska could permanently support about 4 million head without overgrazing. Since Canada has about ten times as much permanent grazing land, I consider that it could support a reindeer industry of 40 million head, which in terms of pounds of meat is equivalent to about 80 million sheep.

The muskox, whose feeding habits are even better suited to the north than the reindeer, could do far better. I estimate that Canada's north could maintain a hundred million muskox, which is the equivalent of 400 million sheep. What such a vast industry would do for Canada, and what such supplies of food might do to assist in other developments of the north such as mining and oil, I leave to your imagination.
In the intervening years there have been great developments in the north, more particularly in the opening up of the D.E.W. line and the mid-Canada line, and I think it would be very helpful if the minister would bring the committee up to date with regard to these two situations involving the muskox and reindeer herds.


Jean Lesage: As members of the committee will know, the muskox is a wild animal. I made a report on muskox two years ago when my estimates were before the house, but it is difficult to know what the numbers are. It is believed that the number has increased, but certainly not to a sufficient extent to allow us to do away with the regulation forbidding completely the killing, hunting or molesting of muskox.
As to the reindeer, I have to say that our experience in the last 20 years has not always been very satisfactory, and I have to admit that in the last year it has been very disappointing indeed. We have always had some trouble in making herders out of the Eskimos, who are natural hunters, but with the jobs available at Aklavik and on the D.E.W. line where a good number of Eskimos are employed it has become even more difficult to interest Eskimos in being herders. But that is not the only disappointment. There is worse than that. The original herd of about 2,300 deer 20 years ago has increased to 6,500 this year but the figure of 6,500 is a decrease from last year.
The losses have been heavy this year. The causes of the losses have been straying, predation, poaching, sickness and injury. A disease of the bones has developed which weakens the spine and has caused the loss of a good number of reindeer. We are trying our best to find something that we can add to the diet of the reindeer to prevent that weakness of the bones. Studies are being made to determine the cause of the weakness and, as I said, we are trying to find what supplementary fodder, mineral salt or other thing we can use to prevent the generalization of the disease.
Reindeer herding has not been easy anyway. In Alaska, as the hon. member knows, they have had serious losses. However, I am really confident that our scientists will find what supplementary food or diet has to be given to these animals so that they can continue to grow in numbers. After all, the
Supply-Northern Ayairs meat of these herds is the only meat the people of Aklavik and the Arctic coast and especially the people of the delta of the Mackenzie can get except that when there is a real scarcity we fly in buffalo meat from Wood Buffalo park.


Howard Charles Green: Are they having some trouble in Alaska with the reindeer?


Jean Lesage: There are very few. They have declined at a terrific pace. In one year-I do not remember which one-I believe they came close to disappearing completely.


Howard Charles Green: What about caribou herds?


Jean Lesage: The story is not any more encouraging. This is quite a serious problem for the natives, this depleting of the caribou reserves. According to a survey which was made in 1950, in the Northwest Territories there were approximately 670,000 head of caribou. According to the survey of last year-that is in 1955-the number was approximately 300,000 which is less than half. That decrease occurred in five years. Caribou is a major source of meat for the Indians of the Mackenzie valley and for the Eskimos of the Keewatin district. This decline we consider is most serious. The causes of it appear to be predation, human utilization, forest fires, unfavourable weather and the parasites. Since last year, we had a very good discussion on that subject, or rather I should say that there has been discussion. I was not there. My deputy as commissioner of the Northwest Territories had with the members of the territorial council a very full discussion of what should and could be done in the way of conservation in order to try to increase the herds of caribou and bring them back to the numbers that we used to have. It was felt that we should increase our predator control, something which has been done all over the territories. By the known means of wolf traps and poisoning we have taken a much greater number of wolves this winter than ever in the past and we hope that this control will help somewhat to bring back the herds of caribou to what they were.
Another thing that we have done is steadily to increase our educational program among the natives with respect to conservation. I have here in my hand a booklet which is written in Eskimo and which has been widely distributed. It teaches the Eskimos in a simple manner the rules of conservation and what they should do. It tells them not to kill more than they need, and not to leave any meat around as they used to do in the past when the caribou were plentiful. We are really doing our best. By all known

Supply-Northern Affairs means we have sought to teach the Indians and the Eskimos the rules of conservation in the case of caribou.
Finally, in the north and here in Ottawa we have formed technical and administrative committees. We have formed those committees with representatives of the federal and provincial governments, because some of the caribou come down below the 60th parallel into Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The provincial governments have been very co-operative. At this time I wish to express my appreciation of that co-operation. In a few words I would sum up the situation in this way. As far as reindeer are concerned, the situation is disappointing. As far as caribou are concerned, it is more than disappointing. But, with the measures we are taking, we hope that we can overcome these difficulties and bring the herds back to what they were.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said there now were about 6,500 reindeer?


Jean Lesage: About 6,500.


Howard Charles Green: The figure on December 10, 1953, was 7,730.


Jean Lesage: That is right. That has been the loss in the two years. Only last year the loss was 1,130, as a matter of fact. I do not want to be too exact. Let us say it was around 1,100. One must take into account the fact that in the last 20 years we have slaughtered about 11,000 head for human consumption.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I understand this service functions somewhat in the backwaters of the department's activities, at least so far as the public is concerned. It is a very important service, but I am quite sure that its good work is not recognized as widely as it should be recognized. I understand that the minister's department in, let us say, the water resources branch in recent years have got into the very good habit of having special conferences on a particular problem, and that possibly the same thing occurs in the forestry branch and in the national parks branch.
Wildlife is a very important thing to consider in any development in this country, whether of water resources, forest resources or of park areas. What I am wondering is this. Is it the practice of the minister to have the senior officials of the wildlife service present when a conference is being held to make decisions with respect to any forest development or water development in this country? I think it is a most necessary thing that all these various activities within the minister's department be correlated and that


every consideration be given to every aspect of a problem before a final decision is made. I just ask the minister this question. Is it the practice to have the wildlife service represented at conferences making decisions on the development of water resources?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, we in the department do not take decisions on the development of water resources in the provinces. We make the study, but the decision as to where and when a water resource is going to be developed is something that is up to the provinces. This is not our field. I do not agree with the hon. member when he says that the wildlife division in the department is nothing but a backwater in the department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not go as far as that, Mr. Chairman; I said that it functions somewhat in the backwaters-


Jean Lesage: Then let us say "somewhat".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -in the public mind.


Jean Lesage: Oh, in the public mind. I was going to say that in the figures in the estimates that I have in front of me, the total estimates for the wildlife division in 1943-44 were $46,000. This year the total estimates are $472,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am highly pleased to see that, Mr. Chairman. But just to follow the matter up, may I say this. I understand that-in fact I should say that I know it- the minister's department does not make decisions. However, it does discuss possibilities. Obviously the minister's officials came to a definite conclusion as to the propriety of a certain development in British Columbia. But while his department does not make decisions, I think it would be a good idea to have the practice of this department meeting in conference so that all aspects of the problem would be considered when they were even possibly making recommendations or coming to conclusions among themselves.


Jean Lesage: I am not sure that the hon. member realizes that we have no wildlife officers in British Columbia other than those connected with the administration of Migratory Birds Convention Act. In British Columbia wildlife is a provincial responsibility. It is a provincial responsibility, as are waterpower development and forestry. Our wildlife people co-operate with the provinces. They also have to look after the migratory birds convention application in Canada and they have to deal with wildlife in the territories which are ours north of the 60th parallel-that is in the Yukon and Northwest Territories-and also in the national parks.

But the problems of wildlife in the provinces are a provincial responsibility. However, I may say that whenever we have to take a decision which is our decision and which could affect wildlife, of course Mr. Mair, the chief of the wildlife division and his associates are consulted by us, that is by the various branches of the department including the forestry branch, the water resources branch and the deputy minister's office. This applies whenever we have to take a decision on something that could affect wildlife anywhere in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to follow that up with an illustration where one of the ministers' officials did perform a very useful service two or three years ago. There was an application before the international joint commission to drain what was known as Duck lake for agricultural purposes. It was the evidence, I think, of the department's chief wildlife officer at that time and his obvious mastery of the situation that obviously had some influence on the decision of the international joint commission-that was in British Columbia-in regard to the wildlife and in relation to the interference with a water resource in the province. We appreciated that very much indeed.


Mr. Brooks:: I was very much interested in hearing the minister say, in connection with the conservation of wildlife, that his department worked in conjunction with the provinces. I think that is quite understandable because wildlife does not recognize provincial boundaries.


Jean Lesage: Not even international boundaries.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Nor international boundaries. He mentioned the parasite infection of the caribou. In my province we are very much interested, for instance, in the moose herds, and I was wondering what success his department was having in dealing with this parasite infestation of the caribou and whether they found that the moose herds in the northern part of this country were being depleted on account of parasites. I am wondering whether the provinces and his department are working in conjunction in research, for instance, that might deal with this very serious problem, because the moose herds are being wiped out, except in Saskatchewan, where I understand they have opened the season after a good many years of closing. Could the minister give us some idea of what is being done?


Jean Lesage: I shall be very frank and I shall read the note I have here. I am no expert either on parasites or wildlife, and I
Supply-Northern Affairs do not believe I could be expected to do more than offer the information I have here. Parasites may have an adverse effect on caribou population, but the information available is insufficient to make definite statements.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the minister what research is being carried out by his department?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Mair, who is the chief of the wildlife division, says that it is a continuing research program by the Canadian wildlife service and that some research is also done in various provinces and there is constant exchange of information between the provincial and federal authorities in this matter. As a matter of fact, I know that in the domain of wildlife the co-operation between the Canadian wildlife service and the wildlife services of the various provinces is very close indeed. Every year there is a federal-provincial gathering of the experts on wildlife, and every year also there is a North American convention. I had the pleasure and advantage of attending one in Chicago. Very serious work is done at these conferences. All the information that is obtained in the United States by the federal officials and state officials and in Canada by the federal officials and provincial officials is freely exchanged all over North America.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Might I ask, with what
success?


Jean Lesage: With whatever amount of success the human mind can attain in such matters. Of course, being human, we cannot say that we know everything about wildlife and how to conserve our resources of wildlife. We know a good many rules. We have a good many basic data. Research is going on all the time, and this research is producing results, but man has never attained perfection, and I am sure that until the end of the world we will learn more and more every day in the field of wildlife as in the field of philosophy and the sciences.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not much encouragment.


Mr. Campbell:: When this item was discussed last year I had something I wished to say but I happened to be absent from the house and missed the opportunity. However, the member for Kootenay West brought up the subject to which I now wish to refer for a few moments, that is, the question of man's inhumanity to wild life. I refer to the method that we have used for many years to trap our fur-bearing animals.
I do not think that many people other than those who are actually doing the trapping realize the terrible torture that is inflicted

Supply-Northern Affairs on our fur-bearing animals when they are caught in steel traps. As you know, the trapping is all done during the cold winter months, and when an animal is caught it may not die for a matter of days. It will-slowly starve to death, and there is a long story that I cannot go into at this time, telling of this terrible suffering that they put up with. There are millions of these animals killed by the use of traps every year, and, if all their suffering could be added up, people would be so incensed that something would be done to put a stop to it.
One of the big problems has been to find some method of getting these animals and getting their furs in a more humane mariner. After the hon. member for Kootenay West spoke last year, I said that his speech was an effective speech, and it was so much so that he received a very interesting letter from the minister, who showed his interest in this matter. I want to quote from that letter:
From time to time we have received representations against the use of steel traps from humane societies and other organizations. The problem is a difficult one and so far it has not been possible to do away with the use of steel traps, not because of any lack of sympathy with the aim of avoiding unnecessary cruelty, but because no practical solution to the problem has been found. As you pointed out in your remarks, "it is not so easy to find a replacement as one might imagine if one has had no experience in that line."
For many years efforts have been made by a number of societies in Canada and the United States toward more humane practices in trapping and prizes have been offered for the invention of improved traps. There has been little progress in this direction, usually the attempted improvement has been found to be considerably less efficient, difficult to use or much more costly to manufacture. Those interested in the fur trade have also tried to evolve more humane and more efficient equipment. No practical alternative for the steel trap has yet been produced in Canada and its use, therefore, continues to be general throughout the country. I might add that a Mr. Frank Conibear, a former resident and trapper in the Northwest Territories for many years, has been experimenting with an improved type of trap, which he claims would be more humane and more efficient. We have asked the warden service in the Northwest Territories to assist in arranging and assessing field tests of Mr. Conibear's trap . . .
This department is in complete sympathy with the views which you have expressed. I hope that a trap can be found which fulfills, as far as possible, the requirement for humane treatment of animals and which, at the same time, meets the needs of those who must follow the trapline for a living. Difficulties can be expected in getting the trappers, particularly the natives, to adopt any trap which is either inefficient, cumbersome or difficult to use. For that reason, I am glad to know that other types of traps have been found satisfactory in the Scandinavian countries and Germany. We will pursue the matter and I am grateful to Mr. Campbell and yourself for bringing this information to my attention.
The minister speaks there of the efforts that have been made by Mr. Conibear to

develop a more humane trap. I have a news letter which was sent out by the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals.
This is an organization with headquarters in Vancouver. They talk about this new trap that Mr. Conibear has developed and they say:
There have been setbacks encountered in the past months. First, there was some unavoidable delay in having the traps ready in time, and, on account of the abnormally early winter, this meant that some of the trappers who had promised to try out the traps had to leave for the hills before the traps could reach them, and so they are unable to test them this winter. Mr. Collier, who is president of the B.C. registered trappers association, has now taken all the traps himself, and be and his son are working with them this season. First reports were disappointing on account of some trouble with the trigger, which made the traps hard to set in zero weather. Now, however, adjustments have been made and the last lot of traps have gone out with an improved trigger which has proved entirely satisfactory. The last report we had from Mr. Collier was extremely hopeful.
Then they go and report later that the traps have been proving very successful. I could take a lot of time to give a complete report to the committee on the traps up to date, but I do not want to do that this afternoon. The last thing that is written in this report is that Mr. Collier has been successful in getting mink and many other kinds of animals, but he still has to test for beaver.
I am wondering whether the minister has any knowledge of what has been going on in this sort of experimentation? I would suggest to him that if this new trap proves to be a success he might institute a program somewhat similar to the program that has been used in the province of Quebec in the changing of sap buckets. We all know that the sap producers in the province of Quebec receive some help in exchanging their old sap buckets for a newer kind. I was hoping that if this trap proves to be a success the minister might develop some kind of a scheme whereby the trappers could get some assistance in making the change so that it would not be too hard on them. I would be interested to hear the minister's comment and whether he has any further information regarding this trap or not.


Jean Lesage: Here is the up-to-date information I have on this new trap:
Arrangements were made for the warden service in the territories to assist in arranging and assessing field tests of Mr. Conibear's trap. Mr. Conibear had also arranged for field tests to be conducted in British Columbia, Ontario, and some of the states of the United States of America. Reports received from Fort Simpson and Wood Buffalo park were very favourable concerning the use of Mr. Conibear's trap which the trappers agreed killed the animals immediately, but, an adverse report was received from Aklavik. British Columbia also reported quite favourably on the

use of this trap but in all instances it was suggested that further tests be held this coming winter with many more traps of varying sizes. Mr. Conibear has agreed to furnish sufficient traps of different sizes for use next winter on all species of fur-bearing animals and the results of these tests should prove conclusively whether or not Mr. Conibear has succeeded in producing a more humane type of trap which could be adopted generally.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Since the reindeer question has come up, may I ask the minister whether the cost of the reindeer program is paid out of this vote or whether it is not paid out of the Northwest Territories vote?


Jean Lesage: It is paid out of the northern administration vote, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested that he speak about it on this vote and I agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I just want to clarify out of what vote it is paid. What has been the cost of that program?


Jean Lesage: A little over $1 million.


Mr. Charlton:: Reference has been made to the diseased condition of reindeer and other wildlife in the north. Can the minister tell me what departments are co-operating with his department on this program? Is he making use of the available services of other departments to help along this line?


Jean Lesage: The Department of Agriculture and the department of health and welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Water resources branch-
Water resources branch, including federal share of expenses of the Lake of the Woods control board-
302. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference, $838,204.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try an innovation this afternoon and speed up proceedings by making two speeches at once. I am speaking in my own behalf and in behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Perth, who is in the banking and commerce committee, but we both have the same problem. I imagine the minister is well aware of what it is. It is the completion of the works of the upper Thames river conservation authority. I have a number of briefs before me on the desk. I know the minister has received them and I do not intend to go into them any further. The minister is probably well aware, or much better aware of what is in them than I am. But I should like to urge upon the minister that he do his very best to persuade his colleagues on the treasury benches to put up the money to complete this project.
As I understand it, the water conservation and flood control-although the water
Supply-Northern Affairs conservation aspect is the aspect that concerns us in this house-works on the Thames river are intended to serve as a sort of prototype for similar works on other rivers. We all know that in this country at the present time, particularly in heavily populated rural and industrial areas such as southern Ontario, the water problem has become a very big thing indeed. Rivers are being drained for irrigation, and during the summer-I grant you, probably not as much this summer as in others as we have had an unusual amount of rainfall this year-water supplies in urban areas which have greatly increased in population have become a very serious problem. I know in southern Ontario it is almost certain that water will have to be piped in from the great lakes to the inland industrial cities such as Kitchener, London, Quelph, and so on.


Mr. Hosking:: Not Guelph; we have all kinds of water in Guelph. We do not want any industries that are thinking of coming to Guelph to believe that there is not plenty of water there for them. There is plenty there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Wellington South say that he has such an adequate supply of water, and that they will not have the problem that other cities have. I was just using his city an as example. I believe his city must be the only one so situated, with the possible exception of my own.
The water problem is a very large problem in southern Ontario, and the minister and officials of his department are well aware of it. Certain works have, of course, been completed on the Thames valley project, such as the Fanshawe dam near London and the channel improvement scheme near Ingersoll, Ontario. But really, if this very extensive water conservation project is to work, all the dams and other projects must be completed to find out. If it works as well as I believe it is expected it will, then similar projects no doubt will be instituted in other parts of the country that have the same problem. To complete the work on the upper Thames valley authority, the following dams are required to be completed: Glengowan dam and reservoir; Wildwood dam and reservoir; Thamesford dam and reservoir; Woodstock dam and reservoir; Cedar Creek dam and reservoir; St. Marys channel improvement scheme; Mitchell channel improvement scheme. Everybody in this part of the country, of course, is greatly interested in having this project completed.
I should like to bring to the minister's attention a resolution which was adopted by


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
304. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $465,010.
Edmund Davie Fulton: On this item, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he would give us some information regarding the proposed inter-governmental meeting between representatives of this government and the government of the United States at which, as the Prime Minister informed us earlier in the session, it is expected that the matter of the Columbia river basin will be discussed.
As I understand it, the reason why this inter-governmental conference will be discussing this matter is because it is considered at the present time that something of an impasse has been reached in the international joint commission. That is to say, the views held by the Canadian section and the United States section do not appear to be capable of reconciliation with reference to the particular subject of the possible diversion of the Columbia river or a substantial part of it through a tunnel below the Mica Creek dam or from a point between the Mica Creek dam and Revelstoke and thus down the Fraser river system.
I should like to know just what importance the government of Canada attaches to that

diversion, not to our right to make it but to the diversion itself, because recently there have been so many conflicting statements as to whether it would ever be possible to construct power dams on the Thompson and Fraser rivers down which those diverted waters would flow without irreparable damage to the fisheries interests. I think we should know now whether the view of the government is that those interests can be reconciled.
The minister was kind enough to give me an interview earlier this session which I would only refer to in general terms. As a result of that interview, however, and as a result of what has already appeared in the press, it is obvious that the fisheries interests up to date, so far as my information goes, are unalterably opposed to the erection of power dams on the Fraser river below Lytton and on the Thompson river between the outlet of Kamloops lake and its junction with the Fraser at Lytton, whereas the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources under the direction of the minister has extended something in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars to study the power potential of that system in the light of the proposed Columbia diversion.


Jean Lesage: Not only that; not only the power potential. The contract we have given to B.C. Engineering is to make a complete survey as to the economic feasibility of the diversion, and I have not yet received a report


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I have a copy of the contract with the British Columbia Engineering Corporation dated June 14, 1955 and the contract price is shown as $241,000.


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I am most concerned with is whether there is any possibility of reconciliation, because up to date the fisheries have been saying, "No dams"; they have been saying they will never agree to the construction of dams on the Columbia and Fraser rivers because they say it cannot be done without irreparable damage to the fisheries interest.


Jean Lesage: The matter is presently under scientific study, as the hon. member knows.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know it is under scientific
study, but statements have been made that those concerned are not now contemplating the erection of power dams on those rivers for that reason. I have seen those statements. The government of the province of British Columbia has taken the position, publicly at any rate, that at the present time it is opposed to the erection of these dams. I should like
Supply-Northern Affairs to know just what is the position so far as the two departments of this government are concerned.
Then I should like to know also the stand this government intends to take at the intergovernmental conference with United States representatives. As the committee knows, the United States has expressed the gravest concern at the possibility of Canada diverting a very substantial portion of the waters of the Columbia down the Thompson and Fraser river systems. General McNaughton has rendered a most outstanding service to this country in the skilful and comprehensive manner in which he has developed Canada's case and placed it before the international joint commission, resting it on the provisions of the international boundary waters treaty and completing it to the point where it is established clearly and absolutely that Canada has the undeniable right to divert these waters within our territory.
That being the position we have taken, then what is the purpose of the inter-governmental discussion? I think the committee is entitled to have from the minister assurance as to the position he intends to take. I hope and I imagine and I expect that it will be that Canada intends to give up nothing, to make no concessions which will in any way jeopardize our right to make this diversion. It has occurred to me that one of the things which should be mentioned in the course of these discussions with the United States-I suppose this must have occurred to those concerned but I have not seen it mentioned very prominently anywhere-is that the United States without any discussion or consent on the part of Canada so obstructed the Columbia river by their dams that they ruined that fishery. We have been most careful to conserve the Fraser system fisheries and to rehabilitate them to the point where they are now most valuable assets, the proceeds of which the United States share to a considerable extent.
I think that that must be borne in mind should any discussion arise as to intransigence or lack of co-operation or unilateral action on the part of the two governments. It is my view that if there has been such intransigence or lack of co-operation it has lain pretty well exclusively in the past on the side of the United States and not on the side of Canada.
I should like to have from the minister the assurance that the studies being carried on by the British Columbia engineering corporation on the Thompson in connection with this diversion and in connection with the power sites on the Thompson and Fraser are being
6948	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs carried on in a realistic manner. I should like to know what additional funds if any are being provided in order to expedite research into the problem of getting spawning fish up and fingerlings down, over or around power dams. In my view there has not been anything like sufficient energy and funds expended on this most important research.
Secondly, I should like to hear when it is expected that the survey with regard to power being carried on by that engineering corporation will be concluded. Thirdly, I should like to hear, and I hope in considerable detail, just what position this government is going to take in the conference with the United States government on this particular subject.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops has touched upon one of the most important matters, if not the most important, which I and my associates in the department will have to deal with in the next few months. It is most important, not only for British Columbia but for the whole of Canada because other provinces have rivers which cross the boundary. I agree that the international rivers in British Columbia have the greatest power potential. I can well understand the concern of the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Kootenay East over the development of the Columbia river, and we should not forget the Yukon river as well.
I understand their concern and I share that concern with them. Dealing with the Columbia, with which the hon. member has dealt, I want to see the optimum economic development of that river in the national interest of Canada and of the province of British Columbia. The hon. member for Kamloops has asked me what importance we attach to the right to divert the waters of the Columbia river to the Fraser river and what importance we attach to the fact of the diversion itself.
As to the right of diversion, we have contended and I contend this afternoon, along with General McNaughton, for whom I think everyone here has such respect, that we have a complete right to divert under article 2 of the treaty of 1909. I believe we have the right to make that diversion if it is economically feasible to do so.
Then the question is asked whether we attach much importance to the diversion itself. We do attach great importance to it if it is in the interest of Canada, if it is economically feasible, and if it is proved that there is no other way of proceeding which would bring better results and greater benefits. I believe that is quite clear.


The hon. member wishes to know whether in the view of the government the fish and power interests can be reconciled. In the over-all study of the possibilities of the diversion the cost of the diversion is a factor, the amount of power which can be developed is a factor, the disruption of certain essential services along the Fraser is a factor, and of course the fisheries are a primary factor. But it is a factor which has to be taken into account in the over-all study of the economic feasibility of the diversion, and that is why this report on fisheries was made, for the benefit of those who make the study on the economic feasibility of a diversion. I do not remember the exact wording in the report that I see the hon. member for Kamloops has in his hands now, but it is said, I believe, that at the present time it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have a series of dams on the Fraser without killing the fisheries. But that is not necessarily the final word, and evidence of that can be found in the fact that some studies are going on at the University of British Columbia and that studies are being made constantly and continually in the Department of Fisheries on the possibility of having the fingerlings and other fish go over the dams.
As we say in French it is a verite de La Palice, that science is improving all the time, and it may very well be that in the very near future some ways and means will be found of overcoming these difficulties. Why should we discard these possibilities? I believe that no possibility should be discarded. We talk about the differences in views and the differences between the fisheries and the power interests. Of course there are differences between the fish and the power interests, and of course we hope it may be possible to reconcile them if we study more deeply the problem that is presented. But to say immediately that we should stop any economic study of the diversion because at the present time we do not have sufficient scientific knowledge of how to cope with the fisheries problem is, I believe, not reasonable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I believe so too, and I hope the minister is not suggesting that we are saying anything different. It is his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, who has been saying it.


Jean Lesage: I do not agree with the hon. member that the Minister of Fisheries has said that at no time could there be any reconciliation. I do not agree with the hon. member. The Minister of Fisheries has not said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I refer to page 43 of the report where I find the following:
Since one ot the alternate routes for diverting Columbia river water into Shuswap lake is by way of the Seymour river it can be stated that the environmental change in the spawning and incubation area will be so severe that the existing run of sockeye will be exterminated.
That deals only with one particular part of-


Jean Lesage: That only deals with one way of developing the Fraser, by ten dams. There may be all kinds of other ways which no doubt will be visualized in the report we expect from the B. C. Engineering Corporation. No, there is no final impossibility of reconciliation, and I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries would agree with what I say now. There is no insurmountable difficulty that I can foresee.
Finally, the hon. member for Kamloops asked me what stand we intend to take in our negotiations with the United States in the matter of rivers crossing the international boundary. In answer I have to put a question to the hon. member. I do not know if he is a poker player. I have played quite a bit in my life but never with my hand face up on the table.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister has already answered the question in part and to that extent has put his hand face up on the table. I do not think it will weaken his bargaining position because he has told us that we take the stand most definitely that we have the right to make this diversion. He has indicated that we are not going to depart from that position. I suppose if it comes to the point where the United States is going to make us some offer in terms of return of power if we will abandon not the right to do it but indicate that we do not intend to exercise that right, it then becomes a question of negotiation. But I cannot at the moment foresee any return or promise they could make to us, in the light of our present limited knowledge of the potentialities of that diversion, which we would be justified in accepting as full compensation not only for now but for the future for what might be the potentialities to us of our development of the Columbia river. Therefore my view at present would be, and I urge this upon the minister-perhaps it will strengthen his hand when it is dealt-that because of the lack of definite knowledge of what this might mean to Canada when this potential is developed there should be no concession made to the United States. I do not think we are in a position to know what we would be giving up if we agreed now to give up anything in terms of potential development.
Supply-Northern Affairs
I do not see how the minister can take any other position and in fact protect Canada's rights, as he has said he is concerned to do, and as I know he is concerned to do. Therefore I do not see that there is much bargaining that can actually be done. I think we have to say something to them to this effect: You can rely on us, whenever and however we exercise our rights, to exercise them first from the point of view of Canada's interests as the paramount consideration but then to exercise them, of course, in such a manner that they will inflict the least possible damage or disadvantage upon you, and that we will at all times be ready to discuss modifications of our plans whenever the time comes to implement them.
I do not think we can go any farther than that at the present time because I believe we might be placing ourselves in the position where we did not think we would be giving up anything of real value but might find in 10 or 15 years that we had parted with an interest or a right or an opportunity which in the intervening years had become most valuable, valuable beyond anything that we think at present it would represent.
As to the fisheries, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear what the minister said with regard to his colleague and the Department of Fisheries because it certainly has seemed to me in the past, and I have come to this conclusion in part on the basis of the report which I hold in my hand entitled A Report on the Fish Facilities and Fisheries Problems Related to the Fraser and Thompson River Dam Site Investigations, that the official attitude of the Department of Fisheries was that they were opposed now and for all time not only to discussion of the idea of a diversion but to any further studies and investigations of it. I think the minister would agree with me on reflection that the conclusion to be drawn from a reading of this report in its literal sense is that it is the official view of the Department of Fisheries-


Jean Lesage: That is a conclusion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that there can be no reconciliation.


Jean Lesage: That is the conclusion that you are drawing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say based on the reading of this report and the various sentences, paragraphs and summaries that are contained in it. If the minister tells me that in fact this report is merely a cautionary statement, all right, I hope he is right. I assume if he says so that he bases it on discussions with his colleague and discussions among the departmental officials. I hope he will insist that that is the proper course to follow. To

Supply-Northern Affairs talk in terms of the impossibility of the reconciliation of the interests of fisheries and power would to my mind result in an inevitable and sharp conflict with, I think, only one conclusion, however regrettable that would be, namely that power would win. If there were the creation of a spirit of conflict, I believe the result would be that fisheries would be swept aside and really damaged, and perhaps eliminated.
It is therefore essential that there be cooperation. With the minister I believe that if there is co-operation and effort, and above all effort and work, some way can be devised of having both power and fisheries, and in that way the interests of the two can be reconciled. But without such co-operation, and if any more statements like these are made and public opinion is aroused on one side or the other, it may become impossible to reconcile the two. The public demand for an immediate start on projects for power may be such that, as I say, fisheries will be brushed aside, and that would be a very disastrous development.
The minister mentioned the question of research. Research is being carried on at the University of British Columbia, but the bulk of the contribution is made by private industry. Research is being carried on in the fisheries department.


Jean Lesage: Private industry has the
contract.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I do not want to get into a discussion of the fisheries estimates-


Jean Lesage: Please don't do that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but I may say I do not
believe that anything like the effort that is necessary for the solution of this problem is being made in that department.


Jean Lesage: Tell my colleague that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall do that. What is the minister's department doing in addition to that study which is, after all, a ground survey as well as what I might call a scientific or research study? What funds is this department making available for specific research into the question of how you are to get these fish and fingerlings up and down the river past these power dams?


Jean Lesage: That is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure that it is.


Jean Lesage: I am seeking your advice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know that that is a sound attitude. Let us be serious.


Jean Lesage: I am being serious. I am listening to the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just said-and I understood from the minister's expression that he agreed with me-that what you need here is co-operation, not conflict.


Jean Lesage: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know you must not have duplication. But if there is some doubt- and I have some-that the fisheries interests are getting on with this problem of research to the extent that they might or should, why does not the department here, which has a tremendous stake in power, say this: "All right; we will pursue some studies of our own, or if we cannot do it on our own we will make funds and facilities available for other research"?
While I think the British Columbia Power Corporation, which has a very direct interest in this whole development, is to be commended for the money it has made available to the University of British Columbia for the study, I do not think the industry which has such a great stake in the matter has gone any too far. I believe the sum was $50,000. I do not think that is in any way out of proportion on the plus side having regard to the interest which the company has in the problem. I think the fishing industry as well as the department, those interested in power development and government have an obligation to get on with this job of research into the reconciliation of these otherwise conflicting interests.
I should like to hear from the minister also whether, in his discussions with the premier of British Columbia which took place recently, any consideration was given to the setting up of a joint development authority for the Columbia river basin; whether the problem of who is to build the dam at Mica creek was discussed; and whether any mutually acceptable approach was worked out to the question of who will generate the power and where the power will be made available.
There is danger of another conflict of interests. Already the minister's colleague, namely the Minister of Fisheries, has said that he hopes all the power to be developed at Mica creek will be reserved for Vancouver and the lower mainland area. I do not know that it is altogether a proper thing for a federal minister to be saying to which part of a province power will be allocated. The interior of our province, which is rapidly developing-in the Kootenay area where the dam is to be situated and in my own part of the interior-has an industrial potential which most definitely will be in need of power.

I hope we are not going to have a situation where a federal minister is taking the position that only one area of British Columbia should be served by this tremendous project which is actually situated in the other area. It is another case where I think there should be consultation and co-operation, rather than that ministers should be rushing out and taking sides in a conflict over a development that has not even taken place. But since those statements have been made by the Minister of Fisheries I should like the minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to tell us whether there were discussions with Mr. Bennett on the mutual development of this project, and as to whether there will be any mutual sharing of responsibility in the allocation of the results.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what declarations the Minister of Fisheries might have made as a citizen of British Columbia, but there is one thing that is sure. The only interest of this government as a government in this matter, and of myself, is to see to it that Canada gets the greatest amount of power possible from the development of the Columbia river. As far as the distribution of the power in the province of British Columbia is concerned, that is a matter exclusively under provincial jurisdiction; and I am not going to tell the premier of British Columbia how he should distribute the power in his own province. That is none of my business.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you suggest to your colleague that he refrain from making these statements?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, my colleague is a citizen of British Columbia and I suppose he has a right to express his opinion on provincial matters in British Columbia if he wishes to do so. I have expressed my opinion on Quebec matters, and I do not see why I should be prevented from doing so. Consequently, I do not see why the Minister of Fisheries, as a citizen of British Columbia, should be prevented from giving his own opinion on provincial matters in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Fisheries might not have any greater success.


Jean Lesage: The provincial government is the provincial government, and I for one am not going to tell Premier Bennett how he should run his own business and how he should distribute the power in the province of British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question was this. Were there discussions between the minister and the premier of British Columbia

Supply-Northern Affairs


Jean Lesage: Surely there were.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -as to the co-operative steps that might be taken to further this development, not only with respect to the construction of the dam but with respect to the installation of power machinery? I am glad to have the minister's assurance, but I find it the more acceptable in that it seems to run counter to the attitude of his colleague the Minister of Fisheries.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no. I met Mr. Bennett on July 4 in Victoria. After our meeting we issued a press release. As I said in the house on my return, we both agreed that we would not add one thing to that published statement. As I have pledged my word, I must keep it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as one member who quite frankly will be glad to complete the business by the end of next week, I am going to be as brief as possible. But this is an important matter to my constituents.
I was very pleased to hear the minister reaffirm the government's decision to keep Canada's interests to the fore in the development of the Columbia. In that connection in view of the government's attitude and the attitude of the minister, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of General Mc-Naughton, chairman of the international joint commission, with respect to the former proposal for the development of the Columbia, I think we can have every confidence as to the outcome of the discussions between the representatives of Canada and the United States.
I want to support what the hon. member for Kamloops said in respect to the considerable concern existing in the interior as to the possibility of this power being developed on the Columbia and being sent to the mainland area. We stand firm in the belief that the Kootenay's needs for power must be recognized, must be met and must be protected, but I think the minister is quite correct in saying that it is a subject that is under provincial jurisdiction, and so we shall have to keep our watchful eye on Mr. Bennett.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister two questions in connection with this item? What is the position with regard to the proposed diversion of the upper waters of the Kootenay river into the headwaters of the Columbia river at Columbia lake? He has dealt this afternoon with the suggestion that there might be a diversion from the Columbia river to the Fraser river system, but I do not think he said anything about this other diversion in east Kootenay. Perhaps he might answer that question first.


Jean Lesage: This is a possibility which is under study, with the whole question of

Supply-Northern Affairs the development of the Columbia river, by the international joint commission and by our engineers.


Howard Charles Green: Is that proposed diversion actually being studied this year, or has it been given up?


Jean Lesage: No, it is a part of the over-all study. We have not had the final report on the whole basin of the Columbia river. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra might be interested to know how the studies are proceeding and how far we have reached, if I could give him the figures:
The mapping is 100 per cent completed;
River reconnaissance surveys, 100 per cent;
Dam site investigations, 95 per cent;
Flowage surveys, 75 per cent;
Irrigation surveys, 90 per cent;
Soil surveys, 100 per cent;
Other ancillary investigations and reports, 40 per cent;
Office studies, 60 per cent;
Design of works, 60 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected that all these studies will be completed?


Jean Lesage: In late 1958.


Howard Charles Green: The other question is this. Have there been any applications received for a licence under the provisions of the International River Improvements Act which was passed last year?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What were the applications, and in what manner were they dealt with?


Jean Lesage: Yes, but only for existing improvements, not for new developments; only for existing installations.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have a list of those?


Jean Lesage: I could supply it to the hon. member. The assistant director of the water resources branch is with me now, and he will forward one to the hon. member.


Mr. Hahn:: Am I to understand that the minister's statement that his only interest is in the distribution of power indicates that he is not interested in the conservation and preservation of the fishing industry?


Jean Lesage: Oh, no, I have been completely misunderstood. I believe if my hon. friend reads what I have said in the context of the discussion he will find that that is not at all what I said.


Frederick George Hahn: You did at one point say in connection with the resources that your only interest was in the distribution of power.


Jean Lesage: No, I said the contrary. I said that in studying this question of water


resources, particularly referring to the water resources of British Columbia and more particularly to the Columbia river basin, the interest of this federal government, and my interest as a member of this government in charge of the portfolio involved, was to see to it that we obtain the maximum power economically from the development of the Columbia river, but it was up to the provincial government to look after the distribution of the power in the province.


Frederick George Hahn: I thought you did not feel that way about it, but that was the understanding I had when you made the statement. I have one other question. Is the minister aware that the publication called "Facts on Fish" issued by the fisheries association of British Columbia on August 16, 1955, had this to say:
It has been established that changes in temperature in the waters of the spawning rivers has a direct effect on the survival of the fingerlings. To divert the waters of one river into another with the subsequent change in temperature could cause untold damage.
Could he just make a statement as to what has been done in connection with taking that into consideration?


Jean Lesage: No, I have not read the article.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When does the minister expect the report of the British Columbia Engineering company to be available?


Jean Lesage: In as few months as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the end of the year?


Jean Lesage: I hope so. I hope to have it even before that, because I think it would be useful in our discussions with the Americans.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has any progress been made toward setting a date for that meeting with the Americans?	.


Jean Lesage: No. We are in the summer now, and my hon. friend knows what is coming in the United States.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was wondering whether the minister felt that possibly for that reason it might be postponed until after November.


Jean Lesage: It is possible that the official discussions will be after November, after the election in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
305.	Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by Fraser river board, $127,750.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister to say a word on this item. This is a board that used to be under the Department of Public Works and has only fairly recently been transferred to this department, where

it has perhaps a more natural home than it had with the other department. I am hopeful that the vigour and interest which I am sure this minister will show toward this subject will produce some results in the near future. But what interests me here particularly is this. I should like him to make a brief report on the state of the investigations at present, the progress they have reached to date and the efforts being made to coordinate the studies of this board with the studies being made under the item we have just passed, because it seems to me that the two are very closely related, at least in so far as the diversion of the Columbia river is concerned.


Jean Lesage: The study of the possible
diversion is a pretty specific study, whilst the studies made by the Fraser river board are of a general nature. As a matter of fact these investigations are made to determine what developments for the control of the water and incidental resources of the Fraser river basin would be advisable, practicable and in the public interest, with particular reference to flood control and hydroelectric generation. It is the over-all picture, and the study has been made on pretty general grounds. [DOT] I have received in the last week a letter from my provincial colleague who looks after the Fraser river board, Mr. Williston, the minister of lands arid forests, asking me whether the board could obtain a further delay to produce its interim report. A letter was prepared by my assistant deputy minister for my signature, graciously saying yes, and I signed it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They put out a number of
interim reports, I take it the minister is referring to the final report?


Jean Lesage: No, an interim report; my
memory is pretty clear ori that. The request was for a delay to September 15.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would this board have any
special interest? If so, can the minister tell me what studies have been carried on with respect to the Moran dam? That would normally be a provincial matter because it is above the junction of the Thompson and the Fraser, but it falls right within the terms of reference to this board to study the development of the Fraser river from the point of view of hydro development and flood control. I should like to know whether the board been giving any special consideration to the Moran dam, because I think it should.


Jean Lesage: I am told by my officials that the possibility of there being a Moran dam is taken into account in the study the board is making of flood control.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will that be covered in the interim report?


Jean Lesage: No, it would not be reported on specifically; it would be reported on only as part of the total reservoir that would be needed for flood control on the Fraser.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am going to say something that I hope the minister will not take as applying to his departmental officials. I have had a great interest in the Fraser river basin, and I have felt for some time there was not sufficient interest in it down here. I am not sure that there is on the part of the government at Victoria, so it is probably a mutual blame if blame is to be attached. I say to the minister, it is a fascinating study. I know the minister is busy, but would he, between now and the time his estimates come up next year, just look into it. If he does I think he will find it is a matter which will arouse his interest and enthusiasm. I hope next year we shall be able to have a lengthy and informative discussion on the work of this board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
306.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and water conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into between Canada and the province of Ontario, $750,000.
Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oxford completed my case for me in a very able manner, but he misdirected his request. I live on the great watershed of the Grand river, on which this government has done a great deal of work. I think I should speak for a minute or two on this item.
It was almost 20 years ago that Dr. Hugh Templin, the editor of the Fergus News Record, started the campaign for control of flooding on the Grand river. As a result he persuaded the minister of works of the provincial government, Brigadier Colin Campbell, who was then a very prominent cabinet minister in Mitchell F. Hepburn's cabinet, to build the first of those control dams, and that was built in my riding just above Fergus. This worked out very successfully and prevented a great deal of the damage which was done annually in the towns of Fergus, Elora, the cities of Galt and Brantford, and on the outskirts of Waterloo and Kitchener.
It was an experiment. Because of that experiment there have been several others built since. The second one was built on the Grand river, in the marshes in Luther. The Luther marshes have been famous in our section of Ontario for a number of years. When I first heard of them the idea was to drain them so we would have more farm

Supply-Northern Affairs land. Now all those drains have been flooded by the second dam built at Luther, and it has created possibly the greatest natural wildlife source in the province. I suppose there is more and better duck hunting in the Luther marshes, because of the work done there jointly by the provincial and federal governments, than anywhere else in Ontario. It is excellent hunting, and we are not depleting the wildlife of the country by shooting the wild fowl that come to the Luther marshes. It is an ideal nesting place, and more ducks are raised in the Luther marshes than are shot. It is not just a case of shooting off the ducks that fly in from the north to rest there on their way south.
The third project on the Grand river watershed has been started at Conestogo, so we have a very complete large dam project on the watershed of the Grand river. I would recommend to the minister that he now do exactly what the hon. member for Oxford suggested should be done, namely complete the control of this watershed.
There is a very good reason why this control should be completed. It is closer to completion than any other watershed control system that is being undertaken anywhere. We should complete the small dams that are waiting to be built on all the small tributaries leading into this watershed. There are two dams which should be built in Eramosa township, near Rochwood to protect Guelph, Hespeler and Preston. When these and some others are built, then we will have a good idea of the type of plan that should be arranged for the other various watersheds in the highly industrialized areas of Ontario.
This brings me to another point mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford, when he said the city of Guelph is short of water. Every city has a problem in finding water for drinking purposes. Guelph happens to be most fortunate in having good springs, and no doubt the flow of water in those springs is added to greatly by those control dams in the watershed close to them. The water table must obviously be raised because of those control dams, and that gives Guelph an excellent supply of spring water. Then they also have deep wells in Guelph to augment the supply of spring water. It is quite logical to say that those deep wells are supplied with water that is held in the ground by those control dams.
I say to the minister that if he is going to complete any watershed with control dams, the logical one is the Grand river watershed. This was promoted extensively by Dr. Hugh Templeton; and the present editor

of the Elora Express, Mrs. Marsden, is now a member of the Grand river authority, and so is the former warden of the county of Wellington, Mr. Norman Williams. They are almost anxious that the project that has pioneered in these control dams be completed first. I could not agree more completely with the hon. member for Oxford in his request that you go ahead and finish this. Certainly the Grand river watershed is the one that has given leadership, and these people should be looked after who have done the spade work in this valuable field of flood control.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think I might be allowed to ask this question here. Have any further representations been received from the Humber valley conservation authority since the new group was organized, dealing with an over-all plan for that area?


Jean Lesage: No, I have not received anything since the original submission was withdrawn.


John Borden Hamilton: In other words the minister is still waiting for a new submission to be made to the federal government?


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Chairman; I am not waiting for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration and lands branch-
307.	Branch administration, $791,592.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be allowed to take one or two minutes in connection with this item. I think my remarks will relate to it.
Last evening I read a very interesting article which appeared in the Toronto Evening Telegram of that date, written by Mr. James M. Minifie. The title of the article is "And Now: The Ultimate Missile". Mr. Minifie was referring to material which apparently he had at his disposal in Washington in connection with the ICBM, the intercontinental ballistic missile, and he referred to the fact that giant strides were being made in connection with a counter missile that would require the very best and latest type of radar detection in order to be put to work.
In his article Mr. Minifie mentioned that minutes would be very vital in connection with the detection of the ICBM by the counter missile, and apparently the indications are that a new D.E.W. line will be required located 500 or 600 miles farther north than the one which is being constructed at the present time. I might read from this article

his reference to the fact that a new D.E.W. line would be required. Mr. Minifie says:
Success in this fantastic project-
That is the development of a counter missile; those are my words, Mr. Chairman. -would have important repercussions in Canada. For one of the essentials would be another D.E.W. line, 500 or 600 miles farther north, running from Ellesmere island westward out over the Arctic ice. This sea area is regarded by Canada as Canadian territory on the sector principle by which eastern and western boundaries are carried northwards to the pole.
The United States however does not recognize this principle, and might not concede Canada's claim if it were formally presented which has not yet been done.
The indication further on in the article is that the chief of research and development of the United States army, Lieutenant General James M. Gavin, is thinking of the same thing because he is quoted as saying:
As we look ahead we see considerable pay-oft in being able to put stations out on the polar ice cap to detect missiles early in their flight, perhaps detect them at the instant of take-off.
The ability to live out there, to reinforce out there, to explore and patrol out there may be of great importance to us in the immediate future in fact.
Mr. Minifie goes on to say:
Thus consideration is being given by the United States armed services to American military occupation of an area which Canada considers its own.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Calgary North dealt with the over-all picture in the northern area, and the fact that there is considerable concern as to the continuation of at least the show of Canadian sovereignty in that area.
We now have an indication that a further step is being planned, and I do not think the hon. member for Calgary North referred to this. Here is a situation in which we are now informed that steps may be required to be taken in the foreseeable future by the country to the south of us in order to provide a form of continental defence for all of us which may bring into dispute two theories concerning the ownership of the polar ice cap north of the Canadian land mass. Mr. Minifie's article indicates that it might be wise to make plans here to ensure that when the time comes there will be no dispute concerning our claims to sovereignty in this area, and to establish it beyond any question of doubt.
I would ask the minister if any steps have been taken to consider this problem, if there have been any discussions between his department and any department in Washington or among his department and any other department of this government and Washington to deal with this particular problem? It seems to me there is no point in waiting until the
Supply-Northern Affairs horse is out of the barn before closing the door. If we are going to be faced with a new D.E.W. line situation our government should now be taking steps to ensure that there is no question about our sovereignty in this particular area. I think we all welcome assistance from the United States in terms of continental defence and it is absolutely essential that we receive it, but I do believe it should be under conditions which are acceptable to the mass of the Canadian people.


Jean Lesage: To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, no approach has been made by the United States government to the Canadian government for another defence line to the north of the D.E.W. line.


John Borden Hamilton: Has there been any discussion of the principle of ownership of the ice cap north of the land area where, according to the indication in this article, we assert one principle and the United States asserts another?


Mr. Lesaga:: We have never subscribed to the sector theory in application to the ice. We are content that our sovereignty exists over all the Arctic islands. There is no doubt about it and there are no difficulties concerning it. Our sovereignty has never been endangered by the existence of the D.E.W. line. We have agreements with the United States and the facts are there to prove we have sovereignty over our northern territory. We have never upheld a general sector theory. To our mind the sea, be it frozen or in its natural liquid state, is the sea; and our sovereignty exists over the lands and over our territorial waters.


John Borden Hamilton: Do I gather from the minister's answer that if the situation were reversed and it was Russia which intended to make use of this area for a warning line of some kind, we would not be concerned because that does not affect our principle of ownership?


Jean Lesage: As far as we are aware, Russia has never claimed water or ice as being in the territory over which it has sovereignty. I have not heard that the United States wants to establish a line on the ice cap north of the islands of Canada because this area is the high sea, be it frozen or in liquid form. I suppose and I certainly hope that my hon. friend believes in the freedom of the high seas.


John Borden Hamilton: I do not think there is any question about the freedom of the high seas. What I am requesting from the minister is an answer to a simple question. If we do not assert the sector principle which has been referred to in this article,

Supply-Northern Affairs does that mean that we are quite satisfied to have any power occupy the polar ice cap north of our territory?


Jean Lesage: The ice cap is in exactly the same situation as the Atlantic ocean; it is the high sea.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister has not answered the question.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member can answer it himself. I have indicated the principles. I do not have to apply them for you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister is evading the question. There is no use saying that the polar ice cap is the high seas because it is not. You cannot sail a ship over it or anything else. As he probably knows, permanent establishments have been erected on the ice cap in the way of landing fields, radar stations and so on. As the minister also probably knows, at the present time a big scramble is going on among half a dozen countries to establish sovereignty over various parts of the Antarctic ice cap.


Jean Lesage: There is land there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Some of it is land.


Jean Lesage: It is a continent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nobody knows.


Jean Lesage: That is the difference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nobody knows. The minister says there is land, but nobody knows just how much is land. It is an ice cap; nevertheless nations are attempting to establish sovereignty over parts of that ice cap. As far as this Arctic ice cap is concerned, nobody knows how much of it is water and how much of it is land. I do not think it is good enough for the minister to evade this question by saying that these are the high seas. They are not. This is an ice cap upon which permanent installations have been established and supplied by air transport.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


John Borden Hamilton: Is that all the
answer we get?


Jean Lesage: I do not know just what the hon. member wants to know. Do hon. members want to know what the ice cap is under international law? Do they want to know what the ice cap north of the Arctic islands is? My answer is very simple. It is the high sea in frozen form. The ordinary laws of the high sea apply to high seas whether they be in liquid or frozen form. That is the limit of my knowledge of international law on this. If my hon. friend knows more about it than I do I hope he will tell us what he knows.


John Borden Hamilton: What the
minister is saying in effect is that we have absolutely no plans for dealing with this area when in fact there is evidence of intention by someone else to make use of it. The hon. member for Calgary North has suggested that you cannot consider this as an ocean because planes are flying in that area right now.


Jean Lesage: My hon. friend is a lawyer, and if he has studied his international law he should know that it is the ocean, that it is the high seas.


John Borden Hamilton: The knowledge of any principle of international law has never prevented a war or a dispute over a territory like this. The asserting of a principle as the minister is doing now is not going to prevent an unfriendly power making use of this area unless we do something about it. If I accept the answer of the minister it is that as long as there is a friendly power going to come along and do something for us we will talk


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I never said what the hon. member is saying I said. He has said that. It is he who talks about a friendly power occupying the ice cap north of the Arctic islands. I never said that at all.


John Borden Hamilton: What I said, and I repeat, is that from the answer the minister has given the only conclusion we can come to, whether or not he likes it, is that that is the case. I repeat that there is no plan. There may be a legal principle which the minister is asserting and in so far as it relates to a friendly country that is wonderful and we can sit back and do nothing, but it certainly is not a principle that is going to do us any good if there is an indication that an unfriendly power is going to make use of this area. I agree with what the hon. member for Calgary North has said, that anyone who has travelled in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and the far north realizes that these places are not far out of touch with the rest of the country. As a matter of fact, with the development of the longer range planes we are going to have criss-crossing traffic by intercontinental planes. This is going to become a very important area. What I am suggesting to the minister is that we do not rely on some theory of international law, but that we prepare for the time when someone unfriendly to us may assert a right.


Jean Lesage: Could I ask the hon. member what he suggests we should do with the ice cap?


John Borden Hamilton: I am suggesting right now that as a first step, if there is an indication from the United States that they are intending to make-


Jean Lesage: No.


John Borden Hamilton: There is an indication in this article, and had the minister been listening he would probably know more about it.


Jean Lesage: I was listening, but I do not rely on articles.


John Borden Hamilton: There is an indication that this area may be considered vital by a friendly power to assist in transcontinental defence.


Jean Lesage: That is an opinion.


John Borden Hamilton: On the basis of that information we should prepare for that day by asserting our own rights over this area and ensuring that any protective stations or even aggressive stations that may be required shall come within the orbit of power of this country, not within that of an unfriendly country. Unless we assert those principles it may soon be too late.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister just asked the hon. member for York West what he would suggest should be done. I suggest that we assert the sector principle. As a matter of fact there is a publication put out by the Canadian government where that has already been asserted. I brought up this question of sovereignty over these northern areas and the ice cap about two years ago, and at that time I was told that there was no question in anybody's mind in regard to our sovereignty over all that area extending right up to the north pole. I hold in my hand a book entitled "Boundaries of Canada" put out by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Right at the front of the book is an outline map which shows the boundary of Canada running up to the north pole straight along the degree of latitude which separates the Yukon Territory from Alaska. That is shown on the map as the boundary.


Jean Lesage: It is not the boundary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then it shows the boundary coming down from there in a somewhat wavy way to what would be the northwest corner of Labrador. There is a more detailed map at page 42.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of public bills.
Progress reported.
Supply-Northern Affairs PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the intention to proceed with one or more of the public bills, or is it agreed that they shall all stand?


Walter Edward Harris: I have been informed that they will all stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all public bills shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The items under
public bills having been exhausted, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Northern administration and lands branch-
307. Branch administration, $791,592.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I was just pointing out that at page 42 there is another more detailed map, and it shows the same thing. It shows the boundary running right up to the north pole along the longitude separating Alaska and the Yukon, and then coming back down again between our northern islands and Greenland and then down to the tip of Labrador. I do not think there is any question that the Canadian government, in the making of its maps and so forth, has tacitly at least given adherence to the sector theory of the possession of this northern area. I think the minister is in error when he says the Canadian government has not adopted that theory and that it has been more or less taken for granted.
Some two years ago I raised this matter in connection with an ice island, I think it was, which some Soviet scientists were occupying and which was floating around up in this northern area. I wanted to know at that time what the situation was, whether Canada exercised any sovereignty over it and so on, and at that time no question was raised as to Canada's sovereignty over this sector extending right up to the north pole. From what the minister has said today, apparently without saying anything to anybody the government is going to abandon that theory altogether and thus perhaps put us in a very awkward position as far as bargaining with any foreign power is concerned.
As the hon. member for York West has pointed out, if the Americans want to put radar stations there we will be delighted and have no objection to it, but if the Russians or somebody else wanted to do the same

Supply-Northern Affairs thing it would be a totally different matter. In order to protect ourselves I think we should certainly return to what I have always understood was our theory of sovereignty there, the sector theory, and assert our sovereignty over that sector extending up to the north pole as, indeed, it is shown on both maps in this publication on the boundaries of Canada by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Furthermore, before the minister makes the statement that we do not claim any sovereignty over that area, I think he should consult the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys under whose authority these maps are issued and also the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the other members of the government.


Jean Lesage: I do not need to consult with my colleagues, because the government of Canada has never adhered to the general sector theory.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister, then, why maps are put out showing this as Canadian territory?


Jean Lesage: If I am given time I will tell you. In 1903 these lines were put on the maps of Canada for the first time. It was not to show the boundaries of Canada. It was to show the lines within which the lands and the territorial waters around those lands were claimed by Canada, because at that time and for a number of years afterwards many of the islands of the Arctic had not been discovered and it was not known what islands might exist in the interior of that sector.
Our claim since 1903 has been to all the land within these lines, but we have never adhered to a broader sector theory. If you adhere to the general sector theory you claim that you have sovereignty over waters beyond your territorial waters. We have never done that. It is said that because it is ice we might claim sovereignty over it, but the ice is moving all the time. It is never the same ice. Do you believe that any country in the world would recognize our sovereignty over the air space above this water in its liquid or frozen form? If you claim sovereignty over a piece of land or your territorial waters, you also have sovereignty over the air space above that land and territorial waters. Other countries would never recognize our sovereignty over these high seas, be they in liquid or frozen form, and which in the frozen form are moving all the time.
That is the law. That is what the position of the Canadian government has been all

the time. I do not need to consult my colleagues, but I believe the member for Calgary North would have done well if he had consulted someone before asserting the things he has asserted without knowing what he was talking about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not explained why all the maps show it in that way. I only mentioned two of them but there are a dozen more.


Jean Lesage: I just said that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You did not explain why all these maps show that area as part of Canada. Here is one found on page 112 of Geographical Regions of Canada. The whole area from the north pole down to the Mackenzie area and from there over to Labrador is shown as the Arctic area, and it goes right up to the north pole. Every other map in the book shows the same thing.


John Borden Hamilton: I think what we have seen here is an example of an assertion of a principle established over a period of years which, if allowed to continue in a laissez-faire manner, will result in our being confronted with a very serious situation. The minister has said that no country would recognize the assertion of our sovereignty in this particular instance. I say to the minister that with conditions changing, with the present use of air transport in the northern areas, and the fact that an ice cap of this kind may be very useful for detection purposes in warfare and even useful for emergency landings of civil air transports, it is time we as one of the major northern powers took steps to ensure that this type of sovereignty is recognized. If we do not, we will be left with no alternative if an unfriendly power steps in and says it is going to make use of the ice cap for offensive purposes.


Jean Lesage: It is not an ice cap. This is floating ice which is moving all the time. Any establishment that you might put on that ice could not last for very long. It could not be permanent because the ice is melting, floating and breaking all the time. This is not an ice cap like the ice cap of Greenland. This is ice floating on water.


Mr. Zapliiny:: On the 22nd of June last the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and myself raised a question with regard to Mr. Fontana of Virden, Manitoba, and his claim for redress for certain mineral rights which were taken into the ownership of the crown. At

that tune the Minister of Finance, who was leading the house said, as found at page 5314 of Hansard:
I can assure hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for Dauphin, who have spoken on one particular matter, that it will receive serious consideration and an answer will be given at the appropriate time.
I understand this is the appropriate time. I know that very serious consideration has been given, and we are anxiously waiting for the minister to inform the committee that the government, in its wisdom and generosity, has decided to accede to the request of Mr. Fontana.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I believe I am ready to reply to the pleas made by the member for Brandon-Souris and the member for Dauphin when they spoke in the house some weeks ago. The land, 320 acres, owned by Mr. Fontana was required for an airport near the town of Virden in Manitoba for the purposes of the commonwealth air training scheme. The land department of the Canadian National Railways acted as agents for the government in acquiring the land.
In August, 1940, an agent of the company interviewed Mr. Fontana and obtained an option dated August 7, 1940, signed by him and his wife, agreeing to sell the land for $9,000. There were no exceptions mentioned in the written documents. In recommending the acceptance of the offer to his superiors at Winnipeg, the agent expressed the view that while the assessed value of the land was only $5,900-that was $5,200 for the land and $700 for the building-the price asked by Mr. Fontana was not unreasonable.
Although the Department of Transport filed a plan of expropriation on November 2, 1940, there is nothing on the files of the railway company to indicate that when Fontana agreed to the price three months before, there had been any threat of compulsory taking or that he was influenced by it.
Following the signing of the option, the completion of the transaction was handled by the company's lawyers at Winnipeg, who dealt with Mr. J. Pritchard, a lawyer at Virden who acted for Mr. Fontana. Some delay occurred because part of the land was registered in the name of a third party from whom he had purchased, and with the consent of Fontana some of the purchase moneys had to be paid to him. When these difficulties had been arranged, Fontana executed a transfer under the real property act in favour of His Majesty. This transfer was prepared in the office of Mr. Pritchard and signed by Mr. Fontana in his presence on November 6, 1940. The transfer covered the complete interest of Mr. Fontana and contained no reservations. 67509-442
Supply-Northern Affairs
I have inquired about the matter. I know that in the province of Quebec, according to our civil law-and I am told by the lawyers I have consulted that the situation is the same under the common law-whenever you purchase land, you purchase the land-and I am translating word for word the expression in the civil code-with what is under and what is above unless something either under or above is excepted. When you purchase land and there is no reservation you purchase the land with everything which is under and everything which is above.
The transfer was registered and the certificate or title was issued in favour of His Majesty for the land, including the mineral rights. Of course it included the mineral rights because they were not excepted. The balance of the purchase moneys to which Fontana was entitled was then sent to his solicitor, who acknowledged them on December 14, 1940. I believe it is worth quoting the receipt. It reads as follows:
Re Virden Airport-August Fontana Your reference 22-302-34-B
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter herein of the 13th instant, inclosing cheque in favour of August Fontana for the sum of $3 694 m full settlement of all his claims in the above connection, and for which kindly accept my thanks.
J. Pritchard.
It was not until March, 1954-that is to say nearly 15 years later-that Mr. Fontana, through his solicitor, made a claim* for the mineral rights. This was some time after oil had been discovered in the Virden district. In view of the claim made by Mr. Fontana^ the question of the title to the mines and minerals was referred to the justice department which expressed the opinion that Fontana had no claim in law for their return.
Mr. Fontana and the person from whom the adjoining section, which was needed to make up the airport, had been acquired, each filed a petition in the exchequer court claiming that they had not been compensated for the minerals, that it was not the intention of the crown to acquire them, and that they should be held in trust for the petitioners. Motions were made by the crown to strike out both petitions on the ground that they were frivolous and vexatious. The court granted the orders. Fontana appealed to the supreme court but his appeal was dismissed.
The applications to the exchequer court and the supreme court were both made on the ground that, assuming the allegations in the petition were correct, there was no arguable cause of action. The courts agreed with that view. The legal ownership of the mineral rights has therefore been finally determined. It should also be mentioned that nearly all

Supply-Northern Affairs the grounds upon which the present petition is based were contained in the material before the two courts.
Notwithstanding the decision of the courts Mr. Fontana, through his solicitor, filed another petition addressed to His Excellency the Governor General and to me, claiming practically the same relief. The cabinet has studied the petition very carefully and has rejected it because there were no grounds at all for it.
The only thing I want to add is this, and I shall be very brief. Some reference has been made to the Crichel Down case by one or even two hon. members. They have mentioned Crichel Down as being the name of a man. May I say it is not the name of a man; it is the name of a place in the United Kingdom or a locality in the United Kingdom. The case that was dealt with in the British House of Commons was as follows. The land was owned or leased by several persons all of whom died before the matter was discussed in the British house. Some of the executors laid claim to the property but it was never given back to them, because it had already been leased to an outsider and what had been done could not be undone.
The facts of the Crichel Down case are not similar. In that case the land was no longer required for government purposes. In our case it is still required for government purposes because the Department of Transport still owns and operates the Virden airport. Instead of accepting offers from the previous owners to buy the land back, it was rented to an outsider as a single unit. The previous owners in the British case were not even given a chance to tender. In this case this department publicly advertised the mineral rights for sale. Mr. Fontana had a right to tender and could do so. That was not the case in the British case. It is completely different.
In the Fontana case it is asked that the mineral rights revert to the owner. This was never done in the English case. It was never suggested by anyone in the English case that they would not have to pay the going price when it was resold to them. The view was expressed in the English case that the normal practice would have been to have the tenancy offered for public tender, just as the oil rights in our case have been offered. As a matter of fact, what was contended by the majority of the critics in the Crichel Down case is exactly what we have done here in putting up for public tender the oil rights under the Virden airport.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I am glad to have the reply of the minister with regard to this important matter. I anticipated that the reply would
[Mr. Lesage.l
be couched in legal terms, and that has fairly well been the case in the argument of the minister here this afternoon. Harking back to my first presentation of this case on June 22 last, may I say that at that time I stressed the factor of moral obligation with regard to this particular matter of public business. At that time I outlined the three grounds upon which Mr. Fontana had a reasonable claim against the crown.
First of all, he lost his mineral rights by a mere accident of conveyancing. I understand that is a term that has some legal significance. He was asked to surrender his land for wartime purposes and this he did; and by the legal process of conveyancing, unbeknown to Mr. Fontana, he also lost the underground rights. I think that is the first point that is significant in this case.
In the second place, it is quite obvious that when the crown-through Mr. Johnston, working in the C.N.R. lands branch-approached Mr. Fontana, the mineral rights were not required. The surface rights only were required for the purpose of establishing an air training field under the commonwealth airtraining scheme.
Third, Mr. Fontana was never compensated in any shape or form for other than the surface rights. He received the sum of $9,000 for the land, and that was merely for surface rights. The minerals, according to the statement of Mr. Johnston, who carried out the transaction on behalf of the government, were not in question. We have a letter from Mr. Johnston, dated December 6, 1955, in which he says:
At that time mineral rights were not considered of any particular value and were not a factor in arriving at a valuation for the acreage. Some mention was made of sand and gravel and, to the best of my recollection, Mr. Fontana had promised delivery of some sand or gravel and it was suggested he had better remove same before acceptance of his offer to sell by the crown.
In other words Mr. Johnston, who carried out the negotiations with Mr. Fontana, acknowledges that the evaluation of minerals was not a consideration at the time. So on the basis of these three factors I submit that there is strong moral obligation involved in the case.
There are some legal rights as well, the minister in his reply has suggested that the matter was considered by the courts, both the exchequer court and the Supreme Court of Canada. However, from the evidence in the return tabled on June 25, return No. 243, it is quite clear that at no time were the merits of the case reviewed by either of those courts; rather it was the petition of the crown to have the appeal to the courts struck out that was considered. The motion by the crown

was to the effect that this appeal was vexatious and frivolous, and it was on those grounds that the courts turned down the appeal.
I think there is an important principle at stake in this regard. It is obvious that even in democratic countries power is passing from the courts to the departments of government at an alarming rate, and I feel that this is a principle that arises in this instance. If this had been a private transaction between two private citizens there would have been no way of keeping Mr. Fontana from having the merits of his case considered in the courts, but because the crown was involved this was not possible.
There is also the opinion of legal counsel in this instance. There have been three reputable lawyers involved, as 1 read through the return, in this case.


An hon. Member:: They all are.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear somebody say, "All lawyers are reputable", and perhaps the use of the word is unnecessary. I shall substitute "outstanding lawyers".


An hon. Member:: That is better.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Three outstanding lawyers were involved in the case; Mr. Harold Riley, Q.C., of Calgary; Mr. E. W. Gerrand, Q.C., of Regina; and Mr. William R. Appleby, of Winnipeg. I understand that all these men are devoted to the cause of pure Liberalism, and I think that it is from that standpoint that they have reviewed the merits of this case. I believe the men in question will be well known to the minister. In the various presentations they have made to the cabinet they have stressed the legal aspects of the Fontana appeal, particularly the justice of the case. I think I shall just quote one paragraph from a communication that was directed to the Minister of Justice in this regard on May 11, 1955, over the signature of Mr. William R. Appleby. The final paragraph says;
I am writing this letter to you in order that I may request your earnest and serious consideration to a very important problem, one which in my opinion, concerns itself with the very basic principles of government. This certainly is exemplified through the Crichel Down debate in the English House of Commons. May I respectfully suggest that the proper answer to this question is to re-vest the mineral rights in Fontana, pursuant to section 24 of the Expropriation Act. If this were done, I believe that the basic principles of equity and justice according to our law, would be served.
Yours very truly,
(sgd) W. R. Appleby.
The other legal advisers have written in similar vein to Mr. Appleby's letter. I shall not take the time of the house to quote further from their letters, but I must refer briefly to
67509-442i
Supply-Northern Affairs the reference made by the minister to the Crichel Down case. I must admit that at the time, that is June 22, I did not have comprehensive knowledge of this particular case which was thoroughly discussed in the British House of Commons as well as by the public generally. I got my information from the Canadian Liberal, volume 7, No. 2, Summer 1954, and I am afraid that I was led up the garden path in reading this Canadian Liberal, because it was merely a passing reference-


An hon. Member:: Up the Gardiner path.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Supply-Northern Affairs after member who participated-it was a long and extensive debate in the House of Commons-emphasized the fact that governments should lean over backwards to assure that the privileges of private citizens should be recognized in instances of this kind.
I am not going to deal further with the Crichel Down case. I thought I would make passing reference to it in view of the minister's observations. There is also this further fact. Most provincial governments have recognized the rights of private citizens in these matters. The minister referred to the situation in the province of Quebec. In the province of Manitoba, on the other hand, the provincial government has now taken the stand, after severe public criticism, that in cases of land expropriation for crown purposes the expropriation would not include the mineral rights. The Manitoba government has gone even farther in this matter and has returned the mineral rights on several parcels of land that were expropriated for rights of way for highways, and so forth. They did so because they could see there was a moral as well as a legal obligation involved in transactions between private citizens and governments in cases of this kind.
Then we have the petition of over 200 citizens of this area intimately in touch with the situation, who had a meeting to consider all the facts. They submitted a petition to the government, which has been placed in the hands of all members of this house. They recognize as private citizens that there is a violation of the rights of the individual citizen, and there is a violation of the elementary justice that we should expect from a democratic government.
Consider the position of Mr. Fontana himself. He is a man well advanced in years. He is an immigrant from Italy who came to Canada in pursuit of the wider opportunities of the new world. He worked hard in railway construction gangs, and in very heavy labour of that kind, to accumulate enough money to buy this parcel of land. He passed through the period of the dirty thirties, and by 1940 he was slowly getting back on his feet again. The government came along and asked that he transfer the land to the crown for defence purposes.
The minister raised the point this afternoon that expropriation action as such was never completely carried out. That was only because of Mr. Fontana's patriotism. He was only too willing to allow this land to be used for defence purposes. Unfortunately Mr. Fontana, a typical representative of that generation of immigrants, was not literate. He came to Canada and was one of the pioneers of the Virden district. He worked
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
long and hard to establish himself in our Canadian economy; and it is largely on the basis of the blood, sweat and tears of this generation that we today enjoy the privileges and the prosperity that are ours.
He was not aware of the legal niceties of this expropriation procedure. All he could see was the opportunity of expressing his gratitude for the privileges Canada had granted to him and his family as a naturalized citizen here. Both he and his wife had to sign the documents with an X; but we have the confirmation of Mr. Johnston, who carried out the negotiations, that while Mr. Fontana did not inquire about minerals Mr. Johnston himself, because of the inquiry concerning the gravel, assured him that minerals were not involved.
I pursue this subject this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, because I feel it is a case of a further invasion of the rights of private citizens by big government. We cannot compare this with a transaction that would take place between private citizen and private citizen. This is a transaction that took place during the exigencies of war between the government and a private citizen. During wartime we all had to make sacrifices of personal liberty, those who served in the armed forces as well as those who stayed behind to support the home front, but we did not expect that the violation of the liberties and the freedoms-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Carried.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear somebody across the way repeatedly say "carried". I think it is the hon. member for Wellington South. If he is not interested in the rights of a citizen of Canada-


Jean Lesage: There are no rights.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend no confidence in the courts of Canada?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The merits of this case have never been heard in the courts of Canada, merely the motion-


Jean Lesage: The courts said it was frivolous.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -merely the motion that it be stricken out as frivolous and vexatious.


Jean Lesage: That is what it was. That is the decision.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But let me carry on, notwithstanding the noise from the ministers and the backbenchers opposite. Let me conclude the point I started to make.


Mr. Richardson:: On a point of order, I dissociate myself from the reference to the backbenchers, but I now seriously question

the chairman as to whether the hon. member who spoke last evening on one vote, namely, 294, is really in order now in speaking for such a long time on this matter on the present vote under consideration?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I spoke on the first item last evening, sir.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Are you repeating your speech.


Jean Lesage: You are repeating your speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The first item allows an hon. member the opportunity to discuss policy. In view of the fact that the minister has spoken on this item I think I should have the opportunity to reply.


Mr. Dickey:: It is the third time you have made the same speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There are one or two
interesting additional items that I should like to bring to the attention of the senior member for Halifax.


William McLean Hamilton: It
takes a long time to get the point across.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Obviously it takes hon. members opposite a long 'time to get the point. I am surprised that hon. members opposite, who are nominally Liberals, are not willing to listen to the presentation of a case which has been supported by three Liberal lawyers in this country as having a bearing on the fundamental rights of an individual citizen. If the rights of a private member in this house are to be denied by the government backbenchers, I think parliamentary democracy has descended to a very low level. I am trying to present the reason-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just Conservative backbenchers, that is all.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would suggest there is no noise at all coming from the backbenchers of the opposition. All the noise is coming from the back benches on the government side of the house. I am speaking on behalf of over 200 citizens who have presented a petition to every hon. member of this house.


Tom Goode: No, you are not; you are just speaking for one of your constituents.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They have presented a petition to this house.


Tom Goode: The hon. member has tried my patience too far.


Some hon. Members:: That is too bad.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would suggest that the hon. member-


Mr. Small:: -pick up his marbles and go home.
Supply-Northern Affairs


An hon. Member:: He has no marbles.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -read the Crichel Down debate which took place in the British House of Commons. It occupied almost a day and it was on a point as simple as the one we have before this house, as is suggested by some hon. members; the point of the fundamental rights of a private citizen. I think that is deserving of even greater consideration than the rights of an overwhelmingly powerful government. However, let us carry on with the discussion.


An hon. Member:: Yes, let us get On with it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Under the Expropriation Act, in cases of expropriation the person affected, as I read the act and have had it interpreted to me, should be left as nearly as possible in the same position as his neighbours. This being so, Mr. Fontana should be restored to a position of equality with his neighbours who are enjoying their rights because their lands were never required for war purposes. It might be argued that this establishes an unfortunate precedent, but if that is the case I would say it is a good precedent, because justice, freedom and liberty have already been damaged to a considerable extent in this country.
We have moved far along the road of arbitrary government action. Perhaps in view of the comments we have heard during this discussion this afternoon I might urge the supporters of the government and the people of Canada to appeal to the Prime Minister that justice in this instance might prevail.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would like to ask the minister one question. In his remarks a few moments ago he mentioned that the mineral rights have been offered for public tender in this case.


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wonder if the minister could state just when this was done?


Jean Lesage: Sometime in 1955; I do not recall the exact date.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask what were the results of that offer?


Jean Lesage: The highest tenderer tendered for $200,000, but it was not only for the minerals on the property about which the hon. members have been talking. There was also an adjoining property of the same size.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The reason I ask that question is because I think the very reply the minister has just given pretty well takes the rug out from under his feet so far as the argument he has been using in reply to the representations we are making is concerned.

Supply-Northern Affairs
The minister rested his case largely on the fact that the government is justified in the attitude it is talcing because of the fact that after the minerals contained in that property were found to be valuable they were offered for public auction, and that Mr. Fontana had the same opportunity to bid-I think I am using the words of the minister-as had anyone else for these mineral rights.


Jean Lesage: Sure.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We have to be practical, of course, as well as technical. The minister knows as well as I and as well as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that Mr. Fontana would stand no chance whatever in attempting to bid for mineral rights in competition with Imperial Oil, British American Oil, Gulf Oil and all the other friends of the government.


Jean Lesage: What if you had purchased the land?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would you have given Fontana $200,000 15 years later?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, if we could break that duet down to a solo I would be able to answer the questions. There are two hon. gentlemen speaking and I cannot hear either one.


Jean Lesage: What if you had purchased the land; what would you do?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If I had sold the land to whom?


Jean Lesage: If you had purchased the land from Mr. Fontana 15 years ago would you feel obligated to give him $200,000 or to give him his mineral rights? I am sure you would not. You would keep them as any man in Canada who has purchased property when there was no reservation of the mineral rights has done in the past.


John Borden Hamilton: That is not a forced deal. It is the same thing; sure it is.


Jean Lesage: There was no forced sale. You are proving to me this afternoon that you are a very poor lawyer, Hamilton.


Mr. Pearkes:: Don't be personal, now. This is supposed to be a House of Commons; don't bring personalities into it.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the minister-


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the legal talent will hire themselves a hall they can argue this out, and I shall continue to speak in the meantime.
What the minister has just said throws much light on the question. He asked me if I or any private individual for that matter were to purchase that land and a grievance

was raised 15 years later, I would be inclined to take the mineral rights into consideration. What the minister seems to forget is that this is not the case of one private individual purchasing from another. This is a case where the government approached a private individual and at first threatened expropriation. The government found later that it was not necessary to go through with the expropriation, and it purchased the property for an airport which was used for war purposes. When the war was over the property was no longer required for that purpose.
I think the minister was not quite accurate when he said the government still operates this airport. As a matter of fact it is not operated any longer by the government, but was leased to the town of Virden, I do not know under whose jurisdiction. I am informed it is now used by a flying club.
The situation is this. Here is the government of this country that obtained this property for the purpose of using it in the war effort and with no thought in mind at all of gaining anything other than the use of the surface of that land. The government did not have in mind gaining the mineral rights in that property, and the government admits even now that it had no such thought in mind. It so happens that the government obtained valuable mineral property from an immigrant who could not read or write, and now the government turns around and uses a technical argument to say that Mr. Fontana has no claim.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The reason I mention this is because it is not so long ago-only a year ago, in fact-that I had occasion, as did other hon. members, to raise the question of certain tax remissions made to certain corporations in the province of Quebec which involved several million dollars.
The minister raised the question, as did some of his legal supporters on his side of the house, that after all the Fontana case went to the supreme court and the court ruled that Mr. Fontana had no possibility of a claim. The matter I have just mentioned also went to the Exchequer Court of Canada, and the exchequer court ruled quite clearly that these corporations were liable for the taxation that had been imposed on them. They were ordered to pay and they did so. What did this government do then? It turned around and refunded half the money to the corporations after the exchequer court ruled in favour of the crown. It did that under the Financial Administration Act, which permits the government to do that if it is in the public interest.

On one or two occasions the Minister of National Revenue attempted to prove that the government was justified in doing this and that it was done in the public interest. He never did prove this to my satisfaction nor to the satisfaction, I think, of the taxpayers of this country; but this is an indication of the difference between the way in which the government leans over backwards to accommodate these huge corporations which are in a position to finance the Liberal party during elections, as compared with the attitude the government adopts toward a private individual, in this case a man who did not even have the advantage of education. He came here to Canada as an immigrant and served the interests of this country, and because of an inadvertence the government has obtained certain valuable property which they neither sought to obtain nor expected to get. In effect they received an unearned increment which they are not willing to share with this individual.
It has been said before that in this country there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor, and certainly the actions of the government in these two cases has done a great deal to confirm that view. I think the government would be well advised if instead of using these legal arguments and technicalities they took the humane view and shared this wealth which has been discovered with this poor man who parted with it through inadvertence, or through a technical error on the part of his legal counsel. In that way the government would indicate that they are willing to lend an ear and open their minds and hearts to the poor individual as well as the large corporations in this country.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, to come back to the item we were discussing a little while ago, the question of sovereignty over the northern areas, the minister indicated that Canada has not been a supporter of the sector theory. Would he explain to us what the attitude would be in the case of new lands which might be discovered north of these islands by another nation as a result of its explorations?


Jean Lesage: I have explained the reasons for the lines which have appeared on the maps of Canada since 1903. The claim is made to all discovered or undiscovered land which exists within those lines drawn on Canadian maps. I am assured by my deputy minister, who is quite an expert in territorial waters and waters generally, that there are no new lands to be discovered.


William McLean Hamilton: Are
we to assume from this that Canada makes no claim whatsoever to the waters in that
Supply-Northern Affairs area or to a measure of sovereignty and control over those waters?


Jean Lesage: We claim our territorial
waters.


William McLean Hamilton: I am
not going to document this at great length, although it could be done very appropriately. I would point out to the minister at this time that he is putting forth a most dangerous proposition. This publication by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys points out:
-the presence of the sector boundaries on official maps almost implies a claim to the "high seas" forming part of the Arctic ocean, over which it has always been presumed that it is impossible for national sovereignty to exist.


Mr. Leboe:: Should not this matter be dealt with by the Department of External Affairs rather than this department?


An hon. Member:: Quite right.


Jean Lesage: That is all right; I do not quarrel with that.


William McLean Hamilton: This publication of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys definitely suggests the presumption that by drawing these lines these rights exist. Then at page 48 reference is made to Senator Poirier's sector. He was the man who first expounded the sector theory. I quote:
Senator Poirier's "sector", therefore, still remains in an indefinite official state, but it has recently come to take on added meaning with the possibility that large areas of sea ice may be used as airfields. If this becomes a reality, then the question of sovereignty over the ice in "Poirier's sector" will no doubt have to be examined, for it will have some of the aspects and uses of dry land.
With the time at our disposal it is regrettable that we cannot really hammer out this thing, because it is in the interests of Canada and the national defence of Canada. The minister's assumption that any country can come in and establish air bases and other defence efforts immediately north of Canada and south of the north pole flows directly-


Jean Lesage: I did not admit anything; I gave the legal position.


William McLean Hamilton: That is one of the most dangerous propositions that has been expounded in this house for a long time.


Jean Lesage: You do not know what you are talking about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister casts doubt on the assertion I made some time ago that we had never made any claim to this northern sector.

Supply-Northern Affairs Mr. Lesage: To the water and ice in the sector.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At page 43 of this same publication put out by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys we find this: The polar claims do not appear to have been officially stated in public until June 1925, when the minister of the interior stated, on several occasions, during debates in the House of Commons, that Canada claimed "right up to the pole" (44a, pp. 3773, 4069, 4083). He also defined the longitudinal limits of the claim and tabled a map showing its extent.	In December 1953, the Prime
Minister of Canada reiterated the claim during House of Commons debate when he said:
"We must leave no doubt of our active occupation and exercise of our sovereignty in these northern lands right up to the pole."
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, just before we took recess I had been quoting from memoir 2, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, geographical branch, on the boundaries of Canada and its provinces. I was just on the point of quoting what our present Prime Minister said, which was as follows:
We must leave no doubt of our active occupation and exercise of our sovereignty in these northern lands-


Jean Lesage: Lands.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -right up to the pole.


Jean Lesage: Lands.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is trying to emphasize "lands". I emphasize "right up to the pole". Nobody knows yet whether it is land or floating ice in the vicinity of the pole. I hope the minister will not dispute that. The publication continues:
Lines delimiting the sector have subsequently appeared on political maps of Canada published by the federal government.
This goes to the point that the minister has been trying to make as to why these lines have appeared showing our sovereignty extending right up to the pole.
These it is presumed, however, should merely be regarded as lines of allocation, which are delimited through the high seas or unexplored areas for the purpose of allocating lands without conveying sovereignty over the high seas.
I will not read again the subsequent passages read by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, but they indicate the fact that there was in existence in Canada for many years what we might call a sector

psychology in regard to this area to the north of Canada, and that everything in this sector running up to the north pole was looked upon as under Canadian sovereignty.
I do not want to enter into any further controversy with the minister over whether these ice masses are floating, anchored or high seas, but I would say that nobody knows whether there is or is not land there. Nobody knows how much of this ice is anchored on land and how much is floating. In any event, I think the minister has followed a completely contrary line to that which has been followed by successive governments in Canada probably from 1903 on but definitely from 1926 on, when the minister of the interior in effect claimed all these areas for Canada, and in going contrary to that position I think he has done a great disservice to the country by what you might call foreclosing any claim we might have to that area.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Make it short.


John Borden Hamilton: -my minister in front of me is giving me some advice to make this as short as possible, but I really do not need too much advice from over there. But since I may get the credit or the blame for starting this, I should like to say simply this in conclusion. I do not take any credit as an international law authority; therefore I was not too much taken back this afternoon by the minister's remarks, but I should like to add this to what the hon. member for Calgary North has said. I think what constitutes a land mass, an ice mass or what are territorial waters in a sea area, is over and above any argument on the basis of legal principle. What we are stressing now is that changing conditions may necessitate a new outlook and a new statement of principle.
The minister has said that nobody will recognize it. There was an article in The Economist of Britain indicating that Russia had asserted the sector principle. It is true that they have named these floating islands, if that is what you want to call them. They have given them numbers, S.P.l, 2, 3 and 4, and as they disappear they go on with the numbering, 5, 6 and 7. As I understand it, these islands are on their side of the pole and are within their sector. But they have been using them for purposes of scientific research. I do not want to give the minister the opportunity of quoting all the authorities he has, but I would respectfully suggest in closing that the minister should have another look at the situation with respect to whether a new principle should be enunciated before it is too late.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, when I
spoke yesterday on the general item I posed several questions with regard to northern administration, and I should like the minister to answer them now. One had to do with what steps the government is prepared to take, if any, in order to ensure continued Canadian control, particularly as far as civil powers and rights are concerned, in the northern areas where the D.E.W. line stations are now established. Another was in connection with transportation to the northern areas. I will not take the time to repeat exactly what the questions were. Perhaps the minister has made a note of them and can reply.


Jean Lesage: As far as sovereignty is concerned, I dealt with that this afternoon in the course of my remarks which were prompted by the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for York West. I said, and I repeat tonight, that there has never been and there cannot be any questions as to our sovereignty on the continent and in the Arctic islands.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I may interject, it is not a matter of sovereignty. It is a matter of ensuring that Canadian civil rights and civil law are in operation and effect at all these northern D.E.W. stations.


Jean Lesage: I do not have with me the agreements which were signed between Canada and the United States and which were tabled at the last session. They are pretty voluminous documents. They guarantee that Canadian civil laws apply, that the area is under Canadian control, that our native population up north will be employed and protected, that our natural resources, including wildlife, will be protected. These things are all in the agreements and we have had no trouble at all with the United States authorities. Canadian law is applied according to the agreements and it has been applied in fact. There is no United States control on the D.E.W. line area.
I have visited the D.E.W. line myself. I accompanied the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of National Defence on a visit to some of the stations. There is no doubt that Canadian sovereignty and control are recognized all along the line. Let us not forget that over 80 per cent of the people to be found at these stations are Canadian. They come from the various provinces and there are also Canadian Eskimos, who are Canadians with full citizenship rights. There are also a few Indians working in the Mackenzie delta at the present time.
The stations will be manned, maintained and operated under the direction of the
Supply-Northern Affairs Federal Electric Company, but arrangements are being made so that most of the employees for the maintenance and the operation of the D.E.W. line will be Canadians. I am glad and proud to say that the discussions we have had with the Federal Electric Company have been very successful from the point of view of providing as much employment as possible for our Eskimos in the north. There has been no difficulty. There has been some doubt cast about sovereignty or control. I am not referring to the hon. member for Calgary North because he has asked questions and has not made assertions, but I am afraid some people have asserted that Canadian control is not effective along the D.E.W. line. To use an expression used by the hon. member for Calgary North, these people have built a straw man and they have been trying to destroy it in their papers.
Nothing exists which one could call United States control in the north. It is Canadian control. Our northern service officers are constantly touring the line. The R.C.M.P. are constantly touring the line looking after order, peace and good behaviour on the part of everyone concerned. It is clear that Canadian law is applied and enforced, and that the control is in the hands of Canadians.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before the minister goes on to the transport end of it, I think perhaps I should say that in my opinion he is begging the question. He started out by saying that certain agreements were made with the United States and that that covered the whole question. I do not think that covers the question at all, and it is directly contrary to the reports we have received from Canadian newspapermen who were on the trip through the north.
I think the main point I made was this. While there was no overt claim about sovereignty or anything along that line, in effect Canadian sovereignty and control of that area was not being excercised. In other words there were no Canadian civil authority officers at a considerable number of the D.E.W. line stations. As a matter of fact these particular newspapermen who went up there had to go down to New York, report to the United States authorities, and get clearance from the New York authorities, and as far as Canada was concerned she had nothing to do with it at all. All the security arrangements and everything else in connection with the matter or in connection with this particular trip were in the hands of the United States authorities. Possibly the minister is obliged to get authority from Washington before he can make a trip around those stations. I do not know whether that is so. That may be the situation. In any event, as

Supply-Northern Affairs far as Canadian custom regulations are concerned and everything along that line, that sort of thing just had no application whatever.


Jean Lesage: Oh, yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I made when I spoke yesterday was that we should have officers of this department or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at all these stations so that Canadian civil authorities are always in evidence, always apparent and always recognized.


Jean Lesage: Even during the construction of the D.E.W. line our northern service officers have been touring the line constantly. Moreover, to hear the hon. member talk one would think that the contractors up there were all United States contractors, whereas the fact is, as we know, that in connection with half the line-


Clarence Decatur Howe: All of it.


Jean Lesage: -the contract for the construction of half of the line, the western half of it, was given to Northern Construction Company and that for the construction of the eastern half of the line to Foundation Company of Canada, which are two Canadian companies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I will say this finally in connection with this matter. I have not been up there. I do not know, to my personal knowledge, what the situation is. But all the Canadian newspapermen who went up there told stories about it and gave reports. The stories they wrote were more or less unanimously to the effect that Canadian control of the area had practically disappeared. As a matter of fact Ralph Allen said, "do the Canadians here resent the Americans and the American control of affairs?" and the man replied sadly: "It is exactly the other way around. The Americans resent their being here".


Jean Lesage: Only two or three newspapermen have written stories in the sense just mentioned by the hon. member, out of a total of 20. The balance have not said anything like that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in the newspaper stories I have seen, all the people who went up there indicated that.


Jean Lesage: You saw the ones you wanted to see for the purpose of discussion of the estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; I read everything on these things that I can find. As I say, the stories in the papers and magazines have all been along the lines I have indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
[Mr. Harkness.)


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 307 carry.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister has not said anything about this business of transportation in the north. I have reference to the matter of this railway to Pine Point, about which I spoke yesterday.


Jean Lesage: I believe that the case for the desirability of a railway has been very well made in the report which was prepared by the commissioner of the northwest territories for the Gordon commission. I do not see exactly what my hon. friend wishes me to add further, because I am sure he has read this brief.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I said yesterday that I was delighted to see that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources was alive to the necessity for improved transportation in the north. I was extraordinarily glad to see that they had presented this brief, which I think was an excellent one. I should like to compliment the deputy minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on this brief. I think it was an extremely good brief. But the question I asked the minister yesterday was whether anything definite was being done or has been done with regard to getting this railway to Pine Point started.


Jean Lesage: I have had discussions with the railway authorities, and I personally have no doubt about the desirability of such a line. It is a question of timing under the present circumstances, when so much of our physical resources are being used for the huge development which we are witnessing at the present time in Canada. Our physical resources are taxed to a much greater extent than we expected them to be taxed. They are taxed to the point that we had a warning from the Bank of Canada on the subject not later than last week. It is a question of timing.
As I said, I personally have no doubt of the desirability of this railway. It is a question of timing in the over-all economic situation in Canada. I shall be greatly interested to see what the royal commission will have to say about this specific project in relation to the over-all development of Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I agree with what the minister has said, namely that it is a matter of timing. But he still has not answered the question. In other words, has anything definite been done with regard to getting this started?


Jean Lesage: What do you mean?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Have there been any conversations with the C.N.R.? Have there been conversations with the C.P.R.? Have
any

there been any arrangements made or tentative talks been had with contractors other than these two railways with regard to building this line? In other words, has anything definite been done about it?


Jean Lesage: I personally and my officials have had talks with the officers of the railways, but I do not believe I should at this time say what those conversations have been. They were confidential.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 307 carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no, Mr. Chairman. The minister still has told us absolutely nothing definite with regard to this railway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has told you all he proposes to tell you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the Minister for Defence Production saying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I say he has told you all he proposes to tell you, but you keep on talking.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Defence Production is indicating his usual dictatorial attitude as far as parliament is concerned. He is implying that I have no right even to ask questions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have asked them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, if the Minister of Defence Production had his way we would not be sitting here at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And we would not be asking any questions. If we attempted to ask any questions, the Minister of Defence Production would tell us to go home, that it is none of our business. He does not understand or recognize the democratic principles of government. He just does not understand democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not understand it as expounded by my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He does not understand democracy; otherwise he would not be interrupting in a discussion of this kind. I would repeat the question that I asked yesterday. Can the minister not tell us anything definite whatever as to when there may be any move with regard to starting this railway?


Jean Lesage: No, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
67509-443J
Supply-Northern Affairs Forestry branch-
312. Branch administration, $140,887.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to get to my feet on item 312 but I became immersed in this other discussion. I am only going to be a minute or two.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member leave to revert to item 312?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My remarks will be very brief because I realize that we want to get through the estimates. This is an extremely important branch. I am pleased to know that there is an increase of something over $26,000 in the estimates of this branch. I think that is a very good sign. I am sorry to see a decrease in the item connected with the grant for forest inventory. I hope that does not indicate that the department is gradually going to back out of that field, because in my opinion forest inventory must be a continuing inventory if it is going to be worthwhile and of value to the persons concerned.
I am just going to mention two things.
I want to mention briefly a point I tried to make on a previous occasion, that in my opinion, and in the opinion of a large number of the people I represent, particularly those interested in the lumber industry, the most vital thing this government could do to assist in the protection of our forests at the present time would be to consider making grants to provincial governments toward forest fire protection. Just yesterday in the Kootenays there were 2,000 acres of timber burned within 24 hours. That is a tremendous loss. Yesterday in my own district of the Arrow lakes there were 15 fires started within one hour by lightning. This large number of fires commencing at once in one area create very serious problems for the the forest service. You have to have equipment to cope with that satisfactorily; you have to have men, and that means money.
I do make an appeal for the consideration of grants to the provinces for the improvement of forest fire protection.
In that connection I am just going to quote very briefly from this very excellent booklet published this year by the forestry branch of the minister's department and entitled "Research Work of the Forestry Branch." I had intended to say a bit more if we had not been cruising around the Arctic for quite so long. I am just going to quote this paragraph, "Forest fire protection section".
The chief natural enemy of the forests of Canada is fire. This statement is confirmed by the fact that about 50 per cent of the total expenditures by provincial forestry departments are incurred in connection with fire protection. Although great

Supply-Northern Affairs advances have been made in the development of fire protection services during the past 30 years, the danger that investments in forest improvements may literally go up in smoke continues to be a major deterrent to the development of sound forest management.
Those are very true words indeed. It is because of the fear of the loss of forests and of the investment in timber by fire that some companies and some governments still fail to practice the forest management policies that they should be practising at this stage.
The research work of the forestry branch in this field seeks to provide new information and to give assistance in the development of better methods which are essential to the further improvement of fire protection.
I give the branch credit for what it has been doing in this connection. This booklet mentions the very excellent work that is being done. Again I say I think the federal government could well reinvest part of the large sum of money it receives in the form of taxes from the forest industry in grants to the provinces for fire protection purposes. The same conclusions were reached at the conference held at the Chauteau Laurier in 1954 on renewable natural resources. I am not going to read the paragraph, but there again a request is made for some consideration by this government of grants to the provinces for this purpose.
Having said that, I want to mention one other matter. I think the branch does excellent research work, but I plead again for a wider distribution, if possible, of the literature the branch publishes. I know that every effort is being made to get this information into the hands of the people who will appreciate it; but within the last month I have had correspondence, for instance, from the mill manager of a company in which I am interested and the forestry engineer of the same company, asking for information on this and that. I know they have been pleased to receive many of these pamphlets and bulletins that I have sent. In my travels around the constituency I run into a number of lumbermen who operate on a small scale who are not aware of this information.
I do suggest that either through the lumbermen's association of British Columbia, the interior association or the other associations, a greater effort be made to get this excellent information, resulting from research on the part of this branch, into the hands of the men who are producing logs and manufacturing lumber in this country.
Now I want to make one suggestion in :espect of research. I have been very interested for some years in fire-resistant paints and things of that sort for wood. I made some inquiries of the national research council and found they had not carried on (Mr. Herridge.l
any research or investigations in that respect. They had dealt with private companies. I think they do give information as to those who are dealing with this matter, and I understand they consider it best to leave research in this field to the private companies in Canada.
I understand this branch has done some work in this respect. This is a type of research that I hope the research branch of the forestry branch will carry on extensively, because it offers a great opportunity. I have heard the question discussed amongst lumbering people and people who want to use our splendid cedar, fir and other woods for roofing and interior and exterior finishing.
I understand that in the United States considerable work has been done along this line.
I know of people who desire to use wood not because of the cheapness but because it is a long lasting type of roof. I might mention that regardless of what the manufactured roofing might be, asbestos or whatever it is, according to the Washington department of documents the cedar shake roof is the most efficient and longest lasting, and in the long run the cheapest roof you can put on at the present time. The same is true of the red cedar shingles of British Columbia.
I suggest this is a problem worthy of the very close attention of our forestry branch, because if we get some solution for the protection of wood by coating it with paints or other commodities that will reduce the fire hazard, we will have accomplished a very important thing for the lumber industry as a whole and for those persons in Canada who prefer to use Canadian woods in building and beautifying their homes, rather than these synthetic materials that are foisted on people today because they are in some cases, under present circumstances, the most easily available and more fire-resistant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
318. To provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $650,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I shall not detain the committee for any length of time, but as any hon. member can see by reading this item it is very important to my province of New Brunswick. There is a vote of $650,000 for assistance in combating the spruce bud-worm infestation in our province. I might say that this work has been going on since 1949, or for the last five or six years anyway. I want to congratulate not only the

federal government but also the New Brunswick government and the different companies in New Brunswick like International Pulp and Paper, the Fraser Company and the Bathurst Pulp and Paper Company for having joined in combating this great menace to our forests.
I have spoken on this before and it has been mentioned in the house by others. I do not believe in continued repetition so far as these matters are concerned, but I should like to ask the minister whether or not this infestation has spread to other parts of Canada. Has it spread to Quebec, for instance, or into the state of Maine in the United States or the province of Ontario? I notice the estimate is designed principally for the combating of this infestation in the province of New Brunswick.
I should like to ask the minister how much has already been spent in New Brunswick. What success is the department having? Does it feel that this infestation is well under control? How much longer does the department feel it is necessary to carry on its activities in trying to combat this infestation? Will the minister give us a general report on what the situation is regarding this matter in New Brunswick?


Jean Lesage: I am informed-I know for a fact-that the budworm is spreading into Quebec. I know the government of Quebec has announced that it was spraying and has done so for the last two years. There has been no request for a contribution from the government of Canada. I am informed by the director of the forestry branch that there is some infestation in the state of Maine, and that they are spraying there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We will not give any assistance to them. How much money does the minister think it will take from the federal government to combat this infestation?


Jean Lesage: I do not know, but the agreement with New Brunswick that we renewed last year was for 1956, 1957 and 1958.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How much has been spent already?


Jean Lesage: We spent $1 million in 1953-54 and $314,271 in 1954-55. We spent around $300,000 last year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The department spent one-third of the cost?


Jean Lesage: That is right. Of the total cost of the operation, which is carried out by Forestry Protection Limited, which pays one-third-pardon me, the paper companies pay one-third-
Supply-Northern Affairs


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the situation regarding infestation?


Jean Lesage: Well, I have a very long report on forest protection, but I can say that the gist of the report is that the situation is very encouraging.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is under control?


Jean Lesage: I will send a copy of the report to my hon. friend.


Mr. Rowe:: It seems to me that the service to forestry development in this country by the dominion government has been sadly neglected for many years. It is not a case of political differences with any one party, but there seems to be a lack of understanding as to the part that forestry plays in our whole economy.
The hon. member for Royal has mentioned the budworm. We know very well from historical facts that down through the years since 1850-in fact again in 1875, and again later on-we have had these budworm infestations. I do not want to hold up the estimates, because I would like to see this house prorogue; but I feel that this is one very important factor of which the government should take more cognizance. It is not a matter of political differences; it is just a matter of lack of appreciation. From no industry in Canada does the government receive so much income tax and so much benefit as from the pulp and paper industry.
We hear a great deal about the conservation of our resources and of this government not preserving those great natural resources, and I hear a lot of people talking about what has been done to those forests by cutting down the trees. Yet the same people will probably throw half-burned cigarettes in a forest district and do more harm than all the harm they have been talking about that others have done to the forests of this country.
I sometimes think that people have a misconception of our forests. Our forests are like crops. Trees grow as people do. They develop, ripen and mature and become overripe and ready for harvesting. You would not take a wheat field and say to the farmer, "You should not cut that golden field of wheat because it is so beautiful. You are ravaging the agricultural soil by cutting the wheat. It is the same with spruce, balsam and poplar and any trees that are ready to cut and be developed into resources and put into our economy to give employment to our people. It is a crop.
I do say this, Mr. Chairman, and I can say it now, as you probably know, with better grace than I could have some time ago,

Supply-Northern Affairs because I am not connected with any pulp and paper industry in Canada in any managerial or executive position. I do say, independent of politics, that the government of Canada should stop, look and listen with respect to the development of our great resources. I have been a farmer all my life, and I have urged that expenditures be made on agriculture. We have expenditures on agriculture in western and eastern Canada, but no industry in Canada has contributed so much to the national economy and received so little from the Ottawa government as the forestry industry. I take part of the blame myself. It is not a condemnation of the present government; it is the attitude of the government at Ottawa, irrespective of what party is in power.
The budworm infestation, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows probably better than most members in the house-I think he will agree with me in this-destroyed probably 10 million cords in the district with which he and I are so familiar.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lake Nipigon area alone.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, in the lake Nipigon area alone, 10 million cords. I think he will agree that this industry has returned to the treasury of the dominion tremendous amounts in income tax and so on. We return enormous sums to agriculture, the basic industry, as it is called, of this country, which many of us are interested in; but the pulp and paper industry is criticized for having ravaged the forests." I think the minister will agree with me that from Newfoundland right out to the far west coast, which several hon. members to my left know so well, the companies have tried to play the game. They have tried to establish protection for the forests; they have tried to establish reforestation. The provinces have helped some, but the provinces have not given as much as they might have done, and I think the dominion government should take a new look at what could be done.
We talk about the trans-Canada highway. We need highways through the forests. Don't let us charge the tourists with having thrown out cigarette butts and started fires. The good Lord and nature with lightning start far more fires than anything else. It is almost impossible, either by helicopter or plane, to get into many of those areas. There is nothing that would help more than highways through those areas, and a great deal could be done along that line.
I urge the minister to try to get the members of the cabinet to take a new look at this great resource because, after all, we stand out as the greatest country in the world

so far as pulp and paper and timber resources are concerned. During the years of the 1930's, in those awful years, the gold of this country and our forest resources were the key links keeping this country going.
As the hon. member for Royal has so well said, the budworm infestation is terrific. You hear people saying, those who probably have not studied the issue very carefully, that the pulp and paper industry and the lumbermen are stripping the forests and cutting down the beautiful trees and not planting anything else. But keep in mind that the whole pulp and paper industry in Canada consumes only a little more than 25 per cent of the annual depletion of our forests, while fire alone takes almost 25 per cent. The firewood to keep houses warm in districts that have no coal or oil takes almost another 25 per cent.
It seems to me that we are often carried away by the idea that 10 million, 12 million or 13 million cords of wood are cut to keep the pulp and paper industry and the lumber industry going, which bring in about $1,500 million a year in our balance of trade; yet we hear-and I am not critical of this in a political sense-that about $3 million will be spent to protect this. I have urged before in the house and I urge at this time that the government take another look at what could be done to help perpetuate this great resource. The only difference between a crop of golden wheat and a crop of black spruce is that it takes about 60 years to grow a crop of black spruce and something less than six months to grow a crop of wheat. They both must be harvested in time; there shall be a time for seeding and a time for harvesting.
The hon. member for Fort William and others who have lived in the north country know that what I say is true. If a forest is properly harvested it is not depleted, and just because you cut down a beautiful tree it does not mean that another one will not grow in its place; it simply means that perhaps you and I may not be here to see it.
The budworm infestation has been the tragedy of the forest over the last 75 years. The infestation came over from the state of Maine into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia probably 80 years ago, and then it moved on down into Ontario. It has been most devastating, and I know it is almost impossible to eradicate. In the province of Ontario the budworm was sprayed from aeroplanes and various other measures were taken to kill the budworms; but they moved out into the lakes and killed the fish, and there were all sorts of repercussions along the line.
I do believe that the dominion government should be more active in co-operating with the various provinces across Canada in an

effort to defeat the budworm. It must be remembered that the budworm does not understand or acknowledge provincial boundaries. I realize that this matter is a provincial responsibility, but I think it is a matter the importance of which we in this chamber fail to emphasize in relation to our whole national economy.
For instance, let us think of our fire protection system. A fire could start in the province of Quebec and sweep through the province of Ontario. Forest fires disrespect provincial borders; we have seen them do that. I feel there should be closer co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. As a matter of fact I think the provinces should co-operate more in building highways through the various forest areas, and I think the federal government should be as interested in developing such roadways as it is in building the trans-Canada highway.
Another aspect of this matter I have mentioned once before in this house and would like to bring up again at this time is that if we should ever become involved in another tragic war-and God forbid that it should ever happen-we should try to conceive what might happen in view of the development of these disastrous and terrible instruments of destruction that could destroy our national wealth very quickly if two or three bombs fell in our forests during a dry season in the summer. If this should ever happen the highways I have referred to would be extremely important.
I am not going to delay the house because I am anxious to see this session expedited and concluded, but I urge upon the minister to talk to his colleagues, especially the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for he knows as I do that what I have said is true. Let us look at this squarely, independently of parties, as an issue that involves one of the greatest resources of this country, and let us give some consideration to doubling, trebling and possibly quadrupling the money that is spent for our forest development and protection.
Personally I would like to see some arrangement made whereby we would have highways built through these forest areas, areas that are not yet taken up by any company, so that in case of fire, budworm infestation or enemy attack we would have ways and means of reaching those districts and safeguarding one of the greatest resources we have. No other people in the world have ever had a single resource such as we Canadians have. We have the greatest forest resources in the world. Canada is now
Supply-Northern Affairs supplying 85 per cent of the world's newsprint, almost all of it, and about 65 per cent of the world's pulp. This is a resource that is worth as much as gold itself. I can speak in this way because at the moment I am not identified with any company.
As a member of this house I feel that we in this chamber have not fully comprehended the importance of this vital resource, and independently of our party affiliations we have not quite done all that we should do to safeguard and protect it. As a farmer I do not mind if the government spends $12 million, $18 million or $100 million in subsidies for agriculture, but I shudder to think that in relation to this great resource which returns so much to the federal treasury we on both sides of the house appear to consider it as picayune and are adopting an attitude of reckless abandon.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I have another question I should like to direct to the minister. In the last few weeks we have heard statements by the Minister of Fisheries to the effect that he is taking action, either criminal or civil, due to the destruction of certain fisheries in the province of New Brunswick caused, as he says, by the spraying of D.D.T. in the process of eliminating and destroying the budworm.
As the hon. member who has just taken his seat said, the work that is being done by the federal and provincial governments and by the companies concerned has meant a saving to the economy of the province of New Brunswick as far as the pulp and paper industry and the forests are concerned.
I would like to ask the minister if any investigation has been made by his department to find out whether there is any responsibility on the part of his department for the destruction of the fisheries, and if there is any great justification on the part of the Department of Fisheries for bringing such an action. I am not certain whether the department is bringing action against the department of northern affairs, the province of New Brunswick or one of the individual aviation companies that have been doing the spraying. A great deal has been said by the ministry of fisheries in connection with this matter.
The people in New Brunswick are very much concerned to know whether there has been any great lack of responsibility on the part of any of the parties concerned in connection with the destruction of certain fisheries in our province. I thought perhaps the minister might be able to enlighten us on this particular matter.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Jean Lesage: My department has no responsibility for the actual spraying operation, and I would not know-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You do not know?


Jean Lesage: I do not know if the aviation company is guilty of negligence.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are they not the agents of your department?


Jean Lesage: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The only thing we do is contribute one-third of the cost to Forest Protection Limited, which is responsible for the whole operation. It lets subcontracts, and I suppose it has let a subcontract to an aviation company. That is all I know about it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You have made no investigation of any kind?


Jean Lesage: I have no investigation to make.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, I was concerned with a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on July 20 of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources regarding the spruce budworm outbreak in the Cape Breton highland national park area around Ingonish beach.
I had the pleasure of spending a few days in the Cape Breton highland national park and I visited that area two or three days before the question was raised in the house. I was concerned about the minister's reply when he said that he had obtained a report from the forest biology division of the Department of Agriculture to the effect that there was no real, sudden outburst. There may have been some infestation in the national park, but there was nothing extraordinary. After you drive into the park for a bit you find an area which was burned over seven years ago, and that certainly is not a beautiful sight for tourists. An area of burned bare trees cannot be considered a tourist attraction.
I am concerned that in the Ingonish area there has been a serious outbreak of the spruce budworm. Wherever you look you see nothing green; the new growth has been completely devoured. If you walk into the trees in a few moments you are completely covered with grubs. I would hate to see that beautiful park area devoured. Cape Breton national park is one of the outstanding parks in eastern Canada, and with the improvements being made on the road it should be a real tourist attraction. I wonder if the minister has any comments to make.


Jean Lesage: I am informed that there has been an outbreak, although not too serious. This is not confined to the park area


but covers that part of the province. Our technical people are studying the matter along with the officials of the forest biology division of the Department of Agriculture, and there will also be talks with the appropriate officials of the provincial government to see what can be done.


James Alexander McBain: Is any spraying being done at the present time?


Jean Lesage: I will have to get a report from the technical people before I can make a decision that spraying should be done. I am not an expert, but I understand that spraying must be done in June if it is to be effective, because that is the only time you can kill the budworm. The hon. member for Royal nods his head. If any decision is taken as to what can be done and if it involved spraying would have to wait until next June.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest products laboratories division-
320. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $540,125.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Coming from one of the major forest areas of the country, I want to make an eloquent plea for a greater interest in our forests. I join with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, who have emphasized the need for an increased use of cedar products. In British Columbia we have some fine stands of hemlock, which is a good pulp timber, and cedar, and the adequate use of cedar products has presented quite a problem. The amount in this item represents a significant increase over the amount provided last year, and it would be interesting if the minister could explain briefly just what program is involved.


Jean Lesage: I announced some time ago that the government had decided to build a laboratory at Pointe Claire, near Montreal, for the pulp and paper research institute of Canada. We used to grant $100,000 a year to this institute, and after two years of discussion it has been decided to the satisfaction of the government and the institute that we should cease making that grant and, in lieu thereof, build a modern research laboratory at an estimated cost of $2,250,000. The half million dollars provided by this item is an estimate of what can be done this year.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is there to be an expansion of the forest products laboratory at the University of British Columbia?


Jean Lesage: We are building a new laboratory on the university campus, which is covered by an item in the estimates of the

Department of Public Works. There is also a laboratory being built at Ottawa for which money is being provided in the public works estimates. As a matter of fact I am informed that tenders are in for the two laboratories.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have you any other laboratories in Canada besides those two? Have you any in eastern Canada?


Jean Lesage: We have forest research stations all across Canada, with a good one at Acadia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government travel bureau-
323. To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, $1,567,559.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this item which deals with the Canadian government travel bureau is important to all Canada, because travel in this country by people from the United States or other parts of the world represents one of our major sources of foreign exchange. In recent years, while there has seemed to be an improvement in our travel position, the actual case is that we have been falling back rather badly in the number of people who come to Canada as tourists. The best basis of comparison which can be offered is the expenditures of United States citizens for travel in other countries. I intend to compare 1948 with 1954.
We find that in 1948 United States citizens expended about 21 per cent of their travel expenditures in Europe. This has increased to 38 per cent. In 1948 they spent 19 per cent in Mexico; today they are spending about the same, 20 per cent. In the case of Canada we find that their expenditures in 1948 represented 44 per cent of the total, but those expenditures had dropped to 30 per cent in 1954. That is clear and conclusive and definite evidence that the Canadian government travel bureau is not doing the job it should or which it could do to attract the citizens of other countries to Canada to spend their time and money in this country.
This tremendous dropping off in the proportion of United States travel funds spent in Canada is masked by the fact that their dollar expenditures have gone up, but the fact remains that we have been getting a smaller and smaller share of that amount.


Jean Lesage: They are going to Europe.


William McLean Hamilton: have already pointed that out.


Jean Lesage: They could not go before.
Supply-Northern Affairs


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the minister bring up that point. That is why I deliberately chose the year 1948. By 1948 the war had been over for several years. Transportation to Europe-


Jean Lesage: How many years? Seven
years?


William McLean Hamilton: chose 1948 and 1954, and I said that by 1948 the war had been over for several years.


Jean Lesage: Three years.


William McLean Hamilton: Communication with Europe had been opened up again. Transportation by boats and planes was available.


Jean Lesage: Not much to eat though.


William McLean Hamilton: Hotels had been renovated. One of the great attractions in Europe at that particular time was the exchange situation, which was very heavily in favour of the United States traveller going to Europe. Despite all these advantages, in that year we were still able to attract 44 per cent of the total United States dollar expenditures on travel, but by 1954 that percentage had fallen to 30 per cent. I am delighted that the minister gave me the opportunity to emphasize that point.
As I have said, these statistics would seem to indicate that the department has been doing an unsatisfactory job in this field. I suggest also that in the coming years travel will be of increasing importance as a source of foreign exchange to a country like ours, which needs it so badly. With automation, the reduction of the work week and a higher standard of living, more and more dollars are going to flow into travel expenditures, and we must be prepared to get our share. Therefore if our attractions for the tourist or our way of merchandising them are unsatisfactory now, it betokens a condition which will become increasingly serious in the future.
Having said that, I should like to proceed to a few points that might be of some assistance to the minister in dealing with this problem. The first suggestion I would make is that the responsibility for the travel bureau be transferred from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Travel is not a natural resource. It is a trade; it is something which has to be merchandised and sold. In the foreign countries of this world we already have a magnificent organization of Canadian government trade commissioners. They can do an excellent job of handling tourist promotion in

Supply-Northern Affairs those areas. While we are taking advantage of their services to a very limited extent at the present time, there is no co-ordination and no integration. Therefore I suggest the transfer of this branch of the government to a department where it would be genuinely at home.
Because on occasion I have been known as a critic of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having too much to do and too much under his control, I suggest in passing that he trade to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources the Eldorado Mining and Refining operation in return for the Canadian government travel bureau, for I can realize that nobody likes to lose part of his empire without getting a little bit from somebody else. The Northern Transportation Company, which is closely allied with Eldorado Mining and Refining, might also go along to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or it might find its way into the Department of Transport.
However, while that suggestion would deal at least in part with improving the merchandising of Canada's tourist attractions, it would not deal with one of the biggest oversights in the work of the bureau at the present time. I refer to its complete concentration upon selling Canada and travel in Canada to other nations and in the process overlooking completely the possibilities involved in Canadians travelling from one part of Canada to another and becoming better acquainted with their own country.
The reason I bring that up at this point is that it does not matter whether we attract a United States dollar into this country to be spent by a tourist or whether we retain a Canadian dollar in this country rather than see it go south of the border to the United States. The net effect on our exchange position is exactly the same.
Therefore it would seem to me that by persuading some of the millions of Canadians who go to the United States each year to stay in Canada and see Canada our exchange position would be the same or better, and we would have a great rebirth of interest in this country. I would also point out that it would be of tremendous benefit to certain areas such as the maritimes, which are keenly interested in increasing their financial resources at the present time.
Turning from this point to the question of the extent to which the travel bureau is actually doing a job at this time, I wonder whether the house and the minister realize that a little country like Mexico, little in comparison to Canada, is spending approximately $4 million on the promotion of travel for its purposes as against $1,500,000 by us, or almost


three times as much as Canada. A few minutes ago I quoted figures which showed the effect of that expenditure. From 1948 to 1954, while expenditures by Americans on travel in Canada dropped from 44 per cent to 30 per cent, expenditures by Americans in Mexico remained almost static. They were 19 per cent of the total expenditure in 1948 and 20 per cent in 1954. That is very directly the result of proper and adequate merchandising by Mexico.
I would point out to the minister that little places like the Bahama islands and Bermuda, places with not a hundredth or a thousandth of the resources of Canada, surpass our budget in their expenditures on tourist promotion for their countries.
In some respects the work of the tourist bureau is very attractive. I hold in my hand their booklet called "Canada, Vacations Unlimited". It is an attractive piece, well printed and well done; but if the minister will consult with advertising experts or experts on tourism I think he will find that most of the bureau's promotional literature, including "Canada, Vacations Unlimited", has missed one of the main points of tourist promotion, the need for regional promotion, to make a thing come alive in terms that the person reading it can understand.
This booklet first of all promotes Canada as a whole; and while that is a good thing, it is something which it is difficult to sell. Next it promotes features of tourism in Canada such as adventure in the wilderness, scenic transportation, fun and games. You can have fun and games in any country in the world. Certainly that is no special feature which is going to draw people to this country. Then there is reference to national parks. We have very attractive national parks. So has the United States. The booklet refers to shrines and historic places in Canada. I shall deal with that in a moment but in general terms all countries have shrines and historic places. In other words this booklet and this expenditure is not showing with respect to Canada anything new or different which would have a special attraction for people outside our borders.
It then goes ahead to deal with the provinces, and that is a good thing, more under the basis of regional promotion; but it still does not make the reason come alive in the minds of the prospective tourists to Canada as to why they should come here rather than go somewhere else. I suggest to the minister that he would get immeasurably better results from his expenditures in this field if he would promote vividly very narrow regions, taking not a province but small areas in a province and showing much more specifically what the tourist will find.

I also suggest to the minister that far more emphasis should be placed by his department on the specific aspects of Canadian history which tie in so closely with the United States of America and with the European countries. We were the first settled country on the North American continent. We have a history which comes vividly alive in various parts of this country, as in Quebec city itself, Montreal, Kingston, the point where the first passage was made through the Rockies, and in a thousand and one places. There are in Canada for tourists tremendously exciting experiences which have never been promoted and have never been brought to their attention by the federal tourist bureau.
These suggestions will admittedly make many demands upon the budget of the tourist bureau. I am one of those who seldom rise in this house and advocate a specific additional expenditure. When I do so I like to feel that the expenditure which is being advocated is tied to a specific return to this country or to the federal government. I suggest to the minister that there are very few fields in which a dollar spent will bring a greater return to Canada than would be brought here through proper expenditures by the federal tourist bureau, expenditures which would be somewhere in line with or equal to those of a country like Mexico, whose resources are so much more limited than are ours, or an area like the Bahama islands or Bermuda, all of which are spending on their tourist promotion more than we are spending. I suggest to the minister that our limited promotion is at the very root of the reason we are enjoying or rather' suffering-that is a far better word-such a serious adverse balance of trade in respect of our tourist business.
There are many more things that could be said on this matter, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that I have put quite a few ideas forward, and at least I have drawn the minister's attention to the matter. In deference to his wish to get through his estimates as quickly as possible I shall now await his reply on these matters.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the committee in order to record a few facts which are of vast importance to my own province and which I think perhaps might be of great importance to people in other parts of Canada and elsewhere.
I have in my hand the issue of the Charlottetown Guardian of July 10, in which is reported an interview with Dr. Elzear Cam-pagna who is recognized as an expert on ragweed. In the interview he is reported as follows:
"You have a gold mine here on Prince Edward Island and you don't know it," said Dr. Elzear
Supply-Northern Affairs Campagna of the faculty of agriculture at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Quebec, yesterday who has pioneered in the eradication of ragweed in eastern Canada since 1936.
The article continues further:
From surveys which he started in 1936, he has found that Prince Edward Island is one the the areas most free of ragweed which is one of the main causes of hayfever. Dr. Campagna states that the hayfever season is from the 15th of August to the 15th of September and if Island conditions are sufficiently advertised this province could easily become a mecca for sufferers from the affliction. These people could be, as it were, a "second harvest" to the regular tourist business which is pretty well over at this time of year.
Dr. Campagna notes that many sufferers from hayfever spend large amounts of money trying to find relief from the affliction and only a small percentage of these have been successful. "It would be much cheaper and a great deal more pleasant for them to come to a place which is free from affliction such as your province," he said.
In case it might be of some value to places which are trying to eradicate this weed I might say that Dr. Campagna said that the eradication of the plant is not an expensive procedure. He says that about two ounces of 2-4D to a gallon of water will effectively destroy it. I might conclude by quoting the closing words of the interview:
In concluding his remarks, Dr. Campagna said: "You have something here which is even more valuable than gold-gold may be mined and sold and you do not possess it any more-but an area which is free of ragweed is a constant source of income to its people."


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 327 carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman I thought perhaps the minister was going to make some reply to the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. I had a quite lengthy speech myself to make on this subject, but in view of the lateness of the hour and the lateness of the session I think I will let it go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Lesage: Send it to me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will merely say this. The general travel situation in Canada is evidently quite unsatisfactory. However, I should like to say that I think that is no fault of the director of the travel bureau, who has probably done as well as anybody * could possibly have done with the funds at his disposal as far as promoting travel is concerned.


William McLean Hamilton: Is the minister not going to explain at least something of what is being done in meeting the situation as far as the tourist trade is concerned?


Jean Lesage: I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Notre
6978	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Dame de Grace, who said that we were wrong in all we were doing in the travel bureau. But he was contradicted by the hon. member for Calgary North, who said that the director of the travel bureau is doing a splendid job. What can I say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the minister should put words in my mouth.


Jean Lesage: That was not my intention.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I started out saying, as he will recall, that the travel situation in Canada was not good. However, I did not blame it on the director of the travel bureau.


Jean Lesage: You said he was doing a splendid job.


William McLean Hamilton: In order that there may be no doubt in the minister's mind, since he is trying to muddy the water may I say that I did not state, first of all, that the director of the travel bureau himself was doing an improper job. I laid the blame at the door of the government. In the second place, I will state that Mr. Dolan is one of the most charming people I have ever met. He is one of the most capable public speakers I have ever heard. He has carried the story of Canada to a great many places. All that still leaves the bureau and the government's policy and their operation in a deplorable condition. It is not necessarily the fault of Mr. Dolan, but it is the minister's responsibility to give us some idea whether he plans any changes or any improvements, or whether he has any plans whatsoever for the future.


William Earl Rowe: Give him more money.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did I hear somebody yawn?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You need not be surprised at that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With reference to what the hon. member who has just spoken has said and what the hon. member for Calgary West said, I might say that I have in my hand a pamphlet entitled "Nature Trails in Mount Revelstoke National Park". It is a guide to items of interest, including some of the flora and fauna at the summit of Mount Revelstoke and along the trails to Millar, Eva and the Jade lakes. I have read this and I think it is a most excellent pamphlet, which is issued under the authority of the minister and published in co-operation with the Canadian travel bureau. This is the sort of thing that is real publicity. It does not contain a lot of information about hot dog stands. This is something that anyone entering the park


would like to have. I was very pleased with it, because it concerns Mount Revelstoke national park which is in the Kootenays. I ask the travel bureau to continue issuing these booklets with regard to the other national parks in British Columbia.


Jean Lesage: We have such pamphlets for every park in Canada.


William McLean Hamilton: This is not going to make me popular with the government, but I think it is about time members on the treasury benches learned that some of us do not come here just to make speeches. We come here, first of all, to put forward what we consider are cogent comments and perhaps a few helpful suggestions. We also believe it is the responsibility of the appropriate minister, when he brings estimates before this house, to give some explanation about future policy when such a request is made. We believe it is the responsibility of the appropriate minister to make at least some comment. We have become accustomed, in some cases, to rather cavalier treatment from certain ministers, but I do not think that has been the usual course of action of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am asking him again if he will make some comments on the points I have made in connection with the tourist bureau, and what future plans and future expectations are in this field.


Jean Lesage: I shall discuss with the director of the travel bureau and my deputy minister the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member.


William McLean Hamilton: Has
the minister any intention of applying for an increase in the budget next year?


Jean Lesage: This will be shown in the estimates of next year, sir.


William McLean Hamilton: Has
the minister any answer for the condition which has been apparent, not only in one year but ever since 1948, in which United States dollars have been spent in increasing amounts in Europe and in decreasing amounts in Canada?


Jean Lesage: Every year in the last five years there has been an increase in the number of visitors and the amount of money they have spent in Canada, as well as in the extent of their stay. A greater number of United States citizens have been going to Europe since 1948 for the very good reason that conditions have been improving steadily in Europe since 1948. Another reason is the fact that there has been more money available in the United States, so that people could

spend larger amounts and thus be able to go to Europe instead of coming to Canada as they used to do.


William McLean Hamilton: Does the minister expect the situation in that regard to continue in the future? Does he expect that situation to continue indefinitely?


Jean Lesage: An increased number of
tourists in Canada; definitely, every year.


William McLean Hamilton: No;
a decreasing proportion of United States people coming to Canada?


Jean Lesage: I do not know; it will depend on economic conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
35.	Freight assistance on western feed grains. $15,500,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Earlier I brought to the minister's attention a resolution that was sent in by the county council of Simcoe and endorsed by the Brant county council regarding the feed grain situation in eastern elevators. I have here a letter from the secretary treasurer of the Wellington county federation of agriculture which I am presenting on behalf of the hon. member for Wellington-Huron, who is unavoidably absent tonight. This resolution concerns the beef producers and their desire for more information in marketing reports given over the C.B.C. Perhaps I had better read it:
That the Wellington eounty beef producers' association annual meeting request the marketing service of the federal Department of Agriculture give more information in their livestock marketing reports for radio broadcast. This information to include the number of cattle sold at the prices quoted. And that the information re the price quotation of cattle and numbers be taken from the sales office.
This is signed by Alex Anderson, the secretary treasurer. I am bringing this to the attention of the minister on behalf of the hon. member for Wellington-Huron, who is unavoidably absent.
I know the minister is aware of the feed grain situation. As I said earlier, I brought to his attention a resolution from the Simcoe county council and the Brant county council when the estimates were last being considered. The situation apparently is that the eastern elevators contain a high percentage of grains other than feed grains. There is not sufficient room for the storage of feed grain for the eastern Canadian market, and consequently it is necessary for the farmer to pay the extra freight that is entailed in bringing that grain down by rail after the water shipping season has ended.
Supply-Agriculture
I wonder if the minister could not do something about that situation. This is an extra cost to the feeders in eastern Canada, the extra freight on this grain, and according to reports there is some of the grain in the elevators that has been standing there for some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter of shipping grain of all kinds from the west to the east or from the west to any part of the country comes under trade and commerce, and much of it is regulated through the wheat board. Shipping in general is taken care of in that way.
So far as payments are concerned, we do make payments on the freight, whether it goes by water or whether it goes by rail.
I think it is correct to say that there never has been any hold-up in so far as these particular payments are concerned, as a result of anything that has been done by this department. I am not in a position to explain all the intricacies of the trade as represented in trade and commerce, but I do know every effort is made to get as much feed grain as possible down to the east and have it stored in places where it can be distributed to the farmers as readily as possible. While there have been some complaints from certain areas, I do not think there has been a general complaint with regard to it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice that the amount this year is $15,500,000, the same as last year, and I am wondering whether any consideration was given to the fact that freight rates have increased during the last few months or even in the last few weeks. The fact that the amount for this year is the same as last year would mean the farmers in eastern Canada, and particularly in the maritime provinces, would be in a different position from what they were in the previous year. I wonder whether any consideration was given to the increase in freight rates which the railways have recently received?


James Garfield Gardiner: Consideration has been given over the years to the increase in freight rates, and in so far as the freight on grain for the maritimes is concerned we have retained the assistance at the same level as it was prior to the changes that were made two years ago. The changes that were made two years ago applied to British Columbia and the central provinces. We base this upon the payments that are made to the maritimes, and try to keep the rates at the same level in the maritime provinces.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But no consideration was given to the recent increase in freight rates?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to those that have taken place since that time, but consideration was given up until the change that was made two years ago.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We would be in a different position this year from our position last year?


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has conveniently at hand an account of the amount of grain that was shipped from the west down to the maritimes during 1955?


James Garfield Gardiner: Total tons shipped in the fiscal year 1955-56-perhaps I had better give this for all the provinces, or I can have it placed on the record as it is here-to Ontario, total tons, 878,973; to Quebec, 1,049,588; to New Brunswick, 91,212.


John Horne Blackmore: Is that oats or barley?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the tonnage all told; to Nova Scotia, 133,398; to Prince Edward Island, 31,403; to Newfoundland, 18,800; to British Columbia, 214,657.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
36.	Agricultural lime assistance, $500,000.
Gage Workman Montgomery: Can the minister break down the amount of lime assistance given to each province? What is the freight assistance given now per ton?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the last year?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1955-56, to Prince Edward Island, 25,049 tons; to Nova Scotia, 41,036 tons; to New Brunswick, 30,514 tons; to Quebec, 261,355 tons; to Ontario, 41,625 tons; to British Columbia, 22,715 tons; to Newfoundland, 4,160 tons.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the assistance per ton?


Gage Workman Montgomery: I just want to follow that up. I think the minister missed the other part of my question. What is the assistance per ton?


John Horne Blackmore: Where are the lime
deposits?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $1.50. To answer the other question, there are lime deposits here and there across the country, and the lime is sent from the nearest deposit to the place where we ship it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
37.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs. $5,700,000.
James Alexander McBain: Can the minister give us any information as to whether the department

is giving consideration, or will give consideration, to the request of the hog producers for an increase in the subsidy on grade A hogs from $2 to $3?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the department has given consideration to the suggestion that a change should be made in the payments as between B hogs and A hogs; but after giving it careful consideration we arrived at the conclusion that it would not be wise to make any change at the present time.


James Alexander Smith: In
view of the fact that hog production in Canada is going down, and because of the grade of hogs we have in the west, I wonder whether the minister would keep this under consideration for a while?


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter of the premium?


James Alexander Smith: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have it under consideration all the time, of course, but we do not think it is wise to change at the present time.


James Alexander Smith: I am
talking of the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
38.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved bv the governor in council, $25,000.
Mr. MacLean:: I notice there is an increase of $15,000 in this item. Can the minister give us some indication of where this money is to be spent in the present fiscal year? When potato warehouses are built, is any consideration given to temperature control so those warehouses will preserve potatoes in good condition in hot weather as well as preventing them from freezing during cold weather?


James Garfield Gardiner: No new warehouses have been put in since 1950. There is about $4,500 in Prince Edward Island and about $6,000 in Saskatchewan.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: None in New Brunswick?


James Garfield Gardiner: None in New Brunswick.


John Angus MacLean: Would consideration be
given to assistance in cases where it is considered advisable that temperature controls be installed in those warehouses to keep the temperature down in hot weather so that potatoes can be stored in good condition near the point of production, rather than necessarily in the large cities during the hot weather in the summer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is taken into consideration. Where we do give grants, they must meet the conditions in connection with temperature and things of that kind.


John Angus MacLean: Is that one of the requirements at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister mentioned expenses in only two provinces. Are we to gather that the other provinces are equipped adequately with warehouses and that no more money is being spent in them?


James Garfield Gardiner: No: we have had applications from only the two provinces.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Is assistance in the way of contributions to warehouses given only at ports where export shipments take place? What are the conditions that prevail?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not at ports; it is out in the country, or at any particular place where it is thought by the producers it would be helpful. In Saskatchewan, for example, it is out near Lumsden, and that is about in the centre of the province.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Must the applicant be a co-operative, or something like that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the application must come from a co-operative organization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. To provide for administrative expenses, agricultural Prices Support Act, $89,650.
James Alexander Smith: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the minister has given any consideration at all to equalizing support prices on hogs across Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we have given consideration to it, but we give that consideration having in mind the many applications that have been made in an attempt to equalize freight rates across Canada, and it would be very difficult to apply it to one product without applying it to others. One need only say that to realize the enormous amount of money that would be involved if we attempted to do any such thing in the movement of products generally across the country.


James Alexander Smith: I am
prepared to go quite a way with the minister on this, when one considers the pressure that is on us at the present time; but I do think that the hog producers of the province of Alberta are being called upon to face a situation which they should not have to face. For example, in the city of Edmonton the floor price for hogs is $18.50. Ninety per cent of the hogs that are exported from the province of Alberta go to the British Columbia market. It only costs $1 a hundred to move them out. I think the hog producers in the province of Alberta are actually being called upon to
Supply-Agriculture
do something they should not have to do. Someone is making something on this.
In closing my remarks I urge the minister and his department to give serious consideration to trying to do something in the way of equalizing the support price on hogs throughout all of Canada within the next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said, Mr. Chairman, we have been giving consideration to the matter and we are inclined to think that probably Alberta is better off than any province. They are not far removed from the Vancouver market and their hogs can get there at a comparatively low freight rate. The price, too, is generally favourable on the coast. If we were to do what the hon. member asked, we would have to consider paying the freight on a much greater number of hogs that go down to the eastern market.


James Alexander Smith: From Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We deal, of course, with hog producers right across Canada, and provincial boundaries do not count in that kind of thing. As my hon. friend has said, over 90 per cent of the hogs move from Alberta to Vancouver, which is a relatively short distance; and few hogs, say 10 per cent, move from Alberta east. Practically all the hogs that are moved fi'om Saskatchewan and Manitoba are moved to the east. I can assure the hon. member that freight costs on those hogs would be very much higher. If we tried to equalize out in Alberta we would be expected to equalize in the other provinces as well.


James Alexander Smith: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will take this under advisement and study the problem, because I cannot yet see any justification for a floor price of $23 a hundredweight at Toronto and Montreal for the hog producers in Ontario, and the floor price of only $18.50 for the hog producers in Alberta. I shall drop it at this point.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister give us some idea why this inequitable disparity should prevail?


James Garfield Gardiner: The disparity may prevail on the floor price but not on the price the farmer receives for hogs in Alberta as compared with the price received in other provinces. The price in Alberta is considerably more above the floor than is the case in the other western provinces.


James Alexander Smith: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that, and I must

Supply-Agriculture
state that is a very debatable point. However, we shall continue with this discussion at another time.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give some figures to justify the remark he has just made? We in Alberta do not feel satisfied about this matter. Could the minister give actual figures, for example, for the month of February or January at Alberta points and at Manitoba points? What the minister says is not in accordance with the information we have.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but I do not have the prices here. I have them on my desk over in my office. They come in every morning and are put on my desk. I do not check them every morning but I check them throughout the week, and we have studies made of them from time to time. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that the situation is as I have outlined it.
The hogs do sell on the western coast at a price that is at least as good as that which they obtain in other markets; this is true most of the time. The province of Alberta is able to take advantage of the Vancouver market. The market is too far away from Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the hog producers there to take advantage of it, and therefore any advantage there is in having that market goes to Alberta. I think that is generally understood by the trade.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister will recognize the fact that much has been said about the amount of the subsidy that is paid to agriculture. According to the annual report of the department for the year ending March 31, 1955, the total amount paid at March 31, 1954 was some $80 million, of which the sum of $69 million was due to the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 1952, and this has to do with pork and beef. Another amount of $923,000 is charged up in the 1954-55 period and that brings the total to barely $1 million a year which has been spent on agricultural price supports not including beef and pork during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
The sum of $2 million is put aside by the government each year for this purpose, and apparently the sum of only $1 million a year has been spent. I think no one could criticize that too much, and I hope the urban people realize how little is paid to agriculture as compared with the amount paid to other industries across this country that are nonagricultural.
I did not give the figures for the end of 1954. The last report of the agricultural prices support board gives figures including

the year ending March 31, 1955, and the sum of only $3 million more was spent in the 1954-55 period.
I think the minister should give some kind of statement concerning the amount of subsidy paid to the agricultural industry as compared to the amount paid to non-agricultural industries, because I am sure that coming from the minister this information would mean more than if it were to be given by an individual member of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
thought it was not going to be necessary for me to say anything, because I understood the hon. member to be speaking favourably of the amount that has been paid out. I only wish to state that the total amount paid out over the years beginning with 1946, which was the first year there were any payments under this, is $89,196,061.31. That includes the figure for the 1955-56 period, which is a year in addition to the years for which the hon. member has just given us the figures.
That sum is made up of an amount of $2,036,000 on potatoes. I will just give round figures in most cases. It also includes $6,700,000 on apples, $194,000 on dried beans, $177,000 on extracted honey, $677,000 on dried skim milk, $155,000 on Cheddar cheese, $8,542,378 on creamery butter, $673,194.39 on eggs, and on hogs, practically all of which came in the foot-and-mouth activities, $36,673,894.07. On cattle, again including the foot-and-mouth disease, it was $33,358,015.86, making a total of $89,196,061.31.
The fund is a revolving one in the amount of $200 million. We can, of course, utilize up to that amount each year to the extent that we get the money back into the fund again without drawing any more from the treasury. We simply draw from the treasury from time to time when it is necessary to do so and the sum of about $350 million has been utilized altogether. From year to year we get a certain percentage of it back into the fund from selling the products. There has only been a net amount spent of $89,196,061.31. That is the total for fighting foot-and-mouth disease and to carry on the other activities.


John Alpheus Charlton: Outside of the foot-andmouth disease it would amount to about $1 million a year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total is about $19 million now.


John Alpheus Charlton: Over the ten years that is the total?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


James Alexander Smith: Mr. Chairman, around May 3 I put on the record the actual cost of raising a hog from the weaning stage right up to the market stage, and I should like to ask the minister if during the coming year he will have one of his experimental farms make a careful survey of how much it actually costs to raise a hog to market stage. If the minister wishes he can do it on his own farm, taking everything into consideration except his own salary as cabinet minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: This has been done a number of times at the Guelph agricultural college, but I do not know whether it has been done in the last two or three years. It has been done at the university at Edmonton and at quite a number of places. I am afraid if farmers were to follow the course followed in setting up these figures there would not be many of us producing hogs. I do not think it is fair to say that if you do not meet all the conditions set out in these figures no farmer is going to make money out of producing hogs.


James Alexander Smith: The
minister has just asked me to spend a little longer on this. The farmers of Canada are not raising hogs to the extent they did last year, and I think the minister knows that as well as anyone else. I should like to quote from the Wheat Pool Budget of July 27, which contains the following hog forecast:
The number of hogs on Canadian farms as at June 1 was 61 per cent below the previous year's figure, reports the dominion bureau of statistics and a continuing downward trend is forecast. In western Canada the reduction was 11 per cent. A June 1 survey showed a Canadian total of 5,680,000 head compared to 6,075,000 a year ago.
This spring's pig crop amounted to 4,300,000 or 11 per cent less than the 1955 total. In the west the reduction was 14 per cent.
I do not wish to prolong this debate at all, but I submit to the minister that the reason for this is that the farmers in western Canada just cannot afford to raise hogs at the prices they are being paid.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister suggest an adequate reason why there should be that falling off in the production of hogs? I think in Alberta we have conditions which are probably as conducive to the production of hogs as can be found anywhere in the nation, so why should we have difficulty producing hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the other side of the picture ought to be given. The last time we had these estimates before the house we were complaining that the price of hogs was down to the floor; as a matter of fact we were afraid that they were going to go through the
Supply-Agriculture
floor. The price of hogs today and yesterday was about $29.50, or $6.50 per hundredweight above the floor.
This question has been discussed over a long period of time. If the number of hogs produced did go down very far it is due to the fact that the people who were in and out are out at the present time. Those of us who stayed in all the time have gained the advantage. The trouble with figuring on this basis as to whether a man makes money producing hogs is that there are many people like the fellow who tries to guess the time to get in and the time to get out. He has more difficulty; but those of us who go along producing hogs-and I may say for the benefit of my hon. friend that I have just as many sows as I had in the wartime, and so do nearly all the regular hog producers; they have not been in and out-are not in the position of those who went out at the end of the war.
That helped the fellow who went on producing hogs all the time because he had to. That is, they are making money. There are farms in certain parts of Canada which could not be run if they did not have hogs, but there are farms in other places where they can quit feeding hogs and produce something else.


James Alexander Smith: I do not
want to leave this without again asking the minister to make several surveys. I want to point out to him that the provincial cooperative association which has been in hogs for a number of years is not an in and out concern at all. I cannot accept the minister's argument at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: The total hog production is up 8-9 per cent, not down; those are the marketings of hogs. It is true that they are down in western Canada but they are up in eastern Canada. I think my hon. friend understands the reason for that. Most of us in western Canada would rather produce wheat than feed hogs. When we can make enough to get by with the wheat that is what we do. There are other times when we feed hogs.


James Alexander Smith: I certainly hope the minister is not under the impression that the wheat farmers of western Canada are in a position today where they can forgo the marketing of hogs because of the huge profits being made out of the marketing of wheat.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
69S4
[Stage Direction]
Supply

Agriculture
41. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $4,142,965.
Mr. Bryce:: Will the minister review the work which has been done in northern Manitoba and particularly in the interlake country by the federal and provincial governments in an effort to lower the lake levels? Two years ago a survey was started to see if anything could be done to lower the level of the lake because so many people were being drowned out. At that time it was thought the survey would take five years, and the dominion and provincial governments were each to pay $150,000 per year for the five years. When I discussed the matter with the minister some time ago he agreed to do some checking into the matter so he could give me some up to date information when his estimates came up. Perhaps the minister can indicate what the position is and if the agreement has been signed.
I am anxious to have this information because I told some people back home that the agreement between the dominion and provincial governments had already been made, under which the federal government would pay one-half and the provincial government the other half, with the work being done by the provincial government. I want to get myself clear with my constituents when I go back. I thought this had all been arranged but some time ago the minister told me that he was not quite sure and would make some inquiries.
While I am on my feet and to save time, there is another matter I should like to raise. It is in respect to the P.F.R.A. helping the provincial government to run a ditch from Rembrandt to meet the Drunken river and thence into lake Winnipeg to take care of a lot of water they have in that district. There seems to be a lot of surplus water there, and a fair sized ditch would be needed to bring it into the lake. It would help do away with flooding in that part of the country.
I am informed that the public works department of the provincial government has done some survey work in this part of the country from Rembrandt to Arnes and thence into the lake. The great problem, of course, is the cost. I am informed on good authority that the provincial government is prepared to pay half the cost if the dominion government will give some consideration to putting up the other half. In fact, I am informed that $15,000 was put in the Manitoba estimates for this work if the federal government would agree to pay the other half.
I want to appeal to the minister at this time to have the officers of his department look into this matter and see if it would be possible for the federal government to comply

with the request to have the ditch built to drain this part of the interlake country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact we do not take the responsibility for drainage in any of the provinces. Even in the area that is under P.F.R.A. in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba we do not take the responsibility for drainage. That is considered to be a purely provincial matter, as in all the other provinces of Canada. The area between the lakes in Manitoba is not even under P.F.R.A. The boundary line, as my hon. friend knows, strikes the south end of lake Manitoba and then runs almost directly across to the Red river. The area south and west of that line is in the P.F.R.A. area. The works concerning which we have agreed to pay dollar for dollar with the province of Manitoba are over on the west side of lake Manitoba. Some of the streams drain into Dauphin lake and some into lake Manitoba.
But in those cases where we have gone out of the Assiniboine river drainage basin we have only gone there where the waters have their origin in the national park and flow out from the park on to some of the land. In those instances we have agreements with the Manitoba government under which we spend a certain amount. That has been going on for some years. In the year we are now in the amount being expended is $150,000, as was suggested. At the time we were discussing this before I was in the hope that we would have an agreement extending over three or five years, but that has not materialized. We have made agreements year by year, and last year's expenditure was $150,000. I presume this one will be about the same, and we may go on for some little time under that arrangement.
But, as was said, the Manitoba government carries out these works. We pay all the engineering cost and half the cost of the construction work that is done and our expenditure, as was suggested, is about $150,000. With respect to the other drainage in between, we have no part in that unless it be that the province asks us for some engineering help. We might do that, but we take no part otherwise.


William Scottie Bryce: You would not look favourably on giving us a little money to help us to get that ditch?


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not.


William Scottie Bryce: But would you look favourably on it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will treat Manitoba exactly the same as we treat all other provinces. I will look that favourably upon it.


William Scottie Bryce: There should be something done there. If it could not be helped I would not make the request, but if a ditch is put in there it will drain that country and allow people to earn their own livelihood without coming to the minister and asking for assistance under P.F.A.A. It is only a matter of $15,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: This house has not voted me any authority to spend any money on drainage.


William Scottie Bryce: I am asking for assistance and help, and I am asking you to let your department go a little bit farther north and do something about it. That is the work of the P.F.R.A.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not a prairie farm rehabilitation area.


William Scottie Bryce: Then I do not know what it is. They are producing grain, and I think they have all the qualifications necessary to qualify.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether items 41 and 42 could stand. The hon. member for Assiniboia has some remarks to make but he is at another meeting. I could speak for half an hour, but I think it would facilitate the business if we allowed these items to stand and went on with the others.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is quite all right.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that items 41 and 42 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Items 41 and 42 stand.
45.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $850,000.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister be good enough to give a further word of explanation in addition to what is in the details? I should like to know particularly where the money is chiefly being spent and under what conditions areas qualify for benefits under this item. Does it apply only to crown land or some scheme in which a provincial government is interested, or might it also apply to privately owned land in the case of a co-operative or a group of farmers?


James Garfield Gardiner: This amount is voted for special projects that may be in any of the provinces across Canada, and we only make expenditures where we have entered into agreements with the provinces. The northwestern escarpment region is the Riding-Duck mountain watershed which I was talking about a few moments ago. There is $150,000 for the watershed in the Porcupine
Supply-Agriculture
forest reserve. That is the amount in the estimates for that. Then there is the Saskatchewan river reclamation project in the Pasqua area. It is the Saskatchewan river but it is in Manitoba, and the amount for the work being done in the Pasqua area is $500,000. Then there is an unallotted amount of $200,000 covering situations that did not exist when this was drawn up. Of that amount $125,000 has been allotted to Newfoundland.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the nature of the work being done on the Saskatchewan river? The minister said that $500,000 was being spent there. On what kind of work is that being spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a project down toward the mouth of the Saskatchewan river in the province of Manitoba, where there is flooding in the spring of the year. When the water is high at any time of the year there is flooding. That is being diked very much in the same way that we diked lands in the maritime provinces to keep the ocean out. This is being diked to keep the river out. The Manitoba government asked us to do that work on their behalf. We do it and pay for it and then we are paid back from the sale of the lands in that area behind the dikes. I should say that 75 per cent of what the lands are sold for comes to us and only 25 per cent goes to the province. Over a period of years the greater part of it will be paid back.


John Horne Blackmore: In many places we find that where a river makes a rather sharp bend it tends to cut into the bank and cause caving in of the soil above the cut. Has the minister any policy for taking care of situations like that? Sometimes a number of acres will fall right into the stream.


James Garfield Gardiner: Again that is pretty much a provincial matter unless it is a navigable stream. The federal government does take action in connection with any matter of that kind, and even on the Assiniboine river not very far removed from these other works we have done diking and in some places we straighten out the stream. Where we straighten out the stream that is done because that stream has always been rated as a navigable stream and the work was originally carried out by the works department. Three or four years ago the vote was transferred to this department and the work is done under P.F.R.A. but it is the same type of work.
This particular piece at Pasqua is not that type. The whole province of Manitoba has been built from the old lake Aggasiz which constituted practically the whole area which

Supply-Agriculture
is now Manitoba; the earth had been washed down from the mountains. That is still going on at the mouth of the Saskatchewan river before it flows into the lakes and if dikes were not put there it would rise up and flood and leave another layer or maybe two or three inches of earth; and in due course over a long period of time they would flood. But the government is stopping the flooding now in order that farmers can go in and work that land.


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose a province had a particularly difficult situation on its hands and it sought the assistance of the dominion in dealing with the problem. Does the dominion enter into the picture in a situation like that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what this vote is for. Where a province makes application and where it is prepared to spend a certain proportion of the amount, we enter into an agreement with it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I understand, Mr. Chairman, this would be the correct item under which to inquire with regard to the special projects in the province of Manitoba which I have discussed on one or two other occasions. I should like to ask the minister at this time if he is in a position to inform the committee as to what specific projects in regard to flood control are being undertaken in the province of Manitoba, more particularly in the northwest portion in the run-off area of Riding mountain and Duck mountain.
I might say that I have inquired on one or two occasions of the minister of agriculture of the province of Manitoba and he has informed me that for one reason or another which I shall not go into now, he would prefer that the information be given by the federal government rather than from his own office. Specifically, I should like to know what projects are being undertaken this year or will be undertaken this year in the area north of Riding mountain and east of Duck mountain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read those a few moments ago; I do not think my hon. friend was in the house at the time. Riding-Duck mountain watershed and Porcupine forest reserve, $150,000; Saskatchewan river reclamation, Pasqua area, $500,000. The other amount that is being allotted is down in Newfoundland.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It so happens, Mr. Chairman, that I was aware of that. What my question refers to is this. Specifically what is being done with that $150,000? That is information

which I am not able to obtain from the provincial department of agriculture. This therefore seems to be the only place where it can be obtained. As a matter of fact that is the advice I received from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba. He referred me to the federal department on account of the fact that, according to him, these projects must be approved by the federal government before their contribution can be made. I should like to know specifically what is being done with the $150,000 this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The agreement that is
entered into with the province which results in a dollar for dollar expenditure is made for an amount to cover a certain area. The province determines where that money is going to be spent and they spend it, as a matter of fact, on the works around Dauphin lake on both sides of Riding mountain. That money is spent by the provincial government and they bill us with half the cost. Hence they have more information about it. Until the work is actually going on or until we are billed we have no information; that is we have no final information. We do the engineering, and from that we have some idea as to what they are going to do.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am inclined to take the same view as the minister in this regard. That was my understanding also. But may I quote to him a portion of a letter that I received from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba dated July 5, in reply to an inquiry of mine. In that letter he said:
I suggest you inquire from either Mr. Matte in Ottawa or directly from Dr. L. B. Thomson, the director of P.F.R.A., who will be at liberty to inform you of those projects that are acceptable to P.F.R.A. and possibly to inform you what projects are under consideration by federal authorities at the present time.
The situation seems rather strange with regard to that information. If it is not available from the province of Manitoba and if it is not available here, and if there is an amount of $150,000 to be spent for these special projects, where are we to obtain that information?


James Garfield Gardiner: If this $150,000 is spent you can get the information from here as to where it is spent, because we will not pay it unless we know where it was spent and how it was spent. But to ask us at this stage where it is going to be spent and how it is going to be spent is useless. I cannot give you the information. Probably the Manitoba government cannot give it to you, either.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am hardly satisfied with that answer, Mr. Chairman. We have now reached the third day of August. As the minister knows, with the kind of season we

have in western Canada on the prairies, any work that is to be undertaken this year will certainly have to be at least in the blueprint stage by August 3. The authorities are not going to wait until October 1 to make up their minds what projects they are going to undertake. We have a rather short summer out there.
I do not want to pursue this subject unduly or to weary the committee, but I should like to have it established clearly where this information is supposed to come from. The provincial department refers us to the federal department, and we have just been referred back to the provincial department. Somewhere in between someone must know what is being planned.
I strongly suggest that it is not good enough to say that perhaps the province does not know either. If they do not know by July 5, and if the federal department does not know by August 3, then when are these projects going to be outlined and planned? If the minister takes the stand that this information must come from the province I shall have no reason to pursue this matter further today. But somewhere in between, I think, the two departments will have to get their heads together and make up their minds who is responsible for getting this information out. Inquiries are coming in.
I might say that this matter does not concern my own constituency alone. It refers to a great extent to the constituencies of my friends the hon. member for Portage-Neepa-wa and the hon. member for Churchill. These inquiries have to be answered. I see no reason why this matter should be kept as a sort of military secret. We are in the month of August and no one seems to know what is going to be done with this $150,000. I will ask this specific question of the minister. Does the minister take the stand that this information should be forthcoming from the provincial department rather than from his department?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not going to take any such position. I have told my hon. friend that neither the provincial government nor this government can give him detailed information with regard to the expenditure of this $150,000. Neither of them can do so at this moment. We have made an agreement with the province under which we are prepared to pay half the cost up to $150,000. They may spend $1 million. I do not know what they are going to spend. However, we will pay only our share of $150,000. So until that work is completed and we are billed for it, we do not go into the details. We go into it then and check it. I am not able to give you the information.
Supply-Agriculture
I do not know whether or not the provincial government are able to do so. If they say they are not able to do so, I presume that they are in the same position as we are at this moment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Then do I take it that what the minister is saying is that the provincial government have not yet informed his department what projects they intend to undertake?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not correct. They may have told us what projects they are going to undertake, and we may take note of them. Then they go on and spend money on these projects. Perhaps a million dollars is too much to say they would spend in Manitoba on that kind of project this year, but suppose they spent $500,000. They only bill us for $150,000, that is the outside figure. If they only spend $200,000 they will only bill us for $100,000. So we do not know yet for what amount we are going to be billed. As I stated a few minutes ago we do the engineering; therefore our engineers are in a position when they do bill us to give us full information as to how the money was spent before we make the payment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Does that mean then, Mr. Chairman, that the province is free to undertake whatever projects in their opinion are desirable, and after having completed them to bill the government for anything up to $150,000 as the federal government's share of the cost of those projects? If that is the case, then of course I can see some reason for the minister's lack of information as to what is being done or planned. My understanding had been that before these projects were undertaken, and before expenditures were committed by the provinces, the provinces had to obtain the approval of the federal government for the kind of project being undertaken. Is that the case or is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the responsibility for this work is primarily with the province. The province comes along and says, in this particular place you have a park and the reason so much water is coming down over this land is because that park is there. They say they would like us to help, and over a considerable number of years the matter has been taken up in that way, the way I have just suggested, with whatever government was here. After doing that for a considerable number of years we eventually agreed that we should probably pay something toward it. They go ahead and lay out the work and we say to them, the limit we will pay you is $150,000. You have to turn over to us the particulars and the record of expenditures you have made; and when we are billed with that amount of

Supply-Agriculture
money, then we make the payment. The maximum we will pay is $150,000. It may be down as low as $75,000 or $50,000, or it may be the whole $150,000. However, until they have gone through the work and billed us for our share, we are not able to give particulars about it. The responsibility is theirs and not ours at all.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I understand the responsibility for initiating these projects lies with the province but my specific question is-


James Garfield Gardiner: I know what your specific question is and I know what you want me to say, but I am not going to say it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
46.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $1,920,601.
Mr. Purdy:: I just want to say a word with respect to this maritime marshland scheme. This is a project which has been carried on in the maritime provinces for a number of years.
I know that in my own constituency it has already done a tremendous amount of good. You can see a considerable increase in the livestock population. I have every reason to believe that similar circumstances exist in other parts of the province. I hope the work will continue to go forward.
I may say that it seems to me when the engineers first undertook this project they were dealing with something about which they did not know very much. They had not the experience, coming from the west as some of them did, with the tides of the bay of Fundy around which these projects are located. However, they are beginning to become acquainted with the problems and I think the work is now being conducted in a very efficient manner.
In this connection I have before me a resolution which was passed by the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture at its annual meeting at Truro last December. This is resolution No. 2 and reads:
Whereas loss from fresh water erosion continues [DOT] to be a serious problem to farmers throughout the province, and
Whereas there is no provision made to control fresh water erosion as it affects farm land.
Resolved that the federation of agriculture petition the provincial and federal authorities to enact legislation similar to the marshland reclamation act to control fresh water erosion of agricultural land.
My request tonight, Mr. Minister, now that we have a very efficient organization of engineers working on the marshland problem, is that thought should be given to some sort of similar scheme for work on the valleys of our rivers in the maritime provinces where every year, with every flash flood and every freshet in the spring, we are losing a good

many acres of very valuable land. I suppose it could be said that there is a water act under which the federal government will pay 35 per cent and the provinces and municipalities will pay the rest, in order to control floods. I am afraid, however, that there is little chance of any work being done under that act.
We have this engineering staff down there and I know there is a big problem on such rivers as the Salmon, the Shubenacadie, the North, the Stewiacke, the Musqodobit, the Nine Mile and many others. As I say, each year the farmers are losing a lot of their valuable land. I am just asking the minister if he will take under advisement having his engineers, when they are around these other projects, study the nature of these valleys. There are members of the staff there who could develop some workable scheme that would be of immense value to our agriculturists in the maritime provinces.
Perhaps I might also come back to the suggestion of the Prime Minister, that if the Atlantic provinces produce a scheme for their general good the federal government would give serious consideration to it. I am suggesting that possibly this scheme which I have suggested for the benefit of agriculture in those provinces would be a good place to start.


George Clyde Nowlan: There are one or two questions I should like to ask about this, and then having obtained some information about the present situation there is something I should like to say with respect to the future. I notice the amount is reduced by $295,000 this year over last year. Incidentally I might say that I approve and entirely agree with everything the hon. member for Colchester-Hants has said about the value and the contribution which this expenditure has made during the years.
I wonder if the minister could tell us what projects are proposed for this year. I notice that the total reduction is $295,000, and of that the reduction in the acquisition of property and construction is $250,000. I take it, therefore, that the construction work which will be carried on this year will be approximately a quarter of a million dollars less than that which has been carried on heretofore. I wish the minister would tell us just what he is proposing to carry out under this expenditure.
I should like to have him tell me also something of the problems with which I know he is confronted occasionally. As we know, there are times when substantial amounts of money have been spent in the recovery of certain dike lands, and when they have been offered to the adjoining owners the cost of the project

has been such that the owners felt they could not purchase the property. At least that was the situation some years ago. I am wondering if there are properties still on the hands of the department or what has been done with respect to thosei lands which have been reclaimed by this expenditure? I know, for instance, of one very large lot of dike lands in my own constituency in respect of which the farmers felt that if they had to pay back the amount expended it would probably cost twice as much as the land was worth.
I suspect there have been problems such as that, and I should like to know whether the department do have properties on their hands today, or whether they have handed them all back to the farmers. If so, on what basis? After the minister has answered that I should '.ike to make one comment about the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the first question, about what is to be done this year, because we have no large project like the Shepody river project of last year, which was completed-


George Clyde Nowlan: Which river was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Shepody river.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is where?


James Garfield Gardiner: In New Brunswick.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can you tell us what projects you do have in contemplation?


William Earl Rowe: It would be interesting to know what projects are in contemplation for next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as we have them at the present time-there may be some change -they are the Mantua-Poplar grove marsh, $98,000; Bartletts Beach marsh, $46,000; Brown Salt Pond marsh, $35,000; Goose Bay marsh, $45,000; Kentville marsh, $40,000; Elderkin marsh, $19,000; College Bridge marsh, $47,000; Turtle Creek marsh, $12,000; Jones Creek marsh, $8,000. The first six of these are in Nova Scotia and the last three are in New Brunswick.


George Clyde Nowlan: Two of them are next door to me. Can the minister say anything about the lands? Has he had that problem?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangement we have with the province through the legislation which was passed here and in the province is to the effect that we are responsible for the building of the dikes. The province is responsible for getting the right of way for the building of the dikes and for the drainage in behind the dams and taking care of anything that has to do with that. I think all the difficulties referred to, that is correcting the situation in relation to lands which are required for the work on the dams, are cared for by the province.
Supply-Agriculture


George Clyde Nowlan: You have no problems at the moment so far as lands are concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we have not.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have one other comment that I should like to make in connection with this. It is a matter that I raised with the minister two years ago, I think it was. He said at that time that surveys were in process. The minister will probably recall, although he naturally cannot be conversant with all these details, that there has been a suggestion along the Annapolis river that instead of maintaining the dikes on each side of the river there should be cooperation between the provincial and federal governments in the erection of a dam or causeway across the Annapolis river which would conserve about 25 or 30 miles of marsh on each side of the river from Annapolis Royal up beyond Bridgetown.
The minister told us a year or two ago that some surveys had been continued to that end, and I am wondering whether there has been any further progress in that direction. I think there may be, Mr. Chairman, because I heard of one or two persons who are buying property along the place where the proposed dam would be erected, and I think possibly they may be a little bit optimistic in thinking the dam will be constructed.
In the not too distant future there will undoubtedly be an opportunity there to save substantial sums of money in the maintenance of those dikes, although actually in the meantime I think the minister under this project has rebuilt quite a few of the dikes. Even so you have, as I say, probably 25 miles of dikes running along each side of the river; and if, as the minister intimated two years ago, the surveys indicated that a dam was feasible, then by building a relatively short dam across the river one could avoid the necessity of maintaining 40 or 50 miles of dikes.
I am bringing this to the attention of the minister now particularly because in a letter I had from an engineer, who is resident in the constituency and near this point, he told me that in his opinion the situation is such that the bridge across that river will require major repairs and probably reconstruction within the next four or five years. It would seem to me that if anything is ever going to be done on this project, it should be done in the relatively immediate future when, by the combination of a bridge and a causeway, the minister could effect cooperation with the provincial government in so far as the department of highways is concerned.

Supply-Agriculture
If you put a bridge across the river it will conserve a tremendous quantity of marshland and also save current expenditures, which will be substantial, on the dikes running up and down the river for many years to come. I would like the minister to tell us what the situation is at the moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the situation is that it is possible to build the dam across the mouth of the river and to prevent the sea from coming in. It is a combination of two things. The sea comes in, as my hon. friend knows, and creates a sort of greasy mud situation which is not very good to look at and not very useful for any purpose. Therefore in most cases we simply build the dikes and keep the water out. Along the river we have been doing that, at least it has been done in past ages by people who were there, and we have taken it on recently and are considering building the dams up along the river.
The suggestion is that instead of doing that we should build a dam right across the mouth of the river. There is a bridge there which is not in very good repair, and probably would have to be rebuilt. I think the provincial government have estimated that it is going to cost them $1 million to put the bridge in and maintain it. They have said they are prepared to pay $1 million toward the building of the dam, the total cost of which would be something over $3 million, about $3,500,000. Some people argue that the cost is so great, as compared with the amount of farm land that is going to be put into use as a result of having built it, that it is out of all proportion.
There are some who take the position that that is not the right way to look at it. Up to now the discussions have gone on, but no conclusion has yet been arrived at as to whether it will be proceeded with or not.


George Clyde Nowlan: Discussions are going on between the provincial and federal governments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, still going on.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the estimate of $3 million is relatively or approximately correct

we understand, of course, that estimates have a wide margin of error-then I think it would be a worth-while expenditure to make, because I am quite sure that if this marshlands reclamation project is continued and the minister continues to make expenditures on the running dikes on each side of that river over a period of years, the money he will expend in maintaining those dikes will be far more than the interest and service charges on the $2 million which his department has suggested it might have to spend in constructing the dam.

I think the province drove a remarkably good bargain with the Minister of Transport over the building of the Bluenose some years ago. They said they would pay one-third or up to $1,500,000. I think they are driving a fairly good bargain now. I suggest they cannot replace that bridge, which is probably the longest bridge in Nova Scotia, to modern specifications for $1 million. If the minister explores with the provincial government the proper field of co-operation, then I think the province might possibly raise its ante a little, and he would find that he could have a co-operative enterprise under which not only would he have the dam to keep out the tide, not only would he have reclamation dikes, but also, if the causeway were properly constructed, he would have a fresh water lake running from the bridge as far up as Bridgetown which would provide building and other accommodation which I am sure would more than justify the expenditure which is proposed. Frankly, I think if they got away with $5 million instead of $3 million they would be remarkably fortunate. But even so I think the expenditure would be justified.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister one further question. Will he give us the total amount paid out by the federal Department of Agriculture under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and also the total amount paid out under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total amount paid out under the maritime marshland reclamation scheme is $10 million.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is since the act was passed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; in Nova Scotia about $5 million and in New Brunswick about $5 million.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How much under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: On P.F.R.A. alone is about $66 million.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is more than that, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Taking into account the large projects it is about $96 million.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants in respect to engineering projects that would help to prevent fresh water erosion of soil in Nova Scotia. I noticed that the minister's attention was directed to another questioner and therefore he did not reply to the hon. member for Colchester-Hants. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not there

are some plans in operation in Nova Scotia for the prevention of fresh water erosion of the soil?


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer is just the same answer I gave to the hon. member for Selkirk a while ago. That is a provincial matter, and that is true of fresh water drainage right across Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: It does not refer to drainage, Mr. Chairman, but to the prevention of fresh water erosion of the soil.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all the same thing.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there any arrangement for co-operation between the dominion and the provinces in respect of matters of that sort?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The only place there
is any arrangement at all with regard to these matters is in the P.F.R.A. area, apart from where we enter into agreements under the other vote we were discussing a few moments ago. We enter into these agreements in any province where the province meets the conditions. We spend money there, but there is no definite legislation. It is assumed that the provinces have the responsibility under the British North America Act.


John Horne Blackmore: May I suggest to the
minister that in my opinion he should make provision for co-operation between the dominion and the provinces in respect of matters such as the prevention of fresh water erosion in the maritime provinces.
I thoroughly sympathize with the maritime provinces for looking with a somewhat critical eye at the large expenditures which are being made under the P.F.R.A. The expenditures there are not excessive; in fact, they have not reached what they ought to be yet, but they are a great blessing to western Canada. I think there ought to be similar provisions in respect of land in the maritime provinces.
May I remind the minister that the maritime provinces are not usually as able financially to bear a share of such expenditures as even the western provinces would be. If the western provinces had to take care of the financing of P.F.R.A. projects they simply could not be financed, because the western provinces would not be able to finance such expenditures.
May I suggest in all fairness to the maritime provinces and in the interest of equality across the dominion that provision ought to be made for assisting the maritimes in a very generous way in respect of preventing fresh water erosion in the soil.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture
47.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. $502,137.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the minister is well aware that there are perennial complaints concerning the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, particularly in the province of Manitoba. When the session began this year we anticipated that some amendments might be made to the act which would have solved some of these difficulties. Unfortunately these amendments have not been brought before us, and I would just like to briefly bring to the attention of the minister once again the major points of complaint concerning the administration of the P.F.R.A.
The problem that reaches me quite regularly is that of crown lands where no assistance is payable in cases of crop failure. The complaint arises because notwithstanding the fact that farmers operating on crown lands are forced to contribute to the P.F.A.A. fund, when they need assistance they are not permitted to receive it under the regulations. I understand that V.L.A. land is the only crown land that is exempted from this particularly discriminatory regulation.
There is also the other problem that has arisen as a result of repeated flooding in the area of the Assiniboine valley. Some of the farmers along the Assiniboine valley have suffered crop failures as frequently as three years in succession, with the result that they have had to seek employment off the land. Unfortunately when they have earned income other than from the operation of their farms they are automatically disqualified from receiving payments under the act. This is a special problem. I do not know whether the special cases could be taken care of by regulation under the act, but it is a problem that occurs frequently enough, especially in Manitoba, to require some attention.
Then, of course, in contemplating any amendments to the act there is the fact that the present rates of payment were established in 1939 with a maximum of $500, I believe, and $2.50 per acre. Those figures are out of touch with reality in terms of today's inflationary conditions. I feel that any amendments contemplated should take into consideration the changes in the value of our money and the effects of increasing inflation, and should be designed to place the scheme in a more equitable position.
In Manitoba we are faced with an additional special problem. It is well known to the minister that we always contribute more to the fund than we are able to withdraw because there is not so much marginal land in the province of Manitoba. As a result of the situation the provincial authorities appointed a commission to consider the possibility of establishing some sort of an insurance scheme.

Supply-Agriculture
That commission reported, and the essence of their report was that it would be impossible to operate a crop insurance program by one province. Any adequate crop insurance coverage would require the co-operation of the three prairie provinces. The report intimated further that any initiative in an attempt to bring the three provinces together to make a more comprehensive insurance scheme would possibly have to come from the federal authorities. I wish the minister would comment on that particular aspect of the commission's report.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the special problem which has also arisen from recurring floods in Manitoba. Some payment was available from the prairie farm assistance fund, but there has been almost universal complaint that the payment of $1.25 per acre has hardly been adequate to meet the disastrous effects of the flood conditions.
If I might be allowed while I am on my feet to deal with a matter out of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed with it. We have stood item 41, but I think it will save time if I speak about this now. I would like to direct this question to the minister because I think some attempt to deal permanently with flood conditions would be a much better scheme in the long run than attempting to meet the cost of damage resulting from annual flood conditions. This, of course, must be taken up under the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme.
The minister is well aware that farmers in Manitoba have become very active in seeking a solution to this problem of flooding. During the Easter recess I attended a meeting at which the director of the P.F.R.A. spoke, and he made a very excellent presentation and helped to clarify my thinking as to a solution to this problem. He placed the responsibility for initial action squarely on the provincial and municipal authorities, and he was supported in this approach to the problem by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. The hon. member conducted a survey of flooding on the Assiniboine when it was at its height during the recent spring condition.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but items 41 and 42 have been allowed to stand. I think it is obvious that they will not be carried tonight. We are in the middle of a discussion of item 47, and I think perhaps it would be fairer to hon. members who have delayed their remarks on item 41 if we were to continue with this item and then the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act would be open for discussion when it is called again. If the hon. member agrees I think that would be fairer to other hon. members of the committee.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can put my question in the next sentence and that will save a speech on item 41. I was saying that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa had interested himself in this problem, and he indicated that the initial action would have to be taken by the provincial authorities if we are going to get any solution for this problem of annual flooding. I should like to have a confirmation of the viewpoint expressed by the director of the P.F.R.A. as well as by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, as to the last question I think we had better leave the answer to that until other hon. members have presented their case. In so far as item 47 is concerned, I should like to call attention to one or two things. First, for the first time we have paid out a greater amount in Manitoba than the 1 per cent levy that has been paid in. In 1954-55 the amount collected under the 1 per cent levy in Manitoba was $748,694.05 and the amount paid out was $5,009,814. That is largely due to the fact that the act was amended to cover such conditions as we had in 1954. The 1955 amendments made it possible to pay where it was not drought that caused the damage, and so from now on the Manitoba position will be different from what it has been in the past. I just wanted to say that so hon. members might examine the figures and find what had been paid out.
That does not apply only in Manitoba, it applies to the eastern side of the province of Saskatchewan. Drought is the big problem in the western and southwestern portions of the province, it is not so much a matter of submarginal land. My hon. friend referred to the fact that there was not as much submarginal land in Manitoba as there was in Saskatchewan. In that area I am not too sure about that. The reason we apply this act to a township rather than to individual farms is to eliminate the submarginal land. The fact that there has been a crop of more than 8 bushels to the acre in a whole township prevents a man coming in who has poor land and that is the reason his crop is down rather than the weather. Those are facts which are sometimes forgotten when we are discussing this matter.
Then there was the other question as to the value of the dollar. That was not the main thing taken into consideration when the act was set up. The first thing was that we based it on so much per acre, but the other was based on so much grain produced on the acre. When you take into consideration the price of grain now as compared with the price then and add the two things together, you

find that the amount of money paid now more than takes care of the difference in the value of currency at this time as compared with when the act was set up.
Then the statement was made that some people do not like not being paid when they have land and are engaged in some other line of activity. If a man is actually on a farm, if farming is his main operation, then he comes under the act. He can go to work for a neighbouring farmer or go out threshing, but he still comes under the act for payment. But if a man is carrying on farming but his main occupation is that of a merchant he is not paid.
The whole objective of this legislation was to make it possible in a dry year for the farmer to pay his store bill. When he pays his store bill the storekeeper is presumed to get as great an advantage from the act as does the man who has a store bill to pay. It is not intended that the amount paid will be any more than the average store bill. The act was set up to help not only the farmer but the merchant in the small town. Therefore we say that if a man is a station agent or is running an elevator or is in the business of selling commodities, he is taken care of in other ways than under this act and we do not pay him.
I agree that there have been some complaints in Manitoba as well as in the eastern side of Saskatchewan. The reason is that most of these people have come in for the first time, and we get many complaints from storekeepers and others. But where they have been in since 1939 we find there are not the same number of complaints. We always get complaints when a new district comes in, and until they have had experience with the act we will continue to get them. But after they have been under the act for a few years, as it is now in Manitoba, there are not the same complaints made.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What about the farmer in a dry area seeking supplementary employment off the farm when the farm is in a flooded area? A man may have a crop failure and take temporary employment, for example in the oil fields around Virden. This is the area where most of the complaints have originated. They have been denied payment under the act because they have been in receipt of income from other than agricultural activities, but this employment has been temporary in order to meet an emergency.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act provides that in order to draw under it a man must be actually engaged in farming from about May 1 to the end of November. If he goes away at the end of November and takes a job he has to be back on the farm in the spring before he
67509-iUi
Supp ly-A griculture
is paid. The intention of the act is to make it possible for a man to stay on the land and to be there to produce a crop next year, having lost one this year because of drought. That is the intention. If he merely goes away in order to be able to live and comes back in the spring to put his crop in again and stays there he will be paid after he comes back, but not until he does come back.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, obviously we cannot get through tonight. I call your attention to the fact that it is ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: Do I understand that the item we have been discussing is carried?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of. the committee that item 47 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There was a general desire to finish agriculture tonight, and if we are to finish by a week from tomorrow we really have to finish this tonight. I think we could sit a little longer.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we agreed to sit until eleven o'clock and it is past eleven o'clock now. I think we should call it ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Without unanimous consent I think I am in the position that I must rise. Is there unanimous consent to continue?


Howard Charles Green: No.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the remaining agriculture estimates, then transport and then justice. On Monday we shall take the legislation on the order paper in the following order: the resolution with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the international wheat agreement, the bill to amend the R.C.M.P. Act, the bin to promote equal pay for female employees, the bill to amend the Income Tax Act, the bill to amend the Post Office Act, the bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and the bill to amend the Customs Tariff.


[Stage Direction]
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that it has been agreed that the international wheat agreement resolution will be dealt with by one speech from each of the parties in the house and that after that has been done Your Honour will put the question It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Ellis: 1.	Are there any employees of the federal government in the city of Regina who are not yet working on a 40-hour week?
2.	If so, what is the number and classification of such employees?
3.	What is the reason for such employees being denied the 40-hour week, and when is it expected all federal government employees in Regina will be so included?
Answer by: Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of
Slate):
1.	Yes.
2.	Cleaner and helper	 4
Farm foreman 1	 1
Farm labourer special	 3
Fireman-labourer	 2
Gardener 2	  1
Gardener 1	 1
Hospital cook	3	
1Hospital cook	2	
1Hospital cook	1	
1Hospital maid	
2Hospital nurse 3	
1Hospital nurse 2	
2
Hospital nursing orderly 3 . . 1 Hospital nursing orderly 2 .. 4
Labourer	 4
Maintenance craftsman 2 .... 1
Maintenance helper	 1
Plotman	 1
Research officer agriculture 1 1
Storeman 2	 1
Storeman 1	 1
Student assistant (seasonal) .. 1 Superintendent experimental
farm	 1
Technical officer 3	 1
3.	The five-day work week applies to federal government employees in the Regina area except those employed in connection with the operation of services specifically excluded by regulation. Such services include experimental farms and hospitals and all of the above employees are employed in the operation of such services in the Regina area.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
National parks branch-
294. Branch administration, $90,852.
300.	Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $472,331.
301.	National museum of Canada, $328,835.
302.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference, $838,204.
303.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $91,500.
304.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $465,010.
305.	Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by Fraser river board, $127,750.
306.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and water conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into between Canada and the province of Ontario, $750,000.
Northern administration and lands branch-
307.	Branch administration, $791,592.
Yukon Territory-
308.	Operation and maintenance, $589,806.
3C9. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $695,847.
310.	Operation and maintenance, $2,867,827.
311.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $4,371,568.
Forestry branch-
312.	Branch administration, $140,887.
Forest research division-
313.	Operation and maintenance, $1,086,008.
314.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $148,372.
Forestry operations division
[Stage Direction]
315.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $174,198.
316.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $196,217.
317.	To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance in forestry inventory and reforestation in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $1,125,000.
318.	To provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $650,000.
Forest products laboratories division-
319.	Operation and maintenance. $601,497.
320.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $540,125.
321.	Grant to Canadian forestry association,
[Stage Direction]
322.	Eastern Rockies forest conservation board 

remuneration and expenses of the federal member of the board, $5,575.
Canadian government travel bureau-
323.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, $1,567,559.
663.	National museum of Canada-further amount required, $15,815.
Water resources branch-
Water resources branch, including federal share of expenses of the Lake of the Woods control board-
664.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $40,430.
665.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $9,500.

Supply
666.	To provide for federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba board, $25,000.
Northern administration and lands branch- Yukon Territory-
667.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $40,333.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
668. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $1,150,000.
Forestry branch-
Forest research division-
669. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $8,000.
734. Advances to the Northwest Territories power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $500,000.

[Stage Direction]
34.	Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to
be made notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Terminable services-
35.	Freight assistance on western feed grains. $15,500,000.
36.	Agricultural lime assistance, $500,000.
37.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $5,700,000.
Special-
38.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $25,000.
39.	Agricultural products board administration.
[Stage Direction]
40.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, $89,650.
43.	Assiniboine river-Dyking and cut-off, $200,000.
44.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $70,036.
45.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $850,000.
46.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $1,920,601.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 4, 1956

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.