1958-08-14

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 14, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh and twelfth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. McCleave.
Ninth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, further to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the house yesterday, I should like to make a few comments on the report of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation which, as you know, was made public last Sunday. This report is of the greatest concern to me as Minister of National Health and Welfare, dealing as it does with matters of importance to the health of the people of Canada.
A great deal of interest has already been expressed in some of the conclusions of the report, and I should like to read one paragraph in particular of the general conclusions:
The exposure of mankind to ionizing radiation at present arises mainly from natural sources, from medical and industrial procedures, and from environmental contamination due to nuclear explosions. The industrial, research and medical applications expose only part of the population while natural sources and environmental sources expose the whole population. The artificial sources to which man is exposed during his work in industry and in scientific research are of value in science and technology. Their use is controllable, and exposures can be reduced by perfecting protection and safety techniques. All applications of X-rays and radioactive isotopes used in medicine for diagnostic purposes and for radiation therapy are for the benefit of mankind and can be controlled. Radioactive contamination of the environment resulting from explosions of nuclear weapons constitutes a growing increment to world-wide radiation levels. This involves new and largely unknown hazards to present and future populations: these hazards, by their very nature, are beyond the control of the exposed persons. The committee concludes that all steps designed to minimize irradiation of human populations will act to the benefit of human health. Such steps include the avoidance of unnecessary exposure resulting from medical, industrial and other procedures for peaceful uses on the one hand and the cessation of contamination of the environment by explosion of 57071-3-222
nuclear weapons on the other. The committee is aware that considerations involving effective control of all these sources of radiation involve national and international decisions which lie outside the scope of its work.
These conclusions were based on scientific information obtained from world-wide sources and Canada, as a member of the 15-nation committee, subscribed to the report as a whole. Technical information available to the government does not lead it to dissent from the above conclusions.
The report observes that present information about radiation levels and effects is inadequate for an accurate evaluation of all hazards. Notwithstanding this great uncertainty it is evident that hazards to health cannot be dismissed. On the other hand, in the determination of government policy concerning the use of radiation sources for various purposes, it is proper that the health hazard should be considered in the light of all other pertinent factors.
The United Nations committee has pointed out that industrial, research and medical uses of radiation are controllable by means of appropriate protection and safety techniques. My department has been active in radiation protection since 1949, when a section that is now known as the radiation protection division was set up. This division provides technical advice on the health and safety aspects of the industrial, research and medical uses of radioisotopes and X-rays. In this regard it works closely with the atomic energy control board and other agencies concerned with this matter.
For a number of years the division has also carried out measurements and studies concerned with the possible effects on health of environmental radiation exposures. Further programs of measurements and biological studies are planned with the aim of providing answers to some of the major gaps in our knowledge concerning the biological effects of radiation.
The importance of scientific research and the collection of information on the effects of radiation have been clearly pointed out by the United Nations scientific committee. With particular reference to this subject the committee, on the basis of scientific experience, "confidently expects that continuing research on an increasing Scale will furnish the knowledge urgently needed to master those risks which we know to be associated with

Effects of Atomic Radiation the development and scope of the uses of nuclear energy for the welfare of mankind."
I can assure hon. members that this government will continue to emphasize and support a progressive program of radiation protection in Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: The minister's report on this matter, based upon the report of the United Nations scientific committee, emphasizes its vital importance. The United Nations report points out what we are sometimes prone to forget that sources of radiation danger can lie in civilian activities as well as in the explosion of nuclear weapons. While perhaps these non-military activities are dangerous and do not easily lend themselves to international control, or in some cases to national control, nevertheless we can certainly do something on an international basis about the danger from nuclear explosions, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister yesterday.
The report of the minister also emphasized once again the necessity of putting an end to tests of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. While the Prime Minister quite rightly said yesterday that there should be developed international machinery for the enforcement of such a ban and the detection of violations, and while the conference now proceeding at Geneva has apparently shown that such an end could be achieved without too much difficulty by means of international agreement, nevertheless if we cannot get an international agreement of that kind, and if this conference at Geneva also shows-as has been indicated by experts in the United States and other countries-that no country could violate a ban of this kind without that violation being detected by national mechanisms in other countries, then bearing in mind that with all these implications a violation could not take place without detection, we should perhaps give consideration to the banning of tests of this kind at least for a period of time even if we do not have a system of international inspection.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I think the comprehensive statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare points up very vividly and very accurately the great danger to the world of a continuing build-up of atomic radiation. While most of us think of atomic explosions and the danger they constitute as something in the nature of a sudden calamity for the people of the world, nevertheless such a calamity might be just as serious if it results from a continued buildup of atomic radiation.
(Mr. Monteith (Perth).]

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the U.S.S.R. had announced it was ending its series of atomic tests. This announcement followed a large number of such tests made within the U.S.S.R. and therefore, the Prime Minister said, this is a very convenient time for the U.S.S.R. to end its own tests. This is no doubt correct and is one of the major reasons why the U.S.S.R. has decided to cease tests at this time. Even assuming that to be the fact, which no doubt is the case, it would seem to me that the western world could now take a forward step by a real act of faith, namely announcing that the west, too, will cease nuclear tests in the hope that this would mean a permanent end to nuclear explosions.
I think the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition was very significant, and I hope it will be taken up by Canada at the United Nations and elsewhere. We in the C.C.F. say to the Leader of the Opposition: we welcome the support you are now giving to the stand which the C.C.F. has taken for some considerable time, that nuclear tests should be ended forthwith.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient, in the proposed measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act, Bill C-34, now before the house, that clause 1 be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
1. (1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Veterans Insurance Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) with a veteran, at any time on or before the 30th day of September, 1962; or
(b) with any of the following persons, at any time on or before the 30th day of September, 1962,
(i)	the widow or widower of a veteran, if the minister has not entered into a contract of insurance with the veteran,
(ii)	the widow or widower of a person who died on service during the war,
(iii)	a member of the regular forces who has not been released from such forces and who was engaged in service during the war,
(iv)	a merchant seaman who received or was eligible to receive a bonus pursuant to the merchant seamen special bonus order, or a seaman who received or was eligible to receive a war service bonus pursuant to the merchant seamen war service bonus order, 1944,
and
(v)	any other person who is, under the Pension Act, in receipt of a disability pension relating to the war."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Again I note in today's Votes and Proceedings notice of a measure appearing in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys which I do not think was mentioned by the Prime Minister when we discussed these things in the house some time ago. In replying to me the other day he said he had made one omission. This appears to be a second omission. May I ask if this is now all the legislation we will have between now and the end of the session?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I note the remarks of the hon. gentleman. In so far as this amendment to the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act is concerned, it is absolutely necessary if what was undertaken earlier and brought to the attention of the house is to be carried out. It is one of those things which will not bring about a measure of controversial debate, as I understand it, and I am sure that the hon. gentleman, representing the official opposition, would be the last to desire that action in this regard should be neglected at this session. I take it that would be his attitude.
With regard to any further legislation, I have referred to the probabilities in connection with some legislation which might be necessary under the agricultural program. I am sure that in this regard, there being no serious controversial issues to be raised, the hon. gentleman, representing the opposition, would be the last to desire to do anything to prevent the introduction of agricultural legislation which would be of benefit to this country, and which must necessarily receive attention at this session if it is to be appropriately applied within the next few months. I share with him the desire of hon. members to have a completion of the program, but when a government is desirous of being of assistance in meeting the needs of Canadians as a whole, matters necessarily arise that have to be brought in at the last moment. I reiterate what I stated the other day, that I am hopeful that the program as set forth is final.


Lionel Chevrier: It is being added to
continually.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not be bound, however, to refuse to consider the introduction of measures which even at the last moment, 57071-3-222J
Inquiries of the Ministry by reason of the circumstances arising between now and the conclusion of the session, might be considered necessary for the welfare of the people of Canada. I know my hon. friend, within those limitations, would certainly agree with the view I have expressed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my friend the hon. member for Laurier, as the Prime Minister indicated, would be the last to object to, obstruct or delay legislation which in the words of the Prime Minister is for the welfare of the people of Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, was not the point he was trying to make. It was that in the interests of minimizing obstruction and delay we should know well in advance, especially in the closing days of the session, what legislation is to be introduced. We had been told the other day that all the legislation was on the order paper. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to keep this in mind, that if we want to get this legislation through quickly for the benefit of the people of Canada it is incumbent on the government, especially at this time in the session, to let us know what is coming up. At the present time there seems to be about these matters, as far as the Prime Minister's statements are concerned, what I might call a continuous finality.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement of the Prime Minister is most encouraging, that even after we have had a final resume of the legislation that is forthcoming we shall have the opportunity of dealing with other very beneficial legislation. Since the Prime Minister has emphasized the agricultural legislation that is about to be introduced, I wonder if he could satisfy the curiosity of the house by saying whether this includes deficiency payments, and what in general is contained in the legislation. I am sure the Prime Minister will find that the C.C.F. group, as usual, will facilitate the passage in this house of all worth-while legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh. Obstructionists.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I like the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. Everything should be done to minimize what he called obstruction. I certainly think that is a laudable purpose and a highly desirable end. Anything I can do to minimize obstruction from the other side will certainly be done, because there is none from this side.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The Prime Minister should attend the house.


Mr. Benidickson:: He has not had his loudspeaker on.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: As to the statement of the hon. member for Assiniboia, I am not going to read into the record a report that he allegedly gave to Mr. Robert Moon on August 8 to the effect that as far as this government was concerned it was apparently not bringing in any agricultural legislation, having an undesirable end in view in taking that step. I will not read that into the record because I cannot accept such words as appear in the Regina Leader-Post, and attributed as a direct quotation by the hon. gentleman, as representative of his views. However, in so far as the agricultural program is concerned, I assure the hon. gentleman that the matter is receiving continual consideration. As a matter of fact, the absence of the minister from the house in the last two, three or four days has been in consequence of very serious and lengthy consideration of such proposals as will be beneficial not only to agriculture but to Canadians generally.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: There was some important business in the house as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see my hon. friend's interest in that regard.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the British admiralty's recent decision to augment its fishery protection squadron of two frigates and two minesweepers as a precaution against incidents with Icelanders who intend to enforce the extension of their territorial waters from 4 miles to 12 miles as from September 1, and in view of the Prime Minister's previous statement to the effect that his government was proposing that national jurisdiction be extended 12 miles offshore only in regard to fisheries matters, can the Prime Minister inform the house what action, if any, has been taken by the Canadian government to approve or support Iceland's decision or to protest against this alleged violation of the international law of the sea?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that this is not a question for the orders of the day. It is a very lengthy question and one that would require an equally lengthy answer. I submit it is not one that comes within the purview of the orders of the day.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any action has been taken by the government to protest against Iceland's decision?


Mr. Speaker:: The question seems to be a familiar one. It seems to me I have dealt with it twice before during this session. Whether it is limited to any action since the question was last asked I do not know. If so, I suppose it would be in order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, only this morning there appeared in the press a report to the effect that the United Kingdom and certain other members of NATO were going to take action to protect their fishing vessels inside an area which is now claimed by Iceland as territorial waters. This is a matter of great importance which I think should be occupying the attention of the government and which should be brought before the NATO council at its next session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can say that this matter has been before NATO, and the hon. member is fully aware of that fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a new development.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to say whether or not an interim report will be made by the Borden commission dealing with petroleum and natural gas and what action, if any, may arise from this report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the latter part of the question is concerned I know the hon. gentleman does not expect an answer now. As to the first part of his question, namely when an interim report may be expected from the Borden commission, I had the chairman communicated with and he advised, as he said at the time of the adjournment of the sittings of the commission, that it is the intention of the commission to make an interim or preliminary report with respect to certain aspects of the gas and oil industry. On that occasion-that was July 22-he was unable to state exactly when the report could be expected. However, he said that it will require a great deal of consideration and deliberation and that he is hopeful

that early in October he will be in a position, with the members of the commission, to make that interim report.
That being so, my hon. friend will understand that it is impossible to say what action will be taken because the report will not be available, even with the greatest diligence on the part of the members of the commission, before that date and may even be a month later.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the Prime Minister's report to the house. Am I to take it from his report that any further consideration of the development of the Montreal market for western oil will be delayed or will wait until after this very important report has been received?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the Montreal market is concerned, private interests are giving a great deal of attention to that matter. Naturally it is being considered also by the government. When I say that I do not want to give any indication that what is being considered will be answered in the affirmative, but simply that the matter is receiving consideration, and the report from the royal commission no doubt will be helpful in the determination of that and other problems.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the present shortage of bait in Newfoundland for Newfoundland fishermen, I would be grateful if the minister would advise whether or not his department has taken any steps to relieve the situation.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I am a little confused by the situation, not by the question, since the hon. member for St. John's East gave me notice of his intention to ask an identical question, and the hon. member for Trinity-Conception has asked it. This, however, indicates the interest of the people of Newfoundland in the Newfoundland fisheries, and their concern with the bait shortage.
This is something of which my department is very much aware, and the difficulty arises because of the failure of the squid fishery this year. I might say that during last winter the department's bait service froze more herring bait than ever before, but these stocks are now almost exhausted and a fairly critical situation has arisen.
The department, however, has embarked on a serious attempt to relieve the situation. For example, we have two helicopters under
Inquiries of the Ministry charter to the department scouting for squid.
I am happy to say that a certain amount of squid has just now been obtained, about 30,000 pounds, and it will be delivered very shortly to the areas where it is most urgently needed. We hope to augment this supply. In addition we have obtained 150,000 pounds of herring in the Yarmouth area, which will be delivered to the bait depots in Newfoundland as quickly as we can get suitable transportation for it. For the time being we have temporarily suspended the sale of bait to foreign fishing vessels, and we have also done a number of other things which I do not think I should take up the time of the house by enumerating, but if any hon. member is especially concerned and would be interested in securing more details I would be happy to give them to him privately.



NIAGARA PENINSULA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or in his absence to the minister in charge. Today the Toronto Globe and Mail reports that the Niagara peninsula growers have 1,000 tons of surplus cherries as a result, according to the secretary of the marketing board, of a recent large volume of imports at low prices. Does the government intend to give any help to these fruit growers?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture on his return.
(Translation):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received from members of the Richelieu Bar Association, a request for the establishment of a bankruptcy registry and a bankruptcy court at the seats of the judicial districts of Richelieu, Beauharnois, d'Iberville and St. Hyacinthe? If so, may we hope that such bankruptcy registries and bankruptcy courts will be established shortly?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I just received notice of this question. I shall look into the matter and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.
3506	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
(Text):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
"THE nation's business"
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Some days ago I asked the Minister of National Revenue if he would make an inquiry of the C.B.C. I wonder if he has the answer.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not, Mr. Speaker, at the moment. I only returned last night, but I will have the answer to the question tomorrow.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
department of northern affairs and
NATIONAL RESOURCES 266. Departmental administration, $731,410.


Mr. Fairfield:: Last night I had been discussing jurisdictional difficulties in connection with conservation programs because of provincial jurisdiction in those areas over our natural resources. Many hon. members in this house know there are private groups which are endeavouring to carry out conservation projects in their own provinces and at their own expense. In western Canada we have game and fish associations which are actively trying their best, without much help from the federal government, to carry on conservation projects. These projects have had a great effect in our part of the country particularly because the game and fish are a great tourist attraction and consequently mean a great deal to our provincial treasuries in so far as the tourist dollar is concerned.
It is my understanding that for the past two years there has been a movement under way to establish a national wildlife conservation foundation. I believe the purpose and scope of this foundation has aroused widespread public support, and many prominent Canadians are giving it their whole-hearted backing. I believe the minister of northern affairs already has some knowledge of this movement.
It seems to me that a national conservation foundation, supported financially by this government and by private enterprise, could do for Canada what similar bodies are doing for other countries, and if truly national in its representation could offer logical and much 

needed means of bridging the gap between the efforts of federal and provincial governments and private bodies concerned in the field of wildlife management.
I understand that the architects of this plan have drafted a constitution which would guarantee that the proposed foundation would not infringe on the rights, or overlap the functions, of any existing agency, but that it would indeed be the vehicle for much needed financial assistance to all existing programs, provincial and private; would offer scholarship within the whole broad scope of resource management; would support scientific research, especially through universities, and would institute what is today so badly needed, namely a wildlife management and national conservation information service.
I hope at the appropriate time the government will give very serious consideration to the proposal to be put forward for the establishment of this independent foundation. I believe that government support would immediately result in the contribution by private enterprise in all parts of Canada, and on a continuing basis, of possibly hundreds of thousands and perhaps even million of dollars to the cause of resource conservation, and the development and utilization of those resources.


Mr. Fisher:: I should like to congratulate the chairman of the committee which considered the estimates of this department. I was able to take part in the committee, in the forestry aspect. I was quite impressed with the interest of the committee, which seemed to be generated to quite an extent by the very open attitude of the chairman. The forestry aspect of the department is what interests me most, naturally, because forestry bulks so large in our particular area and I feel it is by far the most important. The one warning I should like to give to the minister is that I do not think he should be lured away by the northern aspect of his department as to forget the really fundamental role his department should be playing in forestry matters. As he knows, that is not really a northern problem so much as one that runs in the lower part of Canada, thinking in terms of north and south.
I welcome very much the fact that we have a new minister; not so much in political terms, but I felt it was time this department had new leadership with a new approach. I know from conversation with the minister that he is seriously interested in forestry. I was very pleased to see the announcement he made at Yorkton that he was calling the provincial ministers concerned with these matters together sometime in the near future to go into them.

A few of the previous speakers in the debate have emphasized conservation. I do not want to be critical of their statements or what they are trying to put over. Generally it is agreeable, but I should like to point out to them that for 70 or 80 years we have had concern in Canada for conservation. We had very large conservation meetings even before the first world war. One of the largest was in Ottawa in 1911. There has been amongst enlightened people in Canada a continuous concern with conservation. I think one of the difficulties is that maybe we have too many conferences on conservation, too much general discussion on it, and not enough particularized work.
I want to bring to the minister's attention some statements by one who first began service with the dominion government, in the forestry service, away back in the first decade of this century. He is now one of Canada's better known millionaires. I refer to H. R. MacMillan, at one time a forestry officer with the Canadian government. Last year Mr. MacMillan, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the forestry profession in Canada, gave a speech at the University of Toronto. He made a number of very interesting points that are exceptionally apt for political consideration. He began with this theme with which I agree most heartily; that our tremendous concern with agriculture over the centuries since Canada got under way has made us lose sight of the fact that equally or even more important aspects of our economy and our industry have been neglected.
I believe, and I think this is implicit in what Mr. MacMillan said, that the agricultural interests have been able to apply better and more effective political pressure. Mr. MacMillan said:
Because our people are not well informed, they lack of sense of responsibility towards the present and the next forest crops. This must be the reason why the forest industry alone of the great national basic industries receives no subsidies (it seeks none), and is starved of the reinvestment necessary to maintain its productivity, although yearly the forest crop, as compared with annual production from either agriculture or mining, pays out the most wages, produces a greater total buying power, contributes vastly more to a favourable trade balance, supports the greatest export trade, and begets directly and indirectly the largest tax revenue. Our national government spends each year approximately-[DOT]
I should like the minister to note this:
"On forest administration and research $6,000,000.
On mining administration and research and subsidy, $25,000,000.
On agricultural administration and research and subsidy, $80,000,000."
Supply-Northern Affairs
Then he went on to say:
The national and provincial governments together receive a $230 million annual revenue from agriculture, on which they spend $150 million; from forests they receive $275 million-
In other words, $45 million more.
-of which they spend a combined total of $45 million on administration and investment in the next crop. Such lack of foresight is equivalent to eating the seed corn.
This pattern of expenditure appears to depart by a wide margin from a policy of giving attention proportionate to the public interests concerned.
That is what I am hoping from this particular minister in the leadership that he is able to give, to try to redress this balance. No matter what your economic outlook, you realize that when you have an industry there has to be a fall-back for investment in order to keep the expansion going, and especially with a renewable resource in order to keep that resource coming in the years ahead. I suggest that these figures supplied by Mr. MacMillan indicates that this has not been done.
It has already been mentioned that there is a constitutional problem. The minister, from his evidence before the committee, is very much aware of this. He knows he cannot dictate to the provinces. But I suggest that almost every province in Canada is aware of the fact that the federal government takes in a tremendous amount from the forest industry in taxation and in comparison gives very little back. I think every province is anxious to get more back. The question is, what are you going to do?
Something else I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is some evidence that was given before the committee on land use in the other place. If you look at the annual report on forest research for the year ending March, 1957 you will find that one of the leading officers in silviculture research is Mr. W. G. E. Brown. Mr. W. G. E. Brown is no longer with the government. He has joined Spartan Air Services Limited in his capacity as survey specialist. He is considered by many people to be the top expert in this field in the country. I should just like to bring to the minister's attention what this specialist gave as his reason for getting out of the government service, because this is where I hope this minister is going to give leadership. Mr. Brown said:
I was associated on forest and soil surveys, and land use surveys from 1947 to 1951 with Mr. Hills of the Ontario department of lands and forests; from 1951 to 1956, I was chief soil and site officer for the federal forestry branch, covering all of Canada. In both cases I resigned chiefly because of the difficulties encountered between departments in the federal government, between dominion and provincial government agencies, and between industry-
3508	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
He went on to state the difficulties and underline all the overlapping and the failure to get any lead on this whole question of land use as it relates to geology, soil, forest coverage and so on; a tremendous theory. I think this criticism by one of the most brilliant men in his field in Canada, who had to get out of both the provincial and federal governments because he was so disturbed over the lack of co-operation and his general feeling that he was getting nowhere, is a very severe criticism of the role which the department, especially in so far as its forestry activities are concerned, has been playing.
It was very pleasing to me, and I am sure it will be very pleasing to the forest industry as a whole, to read the recommendation made by the committee in connection with forestry. There are two sentences appearing at page 264 of Votes and Proceedings which I would like to read. They are as follows:
Your committee recommends that increased attention be given to the compilation of material on water resources and to their multiple use, and, in the case of forestry, to forest research. Your committee also noted the increased emphasis being given in the United States to forest products research and recommends that the government give consideration to increased support of that activity in Canada.
Let us see that increased support given with greater and more energetic leadership, and a manifestation of the feeling that the minister and his department must get out and take the lead in this matter.
There are quite a number of ways in which forest research can operate at the present time, and I think the minister knows from the evidence given before the committee that his forest products research laboratories are understaffed. I was told of a case the day before yesterday in which a firm had sent a 4 X 4 x A plywood sheet to be tested last November but had still not received the results of the test. In the United States tests can be made by private laboratories and, as a consequence of the certificate given by the scientists concerned, the particular material can be accepted by federal housing authorities.
If we are going to be in the business of testing, and I am sure the federal laboratories are a worthy venture, then I think there is very little excuse for this sort of thing. We are aware that the weakness is probably the lack of staff, and I would like to repeat some suggestions I made in committee. The first is to clear up this staff question in the forest products laboratory right now and, if necessary, have crash sessions with the civil service commission. If men with Ph.D.'s and many years of experience are getting only $6,000, $7,000 and $8,000 in these fields, and


are handicapped by lack of staff to help them, then I think we have a very poor situation and I would be very interested to know more about the morale in this area.
One of the generalizations I attempted to make was that the situation in the west coast laboratory is much happier than that in the Ottawa laboratory, and there is certainly a feeling that the laboratory there is producing more in relation to industrial knowledge than is being done in Ottawa. One of the aspects of forest products research in relation to integrated production is that in eastern Canada our pulp operations still are not using enough of the hardwood species such as birch and poplar, and what we need are more establishments to turn out veneers and core stock.
This integration is not only important from the point of view of economics; it is desperately important so far as the clearing off of what have been called weed species is concerned and improving to a much greater extent the silviculture. Instead of just going in and taking out all the conifers, the development of veneer mills and plywood mills will enable us to get a really integrated operation which will clear off the total coverage. This will also give us much better control of regeneration, and I think this is one aspect of research which must be stepped up by the forest products, laboratories. Everything must be done which will further advance the veneer, core stock and plywood stock sector of the forest industry economy.
One of the things we have been doing in Canada is taking tremendous advantage of United States research. This is all to the good, but I wonder whether some sort of relationship could not be worked out between this country and the United States whereby our comparable problems could be considered jointly in order to give us an opportunity for more concentration, leaving greater scoDe for the United States to more specifically allocate their expenditures. In the United States government research laboratories undertake a great deal of work for industry on a contract basis, and I wonder if similar work could not be done in Canada if the terms were fair.
One of our major problems in forestry is that we have a very abnormal age distribution in most of our pulpwood limits. The minister knows the situation north of Kenora, where he has a summer home, and where hundreds of square miles are overmature and should be cut in the very near future. When they are cut, however, we will continue this pattern of abnormal age distribution, and this is one aspect of research with which I think the forestry branch should be far more concerned.

There is another aspect of research to which more attention should be given, and that is with respect to herbicides for brush control. I realize that private industry is doing a lot in this connection, but 1 think even more could be done. Further, I have in mind the Russian experiments to develop what they call living firebreaks by the use of plants which have a very high moisture content, and this is something which could be investigated with some intensity in Canada.
Forestry research shows slow progress in terms of conclusions. The minister was kind enough to provide me with a five-year progress report of R.C.17, which is a very intricate bit of research work. Many agencies have co-operated in this connection and the research work was carried out on one of the slopes of lake Superior. After five years the most discouraging thing, although perhaps a very proper thing from the scientific point of view, is the lack of recommendations.
There are two points mentioned which I would like to draw to the attention of the house, first that scarification does help to create good seed bed conditions, and the fact that herbicides used in certain ways do help to cut out countergrowth, which assists in the providing of regeneration for the conifers. There are, however, very few conclusions, and the difficulties with respect to forest research are all old ones. It is a real challenge to the administration to try to get some conclusions from the foresters.
I would like to mention to the minister two pulp and paper industries which are in juxtaposition in my own area and which have completely contradictory forest policies. Yet they are taking those policies from the point of view of their respective foresters, who have gone into the situation. One company believes that the whole future of the pulp and paper industry lies in the spruce forests, and they are therefore concentrating upon planting where regeneration is poor. They plant over 2 million trees a year and are making strenuous efforts to help natural regeneration and so bring back the limits to their former state. The second company, which is right next door with almost identical terrain, also measured in thousands of square miles, bases its whole forest policy upon the idea of cellulose per acre. This company says it does not matter a hoot about spruce and its longer fibres, but that the chemical engineer is now playing the operative role in the forest industry. He will clear up this whole problem for us, and he is already doing it and is enabling us to use hardwoods. They say, furthermore, that in the next decade or two the whole point of the matter will be cellulose per acre, and that the question of 57071-3-223
Supply-Northern Affairs the superior qualities of the spruce fibres for making newsprint and other pulp products will not be a factor at all.
Just that very dichotomy points up the magnitude of the forestry problem in determining what we are going to do with our forestry research. I have talked to a great many foresters and have had many contacts with them, and there is a feeling-and it is expressed by a former employee, Mr. Brown -that there is no leadership forthcoming from the federal government in this particular field. Whether or not there are constitutional problems, if we want to get anywhere in this field there has to be that leadership.
In other words there is a tremendous challenge to the minister and to his department. And this is not in the north. This is not Frobisher bay. This does not concern resources about which we know nothing. This relates to the breadbasket of this country, and I suggest to the minister that the breadbasket of this country is no longer on the prairies; it is in the boreal forests where we find our pulp and paper resources.


An hon. Member:: What does the hon. member for Assiniboia say to that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: He has just been complaining from behind. I do not mind somewhat overstating this point in relation to what the hon. member for Assiniboia tells me, but I think we have gone on long enough paying such marked attention to the agricultural interests, especially to the grain interests. It is not that there is anything wrong with that, but in the process we have lost sight of this forestry industry which has brought in even more revenue and which has even sharper problems.
I do not know whether one of the solutions would be to put in support prices for pulpwood-that is a question for the Minister of Agriculture to worry about-but I do know that one of the main problems is determining how the silviculture plan should be laid out and what guiding principles we should be following. This involves the department of the Minister of Finance, because the whole fiscal policy of the government in relation to the forest industry is in question.
As the minister is probably aware if he has read any of the representations from the industry, or even from the unions involved in the industry, this point was strikingly illustrated in the last few years when Ontario introduced a new logging tax. Immediately a howl went up from the pulp and paper interests. What did the premier of Ontario say? He said he had to get more

Supply-Northern Affairs revenue out of his forests because there was not enough money coming back from the federal government.
Well, that is fine; he recognized the problem and went out to get some more money. What did the head of the largest pulp and paper concern in this particular part of the country say? He was enraged by this and said, "We are going to have to cut down our research program. If the federal government and the provincial government refuse to get together and work out equitable taxation with us, why should we continue to make efforts to plan for the conservation of our forests and plow back money, if the fiscal policy is so bad?"
The evidence given by the head of the Canadian institute of foresters and by Major General Kennedy, who is one of Canada's most prominent foresters, was that the government needs to look closely at its whole fiscal policy in relation to the industry. The figures I read indicate that forestry is getting very little put back into it, either from the federal government or from the provincial governments, in relation to the taxation revenue. This being the case I think the industry is in a position to say to the federal and provincial governments, why are you not showing stronger leadership in research?
The final point I wish to make is this. I hope the minister does not go off down the path that so many ministers in the past have taken with regard to forestry, and become obsessed with firefighting or getting rid of the bugs we have in profusion in many of the forests. I suggest that fire protection and forest entomology are no longer the most important problems which concern the forest industries. Action must focus upon silviculture, and upon getting the crop back again.
I am not suggesting that the minister should abandon or even refrain from extending his fire protection program in co-operation with the provinces, but I should like to suggest that he work out some scheme of subsidizing experiments in controlled burning, because almost every good pulpwood forest we have in this country was formed as a result of forest fires. In other words I suggest we should, after proper preparation, set forest fires deliberately in order to make regeneration possible. This would require considerable expenditure on control measures, but it is a field where more research should be done.
I should like to conclude by saying to the minister that you have a real problem here and a wonderful opportunity for leadership. Don't go chasing off after northern affairs completely; don't go chasing the obsession of putting out forest fires and getting rid of the bugs. Go right after the whole problem


of silviculture, forest management and regeneration. I think the minister would then merit much greater thanks from the Canadian people than any of the previous ministers we have had in the department of northern affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I welcome the opportunity of making some observations about the work of this very important department of government, though I may say that these observations will not include that particular branch of the department which has just been touched upon by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I say this not because I do not recognize the importance of that branch, but because there is no time to deal with all the various activities of the department which are involved in these estimates.
The hon. member who has just spoken said some laudatory things about the minister, and contrasted his activities and energy with those of his predecessor. I am not going to say anything which would deprecate the energy and drive-


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is the second time within a week that the Leader of the Opposition has attributed things to me which I did not say. The first was in connection with Rhodes scholars. I was just making this point in connection with the change of leadership, that I think it is good to have new leadership-completely new thoughts. It was not a great reflection on the performance of the previous minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to accept that correction. As far as the Rhodes scholarships are concerned, I do not think I did the hon. member an injustice in the remarks I made on a former occasion.
What the hon. member has now said is that it is a good thing to have a change of leadership. Perhaps I should point out that though there has been a change of leadership, energetic and determined leadership has been given to the work of this department over a good many years, since the second world war. It was in 1950, under the previous administration, that this separate department was set up.
It was then, I believe, the department of resources and development, and it was under the present minister's predecessor in the Liberal administration, Mr. Lesage, that the name of this department was changed to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. While a change in name may not in itself be of too much practical importance, and may have only symbolic significance, since that time, under Mr. Lesage, a great deal of energy and leadership has been given,

as indeed it was given by Mr. Lesage's predecessor, Mr. Winters, to the work of this very important department. When I say that I am not suggesting that the present minister is not showing energy and determination, because I know he is, and I also know something about his interest in northern development.
This is one aspect of the work of the department that I wish to talk about in particular, northern development. Those of us who heard the hon. member for Mackenzie River the other day must have been impressed by the very moving story he told concerning the tragedy which overtook 14 Eskimos in that part of our territory. We surely must have realized as that tragic tale unfolded that there is more to northern development than the development of the material resources of that part of the world. None of us can take very much satisfaction, and I am sure the minister takes no satisfaction, out of the development of these resources if we cannot at the same time develop our own sense of responsibility for looking after the indigenous inhabitants of that area in a way that will prevent this kind of tragedy occurring in the future. The Financial Post of August 2 carried an editorial dealing with development in the Arctic which included the following paragraph:
We have made enormous strides in seven years. We are building town sites, schools and airfields along the mainland and across the archipelago. We are taking care of 12,000 Eskimos and introducing them to the ways of civilization.
Unfortunately there were a few we were not able to take care of a short time ago. Our feeling of shock and regret-and that is too mild a word to use in connection with this tragic event-was well expressed in an editorial which appeared in the London Free Press of August 12, in these words:
If there was a murder, these officers-
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
-would spend months or years to run down the culprit. Would it not be well that the officers be assigned to see that the roving bands are supplied; if they lack food for the winter season to see that they obtain it or be removed to winter shelter areas.
If we Canadians heard of death through starvation in some of the less developed lands we would start a campaign, gather food parcels and rush them overseas. It happened at home, months ago and now we hear of it-a shocking tale.
I am sure we all welcomed the observations of the minister in connection with this matter when he indicated the steps that would be taken to prevent the recurrence of a tragedy of this kind in the future.
The importance of the development of our Arctic territory has been dramatically emphasized and underlined by the passage, I 57071-3-223i
Supply-Northern Affairs believe within the last week, of two United States atomic submarines under the Arctic ice, which, in the application of a particular theory of international law, is Canadian Arctic ice. This magnificent achievement, and it certainly was a magnificent achievement, has strategic implications and also commercial implications which must be very much in our minds.
So far as the strategic implications are concerned, this is not the place to deal with them and I shall content myself by saying that the achievement of these two United States submarines reinforces our feeling of regret that our one naval vessel operating in those parts, C.G.S. Labrador, has been taken away from that kind of operation. So far as the commercial implications are concerned-and this surely has an important bearing on the development of the north, and I am sure it must have occurred to the minister as he read the news of this achievement-when the commander of the first atomic submarine to go under the Arctic ice, the Nautilus, reached London, England he is reported in the London Times of August 12 as having said:
There appears to be no upper limit to the size you may build submarines and I think cargo submarines carrying priority cargo such as oil are definitely coming along in the future.
He was referring, of course, to submarines operating with atomic power. I continue:
He said he thought that other commercial cargo carrying, under water, would be possible. "It must come, as you can travel more efficiently under the surface than above it.'' Taking oil by the Arctic route was "a very promising thing."
This opens up a whole new field of Arctic development. In view of the fact that we have these resources of oil, minerals and base metals of one kind and another in that part of Canada, as the minister pointed out, their development is bound to be handicapped by the expense of getting these materials to market. That was pointed out at the recent meeting of the Royal society, in Edmonton by experts on Arctic matters. While it is one thing to have these resources there it is another thing to exploit them economically and deliver them profitably to the markets of the world. If it could be done by underwater commercial craft we could have our resources there developed and exploited and moved to submarine ports from which they could be distributed to the markets which require them.
This may seem a pretty remote vision, but I know that visions do not intimidate the minister and this is certainly a question that deserves attention and examination. Perhaps before I get too carried away by this vision I might place on record that the estimated cost of the first atomic

Supply-Northern Affairs submarine the Nautilus, was something in the neighbourhood of $60 million, so there is a great deal of progress to be made in the economic construction of these craft before they can be used for the purpose I have mentioned. But this certainly opens up new vistas of development.
This emphasizes in my own mind what I have often thought was an important point in northern development, that defence and civilian development must go together in that part of the world. I know that has been the objective of government policy for a good many years, and these recent developments just emphasize its importance. For that purpose, of course, it becomes even more important than it was previously to establish beyond any doubt our claim to our Arctic territory. This is more important than ever before in view of Soviet interest in that part of the world, in view of the utilization by Soviet parties of moving ice fields for scientific purposes and that kind of thing, ice fields which I believe are included in what we call the Canadian sector, and in view of the development with our approval and cooperation of United States defence activity in that part of the world; indeed, development to the point where I have read articles in United States magazines and newspapers on Arctic development in Canadian territory in which reference is made by the United States authors to "our" Arctic. Therefore it becomes more important than ever before that there be no doubt left in the mind of anybody that it is the Canadian Arctic.
We recall that the first claim to Arctic island territory was advanced on behalf of the Canadian government as far back as 1907, when Senator Poirier put forward the sector theory which was elaborated in the House of Commons many years later, in 1925, by the minister of the interior of that day, Hon. Charles Stewart. Under that sector theory Canada lays claim to all the land between the extension of the 60th and the 141st meridians of longitude until they meet at the north pole. In 1953 Mr. St. Laurent, who was very much alive to the importance of this problem, especially in the light of recent development, made a significant statement in the House of Commons and the previous government did something to implement that statement. Mr. St. Laurent said then:
We must leave no doubt of our active occupation and exercise of our sovereignty in these northern lands right up to the pole.
Of course there arises at once a question of the rights of control, or sovereignty, if you like, over the permanent ice fields. Perhaps the extension of the continental shelf about which the minister spoke in this house in another debate will extend our rights over

these permanent ice fields for some miles under that doctrine of sovereignty over the continental shelf which I suggest, however, is not yet quite formally established. But beyond that there is certainly no recognition by any other country that I know of, by the United States, the United Kingdom or the U.S.S.R., that we have any rights of sovereignty or control over the permanent ice.
Perhaps the time is coming, Mr. Chairman, if it has not already come, when we should try to work out an international agreement to see exactly where we stand in regard to our control and sovereign rights under this sector theory, and try to get those rights established by international agreement. I suggest to the minister that we shall have considerable difficulty in doing that if we base our claim merely on the sector theory which has not yet, I think, been generally considered a valid doctrine in international law.
The sector theory itself is not enough; it must be followed by rights based on discovery and effective occupation. That had been very much in the mind of the previous government, as no doubt it is in the mind of the present government, to buttress any claims we have under one theory of international law by rights of discovery and effective occupation, which are acknowledged by all as valid in international law. That surely means that policy must be directed toward the extension of Canadian civilian occupancy and control of all Arctic activities. I know the difficulty in this regard, but I also know a great many things have been done in the field of defence particularly, in fact almost exclusively in the field of defence by the United States, that we in Canada would not have done and perhaps would have found it impossible to do because of their expense.
I know there are a great many facilities in the Arctic which have been built by the United States, some of which are occupied by United States personnel, and some of which are occupied jointly by the United States and Canada; but surely even if we have not been able to construct things like the D.E.W. line because of the magnitude of the operation and because, in some instances, we were not convinced of the essential wisdom of doing that kind of thing at that time even for defence; whatever the reason may have been, our objective surely must be that when the United States, with our agreement always and with our rights always reserved, has constructed those facilities, to take them over, in so far as they continue to be useful, at the earliest possible moment and put them under Canadian control and, when it can be done, under civilian control.

As far as our rights by effective occupation of this great and increasingly important sector of the world area are concerned, I am informed-and perhaps the minister will be able to give the exact figure in this regard- that in the Canadian Arctic islands there are about 300 Canadian civil servants, if you like, showing the flag in the right way, and that perhaps there are about 100 other Canadians permanently resident in those areas with, I should think, three or four hundred temporarily working there especially in the summer months. We should do what we can to add to that number, of course, replacing whenever we can Americans who are there and thereby strengthening our claim, which has not yet been challenged by anybody but which does bear strengthening so that in the future it will not be challenged by anybody as the commercial and strategic importance of this part of Canada grows.
One of the aspects-perhaps not very important-of this American activity in the Arctic has been complaints from time to time that our own rights of sovereignty are being prejudiced by American activities and that sometimes the United States makes it difficult for Canadians to visit defence facilities on their own soil. I remember reading a statement on this by the minister on March 13, at a time when we were all making statements. This statement was made in Toronto and he is reported to have said-perhaps he will correct me if the report is without foundation-that it was a matter of national chagrin that Canadian cabinet ministers must get permission from Washington before they could visit certain parts of Canada's north.
I would agree at once that this would be a matter of chagrin if that had to be done, except in any but a purely formal sense. I suggest that the importance of the formal necessity for this in certain instances has been exaggerated, because perhaps it is equally true that if a German cabinet minister wished to visit a Canadian NATO defence installation on German soil he might have to go through certain formalities before he would be permitted to do so. It is true, however, that we should try at every possible opportunity to show that this is our land under Canadian law and under Canadian jurisdiction.
One of the most interesting-perhaps one of the most exciting-of the minister's statements on developments in the north that I have read concerned a visit he made, I think it was to Frobisher bay, on May 5. So far as press reports are concerned he certainly gave us some pretty exciting information as to his plans in regard to this particular aspect
Supply-Northern Affairs of development. I am reading now a report in the Toronto Telegram of May 5, under the headline:
A $75 Million Northwest Territories Capital City
I know the minister is not responsible for the headline. The report reads:
A "skyscraper city" of 5,000 people will rise out of the frozen tundra of Frobisher bay during the next five years-a $75 million government investment in the future of the Canadian north.
Perhaps when he speaks the minister will comment on this development. The report goes on to say-and this has a bearing on what I have just been saying about United States interests in this part of the world and United States developments up there-
Almost a third of the sum-
That is presumably the $75 million for the Northwest Territories capital city.
-will be contributed by the United States government and the remainder will be a long-term, self-liquidating capital investment by the Canadian people.
Then the minister proceeded to elaborate his vision of this new capital city in terms which were very dramatic indeed. He said, as the report from the Toronto Telegram gives it-
A package atomic power station-developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited especially for such northern stations-is expected to be built at the site, although it will be coupled with dieselgenerated power source until day-to-day operation bugs are Ironed out.
Then he is quoted as saying:
We have such a station ready now.
That is a package atomic power station, and this is a very important statement. I think it goes beyond anything I have heard in this house.
"We have such a station ready now." said Mr. Hamilton, "but it is being run by scientists. We want to be sure it can be operated by ordinary technicians,-perhaps Eskimos-before we use it as a single power source."
Then he went on to discuss in very interesting, indeed imaginative, terms the development of this capital in the frozen north. He said:
Although the site recommendation has yet to be made to the cabinet-
Perhaps it has been made since this report.
-it was learned that the recommendation by the Foundation Company of Canada Limited, retained to decide on a site, will be an amphitheatre running down to Frobisher bay within a mile of the present air strip.
A whole new concept of building in the north country is being developed for the city.
It involves the use of six-storey skyscrapers of concrete ringing a mammoth central, roofed and heated hexagonal plaza containing stores and offices. .
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is a rather exciting prospect for development as far north as

Supply-Northern Affairs Frobisher bay. Perhaps the minister will comment on this report. It certainly is, and I say this is not in any critical sense, a rather dazzling vision of the immediate future.
There was another aspect of the implementation of this vision of northern development about which the minister talked a good deal during the election, and that was the railroad to Great Slave lake. When this matter was mentioned in another debate the minister said that while perhaps no great progress has been made since last spring, under the previous administration nothing whatever had been done. I believe there is a statement in Hansard in which he rather suggested we had done nothing. So far as doing nothing is concerned, I suggest to the minister that the survey for this very important railroad was begun by the previous government. Undoubtedly this survey was continued by the present government, but if it has been completed we have not yet heard of that in this house.
On the other hand, we have heard that the government does not intend to proceed with this matter at the present session, and indeed that the government has not yet made up its mind where the railway will go. If the government has not been able to take that kind of decision after the survey has presumably been completed, I do not know why they should criticize us for not having done more while the survey was continuing. It would have been very stupid for the previous government to have taken any final decision on this matter, as to the route or any other detailed aspects, until the survey had been completed.
Perhaps the minister will have something to say about both the survey and the route, because when he was speaking in Edmonton on February 1 he was pretty definite in what he said. Speaking of the Great Slave lake railway, he said it could be built by 1961, and that the Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and the government were working at high speed to finalize the economics of the project. We would like some information as to the finalization of this particular project.
During those days the minister also had some other exciting things to say about the development of the north. Perhaps he will be able to elaborate on some of these statements during this discussion. According to the Montreal Star of April 10 the minister declared that the rush was on in the northland. The report states:
Northern Affairs Minister Alvin Hamilton, in an interview on the eve of his departure today for an international conference in Geneva, said:
"It is an attack on all fronts. The rush to the north is on."


Perhaps we can get some details in regard to that rush since that statement was made or before the statement was made. This report says, and I quote again:
Mr. Hamilton said that since the Diefenbaker Winnipeg speech-
That was the speech beginning the Prime Minister's election campaign.
-his department had received about 1,000 letters -800 more than during the same period last year- asking how to get jobs in the north.
Perhaps this statement has a bearing on the statement that the rush to the north is on. Then, according to the press, the minister made this very interesting additional observation:
American applicants had outnumbered Canadians by three to one.
Presumably this means that 300 or 400 Canadian letters had been received asking how to get jobs in the north. In that connection it would be useful to the committee and interesting, I think, if the minister could give us some indication of what has happened in regard to jobs for northern development since these statements were made during the election campaign.
Then on May 6-and I found this of particular interest-according to the press the minister had this to say about another aspect of our Arctic development:
Northern Affairs Minister Alvin Hamilton has suggested a non-military type of Arctic inspection. His idea: an exchange of visits with Soviet Russia on northern development techniques.
This matter was raised, I think, some weeks ago in the house and the minister indicated that it might be a good idea to have this kind of exchange. Perhaps it would be a good idea. I wonder whether he has made any progress in his plans for this kind of visit, because it is obviously true that we can learn a great deal from the Russians in regard to Arctic development. It is true that they have made much greater progress than we have in that regard, and that is quite natural. For one thing, they have been engaged in Arctic activity much longer than we have, and they have perhaps appreciated its importance both strategically and commercially for a much longer time than we have. This is due also no doubt in part to the fact that they have a much larger population than we have, and can direct whatever portion of that population they wish to live and work in the Arctic.
Our development of the Arctic, which is going to be just as important to us as the development of the Russian Arctic to them, has to be done under a system which does not dragoon Canadians into any part of the country, and that is bound to be, in the short run at least, a handicap. Nevertheless, even keeping in mind the differences in the

positions of the two countries-we certainly have no desire to adopt their methods in this or any other respect-I think it would be helpful to have exchanges of information and even a personal visit by the minister, especially if he were accompanied by his officials. I recall when I was in Moscow a few years ago bringing up this matter, and at that time it was received by the officials in Moscow as something that could be done with advantage to both countries.
There was a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada in the early part of June in Edmonton, at which there was a great deal of discussion of Arctic matters by experts without any axe to grind, except perhaps their own professional prejudices that experts are bound to have. At this meeting there was a rather careful and friendly, but analytical, examination of all aspects of this question of northern development. I suggest to members of the committee that the report of this convention of the Royal society dealing with this matter makes very interesting and perhaps informative reading. One of the delegates at that convention was Dr. William C. Wonders of the University of Alberta, who among other things dealt with the Russian successes in the north. He said that Canada has about 32,000 people north of the 60th parallel, compared with 4,500,000 in Russia. The Russian climate is more favourable, he said, and there has been a population pressure lacking in Canada. Then he referred to the point I have been making, that much of this northern population in the U.S.S.R. is not there voluntarily.
There are only two other matters that I want to bring to the minister's attention, with which he might perhaps deal now. He has already dealt with one of them at some length in another debate, and that is the Geneva conference on the law of the sea. The minister felt, and I am not criticizing him for his feeling though I do not entirely share it, that this was a great diplomatic triumph, a great step forward in the codification of international law.
So far as it being a diplomatic triumph is concerned, I realize the efforts that were made by the Canadian delegation to find a compromise resolution in regard to the law of the sea establishing a territorial and jurisdictional zone which would protect our own interest in this matter and would obtain the necessary two thirds approval, which you have to get if the resolution deals with questions of substance. The Canadian delegation was not able to succeed in that regard.
It is not the first time a Canadian delegation has tried to bring about a compromise and has not been able to get the necessary two
Supply-Northern Affairs thirds majority. But on this occasion, as the minister himself pointed out when he returned -I think it was in a speech he made in Aylmer-the only chance, as it developed, of getting that two thirds majority was to secure the support of the Soviet delegation and its satellites. That gives you seven or eight votes -sometimes a few more and sometimes a few less-at the meetings.
The reason that support had to be secured was that the United States and the United Kingdom were both against the Canadian proposal and were able to line up a good deal of support for their point of view. While I happen to think the Canadian position in this matter was a more intelligent one than that taken by the United States and the United Kingdom, and while I certainly believe that if we have a position which we think should be maintained we should not abandon that position or modify it substantially merely because the United States and the United Kingdom are against it-that would be the abandonment of our independent position at these conferences-subject always to the requirements of the co-operation within the coalition and the interdependence we desire to maintain. It is always an unhappy position in any diplomatic initiative for the Canadian delegation to find that you have both the British and the United States-and I think in this case the French and a good many of our friendly allies-against us and that we have to rely on the Soviet in order to get our two thirds majority.
But even if we had obtained that two thirds majority I suggest to the minister that the resolution in question could not have been very easily established as international law if the United States and the United Kingdom refused to accept it. While I realize that this matter is going to come up again, and that there are other achievements at this conference which did not get much publicity and which are important technical developments in the fields they cover, nevertheless the main issue before the conference-perhaps ultimately the continental shelf may turn out to be the most important issue-but the main issue as it seemed at that time was to establish a territorial zone or a territorial zone plus a jurisdictional zone over the sea which would be accepted by all sides.
That is an effort that has been going on since 1930, when the first conference on this matter of the international law of the sea was held at The Hague to deal with territorial waters. Over all those years attempts have been made to get agreement-something which is very important for countries like Canada-on the law of territorial waters, but they have not succeeded. The minister now
3516	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs feels that great progress was made in this regard even though success was not achieved, and that another conference at the United Nations will be held before long which will be able to build on the foundations established at Geneva and perhaps bring some success out of what was failure at this conference.
I hope that will be the case, but I would point out that the leader of the Canadian delegation when the minister was not there, namely our high commissioner in London, Mr. Drew, had this to say in a statement prepared for delivery in the committee of the conference on March 31, 1958. I am quoting from the records of the conference, and I may say this was before the final vote was taken:
If there should be no agreement, another conference would be very difficult to arrange. It has taken 28 years to bring this one together since the collapse of The Hague conference in 1930.
I was present at that collapse. It was the first international conference I had ever attended and I was much impressed by its Collapse. Mr. Drew went on to say:
Remembering all the many claims which have already been made, and to which new claims are being added day by day, it needs no great stretch of the imagination to realize how soon we would find ourselves in a state of hopeless confusion. If for no other reason and there are many other excellent reasons we should do everything within our power to agree upon a workable code which will establish a regime of settled law.
We were not able to do that at Geneva. I hope the minister is right, notwithstanding these rather pessimistic observations of the high commissioner, when he says we can look forward before long to another conference at the United Nations which will probably bring this matter to a successful conclusion.
There is only one other matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. It arises out of a statement he made not very long ago-I think it was on August 2-and I am quoting from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. It is a statement which he is reported to have made at Yorktown, Saskatchewan. This report reads as follows:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, said here he hopes to hold a conservation conference this fall. The minister made the remark unintentionally while addressing the fifth institute of the Saskatchewan council of public affairs, on the topic, "Our natural resources; who should own and control them".
According to the report he went on to say that he had not meant to make that announcement at this meeting, that it sort of slipped out but that this conference on conservation would be held. That is a very important statement. That conference, if and when it


is held, will be an extremely important conference dealing with a matter of vital significance to the development of Canada, namely the conservation of our natural resources. I think the committee would like to hear from the minister on the plans he has in that regard.
As we go on with our study of these estimates in detail, Mr. Chairman, there may be some individual questions that I shall wish to raise. Meanwhile I would appreciate it if the minister, when he comes to speak, would say something on the three or four questions I have ventured to mention now.


Mr. Payne:: I should like briefly to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on taking a new and open-minded approach to the problems that face his department. I think a very significant fact has missed the eye of the Leader of the Opposition, namely that in the past 23 years the committee on mines, forests and waters has not been convened and has not had an opportunity to consider and discuss the operations, plans and estimates of the department now before the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the fault of the opposition.


William Hector Payne: I would further point out that in the course of this committee's discussions, for the first time in a great many years those from the west coast-and, I am sure, from other parts of Canada-have had the privilege of bringing before the committee some of the specific, difficult and also different problems that face that area. We from the west owe a great debt of gratitude to the minister for the opportunity of bringing before the committee a few matters which affect his estimates at this time. I refer to the logging and lumbering industry in British Columbia. I should like to point out that this industry produces 17.1 per cent of Canada's total manufactured products. Speaking for those who come from the west coast, I may say that represents 54.1 per cent of all the earning power in the province from which we come.
After 23 years we feel that it has been a privilege to come before the committee on mines, forests and waters and bring to its attention some of the problems that face the lumbering industry in our part of the world. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition views any vision with a somewhat myopic eye, especially when one considers the fact that the opportunity to present such problems had been, under the former administration, so long denied to industries of such great strength and such great value to the economic welfare of this country.
I would also like to point out that the hon. member for Port Arthur, when he was

speaking a little earlier, was throwing advice around freely with respect to forestry matters, but at the same time he spoke very lightly and deprecatingly about the need for us to face the matter of fire protection. Those of us who come from British Columbia, particularly in this tinder dry year when rain has not fallen since about May 13, do not treat such suggestions in a light vein at all. The loss, not only to our province but also to the nation as a whole, in the depletion of the timber inventory amounts to millions, and will reflect for a long time upon the earning power of the nation as a whole.
I am most anxious in my few words to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the forest industry in my province pays over $112 million annually in taxes to the dominion government, and that in the days of the previous administration less than 1 per cent of this had been returned to the province in the furthering of studies on sylviculture, upon the development of access roads and for fire protection in order that this great national asset should remain in a state of self-propagation and should not be subject to the devastation of flames.
For the first time in many, many years our industry has had an opportunity to bring before the federal minister the problems contingent upon the provision of such fire protection. Other matters are of an international character. Over one third of our border is linked to its west to the Alaska Panhandle. The previous administration at no time provided funds or took an interest in seeing that the great forest wealth at the back of the United States panhandle border was protected, nor did they at any time endeavour to negotiate for or create a cooperative fire protection plan for the area. On our northern borders along the Yukon hundreds of miles of timber land lie exposed to the ravages of fire. The myopic view of the former Liberal administration demonstrated that they were not concerned in this respect.
I am indeed pleased to bring these matters to the attention of the committee, and in so doing to again congratulate the minister for having taken a new look, an imaginative look, at some of these problems. We look forward in the next three years to seeing many of the long delayed and long ignored problems faced in a factual way which will, in the long run, well serve the economy of our nation.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on northern development in Labrador, which is part of my constituency and constitutes one of the last great unknown
Supply-Northern Affairs areas of the world. Sufficient is known, however, to indicate that it contains some of the largest and best iron ore and uranium deposits and forests anywhere in the universe. The greatest need in respect to development, as I see it, is the provision of roads; but as I understand the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the provincial government are working out a program in this connection, there is nothing I should say at this time.
However, I would like to mention that I believe the department should consider the possibility of building roads to the huge iron ore areas, and perhaps considering this as wholly a federal responsibility. There is also a great need for airports in Labrador, for these contribute considerably to the development of an area and Labrador, being inaccessible in any other way, must have facilities for air access. I trust the minister will keep this in mind when making his plans for northern development.
I would also like to mention that caribou are essential to the Indians and Eskimos in Labrador, and that the herd is diminishing. There are reports that caribou are being wantonly slaughtered by military aircraft flying from Goose Bay. This is perhaps largely a provincial responsibility, but I think it is something which should be investigated and the practice, if it exists, should be stopped.
The whole business of the development of our north appeals to the imagination and challenges the courage of everyone with an adventurous soul. I think in our north, and I might be forgiven for saying particularly in Labrador, we probably have a new Spanish Main to challenge those living in this new Elizabethan age. Certainly northern development is something which calls for bold thinking, and I would like to quote from an ancient and wise man, Demosthenes. His words are applicable to the subject under discussion today, a free translation of which is that as a good general marches at the head of his troops, so does a wise politician march at the head of affairs. He not only anticipates events, but by bold and imaginative policies he creates the event. I think the event we would all like to see created is the development of our northern empire.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to participate in the discussion on the administration item of the estimates of the

Supply-Northern Affairs Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions that the ideas developed by the minister of northern affairs and the interpretation he gave to the visionary aspects regarding the desirability of northern development were factors of considerable importance in the winning of the election, and in winning the imagination of the northern people. I am very happy about that, and willing to give all the credit that is due to the minister for northern affairs.
The desirability of northern development has been for too long ignored, and I should like to refeT to one aspect of this question with which I am sure the minister is familiar. It is one which affects my part of the country. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that northern Ontario has enjoyed a certain amount of initial development, but that this development has never been proceeded with by previous governments. The vision and the possibility of development in northern Ontario and in the area immediately north of that province have been brought to the attention of some of the mining companies, and we are very happy that the minister has examined the situation and that something can be done. At Belcher island large deposits of iron ore have been found. When these deposits are developed we expect that shipments will be flowing from Belcher island in Hudson bay southward to James bay to Moosonee, and it is on this subject that I wish to speak this afternoon.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur ably pointed out, we in northern Ontario have continually given of our natural resources so that development might be possible in the industrial areas of southern Ontario, and particularly in the cities of Toronto and Montreal. Our mining industry has contributed greatly to the expansion of those areas, and in the past we have been faced with the situation that everything has been flowing out of these areas and very little has been coming back; the trade and commerce was flowing in only one direction.
As a result of the development which is in prospect and, in addition, the interest which the provincial government of Ontario has shown in this northern area, I believe something can at last be done. I visualize not necessarily a city at Frobisher of 5,000 people under glass, or whatever would have to be arranged, but certainly a large commercial centre in that area. I visualize a port being built in the near future at Moosonee, in co-operation with the provincial government; that the flow of iron will be coming down from Belcher island and

Ungava, and that on the return journey ships will be carrying goods which have been manufactured in the industrial areas of southern Ontario, goods which have come by the shortest route, over the Ontario northland railroad up to Moosonee. Certainly with the development of atomic energy, ice breakers will be able to make Moosonee, when it is developed, and Churchill all year round ports. We will then come to the second stage of development, and secondary industries will be introduced to handle the iron products either on the way from the mines or after they have made the return trip. All this can come about if the minister of northern affairs is serious with regard to the need of the development of northern Canada.
At the present time such a development can take place only by means of the methods we have used in the past. We have a mining industry, and this industry has done a great deal to benefit Canada. Certainly nobody should fail to recognize the contribution that mining throughout northern Canada has made over the years. This is also true of the lumber industry, and we can go back to the days when the white pine industry of the Ottawa valley stretched well up into northern Ontario. Now the timber is gone and the product is no longer available.
Something has been said about the need for recreating this natural wealth by rejuvenating the forests and replanting where necessary to perpetuate this form of life. But the mining industry does not deal with this type of renewable resource. When a mine is worked out it is done, and this applies not only to the ores of northern Ontario but also to Yellowknife and the uranium developments in the far north. The products are no longer available, because they have a vanishing point. We have to do something about the parts of the world which are affected in this way, and one of the problems has been the introduction of secondary industries.
Industry itself, and the commercial enterprises of Canada, have faced this problem from a very one-sided point of view. They have looked at an area and said that to develop secondary industries there must be a population which will consume the major portion of the products which it is intended to produce. This is a concept which has worked in many parts of Canada, but it has failed to work on almost every occasion when northern development hinged on natural resources. For this reason we had ghost towns increasing in number in days gone by. This is true also of the economy and way of living of the people who existed in the far north, and I am speaking of the Indians and the Eskimos. We

changed their economy, but we had nothing to put in its place.
I understand that some progress is being made through associations which are being set up to encourage secondary development of particular areas. In northern Ontario they have the northeastern council set up for this purpose. This is also true of northwestern Ontario. But to date the northeastern council, though supported by every municipality in the area, has failed to bring even one industry into the region, and I think this is an appeal which the federal and provincial governments should support.
Through reading and as a result of discussions with people who have studied the economies of other parts of the world, we find that a great deal of the failure to establish secondary industries hinges on the geographical situation in a particular country. Some countries, such as Scandinavia and northern Russia, are in the tree belt-in a similar weather belt to ourselves-and they have similar natural resources. Through the establishment of secondary industries in areas where natural resources were available they were able to overcome the problem of lack of population to consume the goods being produced by the secondary industries. The situation that obtained in the Scandinavian countries and in Russia is analogous to the situation that exists in northern Canada.
Those countries launched research programs. They looked at the potential wealth they had, not in terms of basic industries like mining, lumbering and pulpwood but from the point of view of unproductive industries. For instance, they considered trees that were of no use as pulpwood and mines producing products that were not in great demand. These conditions can be found in northern Ontario, and the problem could be met if we were to establish a trade route through Hudson bay and James bay out into the Atlantic ocean.
If this were done it would not be necessary for us to completely process products in major cities such as Toronto and other centres lying along the route of the St. Lawrence seaway. Instead we would be able to take advantage of the shorter route and send our goods from the northern area to Europe. The establishment of secondary industries in northern Ontario would serve to revitalize and expand the economy.
Initially this undertaking may not be financially sound, but neither is the subsidization of gold mines financially sound. I suggest this is a project that could be undertaken on a long-term basis, and it would be more advantageous to the Canadian people than is the present system.
Supply-Northern Affairs
The towns in northern Ontario are worthy of support. We have reached a stage in our development where centralization may prove to be disastrous to our nation in the event of nuclear warfare. The government is going to have to assist in the decentralization of industry, establishing factories in areas which are not now classed as areas of secondary industry. The route to which I have referred is not impossible of realization. It has been the dream of many farsighted people over the years. Premier Frost recently addressed a meeting which I attended and then left to visit the Moosonee area.
Within 50 or 60 miles of Moosonee the provincial government is working on a power development. There is probably more horsepower available in that area than in any other part of Ontario. Power is a major problem in southern Ontario because we have harnessed all the natural waterways that are available for the production of power. In northern Ontario there are many untapped sources of power which have not been taken advantage of as yet. In the same area there is a large supply of cheap coal. The provincial government has spent much money attempting to develop that coal in a form in which it would be competitive with coal from other areas, but the attempt was not successful. However, perhaps it could be developed for use by secondary industries in fulfilment of the vision about which the Prime Minister spoke so emphatically during the election.
There is salt water north of this area, and I can envisage ships sailing into and out of the ports of Churchill and Moosonee and other ports that may be established in that area, not only for three or four months of the year but on a year round basis. The natural advantages of having a port located in a bay rather than on the shore of the ocean are obvious to everyone. Such ports could be protected in time of war, and in this instance they could be protected along Hudson strait. The advantages of the type of development I am depicting would flow to all Canadians in the form of an enriched heritage, and would not necessarily alone provide an increased profit to existing companies in the area.
The type of project I have outlined will involve a number of important considerations which must be taken into account by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. One such consideration would be the establishment of an investment board. If we are to establish pilot plants, as was done in the Scandinavian countries and Russia in the initial development of secondary industries, money would have to be loaned by

Supply-Northern Affairs the federal government through an investment board. The federal government would also have to undertake a research program to accomplish the type of development to which I am referring, particularly with respect to the mining industry.
Those who have passed through northern Ontario will have been impressed by the resources and by-products that are waste material from the mining operation. Each mill has a large slag dump which is a collection of finely powdered rock. The establishment there of cheap gas, electricity or other fuel would assist in utilizing this waste product. It could be made into bricks which in my opinion would be superior to those presently available, because they would be made of molten stone when the means of doing this were available. The waste product lies there today in abundant quantity and is valueless because there is no means of converting it into a useful product. With a little foresight a brickmaking industry could be established in this region which would produce a superior product made of natural rock that would serve many purposes not served by the ordinary type of brick presently available.
Considerable research has already been done in this regard. One extreme advantage of this type of brick is that it is opaque, and one can envisage buildings made of this product through which a certain amount of natural light would shine. Although you could not actually see people walking around at night, through the walls of buildings made of this product, a certain amount of light would come through.
The federal government should also undertake further development in terms of parks and access roads in this area. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins, we in northern Ontario are plagued because we have a road running only one way. The area would have an attraction for tourists if it were not for the fact that one has to enter and leave on the same road. I am thinking particularly of visitors from the United States. No one wants to travel 500 or more miles in one direction and return over the same road if he can take a trip of perhaps 1,000 miles travelling on roads that will constantly provide him with new scenery. One should be able to reach the area coming east from Sault Ste. Marie and west from Toronto.
I am convinced that the province of Ontario will co-operate in any development the federal government may wish to undertake in northern Ontario. The provincial government through its engineers has already surveyed the situation in that area with respect


to potential development. The federal government has voted moneys for access roads, and if it is sincere in its desire to develop the northern part of Canada I urge it to take into consideration a program of expanded development in northern Ontario.
When secondary industries are developed in northern Ontario we shall be able to produce food for that area and for the rest of Ontario. In the little clay belt and in the great clay belt food can be produced in quantities which cannot be produced elsewhere. This belt consists of six or seven million acres of farm land. The production possibilities of those farming areas are unknown. The federal government has had an experimental station at Kapuskasing in the great clay belt for many years. The development at that station has been phenomenal. If we were given the encouragement and the resources we could develop in northern Ontario an area that could support 10 times the population that is there now, and support it much more advantageously than we can with the small, partial hand-outs we now receive from the government.
We appreciate those hand-outs; certainly all the people who live there and have spent a lifetime developing the towns appreciate the assistance they have received, but this is not the end. We do not want to see a situation develop such as developed in the town of Matachewan, where a few years ago there were two or three thousand people. When that area was developed initially we built railroads, access roads and development roads. We built many towns like Matachewan; we built homes, banks, stores, schools and facilities. Then when industry found that it no longer had ore that was valuable to mine, it moved out of the area. This is a field in which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources must be interested. His department must set up a commission to help those people.
I would suggest that the first stage of this development is for him to examine the secondary industry situation. To do that I would suggest that he set up a commission, or have a number of the officials of his department go to the Scandinavian countries or Russia where they have done development work along this line, if what I read is true. I am told that in Scandinavia when they cut down a tree they do not do as we do, cut down one tree and destroy 10. They do not desecrate the forests. A farmer brings in a tree with the foliage still on it. He brings the tree into the factory and it is processed there and they use all parts of that tree.
They have been able to attain an efficiency
of 85 per cent to 86 per cent with their

products. We in Canada are very fortunate if at the outset we are able to get an efficiency of 28 per cent. There are many modern lumbering companies with an efficiency factor of 17 per cent and 18 per cent. I would suggest that we are wasting our resources. We are wasting them because we do not know what to do about them.
I am interested in visiting anybody who has an industry that he wishes to settle in my area. We have many things to offer industries coming in, but we have not been given leadership by former governments as to what type of industry would be willing to settle in that area. The delegation the minister sent to those countries might find out how they got their initial secondary industries started. It may have been necessary to subsidize them; it may have been necessary to have government intervention to the extent of building pilot plants for those industries.
I would like to congratulate the industries themselves-and it is not often that I do this -that have taken the lead and have had the foresight to do something for themselves, in many instances despite the lack of action on the part of governments. I speak of Abitibi and the plant they built at Sturgeon Falls. May of the small lumbering companies are now sending four or five cars of scrap lumber and sawdust to this particular plant. They are making a kind of fibre board that seems to be finding acceptance on the market, which is now replacing many other types of lumber. That kind of action helps to solve problems. I think the company is to be congratulated on the work it did in developing this type of market.
The McFadden Lumber Company at Blind River is another example. They developed a bondwood plant in that town. They may not own the original patent, but they were able to salvage fifth and sixth grade lumber. By cutting it into small strips and using a process of gluing it together they were able to end up with sheets of lumber 16 feet long and 4 feet wide of No. 1 white pine made out of something that previously was considered to be scrap and waste material.
If the government, through its committee or commission, were to go to other countries they would see these things in operation. Certainly Sweden has done an outstanding job in this particular field of lumbering and forestry. If they were to go to those countries they would find out how initially they were able to start their pilot plants or secondary industry plants, under whatever type of financial basis they were established. With that information we would be able to do the same thing in Canada.
I do not think it is a good idea to look at the situation either in Great Britain or the United States, because their geographical
Supply-Northern Affairs situation and their resources are not the same as ours. I think we are going to have to go to a country which has trees and a climate the same as ours, and whose natural resources are the same as ours. We should start on that basis; we should start on what we can do, if we are willing to do it, and this information must be obtained before we decide what we are going to do.
In the two sessions I have been here I have found that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has imagination and initiative. He has the youthfulness which is necessary, because this is not an old man's area; it is a young man's country. He is capable, and he has the ability to do the developing. If the Prime Minister were realistic about this he would not be concentrating on Frobisher bay. I have no objection to a town being, built eventually at Frobisher bay, but I do not think he should start that far away. He should start in on the fringe of our industrial areas and push northern development before him. He should not start on the other side and try to squeeze it down into southern Ontario. He is going to have to work, but I am quite sure that if some initiative is shown this type of vision, this type of program, can be initiated.
There may be some question as to why the federal government should be involved. The provincial government, I suggest-and I do not want to infringe on its rights-is going to co-operate in any way and any manner the federal government may suggest. I also suggest that the provincial government is not in a position to go outside of Canada to get the information and the ideas and talk to the owners of industries in other countries who may wish to put subsidiary plants in our area. We are going to have to co-operate with the provincial government. I am sure their co-operation will be readily given. I say that simply because the government of Ontario is also Progressive Conservative and knows this problem. Premier Frost, when he went into northern Ontario, had a vision of trains going from Toronto to James bay. He has the sympathy and will have the ear of the present government.
I strongly urge that this procedure of understanding and development in the far north be undertaken first in northern Ontario and continue into other areas from that point.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. This, no doubt, will be pleasing to the members of the committee. I have two little matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, perhaps to nudge him a little
3522	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs bit. These matters have been brought up on previous occasions by myself and by my colleagues, and I would just like to remind the minister of them again.
The first is the question of the upper Thames valley authority in southwestern Ontario, and the second matter concerns Long Point island in lake Erie. I realize that the minister is fully aware of the problem concerning the upper Thames valley authority, and I do not intend to repeat the details for his benefit or for the benefit of other members of the house at the present time. These details are on record.
I should like to say, however, that this project has been started with the construction of the Fanshawe dam at London. It is my feeling, and in fact I would say the feeling of all the people in the area, that this pilot project should be completed. The heavily industrialized and settled areas of southwestern Ontario and indeed parts of Quebec are now beginning to suffer from water shortages as a result of the lowering of the water table and soil erosion. The older parts of Canada deserve some conservation projects, I think, just as well as the new parts. Every spring the Thames river, because of the loss of the forests, floods and in summer of course the river virtually dries up. In the spring there is a flood and much valuable top soil is carried away by the water. If the upper Thames valley project were completed it would protect the top soil which is carried down into lake St. Clair every spring, and which we can ill afford to lose.
Second, as a result of the lowering of the water table in that heavily industrialized and heavily populated area there is a shortage of water in southwestern Ontario. People are having to pipe water in from the various lakes. If this project were completed the water would be conserved for irrigating farms in the summertime, particularly the tobacco farms, and there would also be a maintenance of the water supply for the villages, cities and towns.
Last, but by no means least, the lakes that would be created as a result of the construction of the dams in connection with this scheme would provide much needed recreational areas in this part of the country. For example, in my neighbouring constituency of Perth, which is represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, they have the Stratford festival every summer. The cities in that area are small and the facilities for recreation are limited. If the two projects which I and others have in mind were completed in connection with the upper Thames valley program, namely a dam at St. Marys in Perth county and a dam at Woodstock in


Oxford county, they would provide recreational facilities and areas for the largely increased tourist trade in this part of the country.
The federal government's share of this project has been estimated at 37J per cent; the share of the province of Ontario, 37J per cent; and the cities and municipalities, 25 per cent. The province, I understand, is ready, willing and able to put up its share, as are the municipalities. I would hope the minister would reconsider this matter and discuss it with his colleagues and advisers. I have heard it said that it has not been shown as yet that the cost-benefit ratio would justify the expenditure of this sum. Well, I am not so sure of that. It all depends on how you estimate the cost-benefit ratio. If you include the recreational value at the present time and in the future, and this is an important factor, I am quite sure the cost-benefit ratio would go well beyond the limits that have been set.
I appeal again to the minister on behalf of my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues in the area, who I am sure will be speaking on this matter, for immediate consideration of the completion of this project as soon as possible, because of its value from the point of view of water conservation, soil conservation, flood control, and last but not least, recreation.
This reference to recreation brings me to another subject that I have mentioned in this house on previous occasions, and that is the question of Long Point island in lake Erie. This island is a very interesting place. Once again my views in this connection are all on record and I am not going to rehash them. They are there for those who are interested to read. This island is 18 miles long and is in reality a sandbar stretching out into lake Erie. It is considered to have the best bass fishing and duck shooting on the continent of North America. This island was purchased in 1866 by a company called the Long Point Island Company, most of the shareholders of which are residents of the United States.
In the very heavily industrialized and heavily populated area of southwestern Ontario recreational facilities at the present time are limited. People often have to go hundreds of miles to find a place where they can enjoy themselves. As a result of the greatly increased traffic on our highways, this is not only a chore but is actually a hazard to a family going away for a week end. Here we have in lake Erie an island 18 miles long which is easily accessible from these heavily populated areas in southwestern Ontario and within an hour or an hour and a half's drive. We have this area with the

most beautiful beaches I have seen, but nobody can go on them because a handful of people go there for about a week a year for duck shooting and have this island in their control. It is my feeling, and I have repeated this many times, that this island should be made into a national park. There are other national parks in the great lakes district such as Pelee island, Georgian bay, and so on.
These people who have this island under their control have done very well in the matter of conservation for many years. I believe this country should thank them for that. They should be left a number of acres in order to carry on their activities as a way of saying thank you for what they have done. The game on this island is unique on the continent. However, I do not believe these people, who only go there for about a week a year, need a park of about 21,000 acres. This island should be enjoyed by the people in the vicinity. It is needed now, but it was not needed when these people obtained it. These people should be left with 1,000 or
2,000	acres, but let us acquire the rest of it for the use of all our people.


Mr. Roberge:: As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of serving as a member of the mines, waters and forests committee. I was very interested in the work that was done in that committee. I have heard with interest the statements made by the minister as well as by the witnesses who appeared before the committee. At this time I feel it is only just that I commend the work done by the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Lambton West. He did direct the work of the committee in a very able manner.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, we were reminded this morning by the Leader of the Opposition that the legislation setting up the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources was incorporated into our statutes by the Liberal administration headed by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. He also reminded us of the fact that the original holder of that portfolio was the former member for Montmagny-L'Islet, the Hon. Mr. Lesage, whose departure was a matter of general regret in this house. Incidentally, I congratulate him on the sound administration he gave the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and wish him, in his new capacity, every possible success. I hope he may even become the next premier of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of late about vision. We had heard about it too during the election campaign. I do not think I would be far wrong in stating that
Supply-Northern Affairs the Prime Minister and the members of the government have established a very close relationship between that vision and the public works program of $1,185 million announced by the government.
We are convinced that that public works program in northern Canada cannot solve unemployment, although it was in that particular sense that it was put before the people of this country. Of course, this is not saying that we, on this side of the house, are opposed to northern development, or to the exploration and possible future development of our natural resources, but I do want to emphasize that the government made much of this vision when they described it to the Canadian people during the election campaign.
If the Prime Minister and his colleagues want to keep on saying that they had a vision, that is their privilege. On this side of the house, though, we can say that the former government and particularly its Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had been both wise and realistic in providing for such steps as appeared necessary for the future development of Northern Canada and in making preparations in that regard. I searched the records of this house on the matter, Mr. Chairman, and I also made a detailed study of the various publications printed for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as well as the briefs submitted to the Gordon commission on economic prospects.
In the record of the 1953-54 session, I found some sentences spoken by the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, when he introduced in this house the bill creating that department. This is what he said, according to page 697:
One subject to which such increased emphasis will be given by the passage of this bill is the administration and development of our northern territories.
And he added in the same speech:
Now, it seemed to us that it was becoming increasingly apparent that it would he desirable to alter the situation and to create conditions in which it is clearly indicated that the government and parliament want further attention given to the development of our north country, and I may say that that was further impressed upon us by the fact that there have to be quite a number of non-Canadians going into that territory. We felt that it was very important to have the situation such that, whenever they went there, they realized they were in Canadian territory and in territory that was administered by Canadian authorities.
The present bill is designed to give more emphasis to the fact that the people of Canada are greatly interested in this northern territory and regard it as an important part of the territory subject to the sovereignty of the Canadian nation.

Supply-Northern Affairs
And I also read on page 700 the following paragraph which has already been quoted this morning in English by the Leader of the Opposition.
We must leave no doubt about our active occupation and exercise of our sovereignty in these northern lands right up to the pole.
In the report submitted to the royal commission on economic prospects by Mr. F. H. Collins, commissioner for the Yukon, I find the following text on page 5:
(Text):
This brief has as its objectives an assessment of the contribution that the natural resources of the Yukon Territory might make to the Canadian economy of the next quarter century and an appraisal of the courses of action which appear to lie open for promoting the achievement of that contribution. It describes in turn the territory's natural resources, its population, and the economic development it has undergone; it then proceeds to assess the future prospects of the Yukon's mining industry and the problems facing future economic expansion. Lastly, it suggests how this economic expansion might be encouraged and why early action along certain lines appears to be justified.
(Translation):
And on page 19 of the same report we see the following statement:
(Text):
The requirements that the next 25 years may bring for the construction of roads are given illustration in those roads which even now would form highly useful adjuncts to the territory's system of development roads.
(Translation) :
The commissioner for Yukon then sums up the works to be done in connection with access roads and what I would call connecting roads. Moreover, he speaks about certain roads already started. It is certainly not necessary for me to read this whole passage since it can be found after the previous quotation.
And then he goes on to say on page 20 of the report:
(Text):
Although these appear now as the greatest needs that the foreseeable future holds for the construction of roads in the territory, the succession in which they may be built is by no means certain, nor is it unlikely that the priority given each individual road will undergo substantial revision. They nevertheless point to the significance that the provision of further roads will have for the developing Yukon economy.
(Translation):
In the brief submitted to the Gordon Commission about the Northwest Territories we again find substantially the same conclusions.
I should like to recall also that it was under a Liberal regime that positive action was taken concerning our sovereignty over Canadian northern territory; may I recall also to the house the trip made by His
[Mr. Koberge.l
Excellency into the Canadian northern territory some two years ago.
The main thing, Mr. Chairman, is to establish a link between central and northern Canada. I hope that this government will carry on the policy established in this connection by the previous government. If I remember rightly, the minister has referred to this in committee. That area must be developed in accordance with a plan as definite as possible and that plan-I am glad to emphasize this once again-was prepared under the old Liberal regime, as pointed out this morning by the leader of my party.
What change did the present government make in the plan? They merely accelerated its implementation, cutting down to five years what the former government had planned to do in 25 years and what economists also estimated would take 25 years to put into effect. We can well wonder whether the government was serious when its candidates stated, during the last election campaign, that an immediate result of those projects would be to cut down unemployment and, I repeat, as I have already said and as others have said: it is not in Northern Canada especially that there is unemployment but in areas already developed where more workers are living.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are other reasons to accelerate the implementation of this plan. When the department was created in 1953 the prime minister at that time referred to non-Canadians interested in those northern territories. No doubt he was thinking of those lands located farther north than the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It was therefore necessary to group under a single administration responsibilities which, until then, had been spread over several departments or divisions.
Since then, we have seen important developments in ballistics and long range missiles. Very recently, we have learned of developments in submarine transport.
During the same period and closer to us, we have witnessed the construction of warning lines such as the Dew Line and the Mid-Canada Line.
If, Mr. Chairman, the government wants to speed up the exploration and development of our rich northern areas because of such events or of future developments which we have reason to dread, we Liberals are all for it. But even without such developments, we are in favour of the opening up of our northern territory, as has been already demonstrated by the Liberal government. It remains to be seen whether the acceleration

of development at this time is desirable economically, considering the urgent needs felt in other sections of Canada.
But, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, those projects cannot help the unemployed, and yet it was in this guise that they were dangled before the people. How many men are back to work on account of such projects?
As you no doubt know, Mr. Chairman, the functions and responsibilities of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources are not limited to the Yukon and Northwest Territories; section 7 of the Northern Affairs and National Resources Department Act, 2-3 Elizabeth II, Chapter 4, prescribes;
(1)	The Minister may formulate plans for the conservation and development of the resources of Canada and for research with respect thereto,
This section also provides that;
(2)	The Minister may co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in carrying out any conservation or development plans under subsection (1).
It so happens then, that under the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, which are before us at this time, certain grants or subsidies may be made to provinces, and to the province of Quebec in particular. Now, how could the province of Quebec benefit from those contributions put at its disposal by the federal government as would the other provinces?
Well, Mr. Chairman, if I turn to page 403 of the estimates, I find there "contributions to the provinces of amounts equal to one-half of their expenditures for camp ground and picnic area development." I understand this is a two-year plan and that the required amount has already been expended, or almost. I understand too that these camp grounds or picnic areas must be established alongside highways. In Megantic, more particularly, there are three provincial highways crossing the county lengthwise, whereas two other highways cross it breadthwise, at least in part. Along at least three of these roads there are magnificent lakes which could easily be developed, if not from the tourist point of view, at least for the benefit of the young people of adjoining municipalities. This could be done if advantage were taken of these contributions to the provinces.
Contributions are also made to the provinces to help them build access roads to certain resources under the provisions of certain agreements, already in force, or about to become so. An amount of $9,000,000 has been set aside in the estimates in this regard, on page 424 of the blue book.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Intense exploration is going on at this time in northern Quebec, with already highly satisfactory results, especially as regards iron ore. Will the province of Quebec take advantage of these contributions or will it act in its accustomed manner, refusing any part of the necessary or at least useful subsidies put at its disposal by the federal government?
Obviously I am not talking about national parks since no national park in the province of Quebec comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, although there are historic sites maintained by the federal government as, for example, the Battlefields park in Quebec, and some others.
Our national resources, Mr. Chairman, are not limited to our mines, there is also our forest system which is of interest to each and every province. This year we will be called upon to vote $1,650,000 to help the provinces to take stock of their forest resources, to undertake reforestation and to protect their forests against fires, all this in accordance with certain agreements. I refer now to page 429 of the blue book. Obviously, several provinces will take advantage of that assistance from the federal government and, unless I am mistaken, the province of Quebec may be the only one to do without it.
Roads and access routes to those forests are also necessary. The federal government is offering one million dollars to the provinces in this connection. Once again, what proportion of this amount will the province of Quebec get, if the provincial government of my province clings to the policy of non cooperation it adopted when a Liberal administration was managing the affairs of this nation?
All those amounts which are lost to Quebec are lost because of Quebec's insistence on making political capital with federal-provincial relations, both in the fiscal and other fields, whereas all parts of Canada should be co-operating in the development of our country.
I am convinced that the Quebec government is as anxious as other provincial governments in Canada to develop its own province. Some one will object that national resources come under provincial jurisdiction. I agree; the objection will also be made that if the Quebec government accepted those subsidies from the central government, it would destroy provincial autonomy. The easy answer to that one is that central government contributions will in no way prevent provincial authorities from exercizing that autonomy and from favouring the more particular interests of the residents of Quebec with regard to natural resources.

Supply-Northern Affairs These resources will certainly be neither inconsiderately diminished nor dilapitated if federal aid is acquired by the province.
Over the years, the Quebec government has refused to co-operate with the central authority, on grounds of provincial autonomy, when it suited its purpose, but in other fields saw no disadvantage or danger in doing so.
The people of the province of Quebec are well aware that, for many years, they have lost millions of dollars because of this refusal to co-operate. We hope this deficiency will now cease and that relations between the governments of the same colour, or almost the same colour, on both levels, will help Quebec obtain the amounts of money earmarked for that province as well as for the others.
(Text):


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief but I rise on this item as the appropriate one on which to utter a few sentences.
I would like first of all to express my appreciation for the interest and industry of the minister, and his serious concern with respect to the development of a policy for our natural resources. I have had the opportunity to have one or two chats with the minister, and have been very pleased after conversations with him to understand his general approach to the whole situation. In addition, I would like to express my usual appreciation of the good work done by the staff of his department with all its ramifications from water resources to Eskimos and caribou.
For some 13 years I have been one of those members of this house who have been urging the standing committee on mines, forests and waters to sit and have an opportunity to examine the estimates of this department and those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I think we must give credit to the minister in that he has seen to it that this committee has sat during the current session and has had the opportunity to hear evidence and to hear a statement from the minister. This is the only part of the minutes which I have had the opportunity to read, but I am very pleased to note in that statement the government's philosophy and its thinking in general with respect to the development of our natural resources.
I am always delighted when I find governments accepting piecemeal and from time to time policies advocated from this corner of

the house. We are always ready to give credit where it is due, and in this respect I am very pleased about two things in particular. First, I should like to quote from the minutes of the committee at page 19, where the minister, as part of his statement, said:
The tenth point is that of conservation. There will be a conservation conference called to plan the most efficient and effective use of the resources of this country at national, provincial, municipal private and research levels, because there is no use, gentlemen, in building roads and finding out the area of energy resources and finding out the area of mineral resources and in putting them together in juxtaposition, planning for the processing here in Canada-there is no use in doing all this work if there is not some thought given to a long range conservation concept of the most efficient use of those resources.
We in this group support that statement by the minister without any qualification, and if this government gives effect to that concept we shall be very pleased indeed.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, for a good many years I have had resolutions on the order paper expressing the point of view of this group with respect to the need for a dominion-provincial conference to establish national principles and policies with respect to the development of our renewable natural resources, and I am very glad indeed, as are the rest of the members of this group, that the minister has made this statement. We know it is not a very definitive statement so far, and we will have to see what the future brings forth, since our fingers have been burned on previous occasions when we have been a little too optimistic.
I have been in the habit of taking people at their word, but then I have lived among lumberjacks and they are very simple and straightforward people, but the statement sounds very well and I trust that without undue delay it would be put into effect. We are very pleased to observe this attitude toward this question because there is no doubt we have got to have an acceptance of national principles and policies with respect to the development of natural resources, and then co-operation between the various levels of government and private industry to put these policies into effect for the advantage of Canada as a whole.
My second point is that I was particularly pleased to see the mention made by the minister in his report with respect to his roads to resources program. I think there was some imagination used, not only in the terminology but in the policy itself. Although the funds which have been allocated for this purpose to date have not been very large, I hope they may become what one could call the embryo of something which will develop into a very substantial policy, because I think

it is very necessary to the satisfactory development of our provinces. First, there should be a policy with respect to principles, and a policy with respect to the development of natural resources as far as conservation is concerned, and then access to these resources.
I rose to mention those two points in the minister's report, in particular. As I said, I have not had the opportunity to read these minutes as they are the sort of thing I pack into my briefcase when I am going home on the train, and read at leisure by way of light reading. I shall not say any more at this time. I shall have something more to say on the water items and on the forestry branch, but I will not detain the committee any longer at this time.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, unlike some other hon. members who have preceded me in the debate, I do not intend to get into a controversy over the merits or demerits of the present minister of northern affairs compared with the previous minister. In any event, I think it is common knowledge that the present encumbent is the most capable individual who has ever held the portfolio. However, I should like to make some brief observations concerning Cape Breton Highlands national park which is located in my constituency.
I should like to commend the minister and the government on the winter work program which was carried out last year. There was a great amount of excellent work done by the workers who reside in the area, under the capable supervision of Mr. J. H. Atkinson, the superintendent of the park at that time, whom I understand has served many years in the parks service. Unfortunately the department has seen fit to transfer him to Newfoundland, but what has been our loss will undoubtedly be Newfoundland's gain. I have no doubt that the present superintendent will continue to carry on the work here in a very capable manner.
There is one point in the annual report under the national parks branch which says that the increase in the number of visitors to the park is reflected in the increased use of the recreational facilities. That is true, and I fully agree with it. To give the committee an example, in 1955-56 we had 75,310 registered visitors to the Cape Breton Highlands park. In 1956-57, there were 116,556 an increase of 41,246. In the year just ended the number went up to 128,397, another increase, of 11,841, and I have no doubt that a new record will be set in the present year.
As I have already stated, a great amount of proper work-I use that term-was carried out in the park last winter with
Supply-Northern Affairs regard to camping grounds, and my attention has been drawn to a newspaper item in the Cape Breton Post some days ago which stated that at Ingonish more than 1,000 visitors jammed the camping grounds on a week end, and that a total of 600 were registered on another particular day. This will give the committee an idea of the extent to which these camping grounds are being used. The article goes on to say that campers have the use of showers, washing machines, tables and parking facilities, all for 50 cents a night a car, regardless of the number of passengers. This is a very good thing. We are doing something here for the ordinary people of Canada-the workers who wish to take their families and their tents and get out among the beautiful scenery that exists on Cape Breton island. I may say that I doubt that any other scenery in Canada can compare with it.
On this same subject, I hope the minister is listening very intently and that in the coming winter we will see another winter works program along the same lines as last winter, because this park could be developed to a much greater extent than it has been developed so far.
There is one other point I should like to mention at this time. Some days ago when we were discussing a bill to transfer certain land from the park back to the province for hydro development I mentioned that I felt the minister and the department should give consideration to expanding the park boundaries. I do not know if the minister was fully aware of what I meant at that time. I felt quite sure he was, but I noticed an editorial in the local newspaper afterwards which stated that it appeared that the minister and myself were unable to get together on this matter, so I should like at this point to reiterate what I have already said. My idea was that the department should give consideration to the inclusion within the park boundaries of all the northern tip of Cape Breton island. The minister did make a statement concerning the difficulties posed by town sites and so on. Well, we do not have any town sites here, only a few villages which do not extend more than a few hundred yards inland. I have in mind that if and when the park boundaries were extended we could skirt these villages and go up into the north country, as I mentioned some days ago, taking in Inverness county and down that side of the county where there are no villages that I can see on this map. I hope the minister will give every consideration to this suggestion. I can understand that there may be problems when there are town sites

Supply-Northern Affairs within parks, but I do not see how any great problem could be created by this suggestion that I am making.
Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is one that I mentioned in the debate on the speech from the throne on November 12 last year, namely the discrepancy in the wages paid to employees of the Cape Breton park as compared with those paid to workers in other parks throughout Canada for the same type of work. I do not know just how the authorities arrive at the amounts that are paid to workers in the park, but I understand that they are based on the prevailing rate for the area, and this is difficult to understand as there is no prevailing rate in this area because there is no industry there. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone working in the Cape Breton national park should receive less money than anyone who is doing the same job, let us say, in the Banff national park. I am sure the minister and his officials have already taken up this matter and I sincerely appeal to them to continue to give further consideration to the suggestion that wage rates in this area be placed on a level with wage rates paid in other national parks in Canada.
I raised another point on a previous occasion and no action has yet been taken in this regard. I trust that the department is giving consideration to the construction of a new club house at the golf course in the Cape Breton Highlands park. We have there, one of the finest golf courses in the country but I am sorry to say the club house is not in keeping with the standards of the golf course.
Although there are other projects which could be undertaken in the area and mentioned now I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and his department and impress upon them at this time only the three most important points I have raised. The first is a request for the initiation of a winter works program for the coming winter. The second is a request for consideration of the expansion of the boundaries of the park. The third is a request for an increase in wage rates paid to employees in the park.
I understand that the period has expired during which the provinces could indicate their willingness to participate in assistance from the federal government in the program of establishing campsites and picnic areas. I urge the minister to give consideration to renewing this invitation so the provinces can further participate in the program. Some excellent work has been done in the province of Nova Scotia as a result of this program and I hope the minister will give sympathetic consideration to the requests I have made in these few brief remarks.


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, all of us realize the importance of the tourist industry in Canada. We had the opportunity to gain further proof of that fact a few weeks ago when we discussed in this house a proposal for joint loans to tourist resort operators. The tourist industry is a big business. It ranks third among Canada's major industries. In 1956 tourists from foreign countries spent $335 million in Canada while in 1957 they spent more than $350 million here.
What about the amount of money spent on travel by Canadians? It is quite impossible to estimate it but I am sure to be not far from the facts when I say that at least the same amount of money must be spent each year on travel by our fellow Canadians. If we look at the statistics we realize that for the past ten years, for instance, the tourist industry has developed at a tremendous pace in Canada. The tourist industry which brought in $270 million in 1948 will probably bring us $370 million in 1958. Since approximately 90 per cent of our tourist business comes from our neighbour south of the border it provides a source of United States currency of which Canada is always in need.
As I just said our best market for the tourist industry is the United States of America. In 1946 United States travellers spent some $308 million in this country while $27 million were spent by visitors coming from other countries of the world. We can increase our market in the United States and at the same time easily create new markets in other parts of the world. We in Canada have everything to offer tourists. The beautiful and diversified scenery of our country from one ocean to the other is second to none in the world.
I am certainly not going to go into detail in an attempt to give a description of every region in Canada. Hon. members with every justification have praised their own ridings in this house on occasion. I wish only to mention the majestic beauties of the province of British Columbia with its mountains, its beautiful cities of Vancouver and Victoria; the grandeur and majestic beauty of the Rockies which are not surpassed by any country in the world; the colourful spectacle of the Calgary stampede; the vastness of the central provinces; the famed Niagara falls for romance; the Queen city of Toronto; northern Ontario and Quebec with their thousands of lakes where fish and game can be found in abundance; our cosmopolitan Montreal with hundreds of attractions of all kinds: the charm of that historic, typical French city, Quebec; the little paradise for tourists which forms the maritime provinces and our St. Lawrence river which is the country's longest inland river.

We in Canada can offer winter as well as summer activities. We have plenty of snow in winter for skiing and the air is invigorating. For the sportsman Canada offers unlimited opportunities for fishing and hunting in the spring, summer and fall when Canadians as well as tourists can take advantage of the thousands of lakes and the rich wooded areas which are found in almost every province. We have all kinds of summer and winter resorts. We have some of the best hotels in the world. In our big cities we have facilities for large conventions. The Queen Elizabeth hotel just completed in Montreal can accommodate small and big conventions as well. We can offer one of the best transportation systems in the world, either by train, plane, car or boat. All that we have to offer we have to promote. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has done a good job in the past, but more should be done. Our national parks which are a big attraction to the tourists should be multiplied and beautified. We should find more picnic grounds alongside our highways, we should find better accommodations for tourists.
According to the annual report of the Canadian travel bureau, which was established in 1934 and which is responsible for the promotion of travel to and within Canada and for the general welfare of Canada's tourist industry, that agency has a staff of 85 to 90 in Ottawa to do the job of promoting Canada. According to the same report there are also offices of the bureau in New York and Chicago with small information staffs, as well as a travel representative at the Canadian consulate general in Los Angeles. At page 1951, of the annual report of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the fiscal year 1956-57 we find the following statement:
In 1956, the bureau achieved a new all-time record for inquiries handled during a single year. A total of 538,063 inquiries were received 460,882 by its Ottawa office, 55,181 by the New York office, and 22,000 by the Chicago office. An advertising program at a cost of $974,607 was conducted in 50 magazines and 59 newspapers in the United States. Combined circulation of the magazines used totalled 71,909,759.
As far as I am aware the Canadian government travel bureau is doing a good job considering the small amount of money they are given for doing so.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the tourist industry brings over $350 million to Canada every year. That amount exceeds the sum spent by any department of the federal government save the Department of Health and Welfare, the Department of Finance and the Department of National
Supply-Northern Affairs Defence. It is one of our largest industries and we should do the utmost not only to maintain but increase it. Any amount of money spent on it is a sound investment. The government should give consideration to expanding our Canadian government travel bureau and should do even more than is presently being done to multiply and beautify our national parks.
I also wish to suggest that a department of tourist travel and information should be created by the government, under whose jurisdiction would fall the national parks, the Canadian government travel bureau, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the national film board and any other bodies related to the tourist industry and information in Canada and abroad. I submit that every possible consideration should be given to the suggestion I just made. Its purpose is not necessarily to find an opening for the many candidates there are for government posts, even if it would help the Prime Minister satisfy at least one of the many ambitious supporters of his party in the house.
The sole purpose of the formation of this new department would be to help promote by all means the tourist industry in Canada. It would also put under the authority of the same minister the bodies and corporations which have to work closely together in order to achieve good results, namely national parks, the government travel bureau, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the national film board. If each and every one of those bodies have done a great job so far, they can do better still if they are working under the jurisdiction of the same minister. I hope the government will take this suggestion under serious consideration.
In closing, I should like to ask the minister if he can tell the committee whether the government has any program or plans for the development of the tourist industry in Canada?


Mr. White:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take about five minutes of the time of the committee to say a word or two about western Ontario and the development there, past, present and future. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the site that was first mentioned and developed by the late John R. MacNicol, a former member of this house. That area was situated in Kent county adjacent to the river Thames on No. 2 highway. This was the site of an Indian village which was destroyed by invading Americans many years ago. The site was lost for many years. Through the efforts of John R. MacNicol and many of the local residents the area has been developed, a small park was provided there and any time that I ever
3530	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs drive that way I find the park is in use by tourists and visitors from the United States and the surrounding area. It is my opinion that this could be expanded.
I understand that in the area there are many people who are in possession of Indian relics of one kind or another and that possibly on the site a museum could be constructed which would house-and I know there are many who would contribute-those Indian relics to this museum. There are also some materials which were used by the pioneers which may disappear entirely from the Ontario scene in a very few years. They could well be housed there. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the expansion of this project because it is situated on a very busy highway and it is a pleasant place for people to stop off at and rest. It should be very carefully considered by the minister.
While I am mentioning the name of John R. MacNicol may I say that I believe he was one of those who first mentioned the possibility of the development of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
I want to turn now for a moment or two to the Thames river valley authority and to endorse the words of the hon. member for Oxford who preceded me a little while ago. I want to point out to the minister that the work commenced by that authority some years ago is now about half completed. I refer to the major project. The Fanshaw dam has now been in existence for some years and has proven a boon to the community. But there are many other developments on the upper Thames valley which have been contemplated, and I believe considered by the minister, and we are hoping that, as the hon. member for Oxford mentioned, the pilot project will be completed.
The water problems in southwestern Ontario are acute and any development there should take water conservation into consideration. I am one of those who believe that the restoration of our forests is a fundamental part of any conservation program so that any area in the watershed that can possibly be considered as submarginal land should be devoted to forest growth.
Another problem has developed. The Fanshaw dam in the upper Thames valley was sold to the residents of the valley as a conservation measure to ensure a fresh and continuous flow of water through and beyond the city of London. However as soon as the dam was completed the city of London commenced to draw off water for city use. They polluted it with sewage and dumped it back into the river. For 50 years the city of London has also been using artesian wells nearby. Actually


what has happened is that in a sense the city of London has been stealing water from the surrounding municipalities. Those municipalities find this embarrassing and the farmers in the nearby areas not only find it embarrassing but expensive because of the lack of water. It is a detriment to the farms in the community and a financial loss to many of the farmers. Therefore, when we are considering a conservation program, we should have regard for use of water.
A program that I advocated-and I am quite certain I was not one of the originators-at the University of Western Ontario some 13 years ago was to draw a supply of water for the western Ontario area from lake Huron by means of a pipe line. It would supply many municipalities en route to the city. Now with the introduction of the Ontario water resources commission this plan is under very serious consideration at this time. The city of London favoured the plan. I mention this because it has a relationship to the conservation of water and other resources in the upper Thames valley area.
But, strange as it may seem, the public utilities commission which provides the water for the municipalities and have, as I said, secured their supply of water from the adjacent municipalities by artesian wells are inclined to oppose this forward-looking plan of the Ontario water resources commission. The public utilities propose a filtration plant at the Fanshaw upper Thames valley site. The net result will be that there will be less pure clean water flowing down the Thames river through London, Ontario, and more polluted water added for questionable downstream benefits.
The department of northern affairs and all other public bodies interested in this problem should take a long forward look at it, not with a view to ascertaining what the results might be tomorrow but what the needs and results might be 50 years or more hence. I am not against, in fact I am for, the completion of the upper Thames valley authority plan as soon as possible. However,
I want it to be a plan which will serve the greatest number of people in the area and which will give the greatest possible benefits for the dollars spent.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the committee in discussing the upper Thames valley authority. I hope the minister will look favourably upon the plan and consider it when he is compiling his estimates for the coming year.
I do want to say a word about national parks. I was very interested, as I am sure the members of the committee were, in what the hon. member for Oxford said about

the problem of Long Point island. I endorse what he had to say. I should like to refer also to an area called Mitchells bay where United States interests hold a long-term lease. They secured this lease from the former government. I, like the Prime Minister, believe in Canada for Canadians. I hope that when these leases run out they will not be renewed. I hope that the policy of the government eventually will be to create a national park in that heavily populated area.
(Translation):


Mr. Stearns:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief, but I wish to say something in French, in my capacity as an Englishspeaking member from the lovely province of Quebec.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on the magnificent job they are doing for the benefit of every Canadian.
Mr. Chairman, speaking as a member of the permanent committee on mines, forests and waters I can assure you that the members of that committee have done yeoman service from the national point of view. Indeed, the speeches delivered this afternoon by hon. members of all parties, C.C.F., Liberals and Conservatives, were most complimentary of the work done by both the department of northern affairs and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Once again, then, I congratulate the ministers in charge of both those departments.
(Text):
If I might say just a few words in English, I would call attention to the fact that in the province of Quebec we have a little different problem from that of the other provinces. We look after our own forestry affairs. The only reason we are doing this is that, in the past, we have never been encouraged by the federal government to participate in forestry affairs. Whether or not this was because of politics or for other reasons, I do not know. Perhaps in the future we will be included in the program of the department of northern affairs.
However, we have not done badly in Quebec because we have formed an association called the Quebec forestry association. This association has been the godfather of a system of 4-H clubs. The boys and girls who belong to these clubs are spreading conservation propaganda throughout their towns and villages. This has been going on now for 16 years and the results have been remarkable. The future of our province is just as much dependent on the forests as the future of any other part of Canada. Representatives from
Supply-Northern Affairs a great many of the other provinces of Canada should come down to Quebec to see the way in which the 4-H clubs are managed and the work they do in connection with conservation, the planting of trees and general education.


Mr. Howard:: This vote offers members, especially those from the more remote parts of Canada, an opportunity of expressing their views on the program of the department and making some comments about the general development of northern areas. I hope that other hon. members will avail themselves of this opportunity, as I intend to do, to relate the program of this department to their particular constituencies as well as the overall good of the nation.
I should like first to make a few comments on this so-called roads to resources program. At the outset I would say that, in so far as the roads to resources program is concerned, it means practically nothing to northern British Columbia or to the type of program that was instituted for the building of roads prior to this government taking office. Certainly there have been changes to the original plan. I might say, with respect to the desk pounding that just took place, the former Liberal government had little to do with it, either.
So far as northern development roads are concerned, and particularly the one known as the Stewart-Cassiar road, they were undertaken originally by the provincial government through its department of mines as mining access roads. Just prior to the federal election of 1957 the federal government entered into a 50-50 agreement with the province for the building of that Stewart-Cassiar road. I am pleased to see that even though it has taken a year or a year and a half to put the agreement into concrete terms I believe it has been either completed or is nearly completed. I hope that when the minister rises to make some comments he will undertake to give us a little more detail about the state of affairs with respect to the federal-provincial agreement to build the Stewart-Cassiar road, especially whether or not the contract has been signed or whether it will be signed in the near future and generally what are the provisions of that agreement.
This Stewart-Cassiar road, as I said, was envisioned by many, many people in British Columbia, certainly those living in the area, a long time before this government took office. I am not saying that it is not a good project for federal government participation. I have no immediate personal knowledge of the effect that similarly constructed roads will have on other parts of Canada, but I do
3532	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs have personal knowledge of the effect the Stewart-Cassiar road will have upon the development of northern British Columbia. When it is completed it will offer a means of removing natural resources from the sites in which they are located at the moment to a deep sea shipping port.
There are also some other factors that must be taken into consideration. It is true that such a road will have a beneficial effect upon the Cassiar Asbestos Corporation in northern British Columbia. We hope it will have a beneficial effect on the Grand Duke mine which has been discovered in that area and where they have now blocked out more than 26 million tons of a fairly good grade of copper. There are many other mineral deposits under claim in that area that will be beneficially affected by the completion of this Stewart-Cassiar road.
However, the vision of this government should not stop merely at Stewart or the other terminus of the road, Cassiar. The government should consider, if it has not already done so, the extensions that must be made to the Stewart-Cassiar road to provide access into and out of the area other than through the deep sea shipping port at Stewart. I would point out that connected with the proposed route of the Stewart-Cassiar road there is a very well defined, broad low level valley extending from Kitimat through Terrace and Aiyansh and northward through that area. In part of that area roads have already been constructed. I suggest that the government should give a good deal of consideration to participating in a similar financial way with the province of British Columbia in order to connect the proposed Stewart-Cassiar road with a road system extending down the Kalum valley to Terrace, highway 16, the C.N.R. line and deep sea shipping ports either at Prince Rupert or Kitimat.
I would also suggest that there are other mineral resources in the area farther to the east that require road access to them. Just north of Hazelton a group of citizens, using their own money and logging equipment, undertook last year to start the construction of a road heading generally in the direction of the Stewart-Cassiar road. They hope to link up that area farther to the east with the area to the north that will be affected by the Stewart-Cassiar road.
What the mineral potential is in that whole northern half of British Columbia may be known to some extent because of exploration work already done by prospectors and mineral claims that have already been established. But in addition, and I am sure the minister will agree with this, there is still a vast potential of unexplored mineral land in that


part of the province. In past years the attitude has been that people should pioneer and develop an area first before the government would consider building roads into it but I hope sincerely that the present government will reverse that attitude and on the general basis of potential mineral, hydroelectric and industrial development in the area will undertake to build roads first knowing full well that they will have to be built in any event. I hope they will undertake to build roads first so as to assist in opening up the country and bring about the more economic development of the mineral resources that we know are there.
I just want to make one or two comments about roads to resources, or whatever term they are known by, in so far as British Columbia is concerned. If the minister wants to go one step further than the former government, and I am sure he would like nothing better than to outdo the Liberals at every opportunity; if he would like to show that so far as British Columbia is concerned this roads to resources program really means something he will not rest content with merely carrying out the program of 50-50 participation in the Stewart-Cassiar road but will exercise his ingenuity and imagination and give expression to what I am sure is his heartfelt desire to open up these areas by taking a look at the road connections which must be made between sparsely settled areas that have a road system of sorts and those areas that do not now have a system. He will enter into immediate negotiations with the provincial government to extend the provincial highway now existing between Kitimat and Terrace, from which point onward to Aiyansh the highway is now being privately constructed by the Columbia Cellulose Company, and for the extension of that road system farther northward until it meets the Stewart-Cassiar road. The area will then have access by road and rail and by shipping. In addition, he should also take into consideration the potential mineral and agriculural area to the east north of Hazelton and also enter into negotiations to provide a connection between the Hazelton area and the northwestern part of the province.


Mr. Cadieu:: Mr. Chairman, in my few brief remarks I first want to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for bringing such a worth-while program before the house, one which is long overdue. The people of my constituency are deeply concerned about northern road development. I must also pay tribute to those people of Meadow Lake constituency who have formed Meadow Lake Freightways and have bulldozed a winter road through to the

south shore of lake Athabasca, thus making it possible to take in freight during the winter months to serve the vast mining area in and around Uranium City. This project has reduced transportation costs by 7 cents a pound. An all-weather road over this route would further reduce the cost of operating in this area by eliminating the necessity of stocking an eight months supply of all necessary commodities. It would open a potential 150,000 square miles of virgin territory to commercial fishing, lumbering, mining and tourist traffic.
Aside from these important facts, all Canada is interested in achieving road access to the huge uranium strike in and around Uranium City. We in the north look forward to making a considerable contribution to Canada's export trade through uranium as well as to our own national development. I look upon this road as a very urgent project and I sincerely hope that the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government will be able to work together to make this worth-while project a reality. I hope it will not be too long before I will be able to announce to the people of Meadow Lake constituency that the surveying of this worth-while project is under way. I have made many trips over this route from Buffalo Narrows to the south shore of lake Athabasca by air. I feel that this is a very urgent road and I certainly hope that we in Meadow Lake will see this become a reality.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a matter which I think is of importance not only to my constituency and the province of Nova Scotia but also to Canada. A few days ago it was my pleasure and honour to be present at and associated with the ceremonies that marked the remembrance of the siege of Louisbourg on July 27, 1758. The complete success of the ceremonies and the arrangements made by the bicentenary committee are a great tribute to them and the occasion was very well commemorated.
I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the minister and the other departments of the government and to the provincial government for the co-operation that made the ceremonies in remembrance of this occasion the outstanding success that they were. It was certainly noteworthy as showing the interest of Canadians in Louisburg that approximately 40,000 people attended the three-day commemoration ceremonies.
Good work has been done to date at Louisburg. We have a museum containing a reproduction of the fort and the fortress town as it was in the middle of the eighteenth century and there are also many maps and records which to some extent portray the 57071-3-224
Supply-Northern Affairs story of the town. I feel, however, that Louisburg has been very largely neglected and that its potential as a great national park has been overlooked. I feel that no stone should be left unturned to ensure that it should be seen by every Canadian as a modern record of a most important battleground in the history of our country and so that our people may be able to examine the monuments and records which still exist.
As has been said by others, we Canadians have a responsibility to preserve our great landmarks so that they may be enjoyed by future generations. Every school child on this continent is, I am sure, familiar with the story of Louisburg and the part it played in the history of North America as the guardian of the St. Lawrence and the foremost sentinel of France in the year 1758. I am sure all Canadians would be interested in seeing the historical relics there if they could be assured that the area had been sufficiently developed to illustrate all the interesting facets of early Canadian history. The battles before the walls of the ancient town and those in Louisburg harbour should be clearly illustrated by means of maps, et cetera, and many, many things could be done to restore the fortress itself, which was perhaps the finest fortress of its day in the only walled city in North America. It would be almost impossible to completely restore the area or at least it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. No one could expect that, but I do believe this government would find it wise to invest in the restoration of some of the walls of the fortress, to outline the main gates and to post signs to clearly indicate where the battle of Louisburg was fought, besides providing roads and better accommodation for visitors.
I believe, furthermore, that a road should be constructed for the use of automobiles so that they may have access to the park because a large number of visitors do come to Louisburg as they did during the recent ceremonies there. I think it is important that the government should consider a long range plan for the town's development so that it may illustrate the conditions back in 1758 and prior thereto. Unfortunately, after 1758 and 1759 construction stopped, probably at the request of the Americans who said that no stone should be left upon a stone. It was such an important point as the watchdog of the great fishing industry and the guardian of the St. Lawrence that it was felt no chance should be taken that it would be rebuilt. If a long range plan were developed and a reasonable allotment provided annually it would, I am sure, be a tremendous investment for Canada.

Supply-Northern Affairs
Nova Scotia regards tourism as a very great natural resource. We live next door to some 40 million people in the New England states some of whom come to the maritime provinces every year seeking relief from the heat and in order to enjoy the scenery for which we are so famous, to take advantage of our summer breezes and the salt water. When they come they expect to see something and more will come when more is provided for them to see. Any investment in this respect will be repaid in tourist dollars.
In the development of any such long term plan it should be remembered that the story of Louisburg is more than just that of a fortress besieged and finally abolished. It is rather the story of one of the great cornerstones of Canadian history when those who were enemies and soldiers, fighting outside this fortress at the dawn of July 22 of 1758, became neighbours and were perhaps the first Canadians by the time dusk fell. Their cannons and swords and implements of war became axes and ploughshares, which were used to build our country, and I think this area should be used as an illustration of what can be done by co-operation and work between two great races. The descendants of these people, both French and English, remember their historical background and this would be a wonderful monument to their history.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks made this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, who spoke of the Cape Breton Highlands national park in the counties of Inverness and Victoria. The increasing number of tourists visiting the park amply illustrates the value of these parks to the tourist industry of Nova Scotia, as they afford an excellent opportunity to people to examine the scene of Cabot's exploits-the Cabot trail. I, like that hon. member, would like to see a winter works program developed in connection with the park and I would like to thank the minister for the program he instituted last winter which provided employment for local people when the pulpwood industry was not as prosperous as it has been in previous years. This year, once again, employment will be required in the area. In fact, if ever there was a time to find employment for people through the development of our great natural resources that time will be during the coming winter.
I feel that the government should consider the question of wages and salaries paid in this connection. There is no reason why the people who work there should not be paid in accordance with the standard set for mainland workers.

I have emphasized the importance of the tourist industry in Nova Scotia and I commend to the minister the most serious consideration of the value of spending money in developing tourist facilities for the Cape Breton Highlands national park and also the great national landmark of Louisburg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a few observations to make and a few questions to ask of the minister, although I am not going to make a speech. I am sure that will cause hon. members on the other side of the committee to rejoice. The first thing I want to say something about is to remind the minister- I do not need to, I am sure-that when he does reply I would hope he will say something about the treatment of Eskimos in the province of Newfoundland as compared with the other provinces, in addition to what he said the other day.
The second point I should like to refer to is the electricity program and I am speaking about this on item No. 1 because I do not think that perhaps it would be in order on any other item since regrettably in my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends on this side, that program at this time does not include the province of Newfoundland despite very strenuous efforts to have it included.
The minister will no doubt recall that on February 19 of this year the Prime Minister was in St. John's to deliver a speech for the purpose, I judge, of influencing the voters in Newfoundland, and when he arrived he received a letter from the premier of Newfoundland written that same day, parts of which the Prime Minister quoted in his speech, and which he used to a certain effect. I will not bore the committee by going into further detail with regard to what effect, because I am sure the minister would get up at once and say that by quoting the Prime Minister I was out of order. I will not put the minister to the embarrassment of doing that. But this letter did ask the Prime Minister and, through the Prime Minister, the government to give consideration to a request from the government of Newfoundland. Now this letter was produced as a sessional paper on July 3, 1958, in response to a motion which I made asking for this correspondence and apparently it never received any reply except the reply which the Prime Minister gave at the public meeting and over the air on that occasion. I am not going to read the whole letter, but I would like to draw attention to two paragraphs. The second paragraph of the letter reads as follows:
You did not find it possible, apparently, to accede to my request to you that Canadian government financial assistance be given to hydroelectric (or water power) stations in Newfoundland,

and as few if any electric stations operated by coal will ever be built in Newfoundland your present offer in that regard is of no very great importance to this province.
That, of course, was the subject of some rather lengthy debates during the last parliament, and I may add that my view is quite unaltered.	On another occasion I will
probably have something more to say about this matter, but I do not propose to hold up the minister's estimates today in that regard. But the premier of Newfoundland made a new request in this letter-a different request -and in the second part of the letter he said:
From your studies of Newfoundland you must be aware that our population, though fewer than half a million in number, are to be found in more than 1.000 different settlements, and that these settlements are situate in the great bays which constitute the 6,000 miles of our coastline. This means that our people are very scattered in settlements that are considerably removed from each other in distance. Even in cases, therefore, where surplus electricity is already being generated, which surplus electricity could be moved by transmission lines to certain bays, there still remains the terribly difficult problem of building distribution lines to link up these settlements; and within the settlements to link up the scattered houses wanting electricity.
There was a reference to a meeting being held, and then Mr. Smallwood said:
I suggest that you announce at this meeting tonight your willingness to ask the parliament of Canada to amend your legislation, passed in January, in such a way as to give the same financial assistance for these distribution lines as you have already so generously offered for transmission lines.
Then there is a different suggestion:
On the other hand, if you are not prepared to make this concession to Newfoundland we would be pretty well satisfied if, by administrative or executive decision, or by amendment to the legislation if necessary, you would provide that when a transmission line is built from the power house to the main centre of a bay, where that same line extends from that centre from settlement to settlement, cove to cove, within that bay or area, the extension itself will be treated as though it were the same transmission line continued from the main point in the bay or area.
That is all I think it is relevant to read from the letter, but I should like to read from Mr. Clark Davey's report of the meeting at which the Prime Minister made this letter public. It appeared in the Globe and Mail. I have a lot of other reports, but this appears to be a pretty accurate one, and here is what the Prime Minister said then about Mr. Smallwood's request. I will not read the other and more political comments he made.
Without really giving away anything, Mr. Diefenbaker said he would take Premier Smallwood's request for federal assistance to power distribution lines, in addition to the high voltage transmission lines already covered, under serious 57071-3-224J
Supply-Northern Affairs consideration. If federal economists think it workable within the general plan, he added, the request would get the most possible consideration in the next parliament.
That, I suppose, was posited upon the Prime Minister's success at the polls which we cannot gainsay and I hope the minister when he replies will tell us what the result of that consideration has been. I know the minister's colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, has repeatedly said that these distribution lines are already covered. Indeed, he kept saying that all during the election campaign. If that is the minister's view-that they are already covered and that assistance is already being given, as his colleague has repeatedly said-then this matter does not require any further consideration. But it would appear to me that the minister is probably of the same opinion as he was in the last parliament, and that that is not his opinion. I very much hope it is, however, and I would be delighted, and so would almost everybody else, at least in the outports of Newfoundland, if the minister would come forward and say that the government is prepared to give the same assistance for hydro plants as they are prepared to give for thermal plants.
So much for that subject. I want now to say just a word about the roads to resources program that the minister has announced.


An hon. Member:: And this wasn't supposed to be a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this is a good and constructive step, but there is one very great difficulty about it and about every other proposal made by the federal government for a 50-50 distribution of costs. That 50-50 distribution of costs makes it comparatively easy for wealthy provinces with a high taxable capacity, such as Ontario and British Columbia, to accept and exploit to the full, if they wish to do so, the offer of the federal government, without throwing any great burden upon their taxpayers. But in a province such as Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or even, to some extent, in the minister's own province of Saskatchewan where taxable capacity is very much lower, these 50-50 offers are really of very much less value in terms of real assistance and in terms of equality and I hope that in time the minister will try to influence the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to introduce some formula more nearly resembling the equalization formula in cases where assistance is offered.
This was done in some measure by the hon. member for Essex East when he was in office in introducing the hospital insurance provisions which are not operated on a 50-50

Supply-Northern Affairs basis; some account is taken of the relative taxable capacity of the various provinces. I know it is not within the power of the minister to do this himself and I do not wish to take away from my approval of what he is doing within the policy which has been enunciated. I should think that the minister as the representative of a province that does not have as high a taxable capacity as the one we are now in would himself be rather sympathetic with this argument.
Finally, sir, I wish to say a few words about the Terra Nova national park. As the minister is aware this park was established by the federal government when his predecessor was in office. It had barely been established when the minister took over and I wish to give the minister credit for carrying on vigorously and aggressively the work of the development of that park. It has been a God-send to the people of Bonavista bay and that area. In a period when other employment has been exceedingly difficult to get there would have been an enormous amount of distress that has been avoided because of the existence of the park. I wish to echo the words of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken about this matter in saying that I hope the minister will have an even bigger winter work program in the parks next winter than he had last winter because my own opinion is we are going to need it more than ever.
In respect of employment within the park the minister brought down a return in response to a motion I made for correspondence with the provincial government concerning employment there. I should like to say a few words about that and these, too, will be words of commendation of the attitude taken by the minister. It so happened it was for quite some time an obstacle to the establishment of the park that there are a considerable number of people living in settlements like Charlottetown, Happy Adventure, Eastport, Sandringham, Glovertown, Traytown, Port Blandford, Musgravetown and one or two others-


Mr. Maclnnis:: You are slipping.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -where it was customary- and perhaps that was true of none more than the little settlement of Canning's Cove-for a certain number of people to make a limited part of their annual livelihood by cutting timber in the park. I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for the consideration he has shown to these people in permitting a limited amount of cutting in the last two years. I understand the policy is still
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
being continued with respect to those people who had done this in the past. I appreciate that in the long run the minister does not want this to continue and I do not think any one else does either. But I also appreciate that the minister has many other preoccupations and I know the difficulties involved in getting new enterprises established and this has been an excellent stop-gap arrangement until the parks administration is in a position to provide through its own activities and forest management policies adequate alternative employment for these people.
But there is one thing I hope the minister will not lose sight of and that is the undertaking he gave in the letter he addressed on July 2 to the minister of mines and resources of Newfoundland with respect to those persons. I shall not take the time of the committee in reading this correspondence but will hasten to explain that the minister of mines and resources had written to the minister and asked him if he would give a preference, which the previous administration rather more through verbal conversations than in any other way implied would be given to people who had previously made their living in the park, in employment in the park. I do hope that preference will be continued because it is really quite a serious thing when through the establishment of this park in co-operation between the two governments the livelihood of these people has been taken away.
I know the minister has shown good will in this matter up until now and I merely urge him to continue to do that. When we come to the item on the national parks there will be one or two other questions which I may wish to put to him about employment not only in the Terra Nova national park but in some other parks and they are questions of detail which I do not think it would be reasonable to put on item No. 1.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions which I feel should be answered before the vote carries because they deal with general affairs in the department rather than with individual votes. I am going to take the liberty of dealing with these chronologically as they were put forward and even though this destroys the coherence of my remarks to some degree I think it is the only way I could manage to give the information which the hon. members have requested.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate speaking on Saturday, I believe, raised the question of the reconsideration on my part of the treatment of Eskimos in the province of Newfoundland. At this time I

should like to tell him that I have gone over the records of negotiations between the two governments and the correspondence between departments in the government. I know of his feelings and I appreciate that the agreement was made in 1954 under his signature. At this time I wish to extend to the hon. member my appreciation for bringing this matter to my attention and to tell him it has determined me to take a good look at the considerations affecting the lives of these people in Newfoundland. I coul say much more at this time but I think it would be more proper to do so after we have given it full consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the minister and I wish to make one observation. I feel notwithstanding what may have been done at a previous time there should be equal treatment by the federal government for Eskimos in all the provinces. Of course there may be a difference between the provinces and the territories. That is all I was urging.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, thank you very much.
The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville was discussing Fort Lennox. I should like to inform him at this time that we have increased the vote this year with respect to Fort Lennox which is a beautiful tourist attraction with great historic connotations relating to our country. The estimates will indicate that the vote has been increased this year from $10,000 to $45,000 and we have moved a little ahead of the hon. member in that regard.
I should also like to point out to him that neighbouring historic parks and particularly Fort Chambly has a comparative expenditure of $5,000 and another, lower Fort Garry which is somewhat further removed, has a comparative expenditure of $20,000. So on the whole Fort Lennox has received in my opinion rather favourable and friendly treatment from the department this year. I appreciate that this fort needs a great deal of work done on it and I should like to remind him that when we finish the rewiring we shall continue the work in relation to this and other historic sites.
I wish to point out to the committee in relation to historic parks that every Canadian owes a responsibility to future generations to see that these landmarks of our history are preserved.
I know how immense the task is and any person does us a great favour by bringing to light the various historic landmarks of the nation's history so that we can make the first moves to protect them in order that over the years, as the money is forthcoming, we can
Supply-Northern Affairs restore them and do something of a permanent nature so that forever afterwards they will be there as a reminder of what happened in the formation of our country's history.
I would like to add a word in regard to historic parks. Even though we do have a nominal charge for the national parks, we do not make any charges in the historic parks.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt spoke at some length about the French river and its possibilities as a tourist attraction because it lies at one of the historic routes to the west. Every person who knows Canadian history knows that this was the trans-Canada highway of two and three centuries ago. At this time I take great pleasure in telling the committee that the department has decided on and is going forward with a program of marking all these historic canoe routes in Canada, and I am sure there will be a marker close to the Recollet falls and at the other historic landmarks in the constituency of Nickel Belt.
However, in so far as the hon. member's remarks applying to our development program are concerned, I am not too certain. He belittled the program and referred to it as a rocking chair program, and rather spoofed the word "vision". He then went on to make suggestions about roads to resources in his area and asked for information about them. My statement of policy at this time is a repetition of what I told the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. The policy is this, Mr. Chairman. Where agreement has been reached between two governments and a letter has gone forward from me giving it informal and tentative approval to go ahead, we can announce the location of some of those roads and as to where the roads will go but while any discussion between the two governments themselves are being carried on, it is part of our policy not to discuss those roads until a final decision is made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a question there? I am sorry to interrupt the minister. Is not it the responsibility of the provinces to initiate proposals or discussions in regard to access roads?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was going to deal with this question of policy with regard to another hon. member and I hope that when I come to his question he will pardon me for answering it at this time, because an inference could be drawn from what was said here in the remarks of two or three hon. members that it was the responsibility of the federal government to initiate proposals to the provincial governments as to which roads should be built. Exactly the opposite is the case.

Supply-Northern Affairs
The resources of the provinces belong to the provinces. They are constitutionally theirs by right and they should be theirs. In view of the responsibility of the provinces we would think it in very bad taste to suggest, and to embarrass any provinces by suggesting, certain roads. We leave it to them to recommend certain roads to us. If hon. members read my remarks to the standing committee they will see I said something along this line, that we do have the opportunity, when they propose a program to us, to point out what our philosophy is on the opening up of new resource areas. Sometimes, in the light of that discussion, the provincial governments do adjust their thinking to some degree. I do not believe there are any instances where we have forced our opinion on any provincial government. It has been done in the form of discussion, and if the proposal does not meet our criteria, then the matter is dropped. I would say in all honesty we have tried to get the provinces to see our side of the question, how we are trying to open up resource areas.
Mr. Hardier On what is the philosophy
based?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The philosophy of roads to resources in the provinces is based primarily on the thought that if we are to build a grid system of roads in the territories there is no use to build that grid system of roads unless they are connected to settled areas in the provinces to the south. That is the No. 1 point. But there are several provinces which have no Northwest Territories to the north and in effect we are offering the same type of arrangement to those provinces, namely Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, with the exception of two of those provinces which did have areas which would bear up from the point of view of exploration, new exploration for mines and minerals first, but also looking at the possibilities of the forest industry, forest protection, recreation, etc., so there is an overall concept.
During the process of the provinces studying our proposal it became clear to two of the provinces, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, owing to their situation, that they could not find roads to virgin resources areas. Therefore, on behalf of the government the Prime Minister made a statement of policy in Halifax to the effect that if any provinces could not provide suggestions of natural resources roads we would accept in their cases further tourist roads.
Tourist roads have added a great deal of difficulty to the working out of this program.

We could not touch the regular highway systems because then we would be interfering with provincial highway responsibility. But, I think at this time, and speaking only in general terms, I can announce to the committee that tentative agreement has now been reached on roads across the country totalling $110 million over the five-year period. Several provinces have taken the maximum. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have taken the maximum. Even though Newfoundland's first proposal totalled only $7.5 million to $8 million, I understand that they want to put forward proposals later that will total the full amount of $15 million. Therefore, I think when we are finished with this the estimate that I made to the committee that over the 5-year program there would be $135 million going into this roads to resources program in the provinces-and I used a very round figure as far as the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were concerned-


Mr. McWilliam:: Will the minister give the figure for New Brunswick?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I left out New Brunswick because they have not asked for the maximum; they have asked for a total of $12 million.


Mr. Godin:: Can the minister give the figure for Ontario?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: So far, the figure has not been mentioned because there has been no agreement yet on any of the roads in Ontario. I announce these things only when tentative approval has just been about reached and I have only given totals in which it is formally agreed upon.


Mr. Hardie:: There is one philosophy for western Canada and another philosophy for eastern Canada pretty well.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You can look at it in that way but in practice, no. You heard the hon. members from those northern constituencies of Ontario and British Columbia speak today and they talked in terms of opening up resource areas in northern Ontario. That argument is just as effective and just as sound to fit into this philosophy as any argument I have presented.
I should like to keep moving on because I think hon. members who made suggestions and criticisms should have a word from me. One or two will be missed because their words were a little bit on the complimentary side and I will let those things slide.
Another question which I think was covered in several hon. members' remarks is the

matter of the conservation conference. This was raised by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa and the Leader of the Opposition and I believe one other hon. member. The conservation conference is not a new thing; it was announced formally for the first time by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg on February 12. I have mentioned it several times since. I think I dealt at some length in the committee with the purpose of this conservation conference. I would recommend that any interested member go through that section of the report which deals with that, because it would save me a great deal of time at this moment.
The conservation conference that I mentioned at Yorkton was a slip of the tongue. I was discussing the ownership of resources in Canada, and I mentioned the fact we were going to hold a conservation conference. I laid down what I thought were the purposes of that conference which were very close to what several members said here today. Regardless of how much we discuss the necessity for holding a conservation conference, the fact remains we have a tremendous amount of material in the department which has never been correlated, where the responsibilities of the federal government have never been clearly defined, where the responsibilities of the provinces have not been clearly defined, nor have the responsibilities of municipal and local conservation authorities, the research groups and so on. What I was hinting at in Yorkton was that I could not possibly arrange, within the physical limits of our department, of our time and strength, the holding of this conference this year. What I was thinking of doing, and did do some weeks ago within the department as a matter of fact, was to outline a letter to the various provincial governments asking the premiers if they would consider appointing one of their ministers responsible for the resources of their area to meet with me at some mutually convenient time and place, so that we could accelerate the movement towards holding this national conservation conference. This was the cause of my slip at Yorkton, and I must confess to the house I am sorry I made it. It came out inadvertently. I apologized at that time, in essence, to the group for having said it there.
I should like to speak at some length on this question of conservation, but I do not believe this is the proper time. The hon. member for Port Arthur, who has made a considerable study of all aspects of forestry, outlined the arguments of Mr. MacMillan on a monetary basis. If a certain industry produces so much, then the government should spend a pro rata amount on that industry. I do not think it is necessary for
Supply-Northern Affairs me to discuss this point of view at great length today because after due consideration the fallacy of the argument, if carried to the nth degree, becomes apparent.
I should like to discuss this question of research which was raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. There is no person who has been a stronger advocate over the years for research in all lines of forestry than I have been. I should like to tell the committee something which hon. members must have guessed and that is that when I came into the department this was one of the matters that was discussed. The department has produced for me a program of research running over four years, both in basic research and in forest products research. This program, which is now before me, will be examined from a policy point of view. I hope that I can accept what has been proposed in that program. I do know that it calls for more personnel because that has been the basic weakness of the work we have been trying to do.
It is all very fine to criticize the minister who holds this position for not having work done in research, but the research is limited by the number of topnotch people we can put on the task. The people in the department know full well what has to be done. We who sit in this house have to make up our minds that if we want more research we have to be prepared to vote more money for it, and that means supporting this type of thing in the house, not trying to follow a schizophrenic attitude of condemning us for spending too much and then saying we do not do enough work. I know other departments have this problem, but I have it particularly because in my department there is so much to be done it seems there is not enough manpower or money available to do all the jobs at once. I should like to assure the house that in this matter of research in forestry, the attitude of the department and the minister is, full speed ahead.
There were so many things mentioned by the hon. member for Port Arthur, with many of which I thoroughly agree, that if I took the time to discuss each of them we would not be finished for some time. He did raise the question of fiscal policy in relation to forest policy. I think that is the crux of this matter. It bears out what I just said a moment ago. If we are going to advocate policies of research, whether it is in agriculture or in forestry or in any other necessary line, we must be prepared to put that into relationship with the other programs of government and eventually we get back to the fiscal policies of the government. As a result I have asked,-this comes largely as a result
3540	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs of the recommendations made in the standing committee-for a report on the effects of fiscal policy on the forest industry. I hope that I will be getting something of a nature that will improve the situation in the forest industry. I think that the thanks of the government, the house and the people of Canada generally, go to the witnesses who appeared before the mines, forests and waters committee, for putting forward a very sound proposal.
I should like to deal at some length with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He was very kind to me in his opening remarks in speaking about zeal and energy and I thank him for that. At the same time I hope that when several years have passed he can add one more word to that group of adjectives and that is "intelligence".


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will add that now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do believe that besides energy being applied to these problems which are so manifest and so manifold, there must be some intelligence that looks forward a long way and at the same time can deal with the problems as they arise. I wanted to thank him particularly for the service he has done Canada in bringing to the attention of the house the significance of that atomic-powered submarine passing under the ice-covered waters of the ocean to our north. He used the words, I think, "dramatically underlines". I should like to repeat the significance of what the Leader of the Opposition has told us. No longer can Canadians think that because we have ninety per cent of our country to the north unexplored and undeveloped, because we have a great cold ocean to the north, this is our defence line. We are now fully aware of the fact that the water underneath that ice is available for the movement of underwater craft and this affects the whole future of this country and, I believe, much of the world. He went on to suggest that the possibility of oil transportation underneath the water should be looked into. I just sent out for a little bit of information of which I was already aware.
The British people, and I do not want to say particularly whether it is government or private enterprise effort, have been very much aware of the possibilities of this lead and are presently working on the building of submarines, as I understand it, that will carry up to 100,000 tons of oil. These submarines will operate more efficiently underwater at three times the speed per unit as compared with those using other power sources. Some months ago a member of my department suggested the possibility of a
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

pipe line from Ellesmere island to Greenland to Iceland to the United Kingdom, because ultimately the western European nations must be assured of a secure line to energy sources, especially with the line to the Middle East in such great doubt. It seems only logical that this great potential oil land of our northern Arctic islands will no longer be a part of Canada that is far beyond any expectation of development in our lifetime. It is now, I believe, in the front line.
The research we are planning to start on the continental shelf and the islands of the Arctic was designed, as I said in my speech in the house a month ago and in the committee, as part of that program. I tried to say as plainly as I could that I hoped Canadians would see that national sovereignty in the north was not just a matter of politicians speaking at election times but was a vitally important matter. I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has accepted the phrase, "effective occupation", because you can hold a territory by right of discovery or by claiming it under some sector theory but where you have great powers holding different points of view the only way to hold that territory, with all its great potential wealth, is by effective occupation.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned how few people there were in the north. I had the figures sent to me and the figure he gave is approximately accurate. On the archipelago at the present time there are approximately 300 Canadians, possibly a few more. There are approximately 100 other Canadians up there in business and other occupations of a non-official sort. There are 2,000 other Canadians who are Eskimo by birth, making a total of 2,400 Canadians on the archipelago. On the DEW line sites we have about 250 Canadians and then we have another operation at Frobisher Bay with about 400. That makes a total of roughly 3,000 in the Arctic at the present time.
Obviously that number is not going to increase greatly unless there is an economic base. We are not going into Frobisher Bay primarily because we love to do things that are dramatic. Our reasons for going into Frobisher Bay are, first, the very necessary matter of improving polar transport. We hope to make that whole operation self-liquidating. The second reason for the Frobisher Bay development is the military operations which we have agreed to undertake in partnership with the United States. The third factor is that Baffin island may well be one of the richest iron areas in the Arctic.
I made it very clear to the standing committee that I hoped that what was starting
there under the Department of Transport and

the Department of National Defence would some day be a completely civilian operation based on the economics of the area, in other words, mining operations on Baffin island. I should like to repeat now what I have repeated on every occasion I have had the opportunity, that development in the north in such remote places as Frobisher Bay has a very important bearing on the people who live in Montreal, Toronto or any other part of Canada.
One of the members from northern Ontario spoke of the natural route that existed from Hudson bay through Moosonee and by the Ontario Northland railway to northern Ontario. The eastern Arctic area is rich in iron. Hudson bay does provide a two-months longer shipping season. This is a natural route and more is going on than most people are aware of to turn into reality this academic idea of taking the iron in one place and by using a traditional communication route transporting it to another place where the iron and the energy resource can be brought together.
The hon. member for Timiskaming is not here but I should like to remind him that the future of northern Ontario, which for so many years the people there have dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve, is much closer than they realize. Through northern Ontario now passes a pipe line that carries natural gas. This pipe line has in it the energy resource which, when applied to such a commodity as iron, may well mean a revolution in development as far as northern Ontario is concerned.
Without saying any more than what I have just said, I should like to point out that those who make derogatory remarks about this so-called vision are doing a disservice to the people who have pioneered these areas with instinctive faith that something good was going to come from it. I feel not only in my heart but on the basis of the information I have that, having regard to the accessibility of the northern part of Ontario to the resources of iron and other metals of the north and to the industrial area of the south, the future of that area has not yet begun to be appreciated or to show its full potential.
I can only speak in general terms and the record over the years will have to be my witness whether or not I was right, but I do feel that the northern areas of provinces such as Ontario have a great future. I should like to do everything within my power, within the constitutional limits of the department, to help these things along because I think it is for the good of all Canadians.
Some mention has been made of the fact that I used the phrase "national chagrin" 57071-3-225
Supply-Northern Affairs on one occasion. I do not back down from that expression. 1 am ashamed of the fact that through circumstances beyond the power of almost anyone here we have had to share responsibility, in fact, give all responsibility for the defence of our northern area to a friendly power. The things that have happened are no doubt small but employees of the government of Canada and even ministers have to go through a formal procedure of getting permission. When Canadians have to wait several months to get permission to go and do their duty in their own country at the direction of their own minister, I do not apologize to the house or the country for saying that I am ashamed of the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is dealing with a point which is of great interest and I should like to ask him whether it is a fact that Canadian ministers and officials have to wait several months before they can get access to establishments on Canadian soil under the control, by agreement with the Canadian government, of the United States. Is it several months?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Ministers have very little trouble. Formal request is made more or less as a matter of courtesy and it is handled very quickly but nevertheless this procedure still has to be followed. The situation is different in the case of departmental officials wanting to go there in their line of duty. I do not want to embarrass any of my colleagues by referring to a case on record but I do know of one case where the request took so long to approve that the man went somewhere else and got another job and the work has not been done to this day.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry but I have to advise the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the minister unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer all these comments, but I will wind up in this way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the minister go right on and finish.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am more concerned about making the policy statement clear and explaining my own position with regard to the remark I made. As far as I am concerned, I do not blame anyone for

Supply-Northern Affairs this situation. I have made that very clear. But I do repeat that to me it is a matter of chagrin. I have taken up this matter with our United States colleagues and have had a very friendly and favourable response. Usually the United States government is very good once you bring a matter to their attention, but in the efficient and rapid movement of people in developing an area which is completely empty it is so easy to assume something which many people actually believe. The hon. member referred to the Financial Post of August 2, and I would like to refer to an article on page 15 of that paper on the same date which contains a statement, in so far as Washington opinion is concerned, as follows:
An authority on international law says the sector principle doesn't apply to any part ot the open or frozen ocean-only to islands which are inhabited.
So here we have a leading authority in the United States expressing his opinion to the reporter who wrote this story to the effect that the United States does not accept the sector theory or even the ownership of these islands if they are uninhabited. Therefore, it is not too difficult for men who are employed by companies working on installations in our northlands to assume that because there are no Canadians there the lands involved belong to anybody who does happen to be there, and that is why over the years I have advocated that the only way in which we can hold this northern area for the use of our future generations would be by the effective occupation and use of these areas by Canadians.
I have also pledged to the Leader of the Opposition and to this house as a whole that every move we make in the north will be made with due regard to economics and that we would not make any move without due consideration of such economics.
Some sport was also made of Frobisher Bay in the statement that there would be skyscrapers in the north and that this was an exciting proposition. I say in all seriousness that the skyscraper is not the thing. The fact is that the people who are building and co-ordinating this development at Frobisher Bay have been instructed to build accommodation there for the men and women who will be working in the area and this is the most safe and efficient type of accommodation they can build. The engineers assure us that it is cheaper, safer and better to build these houses one above the other. They can make them fireproof and can heat them more cheaply and they concentrate people into a smaller area. The skyscraper is not the thing. The fact is that we are meeting this problem of northern development in a way which will
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
keep down the costs so that private industries can come in and follow the example we have set and can develop and maintain their operations at costs compatible with their operations in other areas.
I do not intend to go into all the statements made about the possibility of developing atomic power plants in that region, but in general I would suggest to the committee that there is enough evidence now before us to show that if we combine the use of small atomic plants for producing light as well as heat we can reduce the costs of both commodities in a northern community. In other words, the tremendous amount of heat available from nuclear power plants reduces the cost of heating the homes, so that we can foresee a cost of living up there not so far above the point where it would be possible for ordinary people to support it.
These ideas must not be allowed to disappear because people scoff at them since they are new. I am prepared and will be prepared when the information is before me in authentic fashion to bring it before the Canadian people and let them judge whether this is a vision or hardheaded economics.
I think I have said enough about the remarks made up to this point, although I hope I have not missed any particular members' requests for information.
I am reminded of one little question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West about the size of the roads to resources program and the amount of money involved. One of the reasons why we set it at $3 million per year per province, of which we would pay half, was that this was the highest amount to which I could get the provinces to agree. British Columbia felt the same way, Saskatchewan felt the same way, as I believe did Ontario and many other provinces, and expressed themselves accordingly. I believe Newfoundland was also in this category, and the $1.5 million was set as the federal contribution, not from any desire on our part to limit the program but because of the ability of the provinces to pay money into areas which had hitherto not been built up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That means that the minister would increase his proportion if the provinces were willing to do so?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have not said that, Mr. Chairman. What I did say was that I had set it at that figure because I knew that was a figure beyond which any province would not go. I certainly cannot speak for the government after it has decided upon this policy, that the maximum I am allowed to put forward is a figure up to $15 million in a five-year period.

I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised the point that this would not be an equitable proposition because some provinces were poorer than others.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might clarify the point in order to save the time of the minister. I suggested that while the minister was not able to make any change, the government might give some consideration to changing the formula from the 50-50 formula to a graduated formula of some kind on the basis of equalization, as was done in connection with hospital insurance and has been done, of course, most spectacularly in the taxsharing arrangements. This is because the 50-50 arrangement is something which is easy for British Columbia and Ontario to meet but which is very difficult for the Atlantic provinces to meet and, I suggest, is also a difficult problem for the minister's own province.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I
answered that question in committee by saying that because there was a limit of $15 million over a five-year period that this put me in something of a strait-jacket with respect to my operations. However, that was the decision at that time and I have stayed with it. I do not think there is any question from what has been said by the members of the house today that by the end of these five years many ideas for new roads will be advanced and the matter should be considered at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister has answered my most important point, which was about electricity.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have the answer before me and can deal with it now. On the question of the power program or power policy for Canada, I think the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bonavista - Twillingate about distribution lines-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, by the premier of Newfoundland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: By the premier of Newfoundland-I keep thinking they are the same person-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. minsiter for flattering me.


An hon. Member:: It is not flattery.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The fact remains that I am guided by an act of parliament which mentions transmission lines and I have stayed by that act. I would like to point out, however, that in a province like Saskatchewan or Newfoundland, and I 57071-3-225i
Supply-Northern Affairs believe also British Columbia and Manitoba, requests have been made to the federal government for assistance in respect of power. This, of course, means that there will eventually have to be worked out a national power policy of some sort. In the case of Saskatchewan the same arguments are advanced as those advanced by Newfoundland, namely scattered population, lack of great wealth, and so on. In the case of British Columbia, development is such a costly thing that probably the province of British Columbia will want our co-operation.
I will suggest to the hon. member in connection with power that there has been considerable evidence on the part of this government that they are moving forward to new positions in connection with this whole matter of power in co-operation with the provinces. The policy laid down in connection with the Atlantic Power Development Act did, at my request, include the words Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It is admitted that at the time the names of those provinces were put in we did not have any idea of requests coming forward, because at that time I was thinking of a regional development concept in the maritime provinces and I wanted the possibility of expanding that program. I have also said in public and in the committee that the province of Quebec must also consider itself as part of the Atlantic region, and I should like to raise with the committee some of the remarks I have made in other places with regard to the Hamilton river.
Hamilton river power is a great asset to the whole eastern part of the North American continent, but at the present time it cannot be used until we have the cooperation of several provinces. I can only say I will do all I can in providing information to those provinces in the hope that they will see that by co-operation not only will they get more power but they will get it cheaper. And that is, I think, the extent of my answer to the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that answers the specific question I addressed to the minister. I am afraid I sent the clippings on to Hansard, but I recollect pretty well that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking on February 19 that this matter would be discussed by the economists of the government and I presume he meant those of the minister's department. I should like to know what progress has been made with regard to this specific proposal by the premier of Newfoundland and with regard to which no reply that I know of has yet been given.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Within the government, there have been discussions on

Supply-Northern Affairs this question of power policy. This is not an easy matter and I cannot tell the committee within a month or even within years when we can come to some definite conclusion. It is a vast subject, and all I can offer in my defence is that we are at least starting on the problem.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I realize that the minister after listening to a good many speeches made on Saturday and today with regard to northern development has answered a good many of these questions and cannot deal with them all in a moment or two. However, I wonder if he would go back to the speech I made on Saturday and to his own speech where he said: I will come back to the actual details of the Garry lake incident in a moment. In the remainder of his speech he did not say anything about the details as he had promised to do and I am wondering if he could now give us some details on the episode at Garry lake last winter, particularly in regard to whether the department was warned of any crisis that might happen; if he could tell us how much food was dropped off on December 15; and the number of times Eskimos were contacted, say, by the northern service officer at Baker Lake, between August 16 of last year and April 4 of this year. I wonder if he could say something in regard to the reports which were made, no doubt, from time to time by his officers in the field to head office regarding this episode. I hope the minister can answer these questions, as he indicated he would.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Two questions were raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie River which I did not answer because he was out of the committee at that time. The first question was the one he directed to the Secretary of State. We are working very hard and we have an eight page, single lined statement which gives the information. I am not going to table it but I will provide it for the hon. member's own personal use. He will find there the most complicated mix-up he has ever seen, but the committee is more and more optimistic that they can get it straightened out and come closer together. Not only are there differences between departments but there are differences within departments, the women differing on the furniture and so on. I hope the hon. member takes this home with him and examines it, and I hope that by the time he comes back we will have had the regulations changed.
With regard to Garry lake, this cache at Garry lake was not in the full sense of the word an official government cache. Due to a certain commercial operation in the area by one of the comnanies there was a surplus of food which they did not want to bring

back to southern Canada and this was turned over to the department. The department then put it in a cache at Garry lake under the supervision of the local mission, and it was kept in this little mission.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: On what date was this cache turned over?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no recollection, and I do not think anybody in the department knows. It was an unofficial act and we have no information at Ottawa as to the amount of food which was in that cache. We would have to go back and contact the company and ask them how much they gave us.
Since it is not the policy of the department to leave unsupervised caches, this cache was under the control of the local missionary, who does not spend all his time in that mission, and for a period of time the Eskimos moved in, at the time they were hungry, and took what they wanted. As members of the committee know, there was a fire due to the upsetting of a gasoline stove, and the mission and the stores were destroyed.
This brings up the question of the patrols. We have one northern service officer in this whole district, and he operates out of Baker Lake. When the weather is reasonable he moves around as well as he can using his own plane for which we provide gas and oil. He tries to make these calls, but there was a period when he did not visit Garry lake and when the missionary was not around- the missionary also informs us of cases of need-and during this period the fire took place and starvation occurred. I gave on Saturday a list of six things which we are doing to try to stop this type of thing ever happening again, but I said quite honestly I did not think I could give any full-out guarantee.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: That does not answer the question. The question I asked was how much food was left at Garry lake or Pelley lake on September 18, the last time the Eskimos were contacted, until March 22. My original question was this: was the department warned that conditions at Garry lake were such that we might expect to encounter such a situation as they did in fact encounter a few months ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have already explained to the committee that we have no information concerning the amount of food put into the cache. Since the hon. member asked the question, of course, we have inquired through the local officers up there.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Did the department receive no
warning that this might happen?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to the second question is that we received no warning. On the contrary, the last word we had from the mounted police patrol-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: No, no. They are not responsible.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They share with us the responsibility of patrolling and letting us know what is going on in the north. There is at the present time and there will be from now on a group of eight co-ordinating their patrols with our patrols. But this is a vast area and one northern service officer cannot patrol it every week.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Since bringing this matter to the attention of the house I have directed questions to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice concerning what reports were made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stationed at Baker Lake to the office here. I inquired of the Minister of Justice if he had received reports from the Royal Canadian Air Force at Baker Lake or Churchill. I know the R.C.A.F. flew into the area on March 22 and took in a certain amount of food at the request of the R.C.M.P. at Baker Lake. However, I have received no direct answer either from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Justice.
Not long ago when five officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police drowned in lake Ontario an hon. member of this house asked the Minister of Justice if he would make a report concerning this tragic accident. The minister made a detailed statement in this house concerning the five deaths. I have directed questions to three ministers of the government concerning the deaths of 14 Eskimos at Garry lake and no answer has been forthcoming. I received no report from the Minister of Justice and now no answer is being given me by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
I am sure the minister or his department must have been advised from the field. The minister said a moment ago that a northern service officer is stationed at Baker Lake. I agree that he has a large area to cover but as the minister pointed out he has his own aircraft in which to cover it. Something must be very remiss in the administration of this department when an employee of it can sit at Baker Lake and not make a single report concerning what he has done with respect to this incident between the period December 10 or 15 and April 24. I
Supply-Northern Affairs am sure that on reflection the minister will advise the committee that he has received a report from Baker Lake.
The minister says he does not know how much food was sent to Garry lake. Let me review the information I have. On August 3 the officials of the department were warned of the severe scarcity of caribou in the Garry lake and Pelly lake areas. On August 16 an aircraft flew out of Garry lake with provisions and food. 1 do not now recall whether it was an R.C.M.P. or R.C.A.F. aircraft nor do I recall if it carried just the normal family allowance that was given to these people but hon. members can just imagine about how much that would buy at Baker Lake where prices are so high. In any event the food was flown in and dropped off on the trail at a point between Garry lake and Pelly lake. The Eskimos were not contacted and did not know the food was there. It is to be hoped they found it and that it was not consumed by wolves.
On December 10 the missionary whom the minister said was responsible for the cache at Garry lake went into Baker Lake and reported the same condition. He explained that the people were destitute. On December 15, five days later, the R.C.M.P. aircraft flew provisions out to Garry lake. I do not know whether that aircraft was an Otter or Beaver but there was some criticism to the effect that five people had gone along on the trip when possibly an additional 1,000 pounds of food could have been taken. In any event I do know the legal load for an Otter aircraft. If it was an Otter and there were five people and their baggage on the trip, the most that could have been taken in the way of food was 1,000 pounds.
The Winnipeg Free Press carried a series of articles concerning this tragic incident. In one article it states that there were 100 people in the immediate area of Pelly lake and Garry lake. This sounds to me like a round figure the newspaperman may have used but in a later article the Winnipeg Free Press points out that 50 persons who had survived death by starvation and the bodies of 14 others who had died were removed from the area. For the sake of this context, let us use the figure 64. We will not use the figure 100. Apparently 64 people were expected to live on 1,000 pounds of food from December 15 until March 22. Do hon. members know what that would amount to each day? It would mean about 1.6 ounces of food for each person per day.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the hon. member at this point? The hon. member is saying something which is absolutely contrary to what has

Supply-Northern Affairs been happening and what is now happening. I have made it clear that the policy of the department is not to set up caches of food to feed every single soul in the Northwest Territories. We do not set up any unsupervised caches.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member appears to be aware of this fact and yet he is suggesting today that 64 people were expected to live for several months on
1,000	pounds of food. He appears to suggest that this is as a result of the policy of this government. He is completely erroneous in that regard. His statement appears to be diabolically designed to create the impression that this department has no heart in its dealings with the people who come under its jurisdiction and is not considering the welfare of those people at all. I feel I should say a few words at this time-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Just a minute. I had the floor. You interrupted me. If you want to make a speech you can do it after I am through.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member should not be permitted to create erroneous impressions.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: 
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What do the Eskimos do for a living?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: They have not anything to do for a living. I have told this government and I have told the previous government that they must have an opportunity to make a living, and in this particular area, as far as their living is concerned, they have to get caribou or they do not live, and there were no caribou. The department was advised of this. Not only was the department advised but every time you picked up a paper over the last three years you saw that the department came out with a statement that the caribou were not increasing; they were decreasing; serious things were happening. The poor Eskimo is going to be without food. What is being done? That is the point. My point is not that the caribou have disappeared.


Mr. Walker:: What is your point?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will tell you. Well, we have the gestapo of the printing bureau, this man who is a lawyer, asking me what is my point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Give us your ideas; never mind the guff. Tell us what you are going to do.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will tell you.


An hon. Member:: You have never told us a thing.


The Chairman:: Order. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to affairs concerning the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and to kindly explain to us the relationship between his remarks and this particular department.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, as far as the relationship of what I am saying to this particular department is concerned, I can quote from what the minister said in the estimates committee when he said that if one Eskimo is in difficulty in the Northwest Territories the responsibility is right here in Ottawa. As far as the interjections that are taking place are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We want to know what you propose.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If these little seals in training want to flap their flippers every time-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Never mind the smokescreen; give us what you propose.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I gave you what I proposed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One point.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I asked the minister a number of questions. I asked for answers; I have received no answers.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What do you propose to do about this whole thing?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I told you on Saturday and you told me on Saturday that you agree with me and that you were trying to do something about it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You be careful,-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You had better be careful, my friend.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -or you will be quoted. I asked questions. I asked you a moment ago whether people in your employ do not make reports within six months.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must remind hon. members that they must address the Chair and not carry on discussion among themselves.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, I will ask you this. Will you ask the minister whether he will answer the number of questions I have asked? Will he do what he said he would do last Saturday when he said, "I will come back to the actual details of Garry lake in a moment." Will you ask the minister to give us the details of what happened since last December 10 or December 15 until March 22 or April 24, of this year, at Garry lake? Will you please ask the minister whether he will answer that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you for the floor. Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Mackenzie River has done the cause of the Eskimo of northern Canada no good by going through this heart-rending description, the ethics of which are very doubtful, by reading into the record parts of an autopsy, as he did last Saturday.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What was wrong with that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I agree with him in so far as the fact that the caribou shortage has been growing in the last two or three years is concerned. I have read to the committee what we are doing. I think the general feeling in the committee was that there was a determination to grapple with this problem.
The hon. member knows full well that the area about which he is talking is hundreds of thousands of square miles in extent. He wants me to take a single information service officer and ask him to give reports of every 10 minutes of his day.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You ask every other employee to do it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The officer gives reports, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must inform the hon. member for Mackenzie River that the minister has the floor.


William Arnold Peters: Will you call it six o'clock.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not for half a minute; I have a couple of things to say. This whole matter was dealt with in the committee on Saturday in an attitude that was above reproach, and because the hon. member made his statement. I accepted in full the responsibility. I laid down what we are trying to do. Then, he asks me the impossible by saying that I have not informed the house of the details of this thing. I have given every bit of information I have on the cache. I do not know how much food was in the caches for Eskimos. They are hunters and fishermen, and when we do try to help them we do it by those patrols and reports from those people. Naturally, when we hear a report we go to help, for they are very independent. They want to move around and carry on their traditional methods of living. We try to help them in every way we can to do that. Where they cannot make a living we are moving now to bring them into areas and do the very thing which I thought the hon. member was going to say he suggested.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I say we
approve of that and now the hon. member is attacking me on the basis of not doing anything about something about which I did not know anything.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: At six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, we were discussing a problem which I brought before the house on Saturday and to which, so far as I am concerned at least, I have received no answers. I have received generalizations, yes, but no answers.
I shall now leave this subject until possibly the officials of the Arctic division are before the minister and can advise him on what did happen, not only at Garry lake but at Pelly lake during this winter. I should like to say at this time that I was a member of the committee on mines, forests and waters

Supply-Northern Affairs which considered the estimates of the Department of Northern Aifairs and National Resources. Then, on July 7 the minister spoke in this house about northern development. He attempted to leave the impression that the former government, and the former minister, had done nothing with regard to the development of the Northwest Territories. As I say, he tried to leave the impression nothing was done until he took over the department or the present government took office last June 23.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I was going to do this a little later, but since the hon. member says "hear, hear",.-no, I do not think I will quote from this pamphlet at the present time. However, I will say to the hon. member that the establishment of the Department of Northern Aifairs and National Resources as approved by parliament in 1953, November, I think it was, under the new minister, the Hon. Jean Lesage, did a great deal about northern development. We heard the present minister quote figures on July 7 when he was trying to leave the impression that the former government did nothing. I should like to quote to him, just to put the record straight, figures illustrating what the former government did from the time the new department of northern affairs was set up in 1953 until the time the former government left office last June.
In 1954-55, the first year after this department was set up, the departmental expenditures were $22,812,189. In 1955-56-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must remind the hon. member that resolution No. 266 covers the departmental administration for the year ending March 31, 1959. What was spent during the previous years is, of course, in the record, but it is quite out of order to quote those figures at this time. I must, therefore, respectfully ask the hon. member for Mackenzie River to please concentrate his remarks on the resolution being discussed now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this point, surely the chairman must recall that before six o'clock hon. members, as was their right, on the other side and particularly the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, discussed what the previous government had done or had not done and then used some interesting adjectives in referring to our lack of action in previous years. These questions have been regularly discussed on the first item of the estimates. Surely, my hon. friend is not going to be prevented from putting on the record, during the discussion of this first 
item covering administration where discussion is to be general, the facts in reply to the statements that have been made that the previous government had done nothing about northern development in recent years. Surely, under the rules he is permitted to do that.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I feel that all hon. members in the house-


David James Walker: You speak for yourself, and not for us.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Oh, here is this legal brain from Toronto speaking. I am not a lawyer, but if you will just take your seat until I am through speaking, then you can speak. I have the floor at the moment. You may be able to bulldoze other people, but you will never bulldoze me.


David James Walker: My friend, if you would-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, who has the
floor?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. In answer to the point of order-was it brought up on a point of order?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was, with respect, commenting on the ruling that you made to the effect that the hon. member could not talk about the record of the government in previous years in northern development.


Mr. Nielsen:: There is nothing much to talk about.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There must be or you would let him talk.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is quite in order to voice one's opinion about what went on in previous years, but it is out of order to actually quote figures and give very precise details about things which happened previously and which actually are all in the record. It could be explained that previous governments did much more about northern affairs than is being claimed, but it is not really admissible at this time to cite figures.
The hon. member for Mackenzie River has the floor, and it would be appreciated by the chair if hon. members permitted him to carry on with his remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Mackenzie River would permit me to interrupt for a moment, I might say that I appeared before the committee of supply in four successive years, and in every case when I appeared-that was before Your Honour was in the house-it was the custom to compare the estimates of one year with those of

another year. It would be very difficult to do that without citing figures. It seems to me all my hon. friend from Mackenzie River is seeking to do is to make a comparison between what happened in one year and what happened in another year. Here is the executive asking the legislative body, to whom they are responsible, to vote a certain sum of money. Surely, sir, if he cannot compare the amount for which they are asking, and what they are doing with it, with what was done in previous years, there is almost nothing left for us to discuss.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not an
authority on the rules of the house, but I would suggest that in this case it would be quite proper and in order to allow the hon. member to compare these figures. In my opinion, on the opening of my estimates almost anything that has been done in the past can be compared with what we are doing now. I wonder if Your Honour would reconsider your decision?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is quite all right to discuss what was done by the previous government. Actually, what it comes to is that figures can be cited within reason, but one should not concentrate one's remarks on the record of the previous government because that is not relevant to the resolution being discussed. I, therefore, suggest that the hon. member for Mackenzie River try to relate his remarks as much as possible to the resolution being discussed. In other words, I am asking the hon. member to be as relevant as possible to the resolution.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be as relevant as possible. If you look at the book of estimates you will find that there is one column for 1958-59 and another column showing the estimates for 1957-58. I shall be very brief and will go on with what I was saying a moment ago. After the department was set up I find that in 1954-55 the estimates of the department amounted to $22,812,189. In 1955-56 they amounted to $28,541,754, or an increase of 30 per cent over the previous year. In 1956-57 the estimates of the department amounted to $38,033,363, showing a further increase over the previous year of 33 per cent. In 1957-58 the figure was $53,405,298 or an increase over the previous year of 39 per cent. The estimates for this year amount to $71,170,284 which is an increase over last year of 34 per cent. If you take the figures for the four years when the department was under the former minister you will find that the average increase per year starting in 1954-55 was 34
Supply-Northern Affairs per cent, and the increase this year over last year is 34 per cent. Therefore the increase is a normal increase.
The former minister must have done something over the years because if you take the estimates of 1954-55 and compare them with those of 1957-58 you find an over-all increase of 230 per cent. These people say that nothing was done with respect to northern development prior to the time they took office. We heard in the committee and again in the house on July 7 a great deal about the necessity of having an inventory of our resources. The minister said we had to have an inventory of our resources. After attending the committee hearings and after listening to the minister on July 7 I still do not know how he intends to get an inventory of our resources.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: You
had better smarten up.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will tell you one thing. The minister said something today about doubting my ethics in quoting from an autopsy report which was part of the evidence produced at an inquest at Garry lake, but I will say this to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. I did not stoop as low as he has. I telephoned the minister and asked if I could do it. I did not do like the minister did in 1954 when he stoolpigeoned the Post Office Department, when he received a report from the postmaster general-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must ask hon. members to my right to permit the hon. member for Mackenzie River to carry on with his remarks. If they wish to ask his permission to ask questions they can do so but they cannot interrupt him in the manner they have been doing. I must also remind the hon. member for Mackenzie River that in one aspect in particular his remarks were not parliamentary and I would ask him to use more moderate language.


David James Walker: He does not know any better.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He is no different from you.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will try to do that since you have also spoken to the members across the way. As I said, the minister said that it was very necessary to have an inventory of our mineral resources in Canada but I do not know yet how he is going to get that inventory. I pointed out to the house on July 7 that you do not get an inventory of mineral resources by drawing lines on a map and saying that you are going to build roads from here to here not knowing what potential the area has in which you are going to build the roads. I pointed out at that time

Supply-Northern Affairs that if the minister is so anxious to get an inventory of these resources what is needed is an acceleration of geological, magnetometer and electromagnetic surveys to find out the areas where there is a potential and give the information to private industry so that they can go there and drill the holes that will give you an inventory. You do not get an inventory by looking at a map and drawing a lot of coloured lines on it. You do not know how much ore is in the ground until you drill and block out the bodies.
The minister said that we did nothing prior to his taking over the department. I want to call as my witness with respect to what the former government did the same hon. gentleman, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I have here a booklet entitled "This is the Arctic" issued under the authority of the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The present minister, speaking about what has been done over the years, had this to say as found on page 24:
Since the second world war, government activities have increased enormously in the tar north. New schools, new airfields, entire new town sites are being developed. Geological, topographical, and aerial surveys have been or are being completed. Large areas have been accurately mapped for the first time. In summer, ships plow through the ice floes bringing supplies to distant weather stations and medical attention to isolated Eskimo groups. In all seasons, aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force criss-cross the barrens and the bush, the lakes and the frozen seas.
This is what the present minister says has gone on since the second world war. He says it in an official booklet published last year.


An hon. Member:: Where was it printed?
Mr. Hardier The Queen's Printer. Let us take a look at this statement of the minister. New airfields were constructed before he took over the department recently, airfields which naturally were built by the former government to make it possible for the air line companies to reduce their freight rates and to reduce the cost of living and the cost of production in that part of the country.


An hon. Member:: Who got the contract?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Private enterprise. I will go further. There was not only a reduction in the cost of production but the cost of drilling and exploration necessary to find out where our minerals are located and to do the job the minister wants to do, to give us an inventory of our resources and to find out the extent of our ore beds.
The minister says in his statement "Geological, topographical and aerial surveys have been and are being completed; large areas have been accurately mapped for the first time." I ask this house, are these not methods

by which we find the areas where minerals are located? In fact we must indicate to private enterprise where they should look for these minerals. The statement also goes on to say that the former minister built new schools and new townsites. This clearly indicates that the Liberal government saw the need not only of material development but also of social development, a policy which I think all members of this house will agree was a sound and practical policy.
We also find that some ships ply through the Arctic ice floes and that the Department of National Health and Welfare has done a great deal in regard to the health of our Eskimos and, I might say, in regard to the health of the Indians and the white people by providing grants with which to build hospitals, nursing stations in many areas of the Northwest Territories. I hope the minister can persuade his cabinet colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to extend those services to those areas where they still do not exist and where we feel they should be provided. Nurses and doctors are located in various areas at this time, but I hope the minister will talk over this matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare with a view to providing an extension of all such services.
The hon. members of this house can readily see that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he puts out an official document printed by the queen's printer, like this one, he tells the truth, but when he barks in committee and in this house in the manner of a bull seal for the benefit of the 200-odd little seals in training that I see on the other side of the house and over here to my left he says things which will make the little seals flip their flappers, or flap their flippers.
We have heard a great deal about the railroad. In the speech from the throne we were told that a railroad was going to be built in the Northwest Territories and the hon. minister told this house-well, I will give it to you later, because I cannot find it at present, but since we have another hour and a half I will find it. We have, however, heard the government indicate to the people of Canada and particularly to the people of Peace river, northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories, that this government was going to bring in a bill to build a railroad this year. What do we now find? We are not to get any bill, so the Prime Minister says. The minister told the Leader of the Opposition on July 7 that the former government had done nothing about this railroad, but I want to tell him that the

officials in his department prepared and submitted to the Gordon commission in November, 1955, I think it was-or 1957, I am not sure of the date-


An hon. Member:: You are all mixed up.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I cannot carry all this in my mind-


Erik Nielsen: It is a wonder you have been able to carry the little that you have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If all I had to carry in my mind were some of the silly interjections made from across there, that would be a simple proposition. In any event, the minister on July 7 told the Leader of the Opposition that if the former government had been in power he doubted if there ever would have been a railroad. I want to put the record straight. In September of 1957 the former government asked the Canadian National Railways to do an economic and route survey of a railroad from Alberta to the south shore of Great Slave lake. The report on that survey has never been tabled in this house, although I have been asking for it ever since November last.
This government received the report on that survey, not the former government. This government is the government which could have acted on its recommendation. What have they done? They have withdrawn all chance of building a railroad this year; they have withdrawn the promise they gave to the people of Canada in the speech from the throne and in particular the promise they gave to the people of the Northwest Territories; they have withdrawn all those things and today we have no bill for a railroad.
I suggest to the minister, and I am sure the hon. member for Peace River would agree with this, that if the minister cannot convince his cabinet colleagues that a bill should be introduced this session to build 400 miles of railroad from wherever it might be, Waterways or Grimshaw, then he should ask his colleagues and the railroad companies to assist him to introduce a bill this session to start construction of a railroad from Grimshaw, Alberta to	Fort Vermilion,
Alberta, an area which is already settled and which is composed of agricultural land.
The hon. member for Peace River can and has told this house the great benefits offered by that area, so let us bring in a bill this session to this end and then, during the following session, bring in a bill to extend that measure into the timber rich areas of the Wood Buffalo park or Fort Smith area and then, and if the Consolidated
Supply-Northern Affairs Mining and Smelting Company, which controls the biggest lead and zinc deposit in North America and possibly in the world, will give assurance to the government that they will open up their property when the road is complete we could take off a branch line from Fort Vermilion and run it north to Pine Point and terminate it up at Hay River where we have an open port and where we can transship the freight carried into Hay River down the Mackenzie river and along the Arctic coast or across to Great Slave lake into Yellowknife and into the mining country.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Before recess the hon. member for Mackenzie River was asking about the report and I collected this information in the meantime. The northern service officers send monthly reports to the department in Ottawa, which are supplemented by interim reports at all times. There is no report from this particular northern service officer for the month of February, as he was absent on duty in Eskimo Point. There is however a report from this officer on file and in a moment I am going to ask the permission of the committee to read this report into the record, and then ask to table it tomorrow because it is the only copy we have. If the committee will accept this I think it will give as full information as we have in the department.
As to the cache which has been talked about it was located at Pelly lake near an abandoned air strip and an abandoned house. It was left there by Spartan Airways. The contents were some food left over after a Spartan Airways construction job and was left as a gift to the local Eskimos under our supervision.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister could tell the committee on what date that cache was left?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the report will mention the date, within a day or so. In addition, we took in from the department 2,400 pounds in two trips and this, too, will show up in the report. There was an Eskimo placed in charge with explicit instructions as to what he should do with this food.
I should like to read this report into the record now, and, since it is the only copy, I should like to have permission to table it tomorrow.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I believe the hon. gentleman could actually read the report into the record. That would be sufficient. And if the Minister of Northern Affairs wishes to table the report tomorrow he can, of course,
3552	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs do so, but I remind the committee that the report should be tabled when the Speaker is in the chair.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will read this report subject to the proviso that this is a privileged document, and it does not set a precedent for tabling a privileged document in future. But I understand it is the privilege of a minister to bring such a document into committee and read it if he so wishes.
The memorandum is dated Baker Lake, April 26, 1958, and it is addressed to the chief, arctic division.
Garry Lake Eskimos
On April 24 I sent the following mesage to your office:
Visited Garry and Pelly with Corporal Wilson April 24. Eskimos interviewed report food shortage throughout area all people one camp plus three others died starvation after building at Pelly containing relief supplies burned down February. R.C.M.P. Otter flying food supplies Pelly April 25 will accompany in my plane full report on return.
Since this message was sent the R.C.M.P. Otter has come from Churchill to Baker Lake. On April 25 it made an attempt to fly to Garry and Pelly lake but was forced to turn back because of poor visibility. As this memorandum is being written the plane is making a second attempt and probably will reach Pelly lake although flying conditions are far from ideal. The R.C.M.P. plane is taking in relief food supplies to be left at Pelly lake and, if possible, it will make a search of the area for Eskimo camps. Due to poor visibility on April 25 and high winds on April 25 I have been unable to leave Baker Lake in my plane. Corporal Wilson is with the R.C.A.F. plane. I have remained at Baker Lake in order to allow the R.C.M.P. aircraft to take my equivalent weight in aviation gas for my plane to Pelly lake. This will enable me to fly to Garry and Pelly and give me ample gas in that area if it becomes necessary to use my plane to search for camps. I expect the R.C.M.P. plane will return to Baker Lake this afternoon and take off for Churchill, I will send this preliminary report on the plane.
On February 20, in a memorandum to your office (File 205-4/159) I outlined the position of the Garry lake group of Eskimos as it was known to us at that time. Subsequent to this memorandum I discussed the situation of the group with Mr. Rudnicki and Mr. Stevenson while in Churchill at the end of February. So far as I can ascertain at this time the evaluation of the situation at Garry as outlined in my memorandum and in the conversations at Churchill was correct except for one unknown, and very important, fact. At the time I wrote the memorandum I did not know that the building at Pelly lake containing all the relief supplies as well as the trade goods for the Eskimo (which had been taken to Pelly lake by Corporal Wilson) had been burned to the ground early in February with the loss of everything inside. The loss of these goods changed what would have been a 'hard' winter into one of tragedy. The following is a chronological arrangement of events relating to the Garry lake group starting from the summer of 1957:
In midsummer, 1957, the northern service officer at Baker Lake received a wireless message from the Roman Catholic priest at Garry lake to the effect that the group of Eskimos in that area were in danger of starvation. Upon investigation by the
[The Chairman.]

Baker Lake R.C.M.P. detachment O.C. this report proved to be without foundation. The Eskimos were concentrated on one small island by the Roman Catholic mission and were unable to exist as a large group at that point. Immediate dispersal of the Eskimos into small groups on the land throughout the Garry lake area brought food in plenty to all camps. The R.C.M.P. N.C.O. arranged to fly in to Garry lake a large quantity of family allowance food and relief food supplies to be stored in the area in case of emergency. (At this time the northern service officer Baker Lake had departed for posting at Churchill). In mid August the R.C.M.P. N.C.O. Baker Lake spent a week at Garry lake visiting all the Eskimos at their camps. Caribou were being taken in small numbers and fishing was adequate. With Spartan Airways personnel at the Pelly lake airstrip he arranged for the use of an unheated building as a warehouse for the food supplies brought in by plane. The local Eskimos were instructed to use the relief supplies in the building in case of emergency. Under the direction of the Roman Catholic priest at Garry lake, one of the Garry lake Eskimos, Man-eeralik Wl-207 who had recently returned from hospital in southern Canada, was asked to supervise the distribution of the food supplies as required. The R.C.M.P. N.C.O. encourage the Eskimos to set traps during the coming winter and to bring the furs to Maneeralik who would issue goods to them in return. Arrangements would be made to transport trade goods from Baker Lake to Pelly lake in the R.C.M.P. plane. The R.C.M.P. N.C.O. also urged the people to put up good caches of fish before freeze up. Early in December the Roman Catholic priest from Garry lake, with the Eskimo Maneeralik, came to Baker Lake by sled. He reported to the R.C.M.P. N.C.O. (the northern service officer was in Ottawa) that food was in short supply throughout the Garry lake area. Few caribou had been seen and the people were existing on fish. The R.C.M.P. N.C.O. requested that the R.C.M.P. Otter come to Baker Lake in order to fly in additional food supplies to Garry lake. These supplies would be in the form of family allowance goods and trade goods. Maneeralik had reported that the Eskimos had a number of fox and wolf skins with which to trade for food and other supplies. These skins had been left in the building at the Pelly lake airstrip. (The airstrip is ten miles from the Roman Catholic mission at Garry lake) Maneeralik had kept records of the numbers of foxes brought to Pelly lake by the Eskimos and of the goods he had issued to them in return from the supplies on hand. The R.C.M.P. Otter came to Baker Lake and took the additional supplies to Pelly lake. I arrived back in Baker Lake just in time to accompany this flight. I reported on this trip to the effect that the additional supplies had been taken to Pelly lake and stored in the building. I also reported that a good portion of the goods and food taken in last fall was still in the building which indicated that no serious food problems existed at that time. The Baker Lake R.C.M.P. N.C.O. planned to make a dog sled patrol to Garry and Pelly lake in late February. I reported on this in my memo of February 20. At the time I was dubious that this patrol would actually take place and discussed this matter with Messrs. Rudnicki and Stevenson in Churchill. As a result of these discussions I sent a wire to the Baker Lake R.C.M.P. N.C.O. suggesting that, if he was unable to make this patrol Messrs. Stevenson and Rudnicki could come to Baker Lake from Eskimo Point in the R.C.M.P. Otter and then fly in to Garry lake in order to ascertain conditions. Following my

departure from Churchill for Ottawa Mr. Stevenson received a wire from Corporal Wilson to the effect that the patrol to Garry lake would take place.
The patrol to Garry lake did not take place. The Eskimo guide from Garry lake, who was to have come to Baker Lake in February, did not show up. I do not know what happened to the plan to hire a Baker Lake Eskimo as a guide. In midMarch Corporal in charge Baker Lake R.C.M.P. detachment requested that a flight be made to Garry lake with additional food supplies for the Eskimos. This flight was made during the third week in March, shortly before the northern service officer arrived back at Baker Lake with his personal plane. The R.C.A.F. Otter aircraft made the flight to Garry and Pelly lake with the R.C.M.P. N.C.O. Baker Lake and an aircraft load of food supplies. At Pelly lake it was discovered that the building containing the food and other supplies had been burned down. Nothing remained of the building except the banked up snow walls which were completely drifted in with snow. There was no sign of any Eskimos in the vicinity of the airstrip. The food supplies from the plane were deposited on the airstrip and the plane returned to Baker Lake. It was experiencing some engine trouble and it returned to Churchill the next day.
The northern service officer returned to Baker Lake on March 23. He discussed the matter of the Garry lake group with the N.C.O. R.C.M.P. and it was decided that, after a few days flight practice at Baker Lake, he and the R.C.M.P. N.C.O. should make a trip to Garry lake to visit all the camps in the area. The R.C.M.P. N.C.O. expressed the opinion that the Garry lake Eskimos were not living well but were getting by on fish. Bad flying weather in early April kept flight practice to a minimum and prevented any trips away from Baker Lake. On April 11 the northern service officer received word to proceed to Rankin Inlet to attend the trial of Kikkik. The trip to Garry lake was postponed until his return from Rankin Inlet.
The northern service officer returned to Baker Lake from Rankin Inlet on April 17. Bad flying weather on the 18th and 19th prevented any flight to Garry lake. On April 20. he, and the R.C.M.P. N.C.O. flying in the N.S.O. personal plane, managed to get within ten miles of Garry lake before being forced to return to Baker by extremely bad weather. Bad weather kept the plane grounded on April 21, 22, 23. On April 24 the N.S.O. and N.C.O. R.C.M.P. managed to fly to Garry lake and Pelly lake without trouble. The plane circled the R.C. mission at Garry lake but as no sign of life was seen at that point it proceeded to the airstrip at Pelly lake. Because of bad drifts on the airstrip and the fact that a 20-mile an hour cross wind was blowing directly across the strip, the plane had to land on a small lake about two miles from the strip. From the air Eskimos could be observed near the buildings at the strip.
At Pelly lake airstrip were six Eskimos: E2-304 Teenak and his family of four, and Kukshow E2-302. Teenak and his family had been living in one of the Sparton buildings at the airstrip for almost a month. They were quite well off for the building was being heated by two oil space heaters and was equipped with beds. They were living on fish and the food supplies taken in on the R.C.A.F. Otter. Kukshow had just arrived at Pelly lake from his camp the day before we arrived. He was quite hungry. He had left his family at the camp, where they were living on fish plus a portion of the food supplies brought in by the R.C.A.F. Otter late in March, and had come to the airstrip for more supplies. From these men we obtained the story of events at Garry and Pelly lake during January, February and March. This story is not substantiated as yet and details may change slightly but it seems to be correct in most respects.
Supply-Northern Affairs
The Garry lake Eskimos got almost no caribou during the winter of 1957-58. They existed on fish and the food supplies brought in last fall. Until December they did not do too badly. They all had dogs, they were trapping and trading the furs for goods at Pelly lake. During January the fishing declined and they became more dependent on the food stored at Pelly lake, although they were still getting some fish. In late January or early February two Eskimos, Arnaguak E2-356 and Akeekunga E2-328 came to Pelly lake from their camps in order to get food from the supplies in the Sparton building. At Pelly lake they decided to stay in the building. We do not know how long they stayed but at some time during their stay, Arnaguak lit a Primus stove and it exploded, spreading flame throughout the interior of the building. Akeekunga was asleep at the time but both men managed to get out of the building. It appears that Akeekunga had his clothes on but Arnaguak had only trousers and underclothes. Akeekunga managed to make his way back to his camp, how we do not know. At his camp the people were depending on him to bring food from Pelly but, of course, he brought none. This entire camp of eight people died of starvation and exposure at some time in the next few weeks. After the explosion and fire Arnaguak, who was without adequate clothes, crawled into a small building on the airstrip and burrowed down into a pile of mattresses in the building. He never came out and his body is still there. His is the only body we have seen to date. As nearly as we can gather almost two-thirds of the food supplies taken to Garry lake and stored in the building at Pelly lake were lost in the fire. This completely destroyed the safety factor in the local food supply.
From Teenak and Kukshow we obtained a list of the people known to have died during the winter. A copy of this list is attached. As yet we have been unable to verify the deaths of any of these people except Arnaguak E2-356 whose body is in the building of the airstrip. A total of sixteen people died, twelve of these almost certainly as a result of food shortage, the remainder of other or related causes. We decided to return to Baker Lake and request an aircraft from Churchill to carry food supplies to Garry and Pelly lake and to search for all camps so as to ascertain that all remaining Eskimos were well. My plane had insufficient gas for searching in the area as we had been fighting strong head winds all the way up from Baker Lake. The aviation gas at Pelly lake is too high an octane rating for the plane. We arrived back at Baker Lake at 3 p.m. April 24 and sent messages to Ottawa and Churchill.
The plan for the immediate future is to make sure all Eskimos at Garry lake have sufficient food to last until fishing and hunting improves which it usually does in mid May. Once this is done we will evaluate the position of the group and submit recommendations. I will assist in the search for camps by using my plane so long as weather permits but the main work will be done by either the R.C.M.P. Otter or the R.C.A.F. Otter until all camps have been located. This should not be a difficult task as all camps are within fifty miles of Pelly lake.
It would be unreasonable to suppose that hon. members of the committee could have grapsed the full significance of this lengthy report in all its detail from one reading of it but what it boils down to is this. The department followed every bit of advice and practical policy it could adopt under the circumstances. As far as it was concerned it had provided this food cache as a safety factor. The Eskimos were not abusing it but came from their camps to get food only when

Supply-Northern Affairs they felt they did not have sufficient fish. The tragedy of the food cache burning down destroyed the safety factor as the report pointed out and in effect its loss was the main contributory cause of the death of these 16 Eskimos.
I should like to point out something which I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie River must know concerning the customs of these people. These people in the Keewatin district are caribou hunters. Their whole life is associated with the caribou. The northern service officers have been attempting to have them diversify and widen their efforts and rely more on fish. Stories are told in the department about officials having gone among the Eskimos with fishing equipment such as nets. After teaching the Eskimos how to use them the Eskimos used the nets as long as officials of the department were with them. But the instinct of these people is not to sit beside a hole in the ice. Their instinct is to go out and hunt caribou. They usually range between 200 and 300 miles from their bases when hunting. It would be almost impossible for any group to keep in touch with them.
In recent years because of the activity of this and other departments of government and construction groups in the area, all of whom have been very good about supplying food to the Eskimos, the Eskimos have come more and more to rely on the free food that is provided. That is the reason why they have limited their activities to within 40 or 50 miles of a camp. And, of course, this very thing destroys their ability to find food.
No one here would want to make this into a partisan issue between parties or groups because, as I think the record will show, in the last number of years the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been moving as rapidly as the members of this house would vote them supply to get certain things done. I could quote the figures on what has been happening over the years, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Mackenzie River that I have never taken credit away from anyone who did anything; I have never tried to pretend that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources did nothing before I became the minister. These are assumptions made mostly by those with guilty consciences.
I am going to ask the hon. member, when he attacks this department for doing nothing, who is he really attacking? He is really attacking the previous incumbent of this office because the caribou decline was first reported as a result of a survey by the wild life service of the department in 1952-53; but no one credited the report at the time. This
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

report was further checked in 1954 and 1955. Let me remind the hon. member that in 1954 there was not one single northern service officer any place in the area. In 1955, after this report had been made in 1952, 1953, there was not one single northern service officer in the whole district of Keewatin, but there was one in Churchill. In 1956, which is four years after this report, there was one northern service officer in Churchill, one in Baker Lake, plus eight R.C.M.P. officers in all of Keewatin. This was three years after the caribou decline was thoroughly established. I ask the hon. member, in all fairness, who was in power then?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: And I ask the minister how many caribou more northern service officers are going to bring back?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the depth of the hon. member's wisdom in this case is well demonstrated. The northern service officers do not bring back caribou but what they are there for is to try to look after the Eskimo, to help them adapt to the new conditions. All I am saying here is that I am not going to be a party to making a political issue out of the unfortunate things that have happened to those Eskimo.
I think that what the hon. member did on Saturday was sufficient to bring them to the attention of the country, as they have been brought to the attention of the country by our deparment over the last few years. The department has done everything that it can think of. I asked the hon. member before recess what he suggested. One suggestion he made on Saturday we agreed with, namely that we should have to begin moving them into those settlements, and we are starting that. He said nothing beyond that. The assumption that was made-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Provide them with an opportunity to work.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is it.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: To make a living.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is it,
but we are trying to move them in the only way we can do that. But beyond that, all this business that was brought to light here this afternoon and the inferences that were made were that we deliberately just took a thousand pounds of food and made those people exist on one ounce and something a day; that statement was absolutely unfair to the men out in the field and to the men here in Ottawa in this department.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: It was nothing of the sort.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sure that
if the previous incumbent of this position

were here he would say the same thing. I do not know what the hon. member has against Mr. Jean Lesage; I do not know why he has such burning hatred of him that he would destroy him as he has done here tonight.
Remember this, Mr. Chairman. Every bit of money that was used in this program that we are talking about and that the hon. member is complaining about that was put in the estimates in 1957-58 was put there by the previous administration. The manpower that I have to use was put there by the previous administration and the organization was put there by the previous administration. I do not believe that this tragedy can be blamed on anyone. I believe the circumstances are so difficult in this area that they are almost impossible to cope with. The situation grieves every member of this house, as it must grieve every Canadian across this country. But if there is any blame, be careful where you put it.
The hon. member went on tonight with a new line of attack. He attacked the department and compared figures. I was very happy, Mr. Chairman, that you allowed him to quote those figures because what he quoted was the total spent in the department over the years. Let me quote tonight the figures for northern construction because this development under way cost	in 1949-50 less than a
a	million	dollars;	in	1950-51,	two-thirds	ofa	million	dollars;	in	1951-52,	a quarter	ofa	million	dollars;	in	1952-53,	a quarter	of
a million dollars; in 1953-54, a quarter of a million dollars; in 1954-55, a third of a million dollars; in 1955-56, less than $2 million; in 1956-57, $5.8 million; in 1957-58, this year's estimates, $12.1 million; plus the main estimates for 1958-59, which we are dealing with, $15.7 million, and supplementaries this year of $3.5 million, a total of $19.2 million. Now, last year's vote for which the previous administration was responsible for northern construction in the Northwest Territories amounted to $12.1 million. This year, I am asking for $19.2 million and the figures for the Yukon are even more impressive.
I think, Mr. Chairman, in view of the long discussion that we have had in committee, 25 to 28 hours, that this is a repetition of much that was said in committee. I do think that the issue has now developed, not into one of getting information from the department but of making political charges. If you want to go back and fight the last election and if you want to go back and ask the people of the Northwest Territories whether they want that $19 million, you should stand up and say so.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Not so very long ago the hon. member voted no confidence in this government because of our development policy. You heard your leader come out today and warn this country of the significance of the work that is going on in our northern areas and, in effect, telling us that we had to keep a very careful eye up there. He used the expression that we must have effective occupation of those northern areas. He has changed his mind since the election. He has learned from experience. He no longer talks about "igloo to igloo". He is talking now about maintaining the sovereignty of this country in the northern areas. But you are going in the opposite direction trying to tear down what we are doing and you are no friend of this northern development program.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I had a little doubt as to whether I would prolong this discussion or not but the minister's last words certainly resolved that doubt when he ventured to say that my remarks this afternoon on this matter meant that I had changed my mind, on the necessity to have effective occupation of the north. I could show the minister a good many statements that I have made over the years, including statements in the United States of America and articles in United States magazines, pointing out years ago that not only did Canada have a right to this Arctic territory but she was going to make that right stick through effective occupation. So for me, Mr. Chairman, there is no conversion represented in any observation I made this afternoon.
So far as the tragedy of the starving Eskimos is concerned, the minister has just read to us a heart-rending report in very simple but very eloquent terms of the tragedy of starvation and death descending on this little band of Canadians. We in this country often boast about our mechanistic, modern civilization as having given us the highest standard of living in the world, and yet this tragedy has driven home to us the fact that there are still Canadians whose problem is one of stark survival, and not whether to buy a second television set or not. Perhaps this discussion, Mr. Chairman, may help the government in doing something about it. I am not blaming the government for this particular tragedy. There was a combination of unhappy circumstances. But this discussion and the publicity that it has achieved may perhaps help to prevent that kind of tragedy occurring again. If it does, we will all be happy about the publicity that has been given in the house.
There are only two other matters which I feel I must mention-it will not take long- because the minister brought them up this
3556	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs afternoon. He did say, and I am not quarrelling with the use of the word, that we over here scoffed about the vision of developing a great centre in Frobisher Bay. I did mention that this afternoon, and I read from a report of the minister's trip to this place. It may well be that Frobisher Bay, before long, will be an important centre of a great defence complex and a trade and economic complex. It may realize all the dreams that were portrayed in this particular report. What I asked the minister on this point was merely for information concerning, not the building of skyscrapers in Frobisher Bay because if that is the best way of providing Arctic housing, that is fine, but this particular report says, and this is what struck my imagination and I wondered whether there was any basis of fact for it:
It involves the use of six-story skyscrapers of concrete ringing a mammonth central, roofed and heated hexagonal plaza containing stores and offices.
This leaves the impression that the population of this particular place would be living under cover in winter and summer, if they so desired, and that seemed to me to be a new idea in Arctic development.
I talked about the atomic power station, with which the minister did not deal except in a general way. I ask him if he can confirm the statement he made, and it is an important one, that we have now in this country package atomic power stations for this kind of use. If we have, we have made a great deal of progress in Canada in the last year, and progress of which we can all be very proud.
After I made that statement, and during the dinner recess, I happened to pick up the New York Times. Perhaps the minister has read this article. The report is from Chicago, dated August 13, and it says that the Argonne National Laboratory of the United States, which is the centre of atomic power development over there for civilian purposes, announced today-that is August 13-the development of a portable package atomic power plant designed for use on the Distant Early Warning line, that is in Canada. Apparently this is the first atomic power plant for this purpose that has been designed and brought into use, at least in prototype, in the United States. The report goes on:
The unit is called the Argonne low power reactor.
It has a capacity, at full power, to produce
3,000	thermal kilowatts, enough energy to light 300 average homes or to heat 14 average homes. Presumably, you would need quite a few of these for the kind of development about which the minister was talking. As the


United States has now announced this is a first, it is a prototype, I was naturally even more interested after dinner in the statement the minister made that we had already in Canada such a package atomic power plant.
The only other matter I wish to mention is the statement of the minister-I think it was an important statement and he should produce some evidence to support it-that Canadian cabinet ministers and officials had to go through certain formalities before they could visit United States military installations in the Arctic. He mentioned one Canadian official in particular who had been held up for months in doing his official work on Canadian soil because of these formalities. I suspected that the minister's statement would become headline news. If he looked at the seven o'clock news on television, he would realize it has already become so because the particular news which I saw at seven o'clock -probably it was an effort to compress what the minister said-indicated that both cabinet ministers and Canadian officials had considerable difficulty in visiting these stations on Canadian soil. I do not know whether or not the minister wishes to leave that impression.
I do know that when we were in office there was no difficulty of any kind for any Canadian cabinet minister who wished to visit any United States controlled station on Canadian soil, a United States station which was there with our approval and after formal agreement with Canada. All he had to do was indicate his desire to go there and he was cleared at once. It is not improper that Canadians, even Canadian cabinet ministers, should have to be cleared on occasions like that because if we had a top secret military installation in the United States, and we are entitled to have one there under agreement between the two countries, and any United States cabinet minister wished to visit it he would have to be cleared through the proper Canadian security authorities. I venture to say that if a German cabinet minister wanted to go to a top secret Canadian establishment on German soil, and we have some there, he would have to be cleared by the Canadian authorities. That is not improper procedure. But if it is being improperly exercised by the United States, we should hear about it. If Canadian officials are in fact being held up through the improper application of United States security procedure, we should have information about that. If that is being done there are remedies available to apply to that kind of thing to stop it.
It seems to me that if it gets out at this particular moment that United States authorities are improperly exercising their authority on Canadian soil in the way in which the

minister's statement was reported this afternoon, it would be unfortunate. It would be just another pin prick in the relations between the two countries at a time when we do not want that kind of thing. Therefore, I hope the minister, before we pass this particular item of his estimates, will clear up that point.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: In my opinion, the minister's statement has not added anything new to what has been said. Apparently, however, there is a new tactic on the government side. This afternoon I asked the minister a number of times if he had received reports from his officials in the field in regard to Garry lake. He said: "No, I have not received any reports." He had never heard of them. No official had reported to him. There was nothing in his department. They had no reports. Tonight, he brings in the hidden document.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall have to take exception to that statement, Mr. Chairman. I said no such thing and the record will bear me out.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I asked for this report all afternoon and got nothing. Then this evening the minister reads this report into the record and accuses me of blaming someone. I still say that the evidence he brought in tonight proves what I said before, that there was no contact between December 10 and March 22.
Then, in so far as the figures on construction are concerned that he put on the record, I want to say I went through the estimates yesterday, this very large sheet which is provided in the back of the book of estimates. I am going to quote from two of the items: Construction or acquisition of buildings; in 1954-55, $4,157,459; 1955-56, $9,473,946; 1956-57, $17,685,834; 1957-58, $27,342,007 -it is $10 million more than the year before; this year, $30,971,179, which is $3 million over last year and last year was $10 million over the year before. Then, in the item of repairs and upkeep we find the same sort of story. The next item is equipment and construction and in 1954-55 the expenditure was $1,966,215; in 1955-56 it was down to $909,180, but in 1956-57 it was up to $1,544,515, an increase of $600,000. In 195758 there was another increase to $1,700,606 and this year the amount is $2,792,731. These are the figures I took from the estimates. These are the only figures available to me or to other members of the house. The figures I quoted this afternoon were based on what was shown in the main and supplementary estimates for each year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Northern Affairs
268.	To provide for contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the Governor in Council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for camp ground and picnic area developments, $1,000,000.
James Roy Tucker: Mr. Chairman, last spring the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, with the co-operation of the department of mines and resources of the province of Newfoundland, established a few campground and picnic sites in the vicinity of Newfoundland highways. These sites have proved to be very successful and have had a double effect. In the first place, they have given badly needed employment. Secondly, they have provided badly needed campground and picnic sites which are becoming very important and necessary along our highways. I believe that this was the first time that such a development took place and on behalf of those concerned I wish to offer my sincere thanks to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for this work. I trust that this is only the beginning and I hope that the minister will see his way clear to extend this program.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks branch-
269.	Branch administration, $143,105. (Translation):
Mr. Pigeon:: I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman. In the federal riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, there is an historic site of national importance, located in the town of St-Lin-des-Laurentides. This site is the direct responsibility of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. As I said, it is at St-Lin-des-Laurentides, and meant as a tribute to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our great autonomist prime minister who was born there. The monument was erected some years ago. At the entrance and exit of St-Lin, four signs had been put up which read: "Laurier's birthplace", in English only.
They had been there for several years. When I took up the matter with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), he personally went over to St-Lin-des-Laurentides to visit this historical site and to correct this omission. A few days later, his department informed me that the signs would be changed bearing new fully bilingual escutcheons.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the previous government refused to respect the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-who was bilingual himself-and did not want to respect the

Supply-Northern Affairs bilingual character of my constituency and of the province of Quebec. Yet, Mr. Chairman, Laurier was bilingual. And this happened under the previous government. And do you know who, Mr. Chairman, was minister of northern affairs and national resources at the time, and who failed in the full application of the principle of bilingualism? None other than Mr. Jean Lesage who, today, wants to extort the confidence of the province of Quebec. Thus was the principle of bilingualism trampled underfoot by that gentleman! Mr. Chairman I say that it is all to the credit of the province of Quebec and of the country that the minister has corrected that injustice to the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to the province of Quebec. It was a shameful thing, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Jean Lesage to have trampled underfoot the principle of bilingualism in this manner.
I would also like the minister-if that is possible-to see that a commemorative plaque be placed on that part of the college of l'Assomption which is a hundred years old, in order to recall the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a graduate of that institution.
I wanted to make these few remarks to denounce publicly, in this house, Mr. Jean Lesage, who at this time is attempting to abuse the confidence of the province of Quebec, and who has trampled underfoot the principle of bilingualism in the province of Quebec.
Once again I thank the Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources for having made the journey to St-Lin-des-Laurentides and having corrected that omission with respect to bilingualism.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that Hon. Antonio Barrette will be very proud indeed of his little filly.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two rather unexciting questions I should like to put to the minister about the administration of the national parks. I did not press the minister for an answer to my question about the employment policy in Terra Nova national park on the first item and I have no doubt whatever that the minister has every intention of carrying out the assurance he gave to the minister of mines and resources of Newfoundland about giving preference in employment to those people who formerly made their living in the park. Because there are no newspapers published in my riding my constituents do not read newspapers very much but they do read Hansard a good deal
TMr. Pigeon.]
and I know that it would give them some comfort to see this assurance in Hansard. I hope the minister can give it.
My questions are not many and I will put them all at once. I should like to ask the minister if a start has yet been made on the road from the trans-Canada highway to link with the provincial road to Terra Nova station. As the minister knows, Terra Nova station is the nearest place on the railway to the park headquarters, and it would be of course-I think the minister knows this too-a great advantage for the administration of the park to have access to this settlement and the people in the settlement would like very much to be able to get out by road.
As the minister pointed out in his letter to the minister of mines and resources of Newfoundland, once this road is built it will open up the way to certain timbered areas outside which, as the minister pointed out, have more merchantable timber on them than the areas in the park and might ease the problem in the administration of the park itself. I am not going to take the minister's time this evening-


Mr. Broome:: Good, good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest that if the exuberant hon. member for Vancouver South would show equal consideration for the minister the minister would get his estimates through a little bit faster. I am not going to take the minister's time to traverse the ground which was traversed in questions and notices on the order paper about employment policies in Terra Nova national park. I was sorry to hear, as most of my constituents who live in that area were, that the minister felt it necessary to seek the advice of a gentleman who came to live in that community after the national park was established as to the qualifications of people who had lived there all their lives. I hope the minister has abandoned this policy and that he is leaving it to his very competent official on the parks staff to engage people for work there. If he does that I am sure everyone in the community will be quite well satisfied.
I would like, however, since this does not appear to be the only case where there are some peculiar employment policies, to ask the minister if since yesterday he finds himself in a position to answer the starred question which has already been on the order paper for some time about certain employees in the national park at Cape Breton and if, at the same time, he would tell us whether or not the other three gentlemen who were referred to in the question that was answered did receive notice that their services were being dispensed with, and whether that notice was subsequently withdrawn. Would the

minister also tell us whether or not he himself received representations from those persons and whether a certain Mrs. Woodman of Jasper, Alberta, was employed on a parttime basis in the Jasper national park, and if her services were subsequently dispensed with? If so, why? Who succeeded her and what peculiar qualifications did that person have which Mrs. Woodman did not have?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very pleased to have the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate about the employment policies in Terra Nova. I would like to answer him in this way: It is the policy of the parks department to give, wherever possible, preference to people living near the park, and the hon. member knows that that is the policy we have followed.
As to the second question about the start on the road from the park to the railway-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would not mind my interrupting him. He does intend to carry out the policy of giving special preference to those people who made their living previously by cutting in the park, as he told Mr. Keough he would?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. I believe that was satisfactorily stated this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On the question of the start of the road, this road was started about a week ago.
The third question was with respect to the starred question which I have not answered, but which was placed on the order paper. The information I requested came to me in an unsatisfactory fashion and I asked my department to write back for more details because I wanted to give the house a complete report on the employment practice in this park. I think the house will be happy to know that the fundamental principle we follow there is with respect to the need of the people and that the record of employment in the Cape Breton park, particularly during the winter unemployment works program last year, would bring credit to any government. The answer to the question I asked has not come to me as yet, but as soon as I receive the information I will place it before the house.
With respect to the second starred question, I am informed that the parks department have no information about these people having received notice. They have been employed continuously and I am assured by the head of the parks department who is now before me that we have no information on their having received notice to leave.
Supply-Northern Affairs


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister receive any communication himself from any of these persons?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Personally, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Personally or in any other way?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My officials
have no information on any such intimation.
The fifth question was with regard to Mrs. Woodman in Jasper, and this is a case where a motion to produce was met and I believe the paper has been tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it came to our notice.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It may not be,
of course-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not in my name; I believe it was in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am now
informed that information has come to my office in the last couple of days but I have not seen it as yet, or I have not signed it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister could tell us about Mrs. Woodman.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I have the facts. These are the general circumstances. This lady was employed in the information office last year. After she left the office she entered into some activity in support of one of the candidates in the area, and when it came time to employ people this year she was told she would not be needed. There was no recommendation by the member for the constituency in question about who should be hired in her place. The parks superintendent does that entirely on his own. When the hon. member gets the letter, which will be tabled, he will see the lady's own admission that she did take part in such activity. She is complaining that because she only took part in political activities in between work periods she should not be classified as an active political worker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister suggest that the lady was not dismissed? Am I correct in that understanding?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: She was a
seasonal employee and she just was not hired again this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. In other words, this lady was not employed at the time she took part in these political activities?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right-


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the minister is saying that a civil servant of Canada-

Supply-Northern Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -who, while not employed by the Canadian government, has taken part in political activities in support of a candidate is ipso facto unemployable by his department? Is that what he is saying?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, civil servants very properly do not take part in political activities and, as you know, they should not do so. A person who works for the government in a seasonal capacity, as did this lady, as a civil servant during periods of employment-


Some hon. Members:: She was not employed.


Lionel Chevrier: Not by any stretch of the imagination.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: She engaged in these activities when she was no longer employed by the government, but to assume in the summertime that you are a civil servant and you do not take part in politics but that in the wintertime you go to work in the political field is, I think, stretching it a bit too far. I think the house should be made aware that this is a park which has a tremendous staff and that this is the only change that was made. If memories were allowed to go back to 1935, I do not think the hon. member would be complaining as to this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My active participation in politics, of course, does not go back to 1935, but I think-


An hon. Member:: What about the ones Jimmy Gardiner fired?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member can make his speech in his own time, but in my experience I, of course, have had nothing to do with anything of this kind because the situation has simply never arisen. It does seem to me that the minister is enunciating a rather dangerous principle, however, when he says that someone who in his own time takes part in politics, when he is not employed by the government-as the minister has said was the case with this lady-is for that reason and for that reason only considered to be incapacitated from receiving an appointment. I should like to ask the minister if he made the same detailed inquiries about the political activities of the person who succeeded this lady, and if he can stand up and give us a positive assurance that the person who succeeded her took no part in support of any of the candidates-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can answer that question very easily by saying we make no detailed investigation with regard to a person's politics in that way. I do not know
[Mr. Pickersgill.!
that anyone in my department knew who this lady was. There was no recommendation made by the local member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has said-and I am glad to hear it-that he makes no sort of inquiry about the political activities of the people employed in his department. But how, then, did he learn about the activities of Mrs. Woodman, and how did that have any effect in this one case, when the minister says they do not make any inquiries?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My information on Mrs. Woodman came from the Liberal candidate in the constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They made it quite clear to me that they thought it was quite within the rules for a civil servant who was employed for five or six years to take time off in between and try to defeat the government which hired her. We do not discourage people from taking part in politics. We encourage them. But members of the civil service must take a proper attitude toward partisan politics, even if they are only hired for seven months a year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to pursue this a little further-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know this is not very pleasant for hon. gentlemen opposite, but we used to hear a lot of very eloquent talk from this side of the house in times past about civil rights and about the rights of Canadian citizens, particularly from one very eminent gentleman who now occupies another position and who is promising to bring a bill of rights into this country. It does seem to me very strange that the followers of this eminent gentleman seem to have so little interest in a subject which he claimed over and over again was his prime concern.
However, there are some of us who are liberals on both sides, and it seems to me that the minister has been confusing two things. If this lady was a civil servant- which the minister said earlier she was not- and engaged in political activities then, of course, under the Civil Service Act she should be dismissed. Everybody recognizes that. But she was not a civil servant. She was a seasonal employee, as the minister says. She was not working at all at the time of the election, and somebody told the department. The minister has said, with his hand on his heart, that he never makes any inquiry into the political affiliations of these people and that this lady had worked for one of the candidates. That was considered in this case

to be good and sufficient reason not to give her the kind of employment by means of which she had made her living in the summer months for several years to the satisfaction of everyone, as far as I can understand. And it occurs to me to wonder who it was who first brought this information to the attention of the minister. The minister says it was the Liberal candidate, and under the rules I have to accept his word, but I will admit he is straining our credulity when he states that the Liberal candidate gave this information to him. Did the Liberal candidate say this lady was working to support the hon. gentleman who now sits for this constituency, or was she said to have supported the C.C.F. candidate? What did he say about it? How did the Liberal candidate come to bring this information to the minister? Perhaps he will tell us that.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might ask one question in order to elucidate this matter. There have been a number of variations reported to this house concerning the practice regarding dismissals in certain departments and what the minister has said does indicate a departure from what has been said by other ministers. The question I should like to ask is this: what is the policy followed in the department of northern affairs when there is a matter of political activity on which a report has been made. How is a person dismissed? Is it (a) by affidavit, or (b) by certificate of a member of parliament? On what basis or authority is this done?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This lady was not dismissed. As I said before, she was not rehired. I am not quibbling over the phrase; I am simply saying that is the position. The Liberal candidate wrote me a letter and I answered it, and he wrote me another, and I think this correspondence is being tabled.


Lionel Chevrier: May I pursue this a bit further? I was not dealing with the case which my hon. friend has brought up. I was dealing with the policy, if there is one, which is followed in the department. What policy is followed by the minister in cases such as this, and how is a person dismissed? Is it done by affidavit? Or is it done by a certificate of a member of parliament?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not mind trying to answer the hon. gentleman, but I think this is a matter of the general policy of the government. I suggest the question might be directed to the leader of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps we could put it this way. The minister has said, I think, that if an employee of this particular branch of his department, hired on a casual basis, not a
Supply-Northern Affairs civil servant, having been hired year after year for two or three months a year; if such an employee, in between times, as a Canadian citizen, not as an employee of the government, should take any part in political activity, he or she will not be hired again.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think you can lay down a general rule like that. There was an election, as hon. members know, in between the lay-off for the winter and this lady took a very active part, and I imagine that the superintendent would think it the better part of discretion not to ask her to come back again, and that is what he did.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there a distinction made between a civil servant and one who is not a civil servant, because I think the minister is under a misapprehension. This person was a seasonal worker, a public servant, entitled, it is true, to the benefits of the Civil Service Act, but there is a distinction. In the first case the provisions of the Civil Service Act apply but in the next case, which is the case of the person whom the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been discussing, she is a member of the outside or public service, and I am wondering if there is a distinction made in the department between these two.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think so far as I know. All I know is that this woman was laid off; she had no right to re-employment. You either hire a person or you do not. She was not hired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a further question. Is it true or not that this lady was accepted for summer employment in the information bureau and that she was subsequently given notification cancelling the first notice?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that that is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, what the minister is saying now is that this lady was given her job back, she was told to report for work, and then she was fired. Now that hardly accords with what the minister told us earlier, namely that she was not given her work back. It would appear that something happened to this lady between that first notice and that second notice. It seems to me we ought to be told what it was and where this information came from. It is one thing for the minister to say, "Oh, we did not hire her at all" but he has now told us that she was told to report to work and then that notice was cancelled. In other words you would have to consider that she was fired.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the last word. In January she received a general notice to the effect that she would be reporting back. After January there was an election. She took part in the election. She was not asked to report and she did not report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How did the minister find out she took part in the election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, this is very important. An allegation has been made here.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down. Question.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor and I am sure we would all like to hear what he has to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the minister has said this lady was told to report back to work and subsequently she was told that they did not want her. In other words, she was fired. The minister says she was fired for political activity. Surely it was not just something the minister dreamed up. He surely does not seriously expect us to believe that the Liberal candidate told him about it. How did the department learn that this lady had engaged in political activity? Who was the informer? Who laid the charges against her? What inquiry was carried out to find out if the charges were true?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in the letter which will be tabled will be found the frank admission of the Liberal candidate that she worked as a returning officer and that he did not know that if a civil servant took part in political activities it would mean that person could be fired. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate waits until he sees the letter he will find the candid admission of the woman herself and of the Liberal candidate that she engaged in political activity. In a small town like Jasper you do not keep things like that quiet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may well be that in a small town like Jasper you do not keep those things quiet and we are not keeping this thing quiet either. I know that the minister received a letter and I will not pretend that I do not know what he received from the Liberal candidate because I am perfectly aware of what the Liberal candidate said. I am also very well aware of the fact that the Liberal candidate did not write to the minister until after this woman had been fired so it was not any information he received from the Liberal candidate that caused her to be fired. It was on the basis

of information that came from somebody else that she was fired. Before we vote money for the minister to fire people and hire other people it seems to me we are entitled to be told what this is all about.


Mr. Cardiff:: Who do you think you are?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what an opposition exists for, after all, although I doubt if the hon. member would understand that. Before we vote money for the minister to fire people and hire others the minister should tell us on what ground he fired this individual. Was it mere caprice? On what ground was she fired?


Mr. Ricard:: She was not fired. She was not asked to return to work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, she was fired. The minister has admitted that the first notice was cancelled and the woman was not asked to report back to work. We should be informed where the department got its information and what investigation it carried out in order to ascertain the facts before this woman's livelihood for the summer was taken away from her. At least the Minister of Agriculture the other day when we were discussing an employee of his department who had been dismissed admitted that he had conducted a secret investigation without telling the employee what the charges against him were but the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has told us nothing except that it was common knowledge in Jasper that this woman had engaged in political activity.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I did not say she was fired. I said she was not asked to come back.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question, Mr. Chairman. Can we assume from the discussion that has taken place thus far that there is no objection to a Canadian citizen hired by the government for casual or seasonal work, as this person was, exercising the ordinary political activities of a Canadian citizen when not in the employ of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Order. Carried.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very good question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not at all satisfied-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may speak again.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, could I get a reply to my question?


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair cannot force any minister to make a reply. The hon. member may direct that question to the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister reply to my question?


Mr. Drysdale:: Hypothetical question.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a hypothetical question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, that is the same question I replied to a moment ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it is exactly the reverse.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Trinity-Conception.


James Roy Tucker: Mr. Chairman, in 1610 John Guy a merchant from Bristol started a colony at Cupids Conception bay, Newfoundland and his example was soon followed by many other Englishmen, and in a few years many colonies had been established along the shores of Conception bay.
The only reminder of these days were a flagpole placed on the rock where John Guy was supposed to have erected the standard of King James I and a bronze plate which commemorated his landing until a few years ago when I believe the historical sites committee and a group of public-minded citizens erected a monument.
During the month of March this year certain business brought me to Cupids and while there I talked with a group of men who were working around the grounds where the monument stands. They expressed grave concern about the surroundings and asked me if I would try and assist in obtaining financial assistance. And so, Mr. Chairman, I hope the opportunity has arrived, and I now ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he will give sympathetic consideration to my request on behalf of the residents of Cupids.


Mr. Nixon:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if he would have another look at an old landmark in Sault Ste. Marie known as the old stone house which is, I believe, an historic site. It was constructed in 1814 and I understand it is possibly the oldest house now standing north of Toronto. I would urge the minister to have another look at this building with a view to preserving it as a national historic site.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, before this vote carries I wanted to ask whether or not the house leader is going to answer the question referred to him by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 269 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. Since the minister has invited the house leader to tell us what the policy is and in view of the fact the hon. member for Port Arthur has renewed that invitation I feel the house leader should let us know if he accepts it. We would all like to know what is the policy of the government in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Wait until the next election.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, my estimates are not under consideration and it would be highly inappropriate for me to interfere with the estimates of another department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was sure the Minister of Public Works would take the very sensible attitude he has taken and therefore I will return to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask him if he will take the committee into his confidence and tell us what charge was made against this lady, precisely what the nature of her activities was, by whom the charge was made and by whom investigated. Would he also at the same time tell us what he meant by saying this lady was a returning officer. I am sure he must have meant a deputy returning officer because my understanding of a returning officer is that he is an officer of the crown and I would have thought most of them were probably appointed by the hon. gentleman's friends last March. But in any case I am quite confused by the minister's reference.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 269 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, surely we are going to have an answer from the minister.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 269 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
271. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,399,925.
Mr. Morris:: I should like to ask the minister a question concerning the Halifax Citadel. We are aware that a great deal of additional work has been done at the Halifax Citadel. It is a national historic site. Can the minister now comment on the intentions at the Halifax Citadel, particularly with respect to the moneys to be used at this site. Can he comment also on employment at the Halifax Citadel?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The information I have for the hon. member is that the original appropriation for the Halifax Citadel

Supply-Northern Affairs was $120,000. This was raised to $152,000, and again to $183,500 by transfer of certain allotments. Earlier in the session I made a statement in answer to the hon. member, which will be found in Hansard, that we were delaying the laying off of men at the Halifax Citadel and would keep them employed as long as the money would last. I am now informed that the money is about used up and by the end of this month we shall have to lay off the men who would ordinarily have been laid off before, plus the others who have now to be laid off because of the shortage of money.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Is it the intention to resume the work in the winter months, at least to the same extent as in previous winters? Is this a temporary re-arrangement of the labour force at the Halifax citadel, which we all understand because of the allotment that has been spent there? Is it the intention to resume an extensive program again in the winter?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the funds for this year are almost all used up, and if there is a winter work policy decided on which will include the Halifax Citadel, it will be announced in due course because it is a matter of government policy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Water Resources Branch-
276. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grant o£ $350 to the International Executive Council. World Power Conference and a grant of $35,000 to the Canadian National Committee of the World Power Conference to assist in defraying the cost of the conference's sectional meeting to be held in Canada in 1958, $1,257,459.'
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question? I understand that this is the division that has to do with water resources. Will the minister tell the committee how many international boards his department has representations on. While this is being looked up I will tell the minister what I have in mind. There is under the order of approval made by the international joint commission, having to do with the development of water resources in the international section of the St. Lawrence river, an international lake level control board. I was just wondering what the status of the plans for the work was at the present time, how it was proceeding and what success there has been with the plan known as 12-A-9?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that our department has representation on 23 boards. In regard to the plan that the hon. member is referring to, plan 19-58-A was adopted by the international joint commission a month ago.


Lionel Chevrier: It is 12-A-9.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just a minute. This is a replacement for 12-A-l and several others. My staff suggests that the figure the hon. member used of 12-A-9 should be 12-9-1.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right, 12-A-9.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It was replaced by 19-58-A a month ago.


Lionel Chevrier: What I was trying to find out was what is the status of the board upon which the minister's department has representation, and very able representation, I am happy to say. What is the status of the board and what is the status, particularly, of the plan as amended by the statement just made by the minister?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the board is now awaiting turnover from the joint board of engineers who are in charge of construction. That is the present status.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. Perhaps I can clear it up. There are two boards under this division in which the minister's department is interested. One is the international board of control which has jurisdiction after the works in the international section have been completed. I think there is a report in the minister's department on that board. I was not inquiring, for the moment at least, as to that, but I was inquiring about the matter that had to do with levels on lake Ontario. I think it was in 1951 that there was a great deal of complaint because of the fact that the water rose to extraordinary heights and caused serious damage. The international joint commission was charged with the responsibility of inquiring into the question and recommended a subcommittee of this board to deal with it and again the minister's department was represented on that international board. It is that international board which brought in the plan that was referred to earlier, namely 12-A-9, which has since been amended. What I am interested in now is, what is the position- of the plan? Is it working in accordance with the recommendation made by the amended order of the international joint commission?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, apparently what the hon. member is referring to is the lake Ontario reference. The board has reported on the levels between which the lake can operate and this report has gone before the international joint commission and has been accepted, and the two governments have accepted the recommendation of the commission. There is some matter still in doubt relating to the Gut dam.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the date of the report?


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 276
carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; then take the estimates of the Department of Labour and the Department of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not fisheries?
Business of the House


Lionel Chevrier: No, transport. Can the minister say what we will do on Saturday and Monday?


Howard Charles Green: The other estimates which might be called on Saturday would be those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, also health and welfare, and citizenship and immigration. On Monday, we intend to take legislation and that would be so also on Tuesday. On Monday, I expect to start with the first three items on today's order paper, which are under the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Then I think we would go on with the various resolutions preceding bills. I cannot say definitely in what order they would be called.


Lionel Chevrier: Definitely, we will not be taking the dumping legislation on Monday or Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: No, not on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
57071-3-226
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have representations been made by any provincial government, corporation or individual asking the federal goverment to make further representations to the President of the United States for the removal of import quotas on Canadian crude oil?
2.	If so, has the government made such further representations, and of what nature?
3.	Will the royal commission on energy resources make an interim report dealing with this situation?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Yes. The premier of the province of Alberta and a number of organizations and individuals have made representations to the government of Canada to secure the exemption of Canadian crude oil from the application of the voluntary import control program. Reference has also been made to this matter in submissions to the royal commission on energy.
2.	The government lodged formal representations with the state department on January 15, 1958 against the general principle of the application of such controls to Canadian crude oil moving into the west coast area of the United States. Similar representations were made on June 23, 1958 at a time when it was understood that consideration was being given to the imposition of further restrictions on oil imports moving into that area. Moreover the Canadian authorities have been in close and continuing touch
with the competent United States authorities in this matter, including the time when the import controls applicable to the regions east of the Rocky mountains were reinforced on March 27. In these and other ways the views of the Canadian interests have been kept before the government of the United States.
3.	An interim report will be made but will not deal particularly with this situation.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
Mr. Fisher: 1.	From the first day of March, 1956 to the thirtieth day of June, 1958, were any lands or buildings acquired by the federal district commission in (a) the city of Ottawa; (b) the county of Carleton; (c) the county of Bussell; (d) the city of Hull; (e) the county of Hull; (f) the county of Gatineau?
2.	If so, (a) from whom; (b) on what date; (c) what is the legal description and total acreage of the property in each case; (d) what was the total price paid to the vendor or any other persons in respect to the acquisition of each such property; (e) for what purpose, either present or future was each such property acquired, and to what use is each presently being put?
3.	At the present time, has the federal district commission any agreements of sale or options for the acquisition of other property, or has it commenced expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of other property in any of the aforesaid cities or counties?
4.	If so, (a) what is the legal description and total acreage of each such property; (b) from whom is each such property to be acquired; (c) what is the total price payable to the vendor or any other person under any such agreement of sale or option in respect of the acquisition of each such property; (d) what is the total price which has been offered to the owner of any such property in respect of which expropriation proceedings may have been commenced; (e) for what purpose, either present or future, is each such property to be acquired, and to what use will such property be put?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
i
57071-3-226J
1 and 2


PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS-MARCH 1
[Stage Direction]
Name of Former Owner or Vendor	Date of Expropriation or Purchase	Legal Description(0-300)	Thos. Saunders...	Feb.	8, 1956	CITY OF OTTAWA Lots 86-87, 100 x 100, Plan 215,(0-328)	Sarah Pennock	July	22, 1957	Nepean	
Lots 62-63, 100 x 100, Plan 278,(0-329)	Maude Madigan...	Jan.	7, 1957	Nepean	
Lot 78, 40 x 100, Plan 278, Nepean(0-330)	Mrs. Mary Grant..	Sept.	7, 1956	Lot 79 and part Block B, 60 x 100.(0-333)	C. C. Brown	Apr.	18, 1956	Plan 278, Nepean	
S. E. Part Block B, Plan 278,(0-336)	M. R. Goldberg...	Oct.	23, 1957	Nepean	
Lot 77, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-337)	E. F. Girling	Mar.	6, 1956	Lot 61. Plan 278, Nepean	(0-340)	C. N. Nobert	Oct.	5, 1956	Lots74 and75, Plan278, Nepean..(0-342)	J. N. Marchinton..	July	12, 1956	Lot 73. Plan 278. Nepean	(0-343)	M. Montreuil	Mar.	8, 1957	Lot 72, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-344)	C. Leesti	July	12, 1956	Lot 70-all 71, Plan 278, Nepean..(0-352)	N. M. Casey	Mar.	8, 1957	Lot 83, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-356)	L. N. Rainville...	Oct.	5, 1956	Lot 87, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-359)	G. Cashman	May	23, 1956	Lot 90, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-361)	M. Betcherman...	Mar.	6, 1957	Lot 92, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-363)	J. A. Vachon	Mar.	8, 1957	Lot 94, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-365)	G. A. Morris	Mar.	8, 1957	Lot 105, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-370)	G. E. Donaldson..	Mar.	8, 1957	Lot 100, Plan 278, Nepean	(0-371)	H. Tighe	8, 1957	(0-372)	P. A. Dulude	Dec.	7, 1956	Lot 98, Plan 278, Nepean	
Acreage
0.22
0.22
0.09
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
1956-JUNE 30, 1958
Total Price
Reason for Acquisition
Present Use
[Stage Direction]
To be developed as a parkway on the south bank of the Ottawa river	
Vacant land Building demolished
5,375
7,000
Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished
11,500
Vacant land Building demolished
12,800
7.000
12,000
8.500
12,000
6.500
15.500
5.000 4,050
8.750
9.750
6,200
9.500
9.000
4.000
4,250
Building demolished Leased at market rental Leased to former owner Leased at market rental Leased at market rental Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished

Questions
PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS-MARCH 1, 1956-JUNE 30, l%8-Continued
Name of Former Owner or Vendor		Date of Expropriation or Purchase	
(0-374)	H. Waito	June	12, 1957(0-377)	W. G. Griffin	June	IS, 1957(0-378)	T.G. Jackson	Dec.	30, 1957(0-380)	D. G. Selley	Mar.	8, 1957(0-383)	L. Dworkin	Aug.	6, 1957(0-388)	L. Saslove	Dec.	7, 1956(0-389)	J. Taller	Jan.	7, 1957(0-390)	M. Montreuil	Nov.	9, 1956(0-393)	H. M. Lansdowne.	July	2, 1957(0-394)	T. S. Cole	Aug.	6, 1957(0-397)	R. F. Daley	Aug.	30, 1956(0-401)	B. Feller	Oct.	4, 1956(0-403)	E. M. Barrett	Nov.	23, 1956(0-405)	M. Alexander	July	31, 1957(O-406A)	J. C. Tunstall	July	2, 1957(0-420)	T: Stewart	June	21, 1957(EP-124)	P. Glen 	Sept.	17, 1956(EP-124A) K. Bennett	Sept.	17, 1956(EP-158)	R. Lemieux	Apr.	8, 1957(EP-198A) R. McLelland	Feb.	20, 1958(EP-263)	H. & W. Schultz..	Sept.	24, 1957(EP-264)	E. Neilson 	Sept.	26, 1957(EP-265)	W. Dorschel	Sept.	26, 1957(EP-266)	J. P. Neilson	Sept.	24, 1957(EP-267)	T. A. Wilmott	July	24, 1957
Legal Description
CITY OF OTTAWA-Cont. Lots 161-162, Plan 278, Nepean...
Lot 150, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lots 151-152, Plan 278, Nepean...
Lot 155, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lot 123	
WJ Lot 167	
Lot 108	
Lot 109	
Lot 113, 278 Nepean	
Lot 114, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lot 117, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lot 122, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lot 126 and part 125, Plan 278, Nepean
Lot 128, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lots 130 and 129, Plan 278, Nepean
Lot 145	
Pt. Lot 12, Plan 303	
Pt. Lot 12, Plan 303	
Pt. W| Township, Lot 1	
S. 2 ft. of N. 20 ft., Lot 39, Plan 92^ Lots 13-14-15-16-17-18-19, R.P.. 320, Gloucester
Lots 250-251-252, R.P. 320, Gloucester
Lots 253-254-255-256-257, R.P. 320, Gloucester
Lots 281-282-283, R.P. 320, Glou-cester
Lots 20-21, R.P. 320, Gloucester.
Acreage	Total Price
0.18	84,000
0.09	3,900
0.18	4,800
0.12	4,000
0.08	9,500
0.05	1,325
0.05	7,500
0.08	6,900
0.09	12,690
0.09	6,750
0.09	12,000
0.09	8,000
0.14	10,000
0.08	7,700
0.18	5,000
0.14	7,000
0.21	2,000
0.21	2,600
0.169	10,000
0.01	100
0.37	28,000
0.15	12,750
0.26	10,600
0.15	2,300
.1	4,200
Reason for Acquisition
To be developed as a parkway on the south bank of the Ottawa river
«	a
«	a
it	it
(«	«(
((	<<
ii
it
Development of Queensway
u	ii
it	ii
a	a
a	a
a	a
Present Use
Vacant land Building demolished
Leased at market rental Vacant land Building demolished Leased at market rental Leased at market rental Vacant land Building demolished Leased to former owner Vacant land Building demolished Leased at market rental Leased to former owner Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Leased to former owner
Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land
Vacant land Vacant land Vacant land Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land
Vacant land Building demolished
3568	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
(EP-268)	0. Villeneuve	Sept.	30.	1957	Lots 22-23-24, R.P. 320, Gloucester(EP-269)	S. Tzuniak	Sept.	24,	1957	Lots 25-26, R.P. 320, Gloucester..(EP-270)	C.N.R	Mar.	1958	S/W side Mann Ave & Hurdman's Road Pt. Lot F, Concession D, R.F. Nepean and pt. Lot 1, City of Ottawa Plan 27(EP-271)	W. J. Irvine	Aug.	22,	1957	Lot 1605, City of Ottawa Plan 157(EP-375)	F. M. Halkett. ...	Sept.	6,	1957	Lot 1401, City of Ottawa Plan 157.(E P-376j	J. May	Dec.	11,	1957	Lot 1580, R.P. 157, Citv of Ottawa(EP-450)	S. F. Conn	Nov.	22,	1957	Pt. Lot 38, R.P. 92*. City of Ottawa(EP-451) (EP-462) (EP-463	E S Vick	Oct.	10, 1, 27,	1957	Pt. N1 38, 57' Lot 37	1958	8. Brunet	Mar.	1958	E. 33', Lot 7 Plan 32 City of Ottawa(E-117)	0. Regimbald....	Jan.	3,	1957	Pt. Lot 23, J. G., Gloucester	(E-124)	0. Pelletier	Mar.	21,	1956	All Lot A and N. 65' Lot B, R.P. 329, Gloucester(E-132)	Geo. Lyon	Dec.	23,	1957	Pt. Lot 1, Con. 3.R.F.Gloucester.(E-141)	Independent Coal & Lumber Co.	June	13,	1956	Pt. Lot 26 C-2, O.F., Gloucester.(E-153)	J. Larabie	Nov.	28,	1957	Pt. Lot G, R.P. 329, Gloucester..(E-154)	D. Tylyhuz	Dec.	11,	1957	Pt. Lot G. R.P. 329, Gloucester..(E-155)	F. Clement	Mar.	3,	1958	Pt. Lot G, R.P. 329, Gloucester..(E-156)	J. Boisvert	Jan.	27,	1958	Pt. Lot G, R. P. 329, Gloucester..(E-157)	L. J. Boisvert....	May	7,	1958	Pt. Lot G, R. P. 329, Gloucester.(E-160)	M. Krivonas	Jan.	22,	1957	Pt. Sub-lot 11 in Lot 22, J. G., R.P. 31, Gloucester(E-162)	M. Lascelles	Jan.	21,	1958	W. 187' of Lots J & K, R.P. 329, Gloucester(E-164-5)	P. Vona	Dec.	27,	1957	Pt. Sub-Lot 7 in Lot 22, J. G., R.P. 31, Gloucester(E-167)	0. H. MacCartney	Nov.	22,	1957	Pt. Lot 23, J. G., Gloucester	(E-168) (E-140)	H R Clark	Feb. Mar.	7, 22,	1958	J. W. Boles	
J. A. Boucher	1956	Pt. Lot 26, C-2, O.F., Gloucester.(E-149)	M. Chamysh	Dec.	6,	1957	Pt. Lot "F", R.P.329, Gloucester.(E-150)	A. Chamysh	Dec.	6,	1957	Pt. Lot "F", R.P 329, Gloucester(E-151)	N. Bartlow	Dec.	11,	1957	Pt. Lot "F", R.P. 329, Gloucester(E-159)	M. Haryk	Jan.	22,	1958	Pt. Sub-lot 11 in Lot 22, J.G., Gloucester R.P.31(E-166)	John Kelso	Dec.	6,	1956	Pt. Lot 23, J.G., Gloucester	.15	10,000	((	tt	Vacant land Building demolished0.11	7,000	tt	tt	Vacant land Building demolished6.67	99,000	It	Vacant land Building demolished0.11	15,900	tt	tt	Leased at market rental0.07	15,500	"	n	Leased at market rental0.09	14,000	n	Leased at market rental0.10	17,150	tt	tt	Leased at market rental0,10	17,000	«	tt	Leased at market rental0.10	12,000	it	tt	Leased at market rental0.04	3,000	tt	tt	Vacant land Building demolished14.21	27,000	Development of eastern parkway	Vacant land2.8	15,800	tt tt	Vacant land Building demolished24.68	69,175	Development of southern entrance	Vacant land1.3	2,730	tt	tt	Vacant land.10	3,000	"	a	Vacant land Building demolished.07	4,250	u	u	Vacant land Building demolished.07	540	tt	u	Vacant land0.14	9,000	tt	u	Vacant land Building demolished0.10	1,000	tt	tt	Vacant land Building demolished0.06	2,000	it	Vacant land Building demolished0.87	10,000	it	n	Vacant land Building demolished0.21	5,200	tt	tt	Vacant land Building demolished0.50	11,500	it	Vacant land Building demolished0.25	11,200	tt	V acantland Building demolished3.00	5,500	"	tt	Vacant land0.17	4,180	tt	tt	Vacant land Building demolished0.12	900	tt	tt	Vacant land0.25	7,500	tt	a	Leased to former owner0.12	2,990	tt	Vacant land Building demolished2.00	20,000	n	Vacant land Building demolished
Questions
PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS-MARCH 1, 1956-JUNE 30, 1958-Continued
Name of Former Owner or Vendor
Date of Expropriation or Purchase
Legal Description
Acreage
Total Price
Reason for Acquisition
Present Use
CITY OF OTTAWA-ConcZ.
(E-1G9)
M. A. P. Clark...
Nov. 22, 1957
Pt. Lot 23, J.G., Gloucester
2.5
(E-170)	Lyon Dev. Corp.. Mar. 19, 1957
(E-180A) E. Kerr	 June 5, 1958
Pt. Lot A, C-3, R.F., Gloucester.. Pt.Lot 6, C-3, R.F., Gloucester...
6.9
1.3
[Stage Direction]
Development of southern entrance.
U	U
Vacant land Building demolished Vacant land Vacant land

[Stage Direction]
(E-136) Est. J. F.
Lancaster
(SB-4) Hydro Electric Power Comm, of Ontario
July 26, 1956	Pt.lot24,C-2,O.F„ Gloucester.
Dec. 4, 1957 Pt. Lot 16, J.G., Gloucester..
94.00
1.59
106,000
Leased to former owner
For development of station blvd.
Vacant land

[Stage Direction]
(SB9and 10) C.M.H.C	
(SB 13) C.M.H.C	
(SB-14) C.M.H.C	
Aug. 14, 1957
May 8, 1957 Jan. 14, 1958
That part of Station Blvd. bounded on North by R.P. 560, on East by R.P. 611, on West by R.P. 566 and on South by R.P. 568.
Station Blvd	
Pt. Blk. C, Pt. 560, Pt. Blk. J, Pt. 566
9.68
5.15
7.0
2.43
6,064.75 For development of 5,698	station blvd.
Vacant land
21,188.22
15,000
Vacant land Vacant land

[Stage Direction]
(W-33 1-2-3) Dunlap & Bogue.	Feb.	1956(W-35)	D. Lancaster	June	4,	1957(G-63B)	E. M. Woodburn..	Mar.	12,	1957
Pt. Ni Lot 32, Pt. SJ Lot 32, Pt. N$ Lot 31, Con. 2, R.F. Nepean
Lots 157-158, being pt. Lot 32, Con. I, R.F., Nepean Pt. Township Lot 21, Con. Ill, O.F., Gloucester
8.870
8.855
1.503
0.986
25,000
7,500
34,250
For development of western parkway
it	U
For greenbelt purposes
Vacant land
Vacant land
Leased to former owner

[Stage Direction]
(HG-2) Chaudiere Water Power Owners and Lessees
(HG-5A) City of Hull....
Sept. 25,
May 16,
1957
Lots 340-13, 339-27, 339-36, Pt. Lots 391-393-395, Lots 128-139 inch Lot 55-2, Ward 1, Hull Lot 10-10-189	
5.80
1.7
60,000
2,650
For parkway develop- Vacant land ment, on north bank Ottawa river
For park purposes	 Vacant land
3570	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
(HG-9) City of Hull... (HG-95) Fraser Hadley
53.52
Aug. 1956 Pt. Lots 254, 255, and pt. Lot 11, Ward 1, Hull
Oet. 2, 1957 Lots 325-2, 324-1, 321-1, 318-1, 317-68, 319 and Pts. 319-1, 317-68-1.
COUNTY OF HULL-Nil.

[Stage Direction]
(HS-3)	E. & R. McConnell..	June	1956(HS-5)	E. Lusk	Mar.	7,	1958G.G.R.	VI-7-Ed. Smith...	June	25,	1958G.N.R.	IV-32-1-B. S. Clinton.	April 23,	1958G.G.R.	III-9 & 15-A. Reb-ner.	Mar.	17,	1958
G.G.O. IV-16-1-W. W. Davies.
G.N.R. III-23-1-W. K. Mowat.

[Stage Direction]
Houlahan. G.N.R. 1-21-1-C. A.
Hodges.
G.G.R. 1-13-1-Estate of M. Cassin.
G.N.R. 1-25-R. H. Neill.. G.G.R. 3-10-1-E. Boyd....
G.N.R. 2-22-1-G. Stinson..
Pt. Lot 12B, Range 2, South Hull.
35.
Pt. Lot 12A, Range 3, South Hull.
E. pt. Nj Lot 7, Con. VI, R.F., Gloucester.
W£ of S| Lot 32, Con. IV., R.F., Nepean.
Pt. Lot 9, Con. Ill, R.F., Glou-cester
Pt. Lots 14 and 15, Con. Ill, R.F., Gloucester.
Ni Lot 16, Con. IV, O.F., Gloucester.
W side Con. Ill known as SJ Lot 23, Con. Ill, R.F., Nepean.
W side Con. Ill known as Lot 22, Con. Ill, R.F., Nepean.
E. side Con. II, known as WJ Lot 21, Con. I, R.F., Nepean.
NJ Lot 13, Con. I, R.F., Glou-ccstcr
Wi Lot 25, Con. I, R.F., Nepean.
Pt. Lot 10, Con. Ill, R.F., Gloucester.
N£ Lot 22, Con. II, R.F., Nepean
86.40
27.3
127.9
100
100
50
80
M-6-Peter Muciy.
Apr. 25, 1958
Jan. 10, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Pt. Lot 3, Plan 32, Pt. Lot N, Con. B, R.F., Nepean, Pt. Lot 35, Con. B, R.F., Nepean, Pt. unnumbered lot, Pt. original road allowance, Plan 32 and pt. Lot 3, Nepean.
Pt. Lot 9, J.G., Gloucester.
15.26
4.27
M-7-J. M. Farmer,
62,754.59
23,745
For development Lao des Vacant land Fees parkway
For proposed Lemieux Vacant land Island bridge approach
100,000
50.000
20.000
25,000
For development of Hull
South parkway u	u
For development of greenbelt.
Vacant land
Vacant land Vacant land.
ti	«
70,000
[Stage Direction]

30.000
60.000
90.000
80.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
56.000
103,500
For approach to proposed Occupied by former bridges over Rideau owner canal & Rideau river
4,270
For industrial area development.
Vacant land

Questions
PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS-MARCH 1, 1956-JUNE 30, 1958-Continued
Name of Former Owner or Vendor	Date of Expropriation or Purchase	Legal Description	Acreage	Total Price	Reason for Acquisition	Present UseM-8-R. Westwick	Nov. 22, 1957	CITY OF OTTAWA Lot 8, Dalhousie St., Ottawa. ...	.15	$7,000	Part of approaches to pro-	Vacant landS-35-D. W. O'Connell	Nov. 12, 1956	Pt. Lots 10, 11 & 12, Plan 3, City	.14	32,000	prosed bridge connecting cities of Ottawa and Hull. Required for railway	Vacant landQ-208-P. Joly	Feb. 11, 1958	of Ottawa. COUNTY OF GATINEAU Masham N} Lot 26B, Range 2, Masham...	50	2,000	re-development. For development of Ga-	Leased at market rentalQ-213 W. R. Harris	Oct. 13, 1957	Part Lots 1 & 2, Range 3, Masham	18	3,000	tineau park tt u	Q-215-H. Cross	Apr. 18, 1956	Lots 14 and 15, Range 2, Masham	100	5,000	U it	Q-221-H. Vaiilant	
Q-223-Rev. J. R. Belisle....	Apr. 25, 1956 Oct. 23, 1956	Lot 18, Range 2, Masham	
Lot 22, Range 1, Masham	120 50	7,000 20,000	(( (( it ft	Leased to former ownerQ-225-F. Batho	Aug. 29, 1956	Part of Lot 4B, Range 1, Masham	1	250	it tt	Park landQ-228-C. N. Kingsbury	Sept. 30, 1957	Part of Lot 4A, Range 1, Masham	10	500	tt tt	Park landQ-236-A. Gosselin	Nov. 27, 1957	Part of Lot 19, Range 1, Masham	120	6,500	tt tt	Leased to former ownerQ-237-E. Gauthier	July 17, 1958	Part of Lots 24B & 25P, Range 2,	70	8,200	it tt	Park landQ-238-M. Belisle	
Q-240-J. Moreau	
Q-243-G. Beaudoin	Mar. 11, 1958 May 14, 1958 June 13, 1958	Masham Lot 52, Range 2, Masham	
Lot 22, Range 1, Masham	
Part Lot 33, Range 1, Masham...	100 120 32	15,500 14,000 2,000	tt tt tt tt tt tt	Park land Leased to former owner Park landQ-248-1C. Renaud	June 27, 1958	South | Lot 30, Range 2, Masham	50	1,000	it tt	Park landQ-249-P. Joly	June 27, 1958	Part Lots 27 & 28, Range 2,	71	7,000	tt tt	Park landQ-417-W. R. Harris	
Q-422-R. Ormond	Mar. 20, 1956 Apr. 26, 1957	Masham Eardley Part Lot 1A, Eardley	
Lot 4A & W£ Lot 6, Range 9,	.5 260	4.000 15.000	tt tt tt tt	Leased to former owner Park landQ-425-G. Barnes	May 5, 1958	Eardley N part EJ of Lot 6B, Range 8, Eardley W| of Lot 7A, Range 8, Eardley Lot 17A, Range 10, Lot 21B,	260 3	1,000	tt tt	Park landQ~439-J. A. Loa	Oct. 5, 1957	Range 13, Eardley Part Lot 1A, Range 13, Eardley.	1 acre	5,500	tt tt	Leased at market rental3572	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
57071-3-227
Q-442-J. P. E. & F.	A.	May	16,	1958
Ardouin & M.	R.			
Martineau				
Q-443-J. P. Ardouin	May	16,	1958Q-557-W. B. Henderson..	Feb.	21,	1956Q-558-J. J. O'Neill	Feb.	21,	1956Q-559-J. W. Balharrie....	Mar.	14,	1956Q-561-R. Mulvihill	Apr.	24,	1956Q-562-C. Overton	May	22,	1956Q-563-B. Mulvihill	June	4,	1956Q-564-F ortin-Gravelle	Apr.	24,	1956Q-568-K. Bedford	Oct.	12,	1956Q-569-Devlin Estate	July	23,	1956Q-580-C. D. Morris	Apr.	17,	1957Q-587-M. Smith	Nov.	4,	1957Q-588-L. J. Hendrick....	Nov.	7,	1957Q-589-E. P. Childs	Aug.	28,	1957Q-590-J. W. & H. Dunlop.	Oct.	31,	1957Q-591-A. & W. Olmstead.	Oct.	23,	1957Q-592-D. C. Bate	Aug.	28,	1957Q-593-A. Berniquez	June	12,	1957Q-594-A. Guertin	June	5,	1957Q-595-J. Wernikowski....	June	26,	1957Q-596-Mrs. Henry and M.	July	8,	1957O'Neill	Q-597-M. J. Young	Sept.	5,	1957Q-598-A. B. and A. Tommy.	Aug.	8,	1957Q-599-L. J. Stone	Aug.	9,	1957QA-500-C. Stone	July	30,	1957QA-501-H. B. Parks	Sept. 27,	1957QA-502-M. L. Brown	Feb.	11.	1958QA-504-W. F. Wiggett...	Dec.	2,	1957QA-506-S. Kelly	Nov. 27,	1957QA-507-Engec Ltd	Feb.	21,	1958
Nj Lot 13, Range 13, Eardley.... Part Lot 12, Range 13, Eardley..
West Hull
Part Lot 14B, Range 9, West Hull Part Lot 14B, Range 9, West Hull Lots 27D and 28, Range 12, West Hull
N part Lot 23, Range 8, West Hull Part Lot 22, Range 7, West Hull. Lots 21 and 22, Range 7, West Hull
Lot 18, Range 7 & South $ & E part of Lot 18, Range 8, West Hull
Lot 16, Range 8, West Hull...
Lot 25B, Range 11, West Hull_
Part Lots 11 and 12, Range 7, West Hull
Part Lot 14, Range 7, West Hull. N-J of SI of Lot 18, Range 11, West Hull
N'a of Lot 17, Range 10, West Hull Part Lots 18 & 19, Range 10, and Si Lot 19, Range 11, West Hull Si of Lot 18, Range 12, West Hull Part of Lot 17, Range 10, West Hull
Part of Lot 13A, Range 7, West Hull
Part Lots 2GB and 27A, Range 8, West Hull
Part of Lot 16, Range 9, West Hull
Part of Lot 16, Range 9, West Hull
Part of Lot 27B, Range 8, West Hull
Part of Lot 16, Range 9, West Hull Part of Lot 16, Range 9, West Hull Part of Lot 16A, Range 9, West Hull
Part of Lot 16, Range 8, West Hull Part of Lot 21A, Range 10, West Hull
Part of Lot 17, Range 8, West Hull Part of Lot 28A, Range 8, West Hull
Part of Lot 16A, Range 9, West Hull
.191
.162
1
167.2
80
.23
.89
1.5
16.5
100
100
3
18i
11
5.5 .5 .5
.25
.5
9.57
1.92
19,000
Park land
2,150
Park land
10,800
9,900
Park land
Leased at market rental Leased at market rental
35.000 19,500
95.000
Park land Park land
Leased at market rental
15,000
Park land
2,950
5,000
11,200
16,000
21,000
12.500
39.500
Leased at market rental Park land
Park land, building demolished	>
Leased to former owner	a
Park land	a
	CJ
Park land	CA
Leased to former owner	H
10,000
7,850
Park land Park land
3,300
Park land
9,000
Leased at market rental
18,000 15,000 3,300
Park land Park land Park land
7,500
9,000
1,800
Park land Park land Park land
2,600
4,200
Park land Park land
21,000
2,870
Leased at market rental Park land
3,000
Park land
o
C/l
Questions
PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS-MARCH 1, 1956-JUNE 30, 1958-Concluded
Name of Former Owner or Vendor	Date of Expropriation or Purchase	Legal Description	Acreage	Total Price	Reason for Acquisition	Present UseQA-508-J. & L. Milks	Feb. 21, 1958	COUNTY OF GATINEAU Part Lot 16, Range 8, West Hull...	.5	$ 1,000	For development of	Park landQA-512-C. McCredie	Apr. 29, 1958	Part Lot 16, Range 8, West Hull.	| acre	5,300	Gatineau park ti it	Leased at market rentalQA-515-M. J. Young	Apr. 23, 1958	Part Lot 28A, Range 8, West Hull.	5.85	1,915	it u	Park landQA-516-P. J. Mulvihill	Apr. 23, 1958	Part Lot 22B, Range 8, West Hull.	.5	2,500	Leased at market rentalQA-517-Dr. Milks	May 7, 1958	Part Lots 15 and 16, Range 8, West Hull Part Lot 15, Range 8, West Hull..	J acre	2,000	Park landQA-518-J. McKenna	May 12, 1958	1 acre	1,000	"	Park landQ-727-P. Hannaford	Apr. 24, 1956	SOUTH HULL West § Lot 17, Range 6, South	30	7,075	<< it	Park landQ-728-W. Moffatt	Apr. 25, 1956	Hull E| of part of Lot 17, Range 6,	32	9,000	It it	Park landQ-729-H. E. McClelland... .	Mar. 28, 1956	South Hull Lot 16A and NJ Lot 15, Range 6,	150	50,000	ll it	Park landQ-731-G. A. Faris	Apr. 24, 1956	South Hull E§ of Lot 12, Range 5, South Hull.	60	32,500	it it	Park landQ-732-M. Kingsbury	Mar. 29, 1956	Part of S. part Lot 9, Part Lots	100	20,000	Leased to former ownerq_734__L. Taylor 	Apr. 24, 1956 Apr. 24, 1956	8A and 8B, Range 5, South Hull Lot 12, Range 5, South Hull	1	1,200	ll ll	Park landQ-736-M. French	Lot 16B, Range 6, South Hull -	1-1/5	2,000	it ll	Park landQ-737-F. G. Rad more	Apr. 24, 1956 June 8, 1956 Oct. 23, 1956	Part Lot 13A, Range 5, South Hull	18	6,000	ll	Park landLot 17, Range 6, South Hull	5.68	6,200	Park landQ-739-M. McAllister	Part Lot 9A-2, Range 4, South	9	17,000	ll ll	Leased to former ownerQ-744-Mrs. W. H. Phillips.. .	Apr. 3, 1957	Hull Part Lot 21, Range 7, South Hull.	.37	1,000	ll ll	Park landQ-747-M. Robinson	May 29, 1957	Part Lots 16B and 16C, Range 6,	n	9,800	Leased at market rentalQ-748-A. M. Munn	May 16, 1957	South Hull Part Lot 16C, Range 6, South Hull Part Lot 16C, Range 6, South	.13	250	ll It	Park landQ-749-W. M. Cake	May 30, 1957	1	8,000	ll It	Leased at market rentalQ-750-W. Moffatt	May 16, 1957	Hull Part Lot 16, Range 6, South Hull.	2	12,500	ll It	Park land, building deQ-752-C. R. Metz	Oct. 8, 1957	Part Lot 16C, Range 6, South	2.56	5,000	It ll	Leased at market rentalQ-754-E. Wallingford	Mar. 20, 1958	Hull N.W. part Lot 19, Range 6, South	30	3,000.95	ll ll	Park landHull	($100 p.a.)	3574	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
57071-3-227i
3 and 4	AGREEMENTS OF SALE OR OPTIONS-MARCH 1, 1956-JUNE 30, 1958
Name of Former Owner or Vendor		Legal Description	Acreage	Total Price	Reason for Acquisition		Present Use	
		COUNTY OF CARLETON						
G.N.R.-4-33-1		E. \ Lot 33, Con. 4. R.F. Nepean.	100	$ 75,000.00				
							Occupied by n	
G.N.R.-4-32-2 J. C. Hammill		N. 5 Lot 32, Con. 4, R.F. Nepean. Pt. W. i Lot 28, Con. 4 R.F.	100	75,000.00	n	ft		tt
G.N.R.-4-28-1								
			30	9,000.00	«	a	tt	tt
G.N.R.-3-21-1 T. Bergin									
119	71,400.00 30,000.00	tt	tt	tt	ttG.N.R.-3-22-2	S. i Lot22, Con. 3 R.F. Nepean... E. Pt. Lot 12, Cone. 5. O.F.	50	tt	tt	
12	3,480.00	u	a	tt	tt
G.N.R.-3-28-1		W. % Lot 28, Con. 3 R.F. Nepean and E. § of N. f of E. \ Lot 28, Con. 4, R.F. Nepean and Pt. W. \ Lot 28 east of Forced Rd.						
G.N.R.-4-28-1	195	121,750.00 150,000.00 75,000.00	tt	itG.N.R.-3-30-1 F. S. Hammill G.N.R.-4-29-1 G.N.R.-4-20-2 G.N.R.-4-30-2 J. C. Hammill	S. W. J Lot 30, Con. 3 R.F. Nepean & N. 4 Lot 29 Con. 4. R.F. Nepean & S. 4 Lot 30, Cone. 4. R.F. Nepean including 12 ft. Right-of-Way over N. J Lot 30. N. i Lot 30, Con. 4 R.F. Nepean. N.W. side Lot 26, Con. 5 R.F.	248.5 100	tt tt	((	tt	((80	50,000.00 16,400.00	tt	tt	tt	ftG.N.R.-5-26-2	E. Pt. Lot 26, Con. 5 R.F. Nepean. Pt. Lot 27, Con. 5, R.F. Nepean. Pt. Lot 28, Con. 5 R.F. Nepean.. Pt. Lot 30, Con. 5 R.F. Nepean and N. § Lot 31 Con. 5 R.F.	82	(t	tt	tl	tt190.29	60,000.00 53,000.00	it	tt	tt	ttG.N.R.-5-28-1 A. J. Rea	167	it	tt	it	ttG.N.R.-5-30-2 J. C. Hammill	G.N.R.-5-31-1	149.46	49,200.00	tt	({	tt	G.N.R.-5-32-2 E. E. Byrne. .	Pt. E. \ Lot 32 & Pt. Lot 33, Con.	G.N.R.-5-33-1	184.5	135,000.00	u	tt	tt	ttG.N.R.-5-34-1	Centre 2/5 Lot 34, Con. 5 R.F.	80	48.000.	00 28.000.	00	u	tt	tt	ttW. J Lot 14, Con. 3. O.F. Gloucester S. 1/3 Lot 14, and N. 1/3 Lot 15,	46	a	tt	tt	itG.G.R.-1-14-1 C. Nixon	G.G.R.-1-15-1	56	37,500.00	it	tt	tt	tt
Questions
AGREEMENTS OF SALE OR OPTIONS-MARCH 1, 1956-JUNE 30, 1958-Concluded
Name of Former Owner or Vendor		Legal Description	Acreage	Total Price	Reason for Acquisition	Present Use
		COUNTY OF CARLETON -Concluded				
Pt. E. Pt. of N. ^ Lot 7, Con. 6. R.F. Gloucester	
Lot 15, Con. 3 O.F. Gloucester... E. \ Lots 27 & 28 and S. \ Lot 29, Con. 3 R.F. Nepean, S. § Lot 29, Con. 4 R.F. Nepean, E. § Lot 29 and S.E. \ Lot 30, Con. 5 R.F.	For development of greenbelt <( tt	.5 41	$ 750.00 6,800.00	Occupied by owner « ttG.N.II.-3-27-1 John, Thomas	G.N.R.-4-29-1 G.N.R.-5-29-1 G.N.R.-5-30-1	550	250,000.00	it itG.N.R.-3-32-1	Pt. Lots 32 & 33, Con. 3 R.F.	135	95,000.00	<« u	tt ttCITY OF OTTAWA	.08	29,000.00	For development of Sussex drive, boulevard and	u tt

[Stage Direction]
E-120-M. Mussencabbie...
E-129-J. McCarthy	
E-131-D. A. McDonald....
E-137-Dominion Structural Steel
E-139-J. Keenan	
E-142-C. Cyr	
E-143-H. Shenkman	
Pt. Lots 11-12-13, J. G., Gloucester, PI. Lot 31.
Sub-Lot 8 and Pt. Sub-Lots 5-6-7 in Lot 22, J. G., Gloucester, R.P. 31
Part Lot 1-C3, R.F., Gloucester Part Lot 25, C2, O.F., Gloucester Pt. Lot 26, C2, O.F., Gloucester.. Pt. Lot 27, C-2, O.F., Gloucester
Pt. Lot A, Pt. Lot 26, C-3, O.F., Gloucester
9.27
16.38
2.1
3.6
0.5
1.2
S 7,500	For development of sou-	Vacant land24,750	them entrance « u	Vacant land25,000	tt it	Occupied by former4,200	u tt	owner Vacant land. Occupied4,860	tt it	by former owner Vacant land. Occupied675	u n	by former owner Vacant land. Occupied1,620	"	by former owner « tt3576	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
E-150-A. Charnysh E-158-W. Baker___
Pt. Lot F, It.P.329, Gloucester... Pt. Lot G, R.P, 329, Gloucester...
E-163-M. Shulega
Lot H, PI. 329, Gloucester
E-134-L. Larmour
COUNTY OF CARLETON Pt. Lot25, C-2, O.F., Gloucester..
E-135-K. B. Craig
Pt. Lot 24, C-2,0.F., Gloucester.
EP-200-General Supply 0-223-Ida Jamieson__
0-302-L. Whitty	
0-308-L. E. Whitty....
0-311-Ada Shaffer...
0-323-C. E. Cole....

[Stage Direction]
Pt. Blk. D, pt. Champagne Ave., Reg. Plan 73
Pt. Blk. E, All of A-D, Plan 40} and pt. Lots 10-11-12 and A, W. Kirby Road, pi. 110
Pt. Twp. Lot 25-150X90', Nepean
Pt. Lots 15-16, Reg. PI. 233, Nepean
S} Lot 18 and all Lots 19, 20, Plan 233, Nepean
All Lot 24 and Lot 23, less N. 25'
0-331-Estate Mary Hartnett 0-334-H. Berlin	
0-382-A. A. Kerry	
0-395-C. Andrews	
0-399-J. Sachs	
0-400-A. Welch	
0-211-J. A. Larocque....
0-241-N. Gowland	
0-308A-Patrick Whitty...
Pt. Blk. B, Plan 278, Nepean...
N.W. pt. Blk. B, Plan 278, Nepean
Lots 158,159, Plan 278, Nepean_
Lot 115, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lots 119 and 120, Plan 278, Nepean
Lot 121, Plan 278, Nepean	
Lot 5, Sussex St	
Lot 359, M-29, Nepean	
Pt. Lots 15 and 16, Plan 233, Nepean
2,700
4,036
Vacant land
Occupied by former owner
2,853
1,069
((
<«
Vacant land. Occupied by former owner
tt	It
18,000
86,500
6,000
3.000
4.000
8.000
5,000
20,385
6,500
6,300
13,307
7,920
25,000
14,875
2,600
For development of Queensway For development of Ottawa river parkway
It
it
it
It
it
it
Vacant land
To be returned to former
owner, quired Occupied owner	no longer re-by former
u	tt
Occupied owner it it	by former tt tt
tt	tt tt it
tt	tt tt tt

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
266.	Departmental administration, $731,410.
267.	Northern research co-ordination centre, including a grant of $10,000 to the Arctic Institute of North America; and an amount of $10,000 for grants in aid of northern research subject to allocation by the Treasury Board, $89,302.
268.	To provide for contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the Governor in Council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for camp-ground and picnic area developments, $1,000,000.
National Parks Branch-
269.	Branch administration, $143,105.
National parks and historic sites services-
270.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,065,610.
271.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,399,925.
272.	Grant to Jack Miner migratory bird foundation, $5,000.
273.	Grant in aid of the development of the International Peace Garden in Manitoba, $10,000.
274.	To authorize payment to the National Battlefields Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec (Chap. 57, Statutes of 1908, as amended), $158,475.
275.	Canadian Wildlife Service-Wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $618,301.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 15, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh and twelfth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. McCleave.
Ninth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.