1959-07-10

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I find that one of the committees of the house, the standing committee on veterans affairs, in submitting its report to the house on July 1 ascribed to me a statement which is not in accord with the information which I communicated to the committee in question. The report of the committee, which is to be found on page 639 of Votes and Proceedings of that day, in paragraph 14 refers to information which is ascribed to me on the present state of the war claims fund, and states that I had told the committee that the sum of $6 million remains in the fund.
That is not a correct statement at all, Mr. Speaker, of the information I communicated to the committee. The information was contained in a letter dated April 10, 1959, which I wrote to the chairman of the committee and which I believe became part of the records of the committee. There I indicated that the combined cash and market value of the bonds held to the credit of the fund at that date was about $4.6 million. I may say further, Mr. Speaker, that since that time there have been, of course, substantial disbursements out of the fund and the balance today is approximately $4 million.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL    STUDY OF EXPANSION OF FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister say whether, as a result of congestion in the Welland canal and congestion along the seaway, any study is contemplated to see whether or not the seaway facilities should be expanded or duplicated under certain circumstances?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, my department is carrying on some studies in that regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give any further explanation and tell us when the study may be completed?


George Harris Hees: No; I do not know, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia in regard to the royal commission on transportation, first with respect to the question of hearings and also with respect to the presentation of reports to parliament.
In so far as sittings are concerned, the Minister of Transport communicated with the chairman of the commission, Mr. McTague, who advised that the intention was to hold sittings across the country, generally in the capitals of the various provinces, and as well to consult fully with the government of each of the provinces relative to the matters submitted to the commission.
In so far as reports are concerned, the regular procedure will of course be followed, namely that in due course a report will be made to the governor in council. That report will be tabled in parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. Can he give the house some indication when the series of regional meetings will take place; October or November?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the commencement date is concerned, there has been no determination yet as to that. The desire of the commission is to proceed with the greatest of dispatch and I can say, knowing what Mr. McTague has done to date, that his time has been taken up by the organizational questions that necessarily arise to the end that the commission will be able to report at the earliest possible date consistent with the great responsibilities that rest upon it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Within the 12-month target period, I take it, set for the commission?

Indian Affairs INDIAN AFFAIRS



MACKENZIE DISTRICT


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the governor in council has appointed a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the implementation of treaties 8 and 11 respecting the 15 Indian bands of the Mackenzie district, and to report its recommendations after full consultation with the Indians concerned. Under the terms of the treaties these 15 Indian bands, numbering approximately 4,500 people, have a total land settlement of some 576,000 acres. The rapid development of the Northwest Territories makes it imperative that the land provided for the establishment of reserves be set aside for that purpose now or, alternatively, that the treaties be renegotiated with the consent of the Indians. The commission will consider the present and future economic and social welfare of the Indians and will obtain the views of each band on all aspects of the matter.
The commission consists of five members: Chairman, Mr. Walter H. Nelson, barrister, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Mr. V. F. Valentine, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa; Mr. L. L. Brown, Indian affairs branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Ottawa; Mr. James Koe, Fort McPherson band, Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories and Mr. Baptiste Ca-zon, Fort Simpson band, Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories.
The commission began its meetings in Aklavik on July 6, 1959.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the native Indian people of the Mackenzie district will be very happy to hear of the appointment of this commission to deal with land rights, a matter that has not been looked into for many years. I should like to ask the minister whether the government gave the Indians any opportunity to vote on those who would represent them on the commission.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the commission is composed of two Indians, one member from the northern affairs branch, one member from the Indian affairs branch and the chairman. In so far as the selection of the two Indians is concerned, consultations were held with those

in the territories. I do not believe there was a formal vote, but consultations were held to determine who would be suitable people to represent the Indians on the commission.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: May I ask the minister a further question?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might defer his question until we get to orders of the day. I think the hon. member for Skeena wishes to comment on behalf of the C.C.F.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I want to express appreciation that the commission has been established. I am sure that the Indians affected will look upon it with favour and will hope that it will be able to deal with their problems effectively. I hope that as a result of the decision reached by the commission and subsequent action taken the Indians affected will be treated in a fair and more equitable manner than has been the case with Indians in other parts of Canada with respect to land and treaty questions.
[Later:!


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question in connection with the statement made a moment ago to the effect that there were two Indians appointed to this commission. I should like to point out to the minister that both these Indians are from the area of the Mackenzie river. I wonder if she would be good enough to appoint an Indian from the Great Slave lake area, where the problems are entirely different from those in the Mackenzie river area.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to point out that Indians from whatever area they may come, will be given ample opportunity to make their wishes known to the commission. It is always extremely difficult, as the hon. member knows, to select people who have the necessary qualifications to serve on a commission of this sort.



NORTHLAND NAVIGATION COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he say if the chief executive officer of the labour relations board advised that a ballot would be permitted in connection with the bargaining agent of the Northland Navigation Company engineers, and was that commitment later reversed?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information to that effect.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the representations that are being made, I know, to many members of parliament including those from British Columbia, in connection with this matter, will the minister kindly look into it and perhaps give us a reply tomorrow?


Michael Starr: Yes, I certainly will.
Mr. H. C, McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):
Would the Minister of Labour give the house a report concerning the strike situation in connection with the Northland Navigation Company?


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and also because of the concern that has been expressed by all members from the province of British Columbia, I should like to inform the house what has happened in this situation.
On July 7 the Canada labour relations board rejected an application made by an officer of the S.I.U. on behalf of a number of marine engineers for the decertification of the national association of marine engineers as bargaining agent for the engineering officers employed by the company. At the same time the board granted a request of the S.I.U. that its own application for certification as bargaining agent be withdrawn.
Pending release of the board's decision on the proceedings before it, the N.A.M.E. had been enjoined by court order from picketing the company's operations. When the N.A.M.E. resumed its picketing the S.I.U. withdrew men who had been supplied to replace the longshoremen members of the international longshoremen and warehousemen's union who usually performed such work. As a result the company was unable to load its facilities.
The deck officers and masters employed by the company who are members of the Canadian merchant service guild, are reported to have left their employment on July 7. While there is still a confused situation affecting this coastal shipping operation, with court actions and proceedings involving the B.C. federation of labour, the I.L.W.U. and other labour organizations and individuals, the situation should become clearer since the application for decertification has been disposed of and the employer should now feel free to negotiate a settlement with the certified bargaining agent. My officer on the west coast is now attempting to arrange a meeting between the company and the N.A.M.E.
66968-9-366
Inquiries of the Ministry
Just a few moments ago I received a telegram from Mr. Currie, the representative of the labour department, which reads as follows:
Further our telephone conversation Thursday afternoon Captain Terry had agreed to meet NAME committee solely while unions wanted all interested groups represented. Unions later agreed to committee of Greaves and Berry. Captain Terry is giving this consideration and promised me answer Friday morning. In meantime all parties have stated they will withhold public statements.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a supplementary question. Has the minister anything further to report with respect to reports of San Francisco goons coming to Vancouver to take part in these operations? Has she done anything to get rid of these blighters?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The information I have is that if they were in the country, they are not here now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Labour a further question arising out of the statement he has just made in answer to a question put by one other hon. member of this house, an answer which I thought might well have followed the questions I put to him earlier. The minister, in this statement has just indicated that he is now endeavouring to arrange for a meeting. I note that in Hansard of July 6 for this session he said:
However, I did dispatch a telegram during the latter part of last week asking both parties to meet with the labour department representative in Vancouver, and they are meeting this morning.
Did such a meeting take place and is the meeting to which my hon. friend now draws our attention another meeting altogether?


Michael Starr: The statement read by the hon. member for Essex East is entirely correct. Such a meeting was held. This is an entirely different meeting.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, who seems to be in a generous mood this morning. With the number of housing starts substantially below those of last year, can the minister now tell the house when direct loans to builders will be commenced this year?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I am not yet in a position to make an announcement on that question.


John Richard Garland: If I might be permitted to do so I should like to ask a supplementary question. With the number of starts down almost 20 per cent this year, and with the $250,000,000 that parliament approved earlier this year still intact, what possible justification is there for delaying this particular action?


Howard Charles Green: As I told the hon. member previously, government policy will be announced in due course. He should not be discouraged about the number of housing starts. I am going to take a chance today and prophesy that they will be between 135,000 and 140,000 in 1959. That will be the second highest figure, the record having been achieved last year.


John Richard Garland: With this forecast which the minister is now prepared to make and which he was not prepared to make some time ago, he apparently knows when he is going to implement direct loans to builders. That is an extremely important factor in the total number of starts. If he knows, and if this decision has been made, why can the country not know?


Howard Charles Green: I really am surprised that the hon. member is so impatient, because that is not his nature.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gafe):: I have a supplementary question that I should like to put to the Prime Minister. Is the present Minister of Public Works going to make that announcement, or in view of the way in which the house facilitated the completion of the work of the present Minister of Public Works, can we expect the announcement from his successor before the end of the session?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the interest of the hon. gentlemen in the appointment of a successor to the Minister of Public Works. I seem to remember that the same type of question was asked in 1941 and 1942, when for a period of many months no representative was appointed from the province of Quebec. We used to ask questions in that regard and the answer we received was that an announcement would be made in due course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister will perhaps recall that we were asked to assist in getting


through the estimates of public works so that a successor could be appointed, and that we facilitated that procedure.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell the house whether new oil regulations for the Arctic islands have been approved by the cabinet as yet?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether we might have an explanation for the long delay in the work of the royal commission on price spreads. Is it reasonable to assume that we may expect a report on the findings of this commission in a reasonably short time?


John George Diefenbaker: In reply to that question may I say this. The length of time that has elapsed since the appointment of the commission on price spreads and the time that has been taken in the sittings are indicative of the importance of the subject. There has been a complete and thorough examination of a problem which for so many years has been the subject of requests on the part of agricultural and other organizations across this country. The result has been that the commission has gone extensively into the problem. I have no immediate indication from the chairman as to when the report will be made available, but I am sure it will not be very long delayed.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. This morning while demolishing the bridge approach between Nepean point and Major Hill park part of the structure fell on the approach to the bridge, and on that account thousands of civil

servants were late for work. Is it the intention of the government to do something about that bridge?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the accident this morning and I am sorry to hear of it. However, I think this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the national capital commission.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he intervene with the civil service commission so that employees who were late for work on account of the state of disrepair of the interprovincial bridge may not lose any pay?


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is no need for me to intervene, members of the civil service commission will surely understand the circumstances.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask a supplementary question? In case the civil service commission is unaware of the situation, might it not be of the utmost importance that the minister take a hand in the matter?
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY INCREASES THIS SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister promised the officers of the civil service organizations that the recommendations of the civil service commission regarding salary increases would be acted upon as soon as the recommendations were received by the government?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, that question is an indefinite one. It gives no indication of when the promise was made, and I will have to look into the question and ascertain the basis for the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I appreciate the Prime Minister's consideration and the fact that he will look into the facts and report to the house, but I wonder if he would indicate to the house whether he does not feel that the 66968-9-366i
Inquiries of the Ministry faithful and loyal employees of his government are deserving of some immediate consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, of course, was a member of the last cabinet from April 26 or 27 until June 21, during which time the civil servants were asking for their proper increases. It remained, however, for this government, as one of its first acts, to implement what could have been done long before that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it not true-and I put this question to the Prime Minister-that what the present government did was to implement a decision of treasury board under the previous administration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what the present government did was what the government of which the hon. member was a distinguished member failed to do for a long while. We acted as soon as we had the opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has made his speech, I wonder if he could find time to answer my question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -created a wrong impression. My question is this. Is it not true that the order in council authorizing the last increase in salaries of federal civil servants was passed by the government of which I was a member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think a question relating to an event in history is scarcely a matter or urgency for this house; furthermore, it is a matter of public record.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister tell us who at the present time is performing the statutory functions of the president of the C.B.C. as chairman of the board of directors?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Colonel Landry is, as I said, chairman of the management committee, and Mr. Dunsmore is chairman of the

Inquiries of the Ministry executive committee of the board of directors and in the absence of the vice president is acting as chairman of the board.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF CONFERENCE ON FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if we may expect from him today a statement about the study group that is now in session on the matter of dominion-provincial fiscal relations; or is it not proposed to give to the country or the house any information as to what conclusions they have reached, if they have reached any or if they are allowed to reach any?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I would think the hon. member would add to the respect in which he is held by the house if he would refer to the federal-provincial continuing committee on economic and fiscal questions by its proper name instead of talking about a study group.


Murdo William Martin: Seminar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This happens to be a committee for financial planning composed of the most competent officials in this country at both the dominion and provincial levels of government on economic and fiscal questions. The committee has been in existence for some years but was never used by the previous government to the extent of its full potentialities and usefulness.
What is being done now is to refer to that very competent committee the questions of extremely wide import in this field upon which they are highly competent to investigate and report. I am very happy to report to the house that in accordance with the direction given by the conference of ministers of finance and provincial treasurers which met in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday, the continuing committee embarked upon its work immediately. They assembled on Wednesday morning, and after a day and a half of intensive work completed the allotment of the subjects which were assigned to them by the conference of ministers. They adjourned yesterday afternoon, and I think it fair to say that most of those officials are going to be spending this summer hard at work on these subjects. It is planned to hold the next meeting of the continuing committee around September 1.


Murdo William Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister if the federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters, otherwise

known as the minister's study group or seminar, has reached as yet any conclusions which would enable the government to decide if it would be possible to hold before the end of this calendar year a full-fledged dominion-provincial conference on fiscal relations, arising out of recommendations made by the federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have always attached some degree of respect to the intelligence of my hon. friend. What his question means is that although the continuing committee was in session yesterday and had referred to them an extremely formidable list of subjects of far-reaching importance, he thinks they should have reached decisions before they even started to sit. That is about the size of it. He should not expect others to follow his example of speaking and deciding before thinking.
This competent committee was asked to carry out the tasks assigned to them by the conference of ministers. I have already dealt with the subject of the calling of a plenary conference. I dealt. with that in reply to questions asked by the amiable hon. gentleman on Tuesday. I dealt with questions on the same subject asked by the same amiable hon. gentleman on Wednesday and asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I think, on both occasions.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You did not answer any of the questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is quite clear that this is a matter for decision at the governmental level. It is not a matter for decision by the officials.


Murdo William Martin: In response to the rather involved reply given by my genial and hon. friend the Minister of Finance, may I say I think it is clear now that the government does not intend to call such a conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does love to assert his own conclusions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There was no question asked. The hon. member for Essex East was improperly making a statement and I do not wish to see the minister improperly answering a question that was not asked.
iLater:]


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: I should like to ask the minister this question. In so far as this continuing tax study group is concerned, has the minister considered that our smallest province has adequate professional advice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as the federal government we do not attempt to prescribe for the provinces what advice they should seek or from whom they shall choose to obtain their advice. Those are sovereign governments; they run their own affairs and we do not attempt to interfere with them, as was clearly demonstrated in Monday's conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Will the minister be kind enough to convey those views to the Minister of Justice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be very pleased to convey them to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, Mr. Speaker, who needs them.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC    STATEMENT AS TO PAYMENTS BY FEDERAL TREASURY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Inquiries of the Ministry
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a factual question. Is he in a position today to answer the questions I asked him the day before yesterday about payments to the governments of Quebec, and about which I asked for an answer yesterday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I take pleasure in furnishing the hon. gentleman with this information. He asked about payments. I presume he is referring to payments made in pursuance of the provisions of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should correct that right away. I asked about payments from the federal treasury to the treasury of the province of Quebec.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe I can supply the hon. gentleman with the information he wishes. In tabulated form it is as follows:
CASH PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC (In thousands of dollars)
Quebec
Preliminary Estimated
Unconditional Payments 1. Statutory subsidies 	1956-57	1957-58 3,301	1958-59 3,301	1959-60 3,3013. Equalization 	43,060	55,004	61,5814. Stabilization 	5. Power corporation tax 	1,675	2,281	2,364Conditional grants 	4,487	48,036 24,801	60,586 39,785	67,246 49,405Total 	72,837	100,371	116,651
So the information may be complete I might comment that under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, of the three types of payments that are available to provinces under certain conditions prescribed by the legislation, the province of Quebec receives only the equalization grants. By reason of having no agreement with the federal government the province, of course, receives nothing on account of the tax rentals or the stabilization payments. For information, however, I might say that the payments that would have accrued on account of tax rental and stabilization payments for these past two fiscal years are $181 million in 1957-58, $186 million (estimated) in 1958-59, and $214 million (estimated) in 1959-60.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister very much. I should like to ask one supplementary question. Was the estimate of equalization payments for the current fiscal year the same as the minister gave in his budget papers,
or has he made a revision of it? I do not want to detain the house; perhaps the minister would prefer to answer it tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the budget speech, it will be recalled, I gave those figures in the aggregate for all provinces. I did not break them down for individual provinces. I think-and here I speak subject to correction-the estimate I have given this morning is based upon the same estimate that entered into the composite table which I place on Hansard in the budget speech, but I will verify that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister at the same time indicate to the house whether a new estimate has been made? The minister has told us that he estimates higher revenues than he gave in the budget speech and I should like to know whether a new estimate has been made. Perhaps on his departmental estimates he may be able to give that to the house.
5780	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



EQUALIZATION OF QUOTAS IN WESTERN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of the widespread discrimination in quotas in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where, on July 6, 90 per cent and 80 per cent respectively were below 7 bushels. Can the minister say what extraordinary action will be taken to equalize those quotas with the end of the crop year just three weeks away?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: My hon. friend with his use of "widespread discrimination" is attempting to convey the impression that something is being done which should not be done, and he is creating his usual state of alarm. The situation with regard to quotas out west is vastly improved over what it was last year, and I regret that the hon. member does not draw attention to that fact on some of the occasions that arise here in the house. Last year, on July 6, all the stations were on 5 and 6 bushel quotas. On July 6 of this year 775 stations were already on the 7 and 8 bushel quotas and 1,246 were on 5 and 6 bushel quotas, and there are only seven stations remaining on the 4 bushel quota. No attempt is being made at discrimination; an attempt is being made at enlarging the delivery of grain out west and there is still a chance, as expressed by the wheat board, of bringing all the stations out west up to a 7 and 8 bushel quota this year.
The situation does not differ materially from what it was in July a year ago when the quota was raised to 7 for half the stations. Then, I think, my hon. friend complained because some were still on 6, but generally the picture is quite good. There has been a slowing down in some areas out west for reasons which are well known to the house. The lake shipping season is not as good for grain this year as it was last year; consequently some millions of bushels have not been moved from the lakehead, opening terminal capacity for shipments from the southern parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But the month of July is usually a month of large shipments from the lakehead, and we still have some time before the end of the crop year. I repeat that everything is being done not to create discrimination at the many delivery points but to bring them all up to the same level.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister claim that there is less discrimination this year, or that the situation is better


this year, when last year there was a spread between delivery quotas of only 1 bushel, whereas the spread this year is very wide? Does the minister say now that within a three week period all quotas on the prairies will be 7 or 8 bushels? If this is his answer, I am perfectly satisfied.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the estimate given by the members of the wheat board when they were here before the agriculture committee of the house two weeks ago. I am quite free to admit that there is a gap between those now on 5, 6 and 8. Last year none was on the 8 bushel quota, but the board think they will all be on 7 or 8 this year, which is an improvement over last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether he expects any acceleration of shipments through the lakehead now 60 million bushels under last year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Quite a large proportion of lake shipping has been utilized this season for the shipment of iron ore, in view of the anticipated steel strike, and not so many ships were made available for the movement of wheat; but within the last few days there has been an increase in the movement of wheat from the lakehead. Care is being taken-I spoke to the Minister of Transport about this-to see that those grain ships are not delayed in their passage through the Welland canal.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege which affects all hon. members. On Monday the Secretary of State was good enough to table a list of the unfilled orders of the house. There are over 30 of those orders which were passed before May 1, and there are about 10 more which were passed in May. A surprisingly large number of them are orders which were directed primarily to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, whose estimates are to come before the house today. I wonder, sir, whether the leader of the house would urge not only that minister but all his colleagues to try to comply with those orders as quickly as possible, as I feel it would facilitate the completion of the business of the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, since my name was mentioned on this matter of privilege I should like to make it clear

that I have arranged with the hon. member for Assiniboia to get three of those orders for returns to be brought down next Wednesday. Three of the questions will be answered and are being brought forward today. I should also like to make it clear that many thousands of hours go into the preparation of these answers.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 448. Departmental administration, $2,437,352.


The Deputy Chairman:: This item will be found on page 81 of the blue book and the details on page 549.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, it is customary at this time for the minister responsible for this department to review the progress made and to deal with the various aspects of the work of the department, and I propose to do so briefly. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to do so this year because since the end of last session I have been able to visit most of the district offices of the department, as well as our treatment institutions across the country.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have found this a most interesting and enlightening experience, and it has given me a much more accurate perspective of the work carried out by the department in looking after veterans problems in the field. In the light of my own experience I am convinced that very few hon. members are fully aware of what is actually involved in the administration of the so-called veterans charter. I believe, therefore, that it would be useful to the committee to get a first-hand report of what I have been privileged to see.
While it is true that the estimates of the department have already been before the standing committee on veterans affairs and that some of this information was given to that committee, I think other members will be interested in it as well. Incidentally, I should like to express my appreciation to the chairman and the members of the standing committee for the excellent work which they are again doing in the interest of our veterans. Previous committees have set a high standard of good will and co-operation in this respect, and the present committee has more than upheld this tradition.
I should like to deal first with the administration of the Pension Act. In my travels across the country and in my personal contacts I have been greatly heartened by the
Supply-Veterans Affairs expressions of confidence which I have received both as to the provisions of the legislation itself and its administration. I have said that in these matters there is no finality, no closed door. It is my hope that in the not too distant future, next session in fact, we shall again bring this legislation before the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs with a view to being assured that our legislation shall not fall short of our intent.
All of us who have been close to this national undertaking are aware that its object is to seek to assure that no Canadian who has suffered a disability in mind or body arising out of his military service or, in the case of combat service, incurred during such service, shall be denied such measure of assistance as may be possible under the act. Parliament in its wisdom having enacted legislation, has deliberately removed its administration from the sphere of personal or political influence. The pension commission has been given the dual responsibility of interpreting and administering the act. By statute there is no appeal from its decision; that is to say, in so far as the Pension Act is concerned an appeal board of the commission is the court of last resort.
The administration of the Pension Act is big business even in this era of large expenditures. The committee will be interested to know that the current budget of the Canadian pension commission is $151,474,000. There are currently 187,015 pensions in payment, including awards to dependants. You will not be surprised to learn that there is a constantly growing rate of decline in the number of pensions payable for service in world war I. The years are taking their toll of both pensioners and their wives. The number of children currently of age for additional pension is declining sharply at the same time.
For this reason mainly the current liability for world war I is shrinking each year and at an accelerated rate. At the same time the world war II liability continues to increase and presumably will continue to do so for some years to come. However, despite the most recent increases in the rate of pension awards and the current increases on world war II account, there has been a slight overall reduction in the total liability in the last two years. This must not be attributed to any lessening of benefits or narrowing of the qualifications for entitlement. On the contrary, the actual benefits to the individual pensioner have been materially increased during this period.
I should like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, with reference to war veterans allowances. The general administration of the War

Supply-Veterans Affairs Veterans Allowance Act is under the jurisdiction of the minister except as to the authority to deal with and adjudicate upon applications made under the act. This authority is vested in a board located in Ottawa and in the district authorities which are established in each district of the department across Canada. The district authorities and the veterans welfare services in the districts constitute a field force which handles the processing of applications and reviews, arranges for medical examinations when indicated and performs all other duties pertinent to the adjudication of applications for war veterans allowances.
It might be of interest to mention that from the inception of the legislation in 1930 until 1950 inclusive, a period of 20 years, the total number of recipients had reached 33,877. Since 1950 the recipient strength has increased to 64,904, or almost doubled. The expenditures for the year 1950-51, inclusive of the assistance fund, amounted to $23,655,155, and in the fiscal year 1958-59, seven years later, these expenditures totalled $56,966,263. It will be seen that the work load of war veterans allowances in the districts has considerably increased. The number of approved applications at present averages 800 per month.
I might point out that this act was amended at the first session of the 23rd parliament in 1957. The basic rate of allowances payable to a single recipient was increased from $720 to $840 a year and the permissible ceiling of income for a single recipient was increased from $960 to $1,080 a year. The ceiling for a recipient at the married rate was increased from $1,620 to $1,740, and for a recipient with a blind spouse from $1,740 to $1,860 a year. All these increases were effective from November 1, 1957.
There are approximately 3,000 recipients who have become eligible for allowance because of these increases. In addition, the eligibility for war veterans allowance was at the same time extended to Canadian veterans who saw at last 365 days of service in the United Kingdom during world war I, and eligibility was also granted to the widows of deceased veterans who would have qualified on this basis. Some 967 additional recipients have been granted allowances because of this extension of eligibility. Also, the period of residence in Canada required of imperial and allied veterans of world war I and earlier conflicts, and their widows, in order to qualify for the allowance was reduced from 20 to 10 years, and a great many recipients have qualified as a result of this reduced residence requirement. The additional annual allowance payable because of these various amendments to the act is estimated at $10 million.


Two further amendments improved the position of a number of recipients because of the increased length of permissible absence from Canada from three to six months in a year, and an increase in the permissible equity in a home occupied by a recipient from $6,000 to $8,000.
I should like to say a few words now with reference to the Veterans' Land Act. As hon. members know, the Veterans' Land Act was amended this year, and the amendments were very thoroughly discussed at the time the resolution and bill were before the house and also in the veterans affairs committee. I will make a brief summary of the activities and achievements of the Veterans' Land Act administration.
Up until the end of March, 1959, 77,187 veterans had been settled under the act, 33,395 as full-time farmers, 42,680 as small holder and 1,112 as commercial fishermen. This had involved a total public expenditure of $389,738,861 for land, livestock and equipment. Of this amount $191,760,874 was still outstanding and annual collections amount to $21,244,736. Including prepayments on account, 105.8 per cent of all principal and interest due and owing had been collected by March 31, 1959.
Of the 77,187 settled, 16,297 had already repaid their indebtedness and received title to their properties; 5,210 had transferred their equity in their properties to other veterans who became established under the act; 2,038 had quitclaimed their properties back to the director, some due to failure to find a satisfactory way of life in farming and some for strictly administrative or other reasons; 638 had vacated provincial land on which they had been settled by their provinces and toward whose settlement the Veterans' Land Act had made a contribution. Of the 77,187 settled only 186, or less than three out of every thousand, had to be put off their property for failure to live up to their contracts.
Under the home construction program a total of 26,423 homes had been built, or were under construction, at March, 1959. A large majority of these homes have been built by the veterans themselves acting as their own contractors under supervision by Veterans' Land Act construction supervisors, and after attending a Veterans' Land Act construction school. A total of over 700 construction schools have been held since the first one organized in 1949. Under this plan veterans have built, or are building, their own homes at a very considerable saving to themselves, and now have homes of their own which in many cases would otherwise have been impossible.

The measure of success achieved by this branch of the department should not be considered only in terms of collections, but in the rehabilitation service extended in helping former comrades meet and solve their problems and in the contribution being made to the agricultural industry as a whole. The advice given to settlers has not been restricted to line fences but, from reports I have from all over the country as well as from my own observations, 1 know that valuable information is being passed along to many others engaged in agriculture.
Canada is justifiably proud of its record in successfully rehabilitating in civil life several hundred thousands of its sons and daughters who served the nation so well during world war II. The great majority of these have put to excellent use the opportunities and resources provided by our legislation. They are now making a solid contribution to the Canadian way of life and are not asking for further help. However, there is a significant number of veterans and their dependents not only from world war II but also from world war I and earlier military efforts, for whom we carry a continuing and, in some areas, an increasing responsibility. It is with these that our welfare services branch is especially concerned.
The continuing work of rehabilitating the casualties of war is a primary responsibility. Battle disabilities and service diseases may be medically repaired or cured but the physical impairment remains, and may at any time give way under the excessive stress and pressures of modern life. The department knows from experience that the vast majority of disabled veterans can be efficient and reliable workers when trained and placed in jobs within their intellectual and physical abilities. But experience also discloses that disabilities may be aggravated by many post-war causes, and the appropriate job of today is not necessarily suitable tomorrow.
The need for maintaining casualty rehabilitation service is borne out by the steady volume of new and reopened cases. Over the past five years the average number of active casualty cases under service at all times has been approximately 4,600. Departmental activity reports clearly indicate that in the foreseeable future there will be little or no reduction in this figure, and it therefore follows that services for Canada's war disabled will be required on a continuous basis.
In the district office the administrative and field work related to war veterans allowance and the supplementary benefits provided by the assistance fund constitute the largest single item of veterans welfare 66968-9-367
Supply-Veterans Affairs services branch work load. Each case, on application or review, requires detailed information and careful appraisal, which is often quite time-consuming. The magnitude of this task is illustrated by the fact that during the past fiscal year 15,489 investigations and visits were made on behalf of new applicants for war veterans allowance, 44,627 for rechecks and 9,158 for assistance fund purposes.
This growing work load is consistent with the increase in recipients and expenditures of both the war veterans allowance and the assistance fund. In the past fiscal year a total of 14,055 recipients of war veterans allowance were helped by the assistance fund at a total cost of $2,095,521. In the previous fiscal year 11,819 were assisted at a cost of $1,448,278.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the education assistance act. This is one aspect of our training program which continues to grow and is under the provisions of the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. By March 31, 1959 the total approved for training had grown to 1,406 from 1,106 reported at March 31 of 1958. Total expenditures under this program from July 1, 1953 to March 31, 1959 were $1,156,340. Each case approved represents careful work in counselling the child concerned regarding the choice of career and follow-up on academic progress. The peak years of this program are still ahead of us, and it is impossible at this time to estimate exactly how long it will last.
This act was amended during the first session of the 24th parliament to provide that certain small classes of children previously unable to benefit from the provisions of this act should be eligible for assistance. The effect so far of the enlargement of the eligible classes has been small and only a dozen or so have been affected. However, the future should show an increasing effect from this amendment, although the total number of children who will eventually gain benefits is difficult to predict.
A further amendment provided for the increase in the permissible allowance from $25 to $60 a month for a number of eligible students between the ages of 21 and 25. So far 156 students have benefited from this increase, and the annual rate of allowance to them for the fiscal year just ended is about $33,000.
The Veterans Insurance Act was amended at the first session of the 24th parliament to extend the eligibility to contract for insurance for world war II veterans and those of the action in Korea to September 30, 1962. World war II veterans had lost eligibility to
5784	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs take out this insurance unless they had unused re-establishment credit available for premiums. Since the amendment some 2,727 policies have been issued for $10.3 million of insurance, of which we estimate nearly 2,000 gained their eligibility from the amendment, and the face amount of their policies is about $9 million.
The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act and the Veterans Insurance Act were each amended to eliminate a restriction which had limited the face amount of insurance payable where a pension under the Pension Act was awarded to the dependant of a deceased pensioned policyholder. The effect of this amendment under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was slight because of the long period which has elapsed since the last of these policies was issued, in 1933. However, under the Veterans Insurance Act there have been some 223 death claims which have occurred since the amendment, representing a face value of about $643,800 which, on the basis of experience, would previously have been settled for approximately $450,600 but because of the amendment have become payable in full.
For the many years that I have been a member of this house I have known that the hospitals operated by our treatment services were generally held in high regard and that the work done in them was good. It was not, however, until I had the opportunity to visit them and see them with my own eyes that I realized just how good this work is.
It is on the clinical care of patients that the greatest public interest is focused. In this regard it is, of course, essential that proper drugs, equipment and buildings be available. I am happy to report that I have found our treatment services to be second to none in the supply of such adjuncts. Our equipment is in the main of the most modern type and is everywhere well maintained. An orderly program for the replacement of out-dated equipment ensures the continuance of this situation. Similarly, an orderly program for the replacement of outworn hospital buildings has been under way for some time and is still continuing. Another five or six years should see the disappearance of the old so-called "temporary" hospital accommodation and its replacement by modern fireproof buildings which should be worthy of the high quality of work carried out in them.
Construction work on the new wing at Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, B.C., with a bed capacity of 314, has now reached approximately 40 per cent completion. It is expected to be ready for occupancy by April, 1960 and will replace beds and facilities in the old frame military hospital annex and in the Hycroft veterans home at Vancouver.


Planning is almost completed for the proposed new 300 bed wing at Westminster hospital, London, Ontario. It is expected that construction work will begin in the near future and will be completed in about two and a half years. Occupancy will permit the demolition of some of the older parts of the hospital dating from the first world war.
Planning is now under way for the addition of a veterans wing to the General hospital at St. John's, Newfoundland. This addition will provide for 35 active treatment beds and 30 beds for domiciliary care. It will also include an auditorium and offices as well as facilities for recreation and an arts and crafts program. It is hoped to start work on the project before the end of the present fiscal year and construction is expected to take about one year altogether.
The department has deliberately embarked upon a program to keep the practice of medicine in departmental hospitals a living, vital, progressive thing. We have allied ourselves as closely as we can to the teaching programs of universities, and we have been active in a program of clinical research in those fields of medicine which we are best suited, in view of the nature of our patient population, to investigate.
The members of this committee will want to know the extent to which this service can be extended to the veterans of Canada. It was never intended that everyone who had ever served in the armed forces of Canada in wartime would be provided with a free medical plan for the balance of his life. Such a concept would be an approach to state medicine, attended by whatever evils may be inherent in such a scheme, and would I fear alienate the good will of those of the medical profession to whom we are indebted. In any event, the department provides in its hospitals a grand total of 8,945 beds. When it is realized that there are now about 1,200,000 living Canadians who were once members of the armed forces, it will be obvious that the number of available beds is insufficient to serve all this large population.
It is the function of treatment services to make good the ravages of war. Thus the veterans who receive a pension for a service-connected disability are entitled to be admitted to one of our hospitals at any time for the necessary treatment of that disability. Similarly, the veteran who is a recipient of war veterans allowance may be admitted to a departmental hospital for any necessary treatment. Since he is dependent upon the department for food, clothing and shelter, it would be unreasonable not to provide him also with medical care.

In conclusion, with respect to the estimates which are before the committee, may I point out that in the administrative votes there is a substantial decrease of over $3 million. The group of expenditures which can be classified as payments under legislation or regulations and which total nearly $220 million of the department's total requirements of $307,285,000 is expected to show an increase in 19591960 of approximately $1,620,000. In the group of expenditures classed as "terminable services" the substantial increase in provision for the education of children of war dead is more than offset by the termination of unemployment insurance contributions by the department on behalf of discharged regular force personnel.
Mr. Chairman, we shall be going over my estimates item by item, and I shall be very pleased to answer any questions which hon. members may wish to ask.


Mr. Forgie:: We have just listened to an historically factual and comprehensive report by the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to the situation prevailing in his department as of this time. I suggest that the report which he has made to parliament be published in printed form and distributed throughout the country. It is something which is really worth having, and it has brought up to date the entire veterans charter.
I do not intend to waste the time of the committee by any lengthy dissertation on this matter. The main items of the estimates have been before the standing committee. The committee has been unanimous in its report. I do not think it is necessary to repeat today what was said there. However, observations will be made on each item, of course, as it is reached.
We all in the committee appreciate the value of the services of the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs, particularly those of the officials of the Veterans' Land Act administration and the Canadian pension commission. I think it may be truthfully said that at all times the committee has had at heart the interests of the veteran and his dependants.
A great many improvements have been made during the past few years in the legislation affecting veterans. There is one matter, however, which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and which was not mentioned either in the committee or by him this morning. I refer to the question of small holdings under the Veterans' Land Act. In 1958, I think it was, the minister stated that he would make a careful investigation into this question of whether or not part-time holdings should not be reduced from 3 acres-or from 66968-9-367J
Supply-Veterans Affairs 1.6 acres which the figure actually is-to the original one half acre as it was in the beginning in 1945 or 1946. As far as my knowledge goes I am satisfied that the one half acre holding was a successful proposition in the section of the country from which I come. I would therefore ask the minister to review this situation, and possibly next year we shall be able to discuss the matter in committee.
I think that is all I have to say. As I say, we will discuss the estimates item by item as they come up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, like the previous speaker I shall be quite brief, because we had a very thorough discussion of these estimates in the committee. I listened with interest to the historical review of the development of veterans affairs legislation and its present status. However, I do want to make a complaint. Everywhere I go I find that people pick on me. During the discussion of certain aspects of these estimates in the committee one of the officials, I think it was the deputy minister, was standing there reading over a document indicating that it was estimated that the first world war veteran would last until year so and so, and as soon as he told the committee that he looked at me. This morning the minister gave some information to the house with respect to the number of world war I veterans shrinking each year, and just at that point he looked at me. I want to protest about this, Mr. Chairman, and ask him in future to glance at someone else besides me. I am a bit sensitive in that respect.
I do want to take this opportunity briefly to express my appreciation for the courtesies the minister has extended and the prompt attention he has paid to any matter I have brought to his notice. I have no hesitation in saying of the minister that whether we get all we want from him we do know his heart is in the right place; what he has to do is persuade the rest of his colleagues that what he is asking for is justified. I would also like to express my appreciation to the deputy minister, the Canadian pension commission and the war veterans allowances board, as well as the senior officials in Ottawa, including the ladies, the district officials and the local officials. For a good number of years I have had a lot to do with the Department of Veterans Affairs, both as a member of the house and as one particularly interested in veterans questions. This is a department which has a devoted staff from top to bottom, working on behalf of the veterans and their dependants in Canada administering legislation passed by this house.
I might mention in passing that I received a telegram from the secretary of the civil

Supply-Veterans Affairs service branch representing the veterans employed in Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver urging us to do all we could to prompt the government to grant the civil service increases which have been expected for some time. I want to take this opportunity to bring that to the minister's attention, because I think one of the best ways we can show our appreciation, particularly to the lower paid staff, is to urge the government to give the civil service increases which have been in mind and expected for so long.
The committee, I think, held ten meetings, made a thorough examination of the estimates and questioned the officials on all matters which required attention. There is no doubt that they have the information to give, or if they have not got it at the time they get it for you. We had representations from the Legion and a good number of veterans organizations on matters which are of particular concern to those groups. I might say that we heard representations with respect to the increase in pensions and war veterans allowances. The minister has no doubt noticed in the report the committee's reference to this, and we understand that consideration is being given to this matter at the present time and that legislation will be examined next year. I think a very good job was done in amending the Veterans' Land Act this year, and I believe it is a systematic way in approaching this legislation to deal with each particular act each year so we have it up to date for at least some time to come.
Then the committee heard some very interesting representations from the Hong Kong veterans and also some evidence from the officials concerned with that branch of veterans' affairs. I just want to read paragraph 18 on page 639 of the report in this connection:
The committee appreciates the difficulties of assuring an equitable distribution of the fund. At the same time it is aware of the special problems of veterans who were prisoners of war. It suggests that, in view of the obvious impossibility of settling all claims, the problem might be partially resolved by using a portion of the remaining balance to set up a prisoner of war benevolent fund to meet the human needs of prisoners of war and their dependants. This special fund could be administered after the fashion of similar benevolent funds already operating on behalf of veterans and their dependants.
The committee gave a lot of consideration to that and they have every sympathy with the recommendation that the Hong Kong veterans receive an increase in their allowance. We also had evidence with respect to the total of the fund and the claims against it, and we came to the unanimous
[Mr. Herridge.l
conclusion that this recommendation was possibly the best way to do the most for those who needed it the worst.
Then we had representations from the corps of Canadian fire fighters. I have always felt very sympathetic to their representations and their proposals, because I think the failure to recognize them is the result of some serious misunderstanding some years ago. In my opinion, from the evidence I listened to in the committee from time to time, there is some breach of faith on somebody's part. The committee suggested that as these measures are reviewed and amended from time to time consideration might be given to providing wider coverage to members of the corps as circumstances warrant. This applies particularly to the war veterans allowance as the corps members reach age eligibility.
I do urge the minister to give consideration to that recommendation of the committee. There again, they are few in numbers to commence with. Age is, of course, taking its toll, and possibly we can do something to the best advantage along the lines recommended by the committee.
Then the committee heard some representations with respect to the veterans preference regarding employment in the civil service. There has been some uncertainty in certain quarters, and to clear up any uncertainty there might be on this point the committee heartily endorsed the principle of the veterans principle in the Civil Service Act, and recommended that in any contemplated amendment of the act this principle remain unchanged.
I think it is safe to say from experience that the work of the standing committee is justified. I think we can look upon the standing committee on veterans affairs as a clearing house through which representatives of veterans organizations can advance their complaints, make their suggestions and express their opinions, and discuss things generally of interest to veterans and their dependants with the members of the committee.
I have just two other matters to mention before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I do want to support the representations made by the hon. member for Renfrew North with respect to further consideration being given to the reduction of the required acreage with regard to small holdings to half an acre. If only we could get that acreage reduced to half an acre I am sure there would be thousands of veterans in Canada who would take advantage of that splendid legislation. As I have said on a number of occasions, in my constituency I

am quite positive that there would be between 200 and 300 applications from veterans who are employed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, the lumber industry, or in the mining industry in the district who would like an opportunity to obtain half an acre of land under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act in order to build a home.
We do urge further consideration of that matter. In a mountainous country like ours it is most difficult even to get the 1.6 acres on occasion, and anywhere near our cities and towns it is almost impossible to get 3 acres. Naturally our town and villages are on the side of streams and face the large mountains. That leaves little room for this purpose.
I listened carefully to what the minister said about the admission of veterans to hospital for treatment, and I agree that it was not intended that this should develop into a state medical scheme for all veterans. At the recent convention of the British Columbia command of the Canadian Legion this was discussed, and I received letters from a number of branches. We raise more hell in British Columbia than in any other province. Even the Canadian Legion feels that way about us. We are that way in all respects. We are possibly the most progressive province in Canada.
Before registering my complaint in mild language, because I do not wish to be nasty, I want to read a letter I received from an old sergeant in my company which indicates that the vast majority of veterans appreciate what is being done for them by the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Nakusp, May 1, 1959
Friend Bert:
Just a line to thank you for all your favors. It is very interesting to know what goes on down there, although I am unable to read a great deal owing to defective eyes.
I have just written the D.V.A. at Vancouver. I felt that I must let them know that I appreciated what they have done for me.
After my wife died last April with eight years of medical and surgical expenses, it had left me broke and when the $90 per month came in so unexpectedly, it was such a surprise that I have not really recovered from it yet.
And I have to also thank you people down there. I fully realize that thanks sounds very weak and inadequate, but it is all I can think of at the present time. And so again I say thank you all for a very wonderful lift.
Very sincerely,
J. S. Crowell
Trust your health continues good.
Anyone who says anything against the D.V.A. will have to fight me.
I receive many letters of that type. I put this one on the record because it may give
Supply-Veterans Affairs a feeling of satisfaction to the officials and everyone connected with the administration of veterans affairs. On one occasion when I was admitted to Shaughnessy hospital for treatment a neighbouring bed patient asked if I had spent five years in the New Westminster penitentiary. When I replied that up to that point I had not, he told me I resembled the chap in the cell next to him. He had been in trouble and told me all his difficulties.
I have had a number of cases referred to me of destitute veterans who were not eligible, according to law, to be admitted to hospital. I received a letter from a member of the provincial executive of the Canadian Legion in British Columbia who informed me that there were 52 empty beds when they went through the hospital. These cases arise particularly in respect of world war I veterans. With that equipment and plant available I urge that we do not fail to admit to hospital any veteran who has worn the uniform of this country in world war I or world war II. I urge that consideration be given particularly to these older men who seek admission to our departmental hospitals.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to endorse the last statement made by the previous speaker, and also a couple of the other statements he made during the course of his remarks. In rising at this time I assure the committee that I do not wish to take up too much time. I shall briefly present my three points and express the hope that by one o'clock the minister's responsibilities here will be completed.
None of us in any way suggests that our veterans legislation is not among the best, but as is the case in all legislation there are inequities, and I wish to refer to some existing inequities in our pension legislation. Although these points were discussed at length in the standing committee I wish to bring them to the attention of this committee for an express purpose.
The previous speaker referred to the fund that exists in the department of the Secretary of State due to the fact that assets of enemy countries were seized by the Canadian government at the beginning of world war II. He suggested, as did the veterans affairs committee, that this money be used to establish a fund to take care of certain contingencies that arise and for which no provision is made under any existing legislation.
I mention this point because of a number of cases that have been brought to my personal attention. Having been a prisoner during world war II and being now a member of this committee, no doubt certain cases

Supply-Veterans Affairs are brought to my attention which may not have come to the notice of other hon. members.
Cases have been referred to me of comrades of mine who passed away at an early age leaving young wives and very young families. As was my own experience, these men were invariably discharged from the services with a small medical pension. In their particular cases they did not follow up with any great degree of enthusiasm the infirmity they had at the time of discharge. Suddenly one day these men did not return to their homes and families; in each case they died suddenly. Because of their desire to be good citizens and achieve independence there was no means by which their families could be supported following their death.
A couple of these cases were in the Toronto area and I was able to acquaint myself intimately with the circumstances. I told the standing committee of a case involving a young widow who upon the death of her husband applied to the department and was rejected under the terms of the act because her veteran husband was not in receipt of a 50 per cent medical pension. She then applied to the provincial welfare authorities. Because the veteran had been industrious, had worked hard and built up a small estate which under the terms of his will provided her with a small monthly return, she was refused support by the provincial authorities.
Here we have the case of this young widow-as a matter of fact it applies to all the cases I know of-these young widows, having a small income on a reduced basis per year for a short time, possibly 10 years, with young families and existing-and I say "existing"-on less than the mothers' allowances in the province of Ontario. I consider this a very poor situation in regard to the widows and families of those veterans.
Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the Pension Act is to be reviewed next year, these situations should be taken into serious consideration. When the act is amended I shall certainly be active in the standing committee to see that these situations are rectified. I feel very badly about them myself as a member of parliament, and I feel considerably worse because of the fact that these men were comrades of mine. If it were brought to the attention of the country I am sure the country would also feel as I do about these cases.
The previous speaker referred to the sum of money that is under the control of the Secretary of State as the result of confiscating enemy assets in Canada. This morning we heard the Minister of Finance say that sum is not as large as the amount quoted in

the standing committee, which was something over $6 million; in actual fact it is $4 milion. I do not think the Minister of Finance informed us that the claims against this fund are in excess of $100 million, but some of those claims are by large corporations which were warned in plenty of time to get out of those countries at the beginning of the second world war, and they had the opportunity to save their assets but did not pay heed. I do not suggest for a moment that this money be taken as is or that the whole amount be used, because I suppose there are many just cases that must be considered. But if there is a residual amount, then I think the action suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West should be considered and taken under advisement by the minister and his department in the future.
Finally I should like to say a word about Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto. I suppose these conditions may exist in other veterans hospitals as well. There is a terrific increase in the number of aged veterans being taken into the hospital under domiciliary care. Since they have been taken into Sunnybrook the strain has been on active treatment beds. I believe the minister should consider the need for active treatment beds in relation, of course, to the demand; and we know and the members of the standing committee know that it is quite considerable.
I think all the members felt as I felt on viewing the situation. Because of the fact that these aged veterans are being properly cared for-and the treatment they receive is commendable-we feel that the administrative areas are being sacrificed. Certain office space, and certainly the admitting and other facilities, are being taxed to supply this domiciliary care. We also noted that the area which is used at Sunnybrook for ambulance cases is very poor, very inadequate and certainly in the cold winter months presents many difficulties. It is because of this situation that I mention Sunnybrook at this time. I hope the minister will use his influence to see that next year there will be an item in the estimates to take care of this situation and see that it is rectified for the veterans using that particular institution.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with others who have spoken in thanking the minister for the comprehensive review of his department which he gave us this morning. In particular I should like to thank him for the information he gave us on the treatment facilities and the new hospital facilities which are being provided for Newfoundland veterans, and the good news that they should be completed in about a year from now.

When the main estimates were first presented I was surprised to find a decrease of about $1,727,000, but I note that when the supplementary estimates are added, if my arithmetic is correct, the over-all total shows a slight increase of about $70,000. I draw attention to this fact because I think hon. members and the committee should not conclude from these figures that the estimates of this department are being stabilized or that they can be stabilized in the near future. There are several forces at work which directly affect the estimates of this department. One of the factors is the rates and scales of allowances and pensions. As the purchasing power of our dollar continues to decline these rates and scales will have to be revised upward from time to time to enable the veteran to keep abreast of the increase in the cost of living.
The other main factor has to do with the number of veterans for whom benefits must be provided. The minister informed us this morning that the number of veterans of world war I has passed its peak and that the payments to veterans of world war II can be expected to increase; but as the years advance and more and more of the old sweats answer the last roll call, payments to this group will continue to decline and eventually disappear.
In addition to the two factors I have already mentioned there are three others which, though less spectacular in their effect on the budget, are nevertheless very important. As time goes on the effect of advancing years must tend to aggravate the war disabilities of the veterans of world war II and render them eligible for increased pensions and disability grants. The inexorable march of time will inevitably render more and more of world war II veterans eligible for war veterans allowances. These payments are now limited by a means test; but, due to inflation, the ceiling has been raised from time to time and it must be expected that this will happen again in the future.
Another factor, and a more important one, is that benefits should be extended to certain groups of veterans who are not eligible at present. In addition, as Canada advances in prosperity we shall have to raise these ceilings to enable the veteran to share in the improved standard of living enjoyed by Canadians generally. For all these reasons, then, it is reasonable to expect an increase in the estimates of this department for many years to come. In fact the only way these increases can be held in check is by the stabilization of the purchasing power of our dollar and by continued prosperity which will enable the means test to come into effect even
Supply-Veterans Affairs when the ceiling is raised to provide for improvement in living standards.
In spite of all that has been done under the veterans charter there is still need for further machinery to take care of those veterans under 60 whose earning capacity has been destroyed by ill health for long periods of time, and who cannot qualify for benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act because their disabilities are not attributable to war service or because even when their disabilities are attributable to war service they cannot be certified by a medical doctor as being permanently unemployable. These veterans have no recourse but to apply for public relief.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I correct the hon. member there. I know he does not wish to make an incorrect statement. Under the War Veterans Allowance Act, if a man is physically unable to earn a living and is in a position economically where he cannot support himself, his disability does not have to be attributable to his war service in order for him to come under the War Veterans Allowance Act. There is provision made for that.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister for that correction. I was aware of that, but the group I have in mind are those under 60 whose disabilities are not attributable to war service and who lose their earning capacity for long periods of time. These veterans have no recourse but to apply for public relief, and to me it seems a national disgrace that any person who offered his life for his country should have to rely on public charity in a time of personal misfortune.
We have a duty to keep before the public the fact that the prosperity and privileges we enjoy every day have been made possible by the sacrifices of our comrades who gave their all, and also by the services of those who offered their lives but were fortunate enough to survive. It is easy even for veterans to forget this fact. This was vividly brought home to me personally when along with other members of the committee I visited Sunnybrook hospital at Toronto. We were impressed not only with the multitude of activities carried on in that institution, which can almost be described as a self-contained community, but once more we were reminded anew of the horrors of war, which had become dimmed by the passage of time. There we saw living reminders of the human cost of war and living testimony to the price some of our comrades have continued to pay throughout the years.
This experience of being confronted with the grim reality of the price some of our comrades are still paying came to me as a bit of a shock, though I knew from experience

Supply-Veterans Affairs what to expect. In my opinion it is an experience that should be made available to every member of the house, to high school and university students and to as many of the adult public as can be conveniently accommodated. I hope the minister will consider this suggestion, because to me it is essential lest we forget.
When the committee was considering the first item of these estimates representations were received from several veterans organizations which in my opinion are worthy of serious study. As most of these representations involved the expenditure of public funds the committee could not make specific recommendations. However, I hope the minister and his colleagues will find it possible to give them the sympathetic and favourable consideration which in my opinion they deserve.
The corps of Canadian fire fighters in particular requested greater recognition of their valuable war service. Their request appears to me to be fully justified, and I hope the minister will find some way of overcoming the technicalities which now cause them to be classed as civilians instead of veterans. Such a change will not result in any significant expenditure of public funds.
Finally, as a representative from Newfoundland I was happy to have the minister's assurance that the Pension Act will be revised at the next session of parliament. I know I am voicing the sentiments of all Newfoundlanders when I say we hope that at that time the necessary changes will be made to put Newfoundland veterans completely on a par with those who served in the Canadian forces, in accordance with the commitment contained in the terms of union.
As other hon. members have pointed out, these estimates were thoroughly examined in the standing committee on veterans affairs. Every item was gone over with a fine-tooth comb and there was also an inquiry into the operation of the various branches. I am sure all members of the committee were impressed, as I was, with the competence of the officials in charge of the administration of the veterans charter and were thoroughly satisfied that all these funds are being administered with competence and efficiency.
All members in all parties are one in their desire to give the best possible treatment to our war veterans, and I am sure there is nothing controversial on that score either with respect to policy or the individual items in the estimates. Therefore I agree with hon. members that it should not be necessary for the committee to take very much time in passing these estimates.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Chairman, at this time I should like to make a few brief comments on "veterans preference." I know that one or two previous speakers have also referred to this subject, but I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the matter because at this time there is some suggestion that in the revamping of the civil service commission there might be a change in the handling of applications through that body. This matter is of concern, in my humble opinion, to a large number of veterans and,
I	might say, to many Canadian citizens who realize and appreciate the great sacrifices that have been made by veterans for their country, who feel that no change should be made at the present time.
In that connection, I should like to refer to the brief I have here, a copy of which was presented to the standing committee on veterans affairs by the Canadian Legion in March of this year. Under the heading "Civil Service" and the subheading, "Maintenance of Preference", I quote the following:
The federal Civil Service Act is presently under review and it is anticipated that amendments to the act may result. We believe Canada has benefited by the veterans preference in that it tends to ensure that a high percentage of civil servants will be veterans who have already demonstrated their loyalty by their willingness to make great sacrifices in defence of this country. The Canadian Legion is strongly opposed to any amendment to this act which would take away any benefit presently accruing to Canadian veterans.
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends-that the existing veterans preference in employment in the civil service be maintained and applied to all government departments and crown corporations.
I think it is generally known, Mr. Chairman, that the veterans preference has been in effect since world war I. This principle was firmly recognized when it was made statutory and included in the early stages of planning for the rehabilitation of veterans of world war II. I might say that within three months of the beginning of world war
II	a special committee of the cabinet was set up to deal with the rehabilitation of veterans, under which there was set up a general advisory committee of deputy ministers which spelled out a program of rehabilitation in answer to this question: "What does the state owe to those whose peaceful lives were disrupted by service to this country." Mr. Walter S. Woods, C.M.G., Ll.D., former deputy minister of veterans affairs, had a great deal to do with drawing up the veterans charter. I should mention also the role played by the Canadian Legion in formulating that charter. It was a most important and substantial one.

Mr. Woods, in his splendid book "The Men Who Came Back", refers to the general principles on pages 128 and 129, and I should like to read the 12th principle of the program. No. 12 reads:
They should be given preference in the civil service similar to that extended to veterans of world war X.
This principle, of course, Mr. Chairman, only applies when the veteran concerned has passed the regular civil service examinations, so I think what is being asked is certainly not unfair or unreasonable. This system, since it has been in effect, I submit has worked out very well, and many of our best civil servants are veterans. It is natural, perhaps, to expect that those who have shown the highest form of unselfish service to their country should prove later to be the highest type of civil servant the government could hire.
I might point out that one of our veterans affairs subdepartments, the Veterans' Land Act branch, has been held up on many occasions as a model of good organization and efficient administration. The system of veterans preference has proven fair, and I think there is no justification at the present time for changing it. There are, of course, not many veterans who apply in a number of the competitions, and in quite a large number of competitions there are none who apply. There are still some however who are entitled to the privilege of veterans preference due to their service, and especially some veterans of the Korean war, who must be given consideration.
I might say that most private companies, municipalities and provincial governments recognize the principle of veterans preference in their hiring. Certainly the federal civil service should lead the way and continue the good example that has been set. The legislation in this regard has been on the books for a good many years, and I repeat that I do not see any reason for changing it at the present time.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this subject is not particularly the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I only raise it at the present time because the department has a vital interest in everything connected with the veterans, so I think it is not inopportune. I might close by saying that this subject is causing a great deal of concern amongst veterans, the organizations to which they belong, and many citizens throughout the country who are interested in veterans. I hope no changes will be made.


Mr. Speakman:: I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member who has just spoken concerning the retention of the
Supply-Veterans Affairs veterans preference. Since the standing committee has completed its work I have received many letters from members of the 14 Legion branches in my constituency with regard to this subject, and I am glad it has been raised by several other members.
I have one other point I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Chairman. I believe this is the proper place to mention it because the minister is the advocate for veterans in Canada, although probably the matter I wish to mention would not come directly under his jurisdiction. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the matter of having November 11 declared a statutory holiday in Canada. The veterans of Canada should be remembered. They should first be remembered by the government and the parliament of Canada.
I should like to put on the record some figures with respect to the Canadians who in four wars, in the 60 years of this century, have laid down their lives for their country. In the South African war 224 Canadians gave their lives. In world war I 60,969 Canadians gave their lives. In world war II 42,042 Canadians gave their lives. In the Korean war 312 Canadians laid down their lives in far lands but in the defence of the world and of Canada particularly.
I think it is the responsibility of the parliament of Canada to mark the day of remembrance of our war dead so that future generations will remember that 103,547 Canadians have given their lives for their country in the defence and maintenance of the freedom we enjoy. I strongly urge that the minister use his good offices with his colleagues in the cabinet to have Remembrance day made a statutory holiday and that the government -and the Department of Veterans Affairs particularly-make it a point that this day of remembrance of our war dead be honoured as much as possible all over Canada.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take more than a few minutes, but since the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who was the chairman of the veterans affairs committee, is unavoidably absent on official business I felt that I as vice chairman, on his behalf as well as on my own, should like to thank all hon. members who sat on the veterans affairs committee for their cooperation and their serious consideration of all matters that came before the committee. It was plain that each hon. member of that committee demonstrated his sincere interest in all matters which affected veterans, their families and their dependants, and that all were ready at all times to strongly recommend and support any legislation for the betterment of the veteran's status.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
During the recess the hon. member for Kootenay West and some others suggested to me that a word of thanks and appreciation from the hon. members of the committee to our chairman should be placed on the record. Therefore at this time it is a pleasant task for me, on behalf of the members of the committee, to convey to the chairman our thanks and appreciation for his good work as presiding officer and for the manner in which he conducted all hearings and deliberations.
I also wish to say something else, and in doing so I am sure I have the full concurrence of all hon. members of the committee. To the deputy minister of veterans affairs and all members of his staff, and to the chairman and vice chairman of the pension board I want to express our thanks and appreciation for their splendid assistance and co-operation at all times, and for the efficiency they displayed in making the explanations in connection with many problems raised by hon. members.
While I am on my feet I should also like to say a word in connection with the D.V.A. staff in my own district in New Brunswick and to tell the minister and his deputy minister that their officials in my district at least-and I suspect the same thing applies generally- are carrying out their duties in the interests of veterans and veterans legislation in an efficient and courteous manner. I personally have no hesitation in saying that I could not expect better co-operation.
I also feel that the committee would wish me to say that we appreciated the attendance of the minister at all meetings of the committee when it was possible for him to be there. We have confidence in his sincere efforts to improve the status of the veterans, consistent with that of others in our society, and their standards of living.
As the time is short and I know we want to get through, I do not propose to discuss any issues. These matters have been fairly well covered in the committee and have been well covered by those who have preceded me.


Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes of the time of the committe since I did not have the opportunity to be a member of the standing committee which studied the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have just a few remarks to make which concern the veterans in my area in northwestern Quebec. I want to stress one point which has already been brought to the attention of the minister and the officials of his department, but since I have received an additional representation from the Canadian Legion, at Amos and Senneterre in my riding and other legions in

the district, I feel it is my duty to bring this question to the attention of the minister.
The matter concerns the veterans in our area. We have an area covering practically 100,000 square miles and taking in the northern part of Pontiac-Temiscamingue riding, the riding of Villeneuve next to mine and my riding of Chapleau. Throughout this large territory there are some 6,000 veterans. We have at Amos an office to look after the Veterans' Land Act administration. A representative has been in charge there for a number of years, although last year there was a change; a new officer was appointed, but the office was maintained. However, this man is alone and he is expected to do the whole job and cover this large area. He also has to look after the welfare of the different veterans in this territory.
This is almost an impossible job for one man to do. I believe we require a welfare officer as well as the representative of the department who looks after the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. Hence with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to read into the record a resolution that was adopted last year by all the Canadian Legion branches in northwestern Quebec at the meeting held in Amos. Since this resolution is in French I will read it in French. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, as I have just explained, in northwestern Quebec there is a vast area to cover. It is almost 100,000 square miles and the population includes 6,000 veterans who do not get all the attention they would have a right to expect from the Department of Veterans Affairs, not because of the department's unwillingness to give them attention but because those veterans are scattered over such a vast area that it is impossible for the department to do so with only one representative. It might seem like a small number of veterans compared with the number of those around Montreal or Toronto, who do get more attention paid to them. However, there surely can be no doubt as to their patriotism, and even if they are spread out on a vast area, they are just as entitled to the attention of the department as are veterans who live in towns and cities.
I should like to read into the record the text of a resolution on this matter adopted last year on the occasion of the annual rally of northwestern Quebec Canadian Legion branches held in Amos on August 3, 1958:
From the veterans of northwestern Quebec to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Whereas the northwest area of the province of Quebec, comprising the federal ridings of Chapleau, Villeneuve and part of Pontiac, includes over six thousand (6,000) veterans, nearly half of whom

have to do with the Department of Veterans Affairs; Whereas the only federal agency in the area is the Veterans Land Act Board, represented by a single member who also has to perform the duties of a welfare officer; Whereas the official holding both the above-mentioned offices without any help whatsoever, at the present time, in the form of an assistant, a secretary, or other persons, is finding it impossible to perform the administrative work required of him, to the satisfaction of the department and of the veterans concerned; Whereas the Val d'Or, Senneterre, Malartic and Amos branches of the Canadian Legion, after considering the matter, have come to the conclusion that this situation is mainly due to the overburdensome cumulation of two administrative offices each of which should be assigned to a separate official, to wit, an official for the Veterans' Land Act Administration and an official for the Veterans Welfare Services, with due regard for and appreciation of the work done in the cities of Val d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda by two officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who are allowed by the Department of Labour to give over to this work ten per cent of their office time by virtue of an agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Be it therefore proposed, resolved and unanimously carried: That it be recommended to federal authorities to improve the administration of the affairs of northwest Quebec veterans by the establishment of two administrative positions with administrative jurisdiction over our area:
(a)	one representative from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Welfare Services Division;
(b)	one representative from the Veterans' Land Act Administration.
And the document is signed by:
W. A. Abbott, District commanding officer.
P. H. Poitras, District secretary.
Canadian Legion, North-West district of the province of Quebec.
As I said, a representative of the veterans land act board, a new man, has been put in charge of the office in Amos, and has now taken up his duties. But the man cannot handle all the work by himself, and that is why I thought I should bring this matter to the attention of the minister when the estimates of the veterans affairs department are before the house.
(Text):


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the house that this morning I received a letter from the executive officers of the Vincent Massey branch of the Canadian Legion in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, complaining that the veterans preference has not, according to the traditions of the government, been adhered to by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Yellowknife. Rather than read the whole of the letter, if the minister agrees I will give him this information provided he will investigate this grievance. I might say that the letter was written by the
Supply-Veterans Affairs president to other executive officers of the Legion at Yellowknife, and these are substantial men in the community.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, speaking generally I have found that the veterans preference has been very well observed in all departments. Of course I do receive letters of complaint, and from listening to other hon. members this afternoon there undoubtedly are such complaints. But in an organization as large as the civil service and as large as the veterans organization, there is bound to be complaint. The hon. member's particular reference appears to concern the department of northern affairs. The northern affairs estimates will be up shortly, and I am sure the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will be able to answer the hon member's question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Am I to take it, then, that the minister is not interested in investigating this complaint?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If my hon. friend takes it that way he is absolutely wrong. The minister has been investigating complaints of this kind ever since he has been minister. I might say to the hon. member that as a veteran myself I have always been very much interested in this question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I understand the interest of the minister, but in his original answer he did not give me any idea whether or not he would investigate the complaint. He laid the responsibility on the minister of northern affairs, with whom I do not think this complaint should be registred.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then I will take it up with the minister of northern affairs. However, I might say to the hon. member that I do not interfere with the affairs of other departments, and I do not appreciate it if they interfere with mine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans allowance and other benefits-
457. War veterans allowances, $59,785,000.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, this morning I made a statement which the minister was good enough to correct, but on checking back in my files I have come across cases of veterans under 40 who, through illness of one kind or another, have not been able to earn a living for a long period of time. I have found that these people have applied for war veterans allowance and have been refused initially because they were told that their condition was temporary, that they were not permanently unemployable.
If there is some misunderstanding on that score in the minds of officials who deal with these cases I would like to have it clarified,
5794	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs but I know from personal experience of a number of young veterans who have had to exist on public charity for as long as one or two years. Eventually they were awarded the war veterans allowance, but that happened only after existing for two or three years on public charity. That was the point I was trying to emphasize this morning. If there was any misunderstanding about that and the minister can give us further clarification, I would be glad to have it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not what the hon. member said this morning, as a matter of fact. He did not speak about their being temporarily unemployable; he used the words, permanently unemployable.


Chesley William Carter: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I said men who had their earning power destroyed for long periods of time. These were the words I used. Long periods of time to my mind would be a year or even two years or even longer. Even six months is a long period of time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Under the act, as the hon. member knows, any veteran or widow who in the opinion of the district authority is permanently unemployable because of physical or mental disability, or because of physical or mental disability or insufficiency, combined with economic handicaps, is incapable and unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself or herself, is eligible for war veterans allowance.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. I thank the minister for that statement. When the minister corrected me this morning I thought I had confused that term "permanently unemployable" with the terms of the civil disability pension under the Disabled Persons Act administered by the national health and welfare. What I was trying to get at was that there is a need for something to be done because it takes such a long time to decide whether the veteran's condition is going to be permanent, and although the decision is eventually made it may be delayed for two or three years. During that time the veteran is forced to exist on public charity, and I for one do not think that is good enough. I think we should be able to provide some means of taking care of such cases.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I assure the hon. member that if he would bring any particular case to my attention I will deal with it and try to work out some solution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-463. Administration expenses, $2,593,195.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, on this item I just want to renew the plea which the 

minister receives annually, I think, from veterans. There is need for greater care in granting the veteran the benefit of the doubt. In recent years more and more cases have come to my attention in which the veteran has not received the benefit of the doubt. I should like to take a moment or two to cite a few examples.
I know of the case of a veteran who was accepted into the navy with a lame leg. After a number of years of service he was discharged. He did not apply for pension, but after having been in civilian life for a number of years the leg became worse. Being a veteran he applied for a pension. The board decided that it was a pre-enlistment disability not aggravated by his service in the navy, so he did not receive any pension. This man cannot now earn a living to support his family and has to live on public charity.
With all due respect to medical opinion I find it difficult to believe-and I regard myself as a reasonable person-that a lame person could go into the navy and serve for two or three years without aggravating his infirmity but the minute he engages in a civilian occupation his condition immediately begins to get worse. This does not seem to me a reasonable stand.
I have another case of a veteran who was taken into the service with defective sight. In North Africa it got worse and he had to be discharged. He applied for a pension and was told his disability was pre-enlistment, not aggravated by his service, and he was denied a pension. It seems to me there is something wrong somewhere. Perhaps the doctors who assess these cases are not aware of the need to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt. It appears that if they can find a loophole at all they use it to give the benefit of doubt to the department. A veteran may have a nervous breakdown or some nervous disorder five, six or even ten years after discharge. Who can say that his service did not contribute to the breakdown? I believe there is a need for greater care to be taken in giving the benefit of the doubt to veterans who apply for pensions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In reply to the hon. member let me say this. In the case of the veteran who came into the navy with a disability, which case the hon. member cited, I take-it that the medical history during the man's service indicated that his condition was not aggravated by his service. Some years after he left the service it did become aggravated. The hon. member can appreciate that these cases are very difficult. I was a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs for a number of years, and I recall that the question of benefit of doubt was considered

by many committees. We attempted to introduce a section in the legislation which we thought would cover all this problem.
I have looked through many files on such cases. If hon. members could see these files and appreciate how these matters are studied and restudied they would agree, as I had to agree myself, that the benefit of the doubt was given to the veteran in 99 cases out of 100. It is a question sometimes of whose doubt it is. As far as the act is concerned it must be the doubt of the board and the experienced and competent men who serve on it.
I frankly do not see how the act could be improved very much, but we would appreciate it if the hon. member and any other hon. members in this committee would refer to us individual cases which come to their attention. If we can assist in any way we will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
466. Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $5,152,331.
James Moffat Forgie: Mr. Chairman, I assume that
the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture have their heads together on the question of the farm credit act we have been putting through. I would like to know what department will be responsible for the appraisers and inspectors who will be borrowed from the Veterans' Land Act administration and called upon to make evaluations, appraisals and inspections of the farms of those who borrow under the farm credit act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: These men will be retained
by the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. They will be loaned to the farm credit corporation, but as far as we are concerned they will come under us.


James Moffat Forgie: Will they be loaned for a fee
or will it be gratuitous?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Department of Agriculture will pay the fee to the Department of Veterans Affairs.


James Moffat Forgie: I understand that the Canadian farm loan board has 10 provincial offices and a head office. This board is about to be disbanded. The Veterans' Land Act administration has 8 divisional offices and a head office. There is only one office in the Atlantic provinces for the V.L.A., which I understand is located at Saint John, New Brunswick. What is the policy of the department in connection with these offices? Could the V.L.A. and farm credit corporation
Supply-Veterans Affairs credit offices be merged? If this were done the operation would be more economical. Is that in contemplation?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As far as my department is
concerned we are responsible only for our V.L.A. officials. I do not know what details are under contemplation in the Department of Agriculture, but I will inquire about it. The act has just been passed and the principle decided on. As far as its application is concerned, the details have not been worked out.


James Moffat Forgie: Would the minister not agree that it would be an economical proposition from the point of view of administration if the offices in the various sections of the country were merged?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I can assure the hon. member that the economics of the suggestion will be carefully considered by my department and the Department of Agriculture as well.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For years we have been urging a reduction in the size of holdings to one half an acre. What is the objection to this? I see no common sense reason for it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a very good question but not an original one, as the hon. member knows, because it has been considered for many years. Originally the three acre small holding was granted as a rehabilitation measure to a veteran who was a pensioner or who had retired. It was felt that to supplement his pension, retirement allowance or whatever it might have a veteran might want to do some farming on a small holding. That was the original intention. That is why small holdings were introduced.
Later on it was suggested that it might be better to reduce the holdings to one half an acre. The suggestion was then made that we should make it a housing proposition. This was never adopted by any veterans affairs committee. As a matter of fact my hon. friend will remember, as I do, that the question was debated and the proposition turned down on every occasion when it came up for discussion because it was felt it did not comply with the original intention.
I have no great objection to it myself. I assure the hon. member that I will study his suggestions with my officials and if it is found practical to do so, a plan will be worked out. I would have been pleased if the hon. member had raised this question under the V.L.A. when it was before the committee a few weeks ago. That would have been an appropriate occasion on which to discuss it.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did, but I appreciate your telling us you will look into the matter, because it is of importance to many.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: That completes the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We shall now take up the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
261. Departmental administration, $866,273.
Charles Edward Rea: This item will be found on page 54 of the blue book, with the details on page 362. Shall item 261 carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to make a report on the progress of the national development program. Up to this time there has been no coherent account of the program on Hansard, and I should like to do what I can to try to get it in perspective.
In the first place, the national development program covers several departments. Under the act that serves as a guide to the operation of my department there is a clear directive to formulate resource development and conservation plans in co-operation with other departments, provincial and municipal governments and private interests. Therefore I will take the liberty of mentioning aspects of the development plan which come under other departments as well as my own.
The departments of agriculture and trade and commerce have made a good start on the basic cornerstone of the development policy by embarking on the implementation of a national agricultural policy. Cash advances, the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act, the crop insurance legislation, the farm credit legislation, are important items in the field of statute law to start a fundamental revision of agricultural policies in Canada. Increasing sales of wheat, box car allotment, grain demurrage charges, an investigation into the spread of prices between producer and consumer and import controls on farm products are examples of the aggressive attitude of this government toward problems that have faced agriculture for some time. We recognize that without a sound agricultural industry there is no foundation on which to build a larger and more prosperous nation.
The national development program has as its ultimate aim the increased processing of our tremendous natural resources, using the increasing reserves of various forms of


energy available in Canada. It was no accident that the first move of the new government when it met parliament in October, 1957 was to announce a royal commission on energy. I am proud to sit in the present parliament which passed the national energy board act and put into effect the main recommendations of the royal commission. It gives to us responsibility for planning the first ingredient for a national energy policy, namely a board that will keep a rolling inventory of our energy resources and advise the government on the best use of all our energy resources in the national interest.
The development program falls into three main divisions in so far as the first stages of the plan are concerned. These are first, delineation of resources; second, power; and third, conservation. The delineation part of the program is going well. The purpose of this part of the plan is to open up Canada for exploration and development. We must find out what we have, where it is and how much we have of each type of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Good work has been done over the years on the forest inventory program, water power, fish resources and wild life, while very little is known of a great proportion of our country horizontally, and even less vertically. Obviously the first need in a development plan is to have ready access to this information. The means used to achieve this are roads, air fields, water and sea transport, railroads where economic, and the concomitant necessities of research of all kinds, radio, radar, weather stations, and so forth.
The roads to resources program has aroused a good deal of interest. The Prime Minister announced on February 12, 1958 that there would be approximately a $100 million road program in the Territories and Yukon in the next seven years. I have made it clear that economics would play a large part in setting the priorities of the proposed parts of this grid system through the potentially wealthy parts of northern Canada. For instance, the level of activity of oil and gas exploration in the northern Yukon and the lower Mackenzie valley makes it mandatory that we push forward the road from Flat Creek to a terminal on the Arctic coast or Mackenzie estuary as rapidly as engineering and efficient operation allow us to move.
On the other hand, the balance of interest along the planned route to Great Bear lake from Great Slave lake seems to be less than the interest in the mineral resources around Great Slave lake. Therefore we are now considering shifting our survey crews to the Yellowknife-Fort Reliance road. The same sort of economic criteria are applied to each

road. Within the over-all framework of the government's development policy an interdepartmental committee advises me on the choice of routes and sets the priorities for construction. The engineers of public works advise me on the standards, call for tenders and supervise construction.
There is little value in having a grid system of roads in the new territories, Mr. Chairman, to open up new petroleum and mineral areas in the territories unless there are roads or railroads or waterways to tie up to the settled areas to the south. Therefore the second aspect of the roads to resources program is a series of co-operative agreements with the provinces. We have offered to pay one half the cost of roads in the provinces that will open up new resource areas. At the present time nine provinces are working on such roads. One provincial agreement has been signed with the province of British Columbia, and I hope the final polishing up of the terms will permit the working agreements to be put into written form at an early date. The federal government has agreed to pay one half the cost up to $1,500,000 per year to a total of one half of a total of $15 million for each province over a period of years that is mutually satisfactory.
Under the roads to resources program some 2,000 miles of road are planned for the Territories and Yukon, and over 4,000 miles in the provinces. I believe the people of Canada will agree with me when I say that this program is imaginative and has been carefully planned. It gives to Canadians the satisfaction that the government is actively carrying out the people's expressed wish to open up their country for exploration and development.
In addition to roads, other means of access must be improved. The committee has already heard of the plans to take over the air fields in northern Canada associated with the D.E.W. line. This will be a two or three year operation and will make it much easier for private exploration teams to move freely in our far northern regions. This operation is being carried out mainly by the Department of Transport. In addition to these air fields, other air strips are being considered, weather reporting services are being improved and navigational aids are being provided and improved.
The Department of Transport is engaged in getting know-how on large scale resupply operations in the Arctic. Last year the western portion of the D.E.W. line was supplied by the Department of Transport. This year they will resupply all D.E.W. line stations. Increased tonnages generally are being moved with greater confidence. My personal compliments go to the men of the marine division
Supply-Northern Affairs of the Department of Transport, the men who plan the operations, those who operate the icebreakers and the supply ships. In addition, one private enterprise company with tug and barges moved from Vancouver to Spence bay and back last summer. If this deed had been done five years ago it would have been called an international saga of the northern seas, but now it is becoming just a routine operation.
Another part of the department's operations that deals with delineation of resources is the winter work program of co-operation with the provinces in building forest access roads. Under this eight months a year program the federal government pays 50 per cent of the cost. Provincial officials tell me that this is one of the most appreciated programs of the government.
The total estimated cost to the federal government of the road program to open up resources during this first stage of development is about $200 million. I cannot accurately estimate at this time the cost of the other parts of the delineation program. In view of the tremendous activity already generated in oil and gas exploration and the even greater activity that I expect in the mineral field, I suggest that this part of the program will be regarded in years to come as having been responsible for one of the major surges forward in the opening up of our country. Possibly it will be comparable to the building of the C.P.R.
The second part of the development program deals with power. Any person who examines the resources of Canada soon becomes aware of the importance of power. Power is not just obtained from water resources. The best thinking now is clear that the largest amount of power at the lowest price comes from a combination of thermal power and hydro power. The thermal power to provide the base load can be produced from coal, uranium, natural gas, oil, butane or propane, depending on the presence of these energy fuels. The power from water can best be used for peaking purposes.
Therefore in planning for the best use of our energy resources we will have to assess the ability of a region to supply the necessary power. Applying that reasoning to the Atlantic provinces, the house can appreciate why I asked the premiers of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to allow me to include Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. It explains why the federal government offered to build transmission lines in Newfoundland emanating from Bay d'Espoir. To us it seems elementary that we should encourage transmission lines in those eastern provinces in the expectation

Supply-Northern Affairs that eventually there will be a grid system covering the whole Atlantic area. In that way the coal of the Atlantic provinces can be tied in with the hydro power of the Saint John, the Passamaquoddy and the Hamilton rivers.
There are those who scoff, Mr. Chairman, at thinking ahead like this, but my answer is that not only is this the only course to follow, but when I see these older provinces by the sea trying so hard to help themselves I know that this government will not fail them by being frightened of a little ridicule by making known its long range plans.
The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are also showing a laudable desire to work together by joining their transmission lines. The whole Nelson-Saskatchewan-Churchill system will have to be examined to plan for the eventual full utilization of the hydro power in this area. Fortunately the prairies have large quantities of fossil fuels to integrate with their hydro. Ontario and Manitoba co-operate closely, as do Quebec and Ontario, in the interchanging of power.
Probably of most interest to the committee is present progress on the Columbia river. A year ago we were still awaiting relevant engineering reports. Last fall, after a full study of both the engineering and economic aspects of the Columbia river system, we decided to enter into a co-operative effort with the United States to use fully this great water resource on condition that the United States government agreed to a fair division of the downstream benefits. A great forward step was taken when the government of the United States agreed to negotiate with us on this basis. Once these two key decisions were taken we immediately set up a joint policy committee of the dominion government and the government of British Columbia. This liaison committee is composed of two dominion ministers, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, two British Columbia ministers and technical staffs from both governments.
Meanwhile the international joint commission is working out the complex problem of deciding what the downstream power benefits and flood control benefits amount to and what system of division should be adopted. The international joint commission meets almost every month. A close liaison is maintained between the joint policy committee and the international joint commission.
It is my opinion that success will attend all these efforts. In the first place, both countries know that by co-operation both nations can receive more units of power at a lower price. Second, all parties know there has to be a fair deal for both countries. Because of

our common democratic procedures, any decision will have to be ratified by the United States Senate, and it must be satisfied that their country benefits from the arrangement. In Canada the decision will have to be approved by the legislature of British Columbia and the parliament of Canada. We certainly will want to assure ourselves that a full share of the downstream benefits created by Canadian storage will be paid to British Columbia in the form of power.
I detect a great desire on both sides of the border to push this great project to a conclusion. When one realizes that the power at stake is several times the amount produced at the new St. Lawrence seaway dam at Cornwall, one can appreciate the tremendous importance of this deal to the northwestern United States and British Columbia.
Once again, with respect to development on the Columbia river we visualize the multiple use of resources. The strategic coal reserves of British Columbia and Alberta will fit in very nicely with these vast hydro resources to provide more and more of the base load power for the eastern end of the transmission grids. It is no accident that the new energy bill contained a clause allowing for 25-year export licences for electricity. I have every expectation that the present small boom in the coal mining industry of the Crowsnest region will spread to other parts of the coal areas.
In addition to the above developments, we are continuing studies of the Saint John river, the Fraser river, the Yukon river and the Fort Smith area, and soon I should like to organize a study of the Nelson and Churchill river systems.
Thus it can be seen that our development policy is moving steadily forward on building up the basic regional ingredients of a national power policy. This policy will include all forms of energy, and explains how urgent a national energy board is to our plans. To be able to proceed economically with regional power grids we have called in provincial power commissions, private power companies, electrical equipment companies, to join with our research agencies in a co-ordinated attack on the problem of long-range transmission of electric power.
By increasing our knowledge of raw materials and our energy resources we will be better able to reach the ultimate goal of greater processing in Canada to provide for a bigger and better Canada. The vision of a nation on the northern half of this continent moving toward its destiny is not just a dream. It is a realistic effort of many dedicated people who have been brought out of backwaters to help implement a new, positive conception of the role of government.

In this whole program there are no more dedicated people than those in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. This department is the eyes and ears of my department. It is no fault of theirs that 55 per cent of Canada remained unmapped, nor that it would have taken 250 years more to complete the necessary hydrographic surveys of our coastal waters. It gives me great pleasure to say how happy I am that this government has agreed to plan to double the hydrographic service and the geological service in the next five years. All Canadians will be proud that a Canadian scientific expedition is now operating, and will operate every year in our Arctic islands to give us basic information so desperately needed for our development program. The metallurgical division of that department has been examined and found equal to the tasks that are before them. I fully believe that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is completely aware of the part they must play in the development program. I feel that they will meet the challenge. I want to express my personal appreciation of the efforts their members have made to give my department the information we require.
The third part of the development program deals with conservation. In my personal opinion, and I hope of others, this is perhaps the most important part of the national development program. This is a concept of the multiple use of resources. This is a concept of co-operation with the provinces, with conservation boards, with private organizations and with individuals and universities. A start has been made. All the provinces met with the dominion government last November. The decision was made to hold a full scale conference in 1960 to deal with renewable resources. In the meantime the provinces have submitted reports on what they are doing and what gaps exist. We are providing the secretariat to work under a joint dominion-provincial steering committee. A great deal has to be done this summer and fall in the preparation of the basic material for the conference.
The needs of various regions differ, but I am sure that we can decide on the principles under which the various governments and agencies can operate. We must succeed in getting all groups to commit themselves to a positive program of using our resources to the best advantage for the future of the people of Canada. There are many things such as northern research, the national parks, historic sites, wildlife, in my department that play an important part in the over-all development plan. There is the atomic energy
Supply-Northern Affairs program which plays a key role in that program. I could, if I had more time, give you some idea of my plans as to how the national development program will bear upon our centennial celebrations. But I believe I have said enough to indicate that there is a coherent working out of the blueprints and that the vision is shining brighter every month.
I should like to add a few sentences on human resources. A few months ago Maclean's magazine published one of the most moving accounts of human thought and endurance that I have ever read. It was written by Farley Mowat. I recommend to every member of the house and every Canadian the readings of this story. Here, in clear and powerful prose, an attempt is made to look into the minds of people thousands of years removed from us in civilization. Read that story and you will understand why my department, and this government, is not going to overlook the tremendous assets and personal needs of these old and long-overlooked Canadian citizens. We cannot take unto ourselves the smugness that we will always be right in our dealings with these first Canadians. We know that they are human beings who have a great need and a great potential. This government, to the limit of its knowledge will not fail our Eskimo people.
Last year, for the first time in over a quarter of a century, my department appeared before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. It appeared before that committee again this year and, as hon. members know, a very forthright report was tabled in this house a few days ago. Officials in my department who appeared before that committee were told to express themselves freely and without reservation. The members of the committee recognized this, I believe, and were very searching and forthright in their questioning. Their report makes many worthwhile observations and recommendations which deserve, and are now receiving, full consideration by my department. I can assure hon. members that I welcome the vigorous approach the standing committee took in its examination of my department. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that my officials are now taking an equally vigorous approach in their examination of the observations and recommendations.
I believe that Canadians generally support northern development, and that they understand that costs in the north must inevitably be greater than costs in the more populated southern areas. This, of course, does not excuse or justify lavishness, waste, or inefficiency, and since I have taken over the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources I have taken steps to ensure that

Supply-Northern Affairs the standards and scale of northern administration do not exceed those that are absolutely necessary, and that full advantage is taken of new techniques and new materials to achieve every possible economy, both in construction and operation. To do this, of course, involved securing the best available engineering advice. During the past two years, therefore, I have strengthened the engineering division of the department by securing a new chief of the division whose qualifications and northern experience are well known to some members of this house.
In the north one of the greatest factors in construction is the high cost of freight to the site. In order to minimize this, the bulk of our smaller buildings is now designed for prefabricated construction. This type of construction will reflect a considerable saving in freight costs, and in addition will greatly reduce erection costs. For the average size 2-bedroom house it is estimated that the initial construction will be 10 per cent lower than by normal construction methods. By using an advanced lightweight aluminum-clad prefabricated panel, maintenance and operation costs are being greatly reduced. Wherever possible buildings will be grouped to permit central heating, plumbing, and electrical services for further savings. In all-savings in construction, maintenance and fuel-there should be a reduction of at least 25 per cent, and I hope as high as 33 per cent. We are hopeful that this percentage reduction will be even greater in the more remote locations.
Due to severe climatic conditions the cost of heating our buildings is a major factor. Our new prefabricated designs specify materials with a high insulation value and an airtight seal between all panels. Further studies are being made of new materials and construction methods in order to achieve even greater economies and maximum space-to-weight ratio.
Bulk oil storage facilities are being introduced to a number of smaller settlements. In addition to reducing the cost of freight, the losses inherent in the use of fuel drums are eliminated. This alone should cut fuel costs at communities where bulk delivery is possible by at least 33 per cent. In the utilities field, the branch has arranged with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to carry out studies of small atomic reactors capable of providing economical heat and light. The method of calling for construction tenders has been reviewed and significantly improved. At remote locations we have worked toward the objective of having the design and supply of materials one year, and construction the following year in order to take full advantage of climatic conditions.


We are working toward the earliest possible dates for tender calls. This will afford a greater opportunity for the interested contractors to visit the sites, to submit more realistic bids, and to get on the job early in the short construction season. New tendering procedures worked out by the Department of Public Works have greatly increased the number of contractors who are interested or actively engaged in northern construction.
I can assure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that my officials are more cost conscious than they have ever been. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I am also fully conscious of my responsibilities in this regard.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The minister dealt very lightly with the estimates which we are considering at the present time, namely those of his own Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. However, he covered a wide field, all the way from wheat in the Department of Agriculture to the Department of External Affairs. In his usual manner he spoke vaguely and in general terms of the vision. Of course Mr. Chairman, I should say that his statement is certainly in keeping with the very little he has done about implementing this vision. Of course, there are reasons for this. The Oxford dictionary says that a visionary is a person able or accustomed to seeing visions; capable of receiving impressions by means of vision; given to fanciful and impractical views; speculative; dreamy, of schemes, plans, incapable of being carried out or realized; fantastic-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Were you referring to Mr. King there?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am speaking of you, sir. The definition continues: impractical; characterized by fancy or imagination without corresponding reality. This definition suits the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to a "T". I am sure the people of Canada will remember the many promises made during the last election campaign with regard to opening up the north. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend too much time on these promises. However, I should like to outline briefly what this program meant in terms of roads and cost of those roads and to show the committee just how impractical this sort of policy is at this particular time.
Thousands of miles of road were promised. The total figure that I estimate it would cost this government to implement the roads they promised in the Northwest Territories is $200 million. The minister earlier said that the amount was $100 million. But his estimate now is as absurd as was the estimate he gave last year before the committee on mines, forests and waters of constructing a road from Flat Creek in the Yukon to some

place along the Arctic. At that time he told the committee that the cost of that road- with a good surface, at least according to him-would cost in the vicinity of $5 million to $8 million. This year, before the same committee discussing his estimates, the estimate is now doubled. I told the minister a year ago and I tell him today that the $100 million he suggests would not build all the roads that he promised during the election campaign. It will come closer to $200 million.
In any event, hon. members will recall that when the minister was before the committee on mines, forests and waters a year ago he told us that he had extended the roads program of the former administration by many more miles of roads than was suggested by the former administration to the Gordon commission in 1955.	He said that the only
difference between his government's program and that of the former government-in addition to that extra mileage of road-was that he intented to speed up and accelerate the road building. I should like to quote from page 16 of the evidence of that committee of Thursday, June 5, 1958. This is what the minister said in this regard at that time:
About the only thing that I did as minister was to bring these programs for 25 years down into a five-year program, that is as far as they affected the territories.
In other words he was going to speed up the former administration's program which included many miles of road and which I would say would have cost $100 million to $150 million. He is going to do this in five years.
In order to give the committee an idea of the areas those roads would serve, I will just refer to one particular proposal made by the minister, that of the road from Fort Reliance on the east arm of Great Slave lake to Eskimo Point on the west shore of Hudson bay. A road connecting these two points would be somewhere between 500 miles and 600 miles in length through rough, uninhabited and costly road building country. At the present time there are six persons living at Fort Reliance, four employed by the government and two trappers. At the other end of this road at Eskimo Point there are approximately 100 Eskimos and in the area in between a handful of people.


An hon. Member:: Any igloos?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: That could be. The area between these two communities has had little if anything done in the way of geological surveys. Hence we know little of its mineral potential. In speaking of this road to the northern Saskatchewan development conference in Saskatoon in November, 1957 the
Supply-Northern Affairs Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix, in reporting the minister's speech said this. This is referring to this particular road I have just mentioned. This is apparently an argument he advanced to justify the building of this road. This is what the newspaper says:
Though Mr. Hamilton would not name the area, he said that northwest of Eskimo Point there were fabulous from ore deposits, greater in extent than the Mesabi range that started and helped the United States to achieve its present great industrial development.
Mr. Chairman, the fabulous iron ore deposits of which the minister was apparently speaking were those at Rankin inlet where North Rankin Inlet Nickel Mines are now operating, and where, from what I know of the situation, they have been having their difficulties in extending their ore body to keep the mine producing at its present rate. The area in which that mine is operating was used by the minister, as I said before, to justify the building of this road.
Last fall, in a television program that I myself saw, a Mr. Webber, an official of North Rankin Inlet Nickel Mines appeared with the minister and a Dr. Byrd of McGill University and discussed this development program. During that television discussion Mr. Webber pointed out to the minister that a road program would not assist his company at Rankin inlet because of the fact that they are using, and will continue to use, the sea lanes which provide the cheapest means of transportation. But not too long after this program was carried by the C.B.C. the minister, speaking, in Saskatoon in September of 1958, apparently changed his tune. I should like to quote now from an article appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of September 23, 1958 and headed "Mr. Hamilton's Northern Vision". A portion of this report reads as follows:
Mr. Hamilton described the U.S. atomic submarines Nautilus and Skate, as a new breed of ship which "in our lifetime", may revolutionize intercontinental maritime transport to an extent almost comparable to the changes brought about on land and in the air by the automobile and the aeroplane. He visualized submarine cargo ships coursing the world's oceans within 10 or 20 years and said Britain-
And this is the part I want the committee to take into consideration.
-already had submarine tankers and ore carriers on engineering drawing boards, the latter planned as carriers of Hudson bay iron.
That is the same iron ore that we are speaking of at Rankin inlet, the Hudson bay-ore.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon.
member knows that is not right.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am reading what the minister said.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I am sure he would not want to put on the record inaccurate statements. When I was referring to the iron of the Hudson bay area, the reserves are very large. Everyone knows that the Rankin inlet mine is a zinc and copper mine, and nickel as well.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Low grade iron. I think if the hon. members of the committee took a look at a map of the area it would be clear to them that the building of a road such as the one I have mentioned within the next few years certainly is visionary, and any person with such an idea could be considered impractical, fantastic and utterly devoid of corresponding realities. It also points out that the reference to the igloo to igloo road program of the government, made by my leader during the last election campaign, and which was related solely to the employment aspects of road building, may not be as far-fetched as a lot of people would like us to believe, even in other respects.
Let us now consider what has been done since this government took office, and what will be done this year according to the estimates now before us. First of all let us deal with what has been done and will be done this year in the Northwest Territories. The major project is the extension of the Mackenzie highway to Yellowknife. This road was started in 1956-57 by the former administration, and when this government took office approximately 90 miles had been built. The plan of the former administration was to complete this road by 1960, and I must say that the present government plans to do this according to the estimated figure for this year. In addition to this project they have carried on with the program of providing short access roads in the Wood Buffalo park to assist not only in their own work in the park but also for the benefit of the lumber and forest products industry in the same area. A road planned by the department some years ago between Fort Fitzgerald and Bell Rock, a distance of 28 miles, will also be built this year. In the Northwest Territories we find that for the first two years this government has been in office they will complete roads which were started by the former administration but not one single mile of the minister's so-called new road program has been started.
In fairness I must say that of benefit to the Northwest Territories the federal government and provincial government are now sharing on a 50-50 basis the rebuilding of certain stretches of the Mackenzie highway

within the province of Alberta, and for this I am sure the people of the Northwest Territories are very happy. In any event, the total to be spent this year in the Mackenzie district on roads will amount to $6,895,600. In addition to this I presume $1,500,000 will be the federal share of the rebuilding of the Mackenzie highway, making a total for all roads of $8,395,600.
In the Yukon last year, and planned for this year, bridges are being built on the highway between Whitehorse and Dawson city to give that area all year round transportation. The government has also carried on the plan of the former administration to improve the road from Johnsons Crossing to Ross river.
In addition to these are improvements on other minor access roads such as was done in the Northwest Territories in the Wood Buffalo park. Also included in this year's estimates is an amount to start construction of the only new road, and I am calling it a new road although it was included in the brief submitted to the Gordon economic commission by the former administration; but it is a new road in so far as this government will start its construction this year. This proposed road from Flat Creek in the Yukon, according to the answers received from the minister a year ago, in its first stages would run to Fort McPherson in the Northwest Territories, and from there eventually to the Arctic by way of Inuvik and the reindeer station.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like an assurance from the hon. member that he is not reading his speech.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, I am reading from very extensive notes, as did the minister, and I do not want to get off on a tangent and be called visionary. I want to be constructive today and to put up what I think is a good proposal to the minister.
During the past year since the preliminary surveys have been carried on we find the minister hedging and suggesting that the road may never get into the Fort McPherson area, at least according to the evidence he gave to the standing committee which dealt with these estimates a few weeks ago. According to the minister this road will do a great deal to open up the Peel plateau and Eagle plain areas for oil exploration and development purposes.
I would like to point out to the committee that exploration has been going on in this area since 1952 or thereabouts, and the companies operating in the area have previously built their own winter road over which

they have carried the bulk of their exploration equipment by tractor train. I am quite confident that any freight required by the oil companies in this area can in the future, as in the past, be taken over a winter road and any moneys spent should be spent to improve the present winter road so that trucks can do the transporting rather than tractor trains, and to build other winter roads that may be necessary. Some of these could originate from points along the Mackenzie river into areas that are considered potential oil producing areas.
To support this point of view I should like to quote from a speech given by Mr. Franc R. Jobouin, global consultant engineer with the Rio Tinto Company, and president of Bralorne Mines Limited to the northern development conference held in Edmonton last fall. Here is what Mr. Jobouin says in this regard:
All access and communication facilities should be improved. This calls as much for planning and co-ordination as it does for the spending of dollars. For example, why is our north, and particularly the geologically favourable areas, not laced with a network of "winter roads"? To the uninformed this simply means a 20-foot wide route, cut through the bush. Untrained labourers with axes and saws can do the job under supervision. No other improvement of the route is required, yet for the several winter months of each year that route can become an excellent highway over which tractor sled trains can haul freight as effectively as a railroad.
Of course a winter road such as Mr. Jobouin suggests would not be suitable for truck transport, but for very little money improvements could be made on such a road to allow for this type of transportation. If the area is finally found to be oil producing, and when the companies are in a position to market their oil, further improvements could be made to assist them in getting their development equipment into the area. Surely the minister does not suggest that when this time arrives the oil will be carried over this road in tank trucks rather than the modern method of pipe lines.
The total amount to be spent this coming year on roads and bridges in the Yukon will amount to $4,129,300. In addition to this there is the amount of $1,500,000 as the federal government's portion of the cost of the road from Stewart, British Columbia, to Cassiar. So, in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, including the federal share of the roads to resources program, a total of approximately $14 million will be spent. The greater portion of this amount will be spent to service and provide year round transportation to people in the already settled areas and in areas that are already producing and contributing to the national wealth of
Supply-Northern Affairs Canada; roads, I repeat, that with the exception of the Flat Creek to Peel plateau road, were started by the former administration.
I now return for a moment to the promises made during the 1958 election campaign. Thousands of miles of roads were promised for both the Yukon and Northwest Territories. According to the minister a large part of this program would be completed in five years. Two years will have passed and nothing particularly new will have happened.
The estimate for the Flat Creek to Peel plateau road is approximately $40,000 per mile, and some stretches of the road between Yellowknife and Hay River will run as high as $62,000 per mile. On the basis of this information I have estimated the cost of roads promised by this government at $200 million which is considerably in excess of what the minister stated. I simply give this information for the benefit of the committee. I suggest that this is a fair chunk of money and an amount that cannot be spent properly by this government without some advance planning as to where the roads should go.
The Canadian taxpayer including the taxpayer in northern Canada has the right to expect from this government that when roads are being built they will be built in areas that will assist industry to go into production for the benefit of the whole of the Canadian economy. Over a year ago I pointed out to the minister that before he went ahead spending the taxpayer's dollar on building roads, except in the already settled and producing areas, he should first find out by magnetic, electromagnetic and other scientific surveys the location of potential mineral wealth. This information should be published as soon as possible. Information of this kind should be made available to people who are interested in prospecting or in investing money in this field of resource development. This information should be given to people who, I am sure, if it can be pointed out to them that possibilities of oil and mineral deposits exist in a particular area will move into that area and do the necessary ground surveying, prospecting and drilling to determine whether or not the ore body is of commercial value.
Since I mentioned this a year ago the government have had representations from different organizations asking for an increase and an acceleration of the work done by the geological surveys branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. One of these representations was from the Royal Society of Canada and the Geological Association of Canada in the form of a brief submitted to cabinet urging an acceleration in this type of work. I might also quote again from the

Supply-Northern Affairs speech of Mr. Jobouin to the northern development conference in Edmonton last year in which he stated:
The excellent northern mapping work of the surveys branch and geological survey of Canada should be further accelerated, despite the marked improvement in recent years. Their results provide the very foundation on which all other development hinges.
I feel that airborne magnetic, electromagnetic, radiometric, and possibly the new airborne gravimetric surveying, on a reconnaissance scale, is a quite proper field for the federal and provincial governments to enter.
And again, just recently the report of the committee dealing with the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys recommended to the government an acceleration in this field. An immediate start on this type of survey could begin with areas adjacent to Mayo and Keno in the Yukon, and in the area between Yellowknife and the east arm of Grea-t Slave lake and the area northeast of Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories. I will not attempt to point out all the areas where this type of work should be carried on but in general the whole of the Northwest Territories and Yukon should be covered and the work done should be in areas of volcanic and sedimentary structure, ignoring the granite or so-called tombstone areas that have little or no possibilities. The results of such surveys would make it possible for the government or for anyone else, for that matter, to then outline a practical plan for development.
The second step, as I suggested a year ago, is to provide flight strips in the areas where prospectors or companies who wish to invest capital for exploration indicate they wish to explore. These people will then do the ground surveys and the necessary drilling that will indicate the size and value of the ore bodies.
The third step is to provide an incentive for the development companies to open up and bring the mines into production.
These incentives, I suggest, should be by way of increased income tax exemptions during the early years of the mines development. In this regard I wish to quote from a report in the Edmonton Journal reporting on a speech made by Mr. J. M. Botsford, general manager of Gunnar Mines Limited, to the northern development conference, and I quote:
Revised federal and provincial taxation rates, graduated according to latitude, would provide one of the greatest incentives for private enterprise to enter into this national project of developing the north and establishing northern communities," Mr. Botsford declared.
In addition to what Mr. Botsford said the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and others, have submitted proposals
[Mr. Hardie.i

to the government to extend the present three-year tax free period in the case of new mines to five years for those mines operating above the 60th parallel.
I would also suggest to encourage prospecting of potential areas that prospectors be given some assistance to cover their transportation costs. An amount of $100,000 per year set aside in the estimates for this kind of assistance would encourage a great deal more prospecting and would be of great assistance to those people who have pioneered every major mineral discovery up to the present time.
Another point I might mention here that would be of assistance would be a relaxation in the regulations of the Department of Transport to speed up procedures for licensing of radio transmission stations for all mining exploration and development jobs.
In areas where there is potential the government should set out to survey the power potential, and the requirements for new mines. Also-and this matter I brought to the attention of the department some years ago-there should be an immediate review of the mining regulations in the Northwest Territories.
It seems that the practice has been that when a difficulty arises between an individual or company and the government in regard to the regulations the government passes an order in council to cover the particular situation without passing along the same advantages to everyone in the north by amending the regulations. These suggestions if implemented, will encourage capital to come into the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, will give the government a start on its inventory of resources, and will encourage the general development of the Northwest Territories and Yukon for the ultimate good of the whole of the Canadian nation.
The people presently living in the Northwest Territories, the pioneers of that vast country, also require some encouragement, and this I suggest can be done in a number of ways. For instance, along the Mackenzie and Liard rivers and in some of the communities around Great Slave lake, a large portion of the people are still attempting to derive their living from the fur industry. I do not think that members of this committee have to be told that these people cannot live on prices they receive for fur today. I would therefore suggest, as I have done on numerous other occasions, that the government make a serious study of what can be done about putting a floor price on fur, and in particular on muskrats, beaver and white fox. I see no reason why something along this line should not be done, in view

of the fact that so many products today are similarly covered under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
I submit it is only fair that the natives and trappers of the north should be given the same treatment. I do not know whether members of the committee realize the difficulties the people in those communities have in their day to day living. For instance, in the large majority of communities, the women, in order to do their washing and cooking, and so forth, are required to carry their water from the river up steep banks for great distances. To members of the committee this may seem to be a very minor detail, but it would certainly assist the large number of people in the country if pumping stations could be erected so that water could be pumped from the source of supply, the rivers or lakes, to the centres of those communities.
In many communities the people are isolated from the rest of the world at break-up and at freeze-up periods during the year. Transportation between those settlements is by float-equipped aircraft or by boat and canoe during the summer and by ski-equipped aircraft and dog team during the winter. During those periods of freeze-up and break-up, as in any community, emergencies can happen and many have happened over the years. For instance, what happens in a community at this time of the year when a person may have a ruptured appendix, a broken leg or some other sickness or accident and the closest doctor is possibly 200 or 300 miles away? The community may not have a nurse, but if there was one available what could she do in a serious case? I suggest that to remedy this sort of situation suitable air strips for the landing of aircraft such as the Cessna 180, the Beaver or Otter type be built at communities such as Fort McPherson, Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman, Fort Franklin, South Nahanni, Fort Liard, Jean Marie river, Rocher river, Snowdrift and Coppermine. These strips, I submit, would not be costly. They would run somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000 to $60,000 each, depending on the availability of a suitable site; in other words, for the same amount as, if not much more-


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think so, because he is speaking for the official opposition.


Charles Edward Rea: We are in committee.


Mr. Pearson:: He has to get permission to continue.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -in other words, for the same amount as, if not much more than, the cost of building a mile of road. More frequent air service should also be given to places such as Fort Liard, South Nahanni, Fort Franklin, Rocher river and Snowdrift. The government could also build small floating wharves in each of these communities to assist in making it easier and safer for pontoon-equipped aircraft to dock during rough weather in the summer months. The government could also provide gas caches in communities where these services are not provided by the oil and gas dealers.
In the more settled areas such as Fort Smith, Hay River and Yellowknife, something should be done to give the industry and the people located there telephone communication with the outside world, something similar to the microwave plan that would also provide television for the area.
The government should also give serious consideration to the recommendation of the committee on mines, forests and waters suggesting amendments to the National Housing Act which would provide people living in northern Canada with a greater opportunity to enjoy the benefits of this act than is now the case.
While work on the suggestions I have outlined for surveys and other improvements is going on, the government could go forward with a roads program which would serve the present settled and producing areas of the north. In this regard I suggest that in the Northwest Territories the rebuilding of the Mackenzie highway should include hard surfacing the road from Grimshaw to Yellowknife. The proposed road connecting the Mackenzie highway with Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories should be proceeded with immediately, and any agreement with the provincial government of Alberta on this road should also include a program of hard surfacing. This road will serve not only the mixed farming area around Fort Vermilion, Alberta, but will also open up new forest areas and help considerably the sawmills and forest products industry operating in the Wood Buffalo park.
Construction should be undertaken of a winter road from the Mackenzie highway to the Fort Simpson area where a number of oil companies are operating at the present time and have been for the past five years engaged in extensive exploration programs. In other words, do for them what is being

Supply-Northern Affairs done for the companies operating in the Peel plateau and Eagle plain areas. Do something about the crossing of the Mackenzie highway at Hay River. Continue the road program as needed in the Wood Buffalo park and in the other communities in the territories. Bridge the Mackenzie river to make the road into Yellowknife an all year round proposition.
In the Yukon I suggest first that we should rebuild and hard-surface the road from Whitehorse to Keno; continue the program of co-operation with the province of British Columbia on the Stewart-Cassiar road; continue the present improvement to secondary roads such as the one from Johnsons Crossing to Ross river; make the road from Flat creek to Peel plateau and Eagle plain a winter road suitable for trucks, which would cut to present costs of $40,000 per mile to something around $20,000 per mile, and at the same time provide an adequate road for the people there who want to use it.
I might add that hard surfacing of the roads into Yellowknife, Fort Smith and Keno will give not only a better service to those areas but will result, I am sure, in reductions in truck freight rates, and a very considerable increase in the tourist industry. The high cost of living for people in these areas, and the high production costs of the various industries, will necessarily be reduced.
Mr. Chairman, after outlining the things that should be done, it would be natural to expect that members of this committee would ask, how is this proposal to be financed and that information I intend to give the committee now. The program I have outlined could be based on a six-year period. The program could be started next year and completed before March 31, 1966. First of all, I will give the estimated costs for the roads program in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The amounts estimated for the Northwest Territories are as follows. I wonder whether it would be possible for this statement to be put in Hansard in tabular form so that it would be easier for persons to read? I have a table here which I could place in Hansard if the committee will permit it.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member the consent of the committee to place this in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert:: What is the source?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The member for Mackenzie
River.

The table is as follows:
Estimated costs to cover proposals-major road program in Northwest Territories.
1.	Rebuilding sections of and hardsurfacing Mackenzie highway through to Yellowknife, including federal government's share of portion in Alberta, $20,000,000.
2.	Federal contribution to construction and hard-surfacing of road from Mackenzie highway to Fort Smith, $7,000,000.
That is half of the total cost. The provincial government would pay the other half.
3.	Winter road to Fort Simpson area, $3,000,000.
4.	Bridge over the Mackenzie river, $6,000,000. Yukon.
1.	Rebuild sections and hardsurface road from Whitehorse to Keno, $21,000,000.
2.	Winter road from Flat Creek to Peel plateau, $5,000,000.
3.	Federal share of Stewart to Cassiar road,

That is a total for major roads in both territories of $68 million. Then I come to the other projects I have suggested.
1.	Estimated cost of other community and park roads, $2,600,000.
2.	Wharves and pumps, $100,000.
3.	Air strips, $500,000.
4.	Bridge or spillway over Hay river, $300,000.
5.	Aid to prospectors for transportation, $600,000.
6.	Floor price on fur, $900,000.
7.	Microwave and telephone communication, $5,000,000.
8.	Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for geological mapping, magnatometer tests, etc. $6,000,000.
Total over-all costs, $84,000,000.
That is the cash part of my proposal. That is what it would cost the national treasury in six years. The other proposals, such as amendments to the National Housing Act, mining regulations and radio regulations, cost nothing. Nothing is taken from the national treasury by extending the present three-year tax free period for new mines to five years. If the mines are not opened, the treasury gets nothing. The gas caches as proposed would be handled on the same basis as an oil dealer would handle them, costing nothing to the national treasury.
To sum up, over a period of six years a total of $84 million would be spent, or $14 million per year. This amount of $14 million is equal, if members of the committee will recall, to the total to be spent on roads in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon this year. The figure I have given of $14 million a year will not increase the estimates for this branch one nickel to carry out the suggestions I have made, and with no increase in the annual expenditures of the department we can help the people living in the country at the present time to enjoy some of the amenities enjoyed by people in the rest of Canada which I am sure they justly deserve. Complete a six-year program of surveying and mapping and that should give the department some idea of where future roads should

go. I propose that $6 million be spent on this over and above what the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is now spending.
This program, as I said before, will accelerate the inventory of our resources. It will encourage investment capital to come into the area. It will help prospectors and bring the roads that are built in this period up to a standard that will encourage freight rate reductions and further encourage investment in the area. It will help to give a real boost to the tourist industry, which I know is close to the minister's heart.
And do not forget this. It will leave the government with $116 million of the $200 million it would have required to fulfil its election promises for the rebuilding of roads and air strips as they are needed. I ask members of the house if this is not a sound policy. Would not the government be better off to announce a policy such as this and admit the mistakes they made in their promises of 1958 rather than try to cover up these phony visions by putting up smokescreens such as the minister has in the past few months by his attempts to take the eyes of the Canadian people away from that great area of our northern mainland, that area where the vision was born, lying between the northern boundaries of the four western provinces and the Arctic?
Why, I ask, put up smokescreens to direct the attention of the people of Canada to the Arctic islands and to a so-called oil boom which, in fact, is just a real estate play where a large number of the individuals and companies have been given millions of acres in the Arctic islands without putting up a plugged nickel? Nor have any large number of these individuals and companies shown the government that they have the financial wherewithal to do any amount of exploration work as required by the regulations. Why the excitement in this area when we cannot get rid of the oil we are producing in Alberta at the present time?
The minister's stories of submarines carrying oil and iron ore that we have not explored as yet under the polar ice cap are visions that may be accomplished some time in the distant future. If he wants to get excited about something let him get excited about doing something now. Do something in the immediate future rather than getting steamed up over what may happen 40 or 50 years from now. While I am on the subject of visions and the Arctic islands, I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. He should not let these visions run away with him or he may find that his next vision will put him right in the middle of Siberia. I would not want to wish him anything like 66968-9-368
Supply-Northern Affairs that but if he goes any farther north with the vision that is where he will be. The $50 million skyscraper city at Frobisher bay, where the minister says the people will be employed refuelling aircraft and the Eskimos will be busy selling their carvings to European and American tourists while the planes are being refuelled, comes far short of being a practical idea. That is particularly so when we consider that long-range jet aircraft are now being flown non-stop from London to New York and in a very short space of time we can expect they will be flying non-stop from London and Amsterdam to Edmonton and Winnipeg. I submit that by the time this townsite is built this could happen and the $50 million spent might just as well have been thrown into the middle of Great Slave lake. I am confident that the $50 million could be spent on other practical northern projects or to help the economy of the Atlantic provinces or other parts of Canada.
The government continues to deal with the roads program by now focusing attention on the Arctic islands and deals with the promise made not only in the election but also in the speech from the throne a year ago concerning the building of the railroad to Pine Point by setting up a commission. If the minister really wants to settle this problem of a railroad to the satisfaction of everyone concerned I would suggest to him that the government start immediately to build the railway from Grimshaw to Fort Vermilion and then to Fort Smith, which would tap the agricultural lands between Grimshaw and Vermilion and open up a large area for lumber and forest products. Then, if and when the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company want to open up their mine at Pine Point, extend the railway to Pine Point either from Fort Smith or from Fort Vermilion. The railway would serve the immediate needs of the agricultural and forest industries and would cost approximately the same amount as a railway from Waterways or Grimshaw to Pine Point.
The cost of the additional rail, if and when the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company want to open their mine, would be between $12 million and $16 million, based on the figures given by the minister at various times on the cost per mile of rail in that part of the country. It is reasonable to believe that if we delay the building of this railroad the cost will be a great deal higher than the estimated cost today. My point, therefore, Mr. Chairman, is that if the railroad were started immediately, rather than 10, 15 or 20 years from now, the extra mileage costs suggested in the route I have now proposed would be saved.

Supply-Northern Affairs
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have taken considerable time of this committee in putting forward a development plan which I think is practical. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to these suggestions. I do not intend to take any more time at this stage, but will make further comments when we proceed to discussion of the various items before the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, we have a phrase to the effect that without vision the people perish. Now, we have a double vision and I am sure it is going to be a "Hardie" one and that both aspects of the duplicity are going to be around for a long time. I must compliment the hon. member upon preparing such a serious and weighty speech. I have been wondering where he has been lately, since he has been missing from our meetings of the mines, forests and waters committee. Now I know he was getting ready for this great effort. I must say that the tone of the address was most surprising and very pleasing.
The hon. member concentrated on northern administration. I must confess that when the report of our committee came into the house I was bitterly disappointed at the way it was picked up and carried across the country. I believe most of the people in the committee, certainly most of the people from British Columbia and Ontario anyway, thought that by far the most important recommendation of that committee had to do with forestry and the forestry branch, and that there was a disproportionate amount of attention given to the other aspects of the committee report. I certainly hope that the minister, at least, will recognize that this was the order of importance in the minds of the committee, and will take his closest and hardest look at those recommendations dealing with forestry and not with northern administration.
I did not have any opportunity to take part in preparing that section of the report, but I would not deny that as a member of the committee I went along with the rest of them in unanimously adopting the report.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member did not vote for the report, and that is fine, but I would have gone along with it, I believe. I am much perturbed about the effect one particular section of this report may have. I think it may leave members of parliament open to criticism for perhaps shooting before they can see their target. I have reference to the fact that a subcommittee was supposed to make a visit into the north in order to see the installations, since we had no outside witnesses, that is outside the government administration on this particular phase, in contrast

to the large number of witnesses we had on other aspects of departmental activities. I think we would have been in a much more solid position if we had actually seen the area.
Now, this question of a subcommittee of the House of Commons going to visit regions that are important to a department is something to which we have to give immediate, serious consideration. It is all very well for us to sit down in a smoky room and examine or cross-examine people from the department. However, I believe unless we can get out onto the ground and see many of the problems, the institutions, the type of construction that is being done, the type of people who are involved in it, we are really not in a prime position to make any lucid or intelligent comments or recommendations. I hope, for that reason, the minister will give urgent consideration to seeing that a subcommittee of this committee is given the power, under the Inquiries Act, to visit the area this fall before the weather closes in, and have a look at those installations which the committee did, to a degree, criticize, and have a look at this administration that, to a degree, the committee has criticized.
I could welcome some kind of investigation or committee excursion to the various forest experiment places, and visits to competitive areas such as the lake states and the southern states. However, in that particular field at least some of the members of the committee have had experience and they do have intimate knowledge of the problems of the pulp and paper industry and the lumbering industry. In so far as the north is concerned, with the exception of the two hon. members of parliament who come from there we are-I was going to say an ignorant lot-an uninformed group relatively at the present time. I believe this is one of the best things the minister could do or that the government could do, and one of the best things I think that could happen for northern administration, would be to have a small subcommittee given the opportunity to go as soon as possible to these places and have an opportunity of examining witnesses, looking into things closely. I certainly hope the minister will express himself in this particular regard.
In so far as the vision is concerned, I think the vision helped to win an election. I do not know, but I believe it is going to lose the next election that is coming up in a few years. It has always been my feeling that this vision was oversold. I can give you an example of the reaction of the part of the country I represent, and the reason I say I think it was oversold. I am reading from an editorial in our local newspaper at Port Arthur, the

News-Chronicle, which includes a quotation from a gentleman who is the manager of the northwestern Ontario development association, and who has been called the William Jennings Bryan of the north. When you hear this quotation, I think you will see why. He says:
Parliament, awake! Open up central Canada with a railway and highway to connect your new fresh water seacoast of lake Superior and the salty bays of Hudson and James, tapping natural wealth for nearly 1,000 miles between them.
Build access roads into areas of favourable geological formations, conifer forests and power sites.
Extend the network of roadlinks to lakes, rivers and granite hills of spectacular scenic value to attract an ever increasing flow of vacationing travellers from south of the border into our unique hinterland.
Encourage and assist a new wave of settlement and venture capital to populate and develop the glittering potential of the region.
Under such a dynamic policy, this central section of the nation-populated and productive- will stand a generation hence a magnificent monument to the far-reaching vision of its chosen leaders and a reservoir of economic strength and security in the hazardous era stretching into the foreseeable future of the world.
This gentleman is talking about that vast region lying north of lake Superior, running 600 to 800 miles north to Hudson bay, and the fact it is not developed yet, is largely untapped. It has one advantage over the area about which the minister's department is excited and interested, it has fairly substantial coniferous forests. When you examine the reasons why our government should take an interest in the north, I think primarily one comes down to the question of defence and national sovereignty as interrelated things, and the sheer fact we are in competition with the Russians. I do not believe that the competition and defence end should blind us to the fact that our Arctic is different from the Russians' Arctic.
The next thing in which we need to be interested, I think, is looking after our native people. The third thing in which we are interested in so far as the north is concerned is the possibility of some economic return from the region. The only economic return one can see from the north is in the mineral resources. The great problem there, and the minister in effect admitted it before the committee hearings, is the cost factor.
In the north costs are very high, especially in connection with any kind of mineral and in the oil and gas field. In fact, the oil and gas field in the Arctic, as the hon. member for Mackenzie River pointed out, is highly speculative. It really does not apply in great substance. When you consider that we have in the southern part of Canada forest resources that are still unused and all sorts of mineral deposits that are unused to get 66968-9-368i
Supply-Northern Affairs overly excited and to project a vision, as this particular government did in order to win an election or associated with winning an election, you are carrying out in effect a bit of tomfoolery.
Look after the native people as well, make sure that our defence and our sovereignty are established. But to give the impression that the thing for the young men of Canada to do today is to go north and that going north means away north, I think you are doing a disservice to the country. The majority of people who I have encountered who have come back from the north say that with the exception of the odd mounted policeman and the odd Hudson Bay man these people who live up there look upon themselves as temporary visitors. I think the turnover in the various northern departments that have anything to do with the north indicate that this is so.
I know the minister, with his vision to the future and to planning, may insist that I am being pessimistic and destructive. That is fair enough. But I just feel that in this whole area the minister and his department may have become completely out of focus as to what should be a more prime responsibility. I think of that prime responsibility as being reflected in this report of the mines, forests and waters committee. I refer to the report on forestry. I certainly hope that there will not become a disbalance in his department of northern affairs through forgetting that there are immense responsibilities open to the forestry side. I think one of the steps the minister should take as soon as possible is to appoint an associate deputy minister for the forestry operations.
The forestry recommendations were supported by a fair volume of evidence. I just wanted to deal with one of the points or one of the recommendations suggesting that we need a forest taxation study. That is something I believe we have needed for a long time. With all due respect to the very resourceful and capable industrial people who appeared before the committee, my sympathies with them in their position or in their appeals for tax relief are not going to be consolidated until we have such a study because I do not know whether we can really believe them. I do not mean that they are lying but I think that they may be taking a sort of over gloomy position in the face of a competition to which they are not accustomed. I would not make this as a charge but I think this may be possible and it points up all the more reason why we should have this taxation study and in my opinion have it in a hurry. I certainly hope that the minister will see that it goes beyond something

Supply-Northern Affairs which is in his department and that is it is a responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
One of the aspects of the department upon which I should like to touch is a rather delicate one. It is a question of the national museum and the fact that an appointee of the previous administration or a man who was appointed by the previous administration has left at the minister's request. I think it is fair to say that that man, whatever his actions in the department, whatever may have been his competence and his duties, is now as a result of the minister's action under a great cloud in so far as his ability and his whole attitude toward work and administration are concerned. In other words I am suggesting to the minister he has in effect ruined the career of a man who ostensibly or apparently had achieved something in the scientific field. When one reads all the correspondence and all the answers to questions that have been given by the department in relation to this whole problem and they would fill pages of the order paper, and when one reads the statement of Mr. Rousseau involved in this matter it quickly becomes apparent that there are a number of sides to this question. I would not want to come in here and lay down the line and say that Dr. Rousseau has been completely vicitimized by anyone. However, the thing that bothers me -and I will say it to the minister-is that there seems to be something very tawdry in the whole set-up of the way this man was appointed.
I do not like the background and the information that is revealed with regard to the part played by one of the former officials, namely Mr. Lamontagne. I do not like the part that seems to have been played by Mr. Lesage, the former minister in getting this man into the department, getting him a job and leading him to believe that he had certain responsibilities and a certain future. Then we get this quick about-face; a remarkable about-face for a civil servant. I think the minister will agree that within a remarkably short period of time here was a man who was wooed into a job and then he was in trouble very quickly and within a relatively short time he got the boot.
It is a confused situation and I am certainly not ever going to be in a position to get to the roots of it, nor do I think are any other hon. members. I should just like to suggest to the minister that if his actions in this particular affair were based on complete justice or an attitude or wish to have complete justice for this particular man, the *events could have gone along in a different path. As the situation is now, I understand the gentleman is going to have great difficulty in getting any kind of employment. To my


way of thinking, if he is to be condemned, the departmental administration before the present minister's time is to be condemned. I almost have the hunch that somehow the minister in order to protect some of his civil servants, has been masking over what I think are mistakes made by the previous minister and the previous administration in this particular field.
I do not know where one can go along this particular line but I certainly think that the recommendations of the committee, in so far as the national museum is concerned should be taken up. I think it is a very sad situation when, whatever the capacities a man may have had, he is encouraged or asked to resign and it appears that one of the main factors in the resignation is that we have in the department some foreign nationals who disagreed with him. This may not be the whole story. Those foreign nationals may not have much responsibility for the matter. But the fact remains that they are foreign nationals or a couple of them were. To me this is a sad situation. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see the minister do something about the recommendation so that we can get to the stage where we have Canadian anthropologists and experts whom we can have running our museum instead of having this dependence on Americans.
The only reiteration I should like to make in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, is this. I should like the minister to consider seriously this question of a committee visit to the north. I should like him to express his opinion on the recommendations the committee made in connection with the northern mines administration. If the committee does not get an opportunity of visiting the north this session, I certainly hope he will do what he can to see that it gets that opportunity in the next session. In the next year I think we shall all be greatly interested in seeing what comes of what the minister has referred to as a frank report.
If the minister does follow up the recommendations, especially of the forests department, I think he will find an even more enthusiastic committee than he has had this year. I have been a member of five committees in this house and this committee has been the best of all of them in the sense of attendance and interest of the members, and their willingness to work on their own to bone up on things, I think has been exemplary. I would hope that the minister would give this kind of good, solid committee, with a chairman who to me has had a very open mind with a fair lack of the more serious kind of partisanship, a real boost for its

future by carrying out as many as possible of its recommendations in the coming months.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to speak about the Canadian government travel bureau and tourist spending. I prefer to make my remarks at this stage rather than on the individual items because the remarks I will make are of general interest and refer to the responsibilities of the department generally concerning the tourist industry.
The minute we start talking about tourism, I realize that the Minister of Finance clutches at his purse strings and starts worrying about our request for loans to tourist operators. I am sorry that such an idea has got across to the Minister of Finance because there are many more problems in the tourist industry than tourist loans. That may be a means to an end, but I want to refer to the larger field. I think the tourist industry can bring this country out of the red financially if properly handled and can give us a big boost in our foreign dollar receipts. We can make the Minister of Finance happy, I believe, rather than sad if we carry out some of the ideas concerning tourism which have been put forward by the mines, forests and waters committee when they dealt with this particular subject. We can bring in firstly hundreds of millions of dollars, foreign money, which is new or found money, in addition to circulating more quickly Canadian funds by people travelling within Canada. So I want to talk about money matters in connection with the tourist industry rather than dealing in detail with what has been discussed before.
The tourist industry is the third largest producer of foreign dollars in Canada. At the top of the list is newsprint, and for 1957, which was the latest poll, the figure for a comparative basis for newsprint was $715 million, which was foreign money. The second was wheat, which brought in $380 million, and the third was travel, which produced $363 million. Below those three items came pulp, lumber, aluminum, iron ore, petroleum and uranium. Each of those latter mentioned articles bring in less foreign dollars than does the tourist industry. One source of concern is that our travel income declined in 1958 to $352 million, which is down $11 million, or approximately 3 per cent.
In this connection I would like to make some comparisons. I know that comparisons are odious in a lot of cases, but I think we must consider this matter in the light of financial return. I would like to compare for a moment the subject of wheat, which brings
Private Bills
in approximately the same number of foreign dollars, a little more, than travel. I would like to ask the committee how many millions of dollars we lay out on wheat each year. For prairie farm assistance, $500,000; under the farmers' rehabilitation act, $5 million. Then there is the new crop insurance, farm loans, a large portion of the expenditures of the Department of Agriculture amounting to $106 million, and a large chunk of the expenditures of the Department of Trade and Commerce at $64 million. I am not going to total those figures up because the figure would rather astound us, but the return is about the same as for the tourist industry. And we spend for the tourist industry just a little more than $2 million to bring back an almost equivalent return as wheat.
I do not want to dwell on wheat because it is only one of a number, but I am appalled at the large number of non-productive spending items which we find in our estimates; money for which we have no return, money which is merely spread around, received from one source and put to another. The tourist industry is a producer of money. The government is not in business to make money. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we are not in business to lose money any faster than necessary, either.
I see that it is nearly five o'clock and I want to go on to another portion of my address at this point. However, I just want to remind the committee that tourist spending has declined and also tourist income has declined, and I think it is most essential that we bear the comparisons I have just made in mind when we consider estimates in the future. May I call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-28, to incorporate Standard Trust Company.-Mr. Thompson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-29, to incorporate Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company-Mr. Dorion-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could put a question to the sponsor of this bill and ask him if he could explain to the

Private Bills
committee what jurisdiction he thinks this parliament has in the field of insurance?


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer the hon. gentleman's question. I know that this question of insurance has been discussed for a long time and there have been some judgments by the privy council the last of which I believe was in 1932 and was to the effect that it is within the jurisdiction of the provinces to occupy the field of insurance, but after that the federal law was changed. If you look at the statutes you can see that there is no obligation for an insurance company to be constituted in virtue of the federal law.
I do not know about the other provinces but in Alberta it is absolutely necessary for an insurance company to have a federal licence to carry on business in that province. That is the only purpose of this bill.
No doubt the hon. gentleman is familiar with that patriotic movement Caisse Popu-laire Desjardins which has many clients and customers in Alberta. They cannot operate with their provincial company because that province requires a federal licence. That is the only purpose of this bill. I do not believe we can deprive that important organization of the right to carry on business in Alberta or in the other provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member quite satisfied that parliament in enacting this measure-if indeed parliament does enact it as I suppose it will-is not in any way infringing upon provincial autonomy?


Noël Dorion: I would not like to argue that point. If the hon. member refers to the last judgment of the privy council, which was the case of the Citizens' Insurance Company, I believe he will find that the wording leaves the question open. The sense of that judgment is only that the federal authorities cannot oblige any provincial insurance company to operate without a federal licence. I believe that is the general meaning of that judgment, but I would not like to assure the hon. member that the privy council by that judgment has completely shut the door to federal jurisdiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the hon. gentleman is satisfied, then, that we are not doing anything that is in any way an attack upon provincial autonomy?


Noël Dorion: I am satisfied that from a practical point of view it is absolutely necessary to have a federal statute.


Mr. Peters:: As this will be a federal corporation if the legislation passes, is the hon. member in a position to inform us

whether the company will be willing to submit its annual reports to the federal authorities?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member examines clause 12 he will see that the company is subject to the provisions of the British and Canadian Insurance Companies Acts and consequently will comply with the obligations imposed on the company under clause 12.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 12, inclusive, agreed to. (Translation):
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. McGee for the second reading of Bill No. C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment). (Translation):
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of making a few remarks about the act to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment).
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record of the house one of the explanatory notes which reads as follows:
The Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries, which reported in June and July 1956, recommended, inter alia, that corporal punishment be abolished for any of the offences for which it is presently described in the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this bill proposes to amend only sections 136, 138, 141, 142, 148, 218, 289, 292, 586 and 641 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all the hon. members to understand that when we discuss a matter such as corporal punishment, the government must have the co-operation of everyone, in the circumstances.
(Text):
In discussing this legislation before the house this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first of all that very generally I tend to think of corporal punishment under three different headings. We see, first of all, where a person could be sentenced for various crimes under the Criminal Code and the sentence could include corporal punishment. This should be distinguished from the corporal punishment that can be administered under the Penitentiary Act, for example. Also, in a more general way, we can consider

that aspect of corporal punishment which can be administered, for example, to a young offender without actually sending him to prison.
The first thing that I should like to touch upon at the present time is something that has been notably impressed upon me. I have read the House of Commons and Senate committee report which was brought out in 1956, and many comparisons have been made by statistics with conditions in the United Kingdom. We all know that in 1948 the United Kingdom abolished corporal punishment, but I feel it is perhaps false for us to make statistical comparisons in the field of penology, notably with the United Kingdom experience in corporal punishment. I regret to say it, but the United Kingdom has been able to make many sweeping reforms such as this one with regard to corporal punishment which we have not been able to make. Again, I regret to say that after 22 years of Liberal rule we were away behind in the field of prison reform.
It was stated in this house not so long ago-


Mr. Winch:: We have had two years of Conservative rule.


William Heward Grafftey: It was stated in this house by many members not so long ago that when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) took over his portfolio he found, both as regards the physical plant of our prisons and as regards many specific reforms, that we were lagging far behind as a nation.
While I seem to be straying very far into the general field of criminology and penology, I feel that corporal punishment must be discussed with this general background knowledge. Many people have mentioned to me -and I am sure to many other hon. members of this House of Commons-that the discussion of capital punishment, corporal punishment and prison reform in general is a timeworn and time-beaten subject; but still, that does not mean that much has been done; that also does not mean that much more does not remain to be done before we as Canadians can be at all satisfied with the state of criminal reform in general.
In discussing such subjects as corporal and capital punishment, I think too many of us tend to be on extreme sides of the subject. A lot of people feel that the public looks upon corporal punishment as retribution. I have a little more faith in human nature than that. I do not think that any hon. member of this House of Commons, or any citizen of Canada wants to see a man whipped. I know I do not and I am absolutely sure that everybody in this House of Commons shares the same opinion.
Criminal Code
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the collective theory of guilt. Whenever I see a man sentenced, no matter for what crime, I always feel that although man is a little lower than the angels but yet a little higher than the rest of the animal kingdom, we must realize that there is such a thing as individual responsibility in this day and age. At the same time, when I see a man sentenced to prison I do believe in the collective theory of guilt. While he is individually responsible I believe, ofttimes, general social and economic conditions brought about the state of affairs which have sent him along the road to crime. I know in my own case, in the little prison work that I have had the opportunity to do, I have often looked at some of the young men I have worked with and said to myself, "There but for the grace of God go I".
At the same time, I turn back to the point that I do not think we should over-emphasize the fact that the public at large, even though these things are given a lot of publicity and so forth, are at any time taking a retributive look at this problem.
In discussing corporal punishment at this time, I ask myself one basic question. Does corporal punishment act as a deterrent to other individuals in society? Does it help to cure the prisoner himself? In other words, does it help to abolish recidivism? In the light of these questions which I ask myself and in the light of the House of Commons and the Senate committee report which was brought down in 1956, I do feel that I should like very sincerely to support the legislation which has been brought before us today.
I should point out that in 1931 corporal punishment was meted out in only 12.1 per cent of the cases in which it might have been used under the Criminal Code. In 1954 it was used in only .6 per cent of the cases. If those in authority feel that this legislation should not be passed at the present time, I would like to emphasize right here and now that corporal punishment should be used only after a thorough background investigation of the man charged has been undertaken. I should like to point out, as the committee said, that if it is to be used at all, either under or outside of the terms of the Criminal Code, it should be applied early in the sentence. At the same time I think it should be made quite clear to the public that it is used only on very rare occasions under the present set-up. I think a lot of us have known of the picture of a man being struck down by a cat-o-nine-tails until he is knocked unconscious, and all that sort of thing.
Such is not the case. Today a medical examination is involved. The punishment is

Criminal Code
administered with a proper strap or certainly should be and it is done in the presence of a doctor.
Realizing that at the present time we are only discussing corporal punishment as it relates to the Criminal Code, I am very happy to support the legislation now before us. At the same time I should like to say that under the Penitentiary Act and similar legislation for provincial prisons there is undoubtedly a good argument for retaining corporal punishment for misbehaviour in the case of those confined to a prison, but it should be realized that is not what we are discussing this afternoon.
After many chats with various individuals, and I know that my remarks are not entirely in agreement with the report of the Senate and House of Commons committee in 1956, I think there is a good argument to be put forward today, because even since 1956 we have seen a tremendous increase in juvenile delinquency from one end of the country to the other. I am not too sure, for example, that it would not be helpful if magistrates were to hand out as a punishment a good birching in the case of many young people who do not seem to want to conform to normal social behavior. But at the same time, going back to the specific terms of the legislation before us, realizing that in later years much progress has been made in psychiatric development, realizing that the public also realizes that while a man is individually responsible we are not proving anything unless we cure him while he is in prison, I believe, having that point of view before me, that this legislation should be supported.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I also am glad to add my voice to those who support this legislation. I fully realize that it was originally introduced in the house by a neighbour of mine, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), and I should like to quote from Hansard for June 6, 1958, page 935, when he made his opening statement on the bill. At that time he called attention to the fact that article 5 of the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the United Nations and supported by Canada reads as follows:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The hon. member went on to say:
In view of this provision in the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations which has been accepted by Canada it is difficult to understand how Canadians could give formal approval to that provision and yet retain corporal punishment under our criminal law.
He pointed out that in the western world the only countries he knew of which retained
[Mr. Grafftey.l
corporal punishment as part of their criminal law were South Africa and Canada. For further information I went, as other members have done, to the proceeding of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which sat during 1954 and 1955. The total amount of evidence is over 1,600 pages, and although the evidence deals not only with corporal punishment but also with capital punishment and lotteries, by far the greater amount of the evidence had to do with capital and corporal punishment. I should like to read a few excerpts from some of the evidence given to the committee. I was interested in the submission of the United Church of Canada presented by the Rev. J. R. Mutchmor, secretary of the board of evangelism and social service. It is found on page 531 of the evidence taken in 1954. He said:
We believe it is both the right and duty of the United Church of Canada as a branch of the Christian church to co-operate with the state in a common effort to determine the best methods to deal with crime including those redemptive processes essential to the restoration of the criminal. We believe also in stressing the need for and value of preventive work and the importance of all character building methods and programs as the best way to reduce crime. We believe, in short, that only the good way of life can effectively overcome the evil ways. We would accentuate not the prohibitive and penalizing methods, some of which are necessary, but the positive and character building ones.
As found on page 533 he went on to say:
We regret that at the present level of progress in correctional work the use of corporal punishment as a last resort may be a necessity. We believe that the state should look forward to its abolition. If the state cannot see its way to do this at the present juncture in correctional work, it should continue its inquiries and research, making a project of the task of the gradual elimination of this form of punishment which is most degrading to human dignity, both for those who inflict it and those upon whom it is inflicted.
Warden Christie, warden of the Oakalla prison, British Columbia, who is an outstanding penologist and formerly a social worker, and who has made a tremendous contribution to penology in British Columbia, was a witness before the committee, and I believe that because of his background what he had to say should be of interest to the house. As found on page 573 he said with respect to corporal punishment:
There are better and less dangerous means of control, but it would be a mistake to take corporal punishment as a means of control away from an institution if it had no other means of control at its disposal.
In this case he was talking of corporal punishment as a means of control of inmates in an institution and he agreed that this was necessary in certain instances, as the previous

speaker has also indicated. He did say, however, that institutions which have rooms provided for complete segregation or disassociation such as are used in a mental institution have no need of corporal punishment. He pointed out that corporal punishment in penitentiaries and other corrective institutions was diminishing. However, with regard to corporal punishment as a form of punishment inflicted under the Criminal Code he was very forthright in his condemnation. He said as found on page 570:
X believe further that it will soon be impossible for a people who have our present scientific knowledge at their disposal to retain either corporal or capital punishment as methods of control. It will, however, in my estimation, take some time for our present knowledge to extend to the point where we realize how illogical, unnecessary and socially damaging it is to continue their use.
The point that Warden Christie made was that corporal punishment was ineffective, that it actually prevented the redemption of the criminal. It embittered him against society and made the corrective work of the institution that much harder to accomplish. I was interested also in a statement made by Mr. Kirkpatrick of the John Howard society of Ontario. This is found on page 596, where he pointed out that the severity of punishment as a deterrent is a fallacy. He went back into the history of Anglo-Saxon society to show that the very severe punishment given for relatively trivial offences had no result whatever in the reduction of crime. He said:
It is commonly said that punishment has three principle purposes-retribution, deterrence and reformation. Of these it is generally conceded that retribution should no longer assume a place in modern penology. But any system of penology must maintain, as its fundamental basis, the protection of society.
He pointed out in regard to the published statistics, in the same way as the previous speaker pointed out, that judges are very loath to add whipping to imprisonment sentences. He was speaking of the period 1949-1950-1951, when the total number of convictions for robbery in Canada was between 700 and 900 and the number of whippings ordered by the courts amounted to something less than one per cent of those cases. He said that the common objective of all concerned in this whole process should be the protection of society by the rehabilitation of the offender. He went on to state that whippings did not help in this regard but actually hindered this rehabilitation work.
Finally, I should like to point out the evidence as given by Major General R. B. Gibson before this committee in 1955. The evidence will be found on page 292. Major General Gibson was commissioner of penitentiaries, and he had this to say:
66968-9-369
Criminal Code
The infliction of corporal punishment is a most distasteful task for all who are responsible for it, both those who have the responsibility of deciding whether it should be authorized, and those who have the duty of carrying it out. Happily, in recent years its award by the courts and its use as a disciplinary measure in the penitentiaries has been decreasing.
Continuing his statement, he said:
My own view, and I am expressing only my personal feelings in the matter, is that corporal punishment should not be awarded as part of the sentence of the court. The court has the opportunity of awarding a sentence of more or less imprisonment when a person has been convicted, and in my view the fear of imprisonment for a lengthy period is a sufficient deterrent for those who contemplate the commission of a crime without adding to it the fear of corporal punishment-
I do not consider that an award of corporal punishment as part of the sentence is a really effective method of preventing the commission of criminal offences because when such an award is made as part of the sentence a considerable period of time must elapse before the penalty can be inflicted. There must be time for an appeal, and whether there is an appeal or not, the time allowed for such appeal must elapse before the punishment can be inflicted. There is therefore a considerable period before the penalty is carried out, and it cannot be directly related to the offence. Corporal punishment, to be effective as a deterrent, must follow closely after the commission of the offence for which it is inflicted.
Then, he goes on to state:
If in addition to the sentence of imprisonment which involves loss of liberty and separation from his family and home ties, corporal punishment as part of his sentence has to be inflicted by the persons who are seeking to help him to readjust himself and his thinking to prepare for his release, it is evident that it will be difficult to convince him that these efforts are sincere.
It is a rather strange fact that corporal punishment is still left in our code in the face of the evidence contained in these two volumes which represents the evidence given to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. This idea of revenge is something that should be, and I believe is, foreign to most Canadians. Prison sentences are set up for punishment, and whipping is something extra that is added. As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) has pointed out, in something less than 1 per cent of the cases where a judge could order a whipping, were such sentences given. This means that court officers themselves are unwilling to use the provision in the code. It is, therefore, a law which is not being applied because those who are empowered to apply it, in the great majority of instances, do not wish to apply it. They do have the right to either order a whipping or not order it.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should receive general support from all quarters in this house. I suggest the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) should take note of

Criminal Code
the remarks that have been made in this debate and at as early a time as possible something should be done toward bringing our Criminal Code more in line with that of the nations with whom we feel we are on an equal plane.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken in this house on corporal punishment. I have seen no reason for changing my attitude to this inhuman treatment of a fellow human being. If we go back to the early days of history, there may have been some justification for the use of force in trying to deter crime or in punishing criminals once they were caught. However, in a civilized society this is clearly out of date. We have to make up our minds, I think once and for all, just where justice is going. I think there is no longer a need for revenge in our system of justice. Revenge is negative, and although an individual who has been wronged, whether personally or through his loved ones or through his property, has a natural jungle instinct for revenge, most civilized men and certainly civilized society has no such aim.
As lawmakers surely we want to be practical. Anything which has no positive results is a waste of time. If we have statutes which are outmoded it is our clear duty to get rid of them. If our statutes need remodelling, we are the only people who have the opportunity or, indeed, the duty to do it. Perhaps people might wonder why a law enforcement officer should take such a peculiar attitude because the general attitude of policemen, I think, is not imaginative.
Policemen are often thought to be the strong arm of the law and punitive but I do not think this is any longer the case. Certainly I can speak for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in which body I served. Their general attitude is not one of punishment or revenge, but rather one of prevention. People will respect the mounted police and the other police forces only in so far as they are humane and fair. I suggest that the reputation of that force was made on their kindness and their humanity rather than on the well-known cliche that "they always get their man". About 80 per cent of a good policeman's work consists in the prevention of crime. This is done to a great extent by example and by a humane attitude to the public and especially juveniles.
I can quote one example from my own experience. The police of Ontario, the mounted police and the local police combined at the industrial school at Alfred, Ontario to set up a hobby club and a policemen's day and they went to that institution to show friendship to those boys. Within a year the authorities there asserted that juvenile

delinquency, bad manners and bad attitudes to discipline in the school had improved 50 per cent. As soon as these boys began to respect the law enforcement officers their whole attitude to the breaking of the law changed. As I said before, the authorities of that school asserted that there was a 50 per cent improvement in those children in the short space of one year.
I can give another example. In the city of Hamilton some ten years ago a very forward-looking police officer started backyard baseball. This officer was hired at the rate of $7,000 a year by the city of Hamilton. In one year after he started this backyard baseball club the city of Hamilton saved $7,000 in broken glass alone or I should say in the non-breaking of glass alone.
I assert that this is a positive attitude to punishment. I think it can be carried right down through our Criminal Code. There is nothing to be gained by corporal punishment. It is revolting to him who administers it, it is debasing to him who receives it and, wherever it is used, it justifies to the criminal his attitude toward a society in which he feels he has no real part. Unless we can show this criminal-who is after all not greatly different from most of us-that he has a proper place in society; that he is welcome in society; nay, that he is loved by his fellow man, the job of rehabilitating him, once he has been in trouble, is hopeless.
Here is one simple way of showing that we have come out of the jungle, that we no longer look upon him as a wild animal or as an enemy but as a man who has not lived up to the high calling of a dignified human being. I cannot see any argument in favour of using these cruel, outmoded physical tortures in order to try to teach him something different. I should just like to close my few remarks by reminding you, Mr. Speaker, of that great piece in Shakespeare from "The Merchant of Venice" where Portia says:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath. It is twice bless'd:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
If you just draw the parallel and put in the word "punishment" there I think you will see what I mean. Corporal punishment debases him that gives and it certainly debases him that takes.
Once again I should like to add what small weight I can to this argument for doing away with something which is unworthy of Canadians.
(Translation):


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the bill moved by the hon. member for

York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). I must also commend him for the work he has put in for some time now, for the purpose of having corporal punishment abolished.
I also would like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who has also worked hard and long to obtain abolition of corporal punishment. In a speech he made in this house last April he reported that he had visited penitentiaries and had put questions to prisoners who had been subjected to the lash. I should like to quote his own words so that hon. members may realize what cruelty is wrought upon those who are condemned to corporal punishment. The hon. member said-and I quote from page 2317 of the official record of this house for April 7, 1959:
-the warden of the penitentiary has to carry out that order. . . . the inmate is taken into a small room. If it is the lash, there is a table sloping at a 30 degree angle up against the wall. At the end of that table embedded in the concrete are steel plates. The feet of the inmate are fastened by leather straps to the steel plates in the concrete so that he cannot move. He is then stretched along the inclined board, with arms extended, and his arms are strapped to the board so as to be completely immovable. He is stripped to the waist. . . . may I tell you that a leather belt is put around the kidneys because a blow on the kidneys can kill. Then the man who is strapped there, his feet on the floor, his arms extended, with protection so that he cannot be killed, with a leather belt over the kidneys, gets in Canada what is known as the lash.
The hon. member for Vancouver East personally visited, in the hospital, one of the men who had undergone this punishment, and reported that the victim's back was still sore from the lash seven days later.
To my mind, the practice of so barbarous a chastisement, in a civilized country, is a disgrace. The imposition of such punishment is also degrading for the person who has to carry it out. In my view, that type of punishment serves no purpose but that of revenge.
If we look up the various sections of the Criminal Code dealing with offences for which the lash is to be applied, we note, for instance, section 289 which deals with robbery. Now, as an hon. member said this afternoon, out of a total of 700 to 900 cases, the lash was applied in only 1 per cent of those cases. We are forced to the conclusion that the judges were too humane to condemn the others under that section.
Under certain sections of the Criminal Code, the penalty may call for both life imprisonment and the lash.
If the purpose of such a sentence was indeed to reform the guilty, he would not be condemned to the lash, for how can one 66968-9-369i
Criminal Code
expect to reform a criminal who is under a life sentence? That goes to prove, in my opinion, that it is primarily for purposes of revenge that the lash is made part of the sentence.
In my opinion, if the object sought is to reform a criminal, he should be condemned either to prison, or to the lash, but not to both. If it is considered proper to order the lash, the culprit should then be freed immediately after. If the lash was likely to reform a culprit, it could be applied; but it will be seen in several sections of the Criminal Code that the punishment provides up to 14 years of imprisonment, in addition to the lash.
I believe it is a disgrace too for those who have to apply the lash, because their humane feelings are aroused. If the man who carries out the sentence is very humane, he will not use much force; he will try to apply it as humanely as possible, and it is all to his credit. However, in doing so, he might not abide strictly by the requirements of the law. On the other hand, if the man wielding the lash is an inhuman wretch, he will use all his might and apply the lash with cruelty, which would certainly not be a civilized way of applying the punishment.
Especially because the lash can be administered with cruelty, I believe we should react against those methods, we who sit in this parliament and have the authority necessary to amend the sections of the Criminal Code. We should therefore neglect no opportunity to have the corporal punishment abolished.
Once again, I congratulate the mover of the bill and, having done so, I resume my seat, knowing that others are anxious to express their views on the matter.
(Text):


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left at my disposal I would like to endorse what was previously said by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg). Certainly it is refreshing to hear him state in the house the principles by which the police act in dealing with offenders against the law. As has been said, many people have the feeling that when the mounted police went out to get their men, not only did they catch them and bring them to justice but they prosecuted them to the fullest extent. I think a good many people do have that feeling. It may never have been felt that was the case with the mounted police, but I know at times the public does have the feeling that the police generally are prosecutors rather than concerning themselves with simply bringing people to justice.

Criminal Code
As has been said, the most important part of the rehabilitation of a person who has got himself into difficulty concerns his selfrespect. I was privileged for five years to do some work in connection with the juvenile court, and during that time I think that was the main lesson I learned. In most cases I found that people who broke the law, people who went out to do malicious damage, were trying to draw attention to themselves for some wrong that they felt had been done to them. It is oversimplification to refer to the sort of person who throws a brick through a window for the sole purpose of being noticed and being brought to justice; but nevertheless such is the case. It is especially noticeable in juveniles, yet I feel that a lot of people who get into difficulty in adulthood are to a large extent just overgrown juveniles and have never got out of that state.
However, the question remains, Mr. Speaker, whether corporal punishment can be dispensed with in all cases. There are those who appear to be hopeless and there are those who are hopeless, and I think that no person who deals in social work or criminology will say everybody can be put back into society as a good member. There are those who time and again are brought before the courts, are sentenced, serve their time, get out and go right back to the same thing. In some cases it is weakness, and I think that in a case like that we should not inflict corporal punishment.
But what about the person who inflicts what we call a heinous crime or inflicts brutal punishment upon another and who does it not only once but several times? I think that we have to consider very seriously how far we may go in connection with a person like that. It has certainly been established that the purpose of punishment is not primarily revenge; it is rehabilitation.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member who established that principle? It is the first time I have ever heard that established as a principle.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps I should have been more specific, Mr. Speaker, and stated that it is becoming more and more recognized that that is the case rather than having been stated as a principle. In years gone by, as far as I can learn from books I have read, the main purpose of punishment was revenge; but I think as we advance sociologically the revenge motive has diminished and has now become to a large extent a question of rehabilitation. What I am trying to say is that I do not believe that the question of severe punishment or revenge has entirely disappeared from the crime world of today.
May I call it six o'clock?
IMr. Aiken.]


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES 261. Departmental administration, $866,273.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock I was pointing out the large returns that we received for money spent in tourist advertising and publicity. I want to put just one more figure on the record before coming to the matter that is of primary concern to me. For every dollar spent on advertising in the United States by this country, $130 in United States currency comes back to Canada in tourist revenue. I do not hesitate to say that for every future dollar that we spend in the same way, a similar return will come back to this country.
I am now through with figures and should like to indicate to the committee why I am so particularly interested and concerned about the tourist business this year. There are three specific reasons. First, even with a general increase in revenues across the board in 1958 in most departments, the income from tourist spending declined about 3 per cent of $11 million. The second reason is that many other countries of the world have concentrated on their tourist business and as a result have reaped great benefits in their garnering of United States dollars. Unfortunately this represents a loss for us in revenue from our traditional market, the United States. People who formerly travelled here are being invited by very high pressure advertising, publicity and travel offices in the United States to travel elsewhere than in Canada.
The third and most serious reason is that next year, 1960, has been declared "Visit U.S.A. 1960" year. This is an undertaking that has been in the course of preparation for several years. It has the personal backing of the President of the United States. It is a concentrated effort by the tourist industry and by the people of the United States to persuade their people first, to travel at home; that is in their own state; second, to bring people to the United States from other

countries as extensively as they can; and, third, to encourage inter-state travel within the United States. This can have a devastating effect on Canada's 1960 tourist industry if we do not immediately take steps to counteract it.
"Visit U.S.A. 1960" has an eight-point program. I do not want to give it any more publicity than it should have but I do wish to point out what we in Canada are going to have to meet next year. The reason I am doing so is that 1959 is our last chance to persuade the visitors to Canada this year to return next year. Already some of the large 1960 conventions arranged for major cities in Canada, particularly Montreal, have been cancelled. Certain people in the United States will consider it their patriotic duty to hold their conventions at home next year. That is only a start in early 1959, and other results will be forthcoming. For that reason I believe we must be very concerned about this United States undertaking. The greater part of our travel industry originates from the United States and we do not want to lose a large percentage of our market through United States people being persuaded to travel at home in 1960 and in the future.
I wish to set out six of the eight points of the United States program as being illustrative of what we will have to meet. They are contained in a newsletter published by the Curtis Publishing Company of Washington, D.C., publishers of Holiday magazine. The letter is dated July 2, 1959. The following will give us an idea of the lines along which their program is being conducted:
1.	Urge each state and territory to encourage travel within its borders both by visitors from abroad and from other parts of the United States.
2.	Urge cities to attract visitors during the period, set up suitable municipal travel information centres, and encourage foreign nationality groups within their confines to assist with the program.
3.	Urge corporations and trade and service organizations with operations abroad to use the "Visit U.S.A. I960" theme in their advertising and promotional activities, as well as to encourage their representatives in foreign countries to visit the United States in 1960.
4.	Support legislation to repeal the 10 per cent excise tax on the transportation of foreign persons within the United States.
5.	Urge continued negotiations by the United States government with other governments to ease currency restrictions which deter pleasure travel to the United States.
6.	Urge government agencies with jurisdiction over recreational areas, national shrines and points of interest to visitors to make available before and during 1960 more adequate supplies of informational material.
A good many of those points could very well be applied to Canada, but it is too late now for us to counter this move except by immediate action. I am not saying that this is entirely the responsibility of government.
Supply-Northern Affairs At this late stage in 1959 I doubt if there is much the government could do except encourage and support our own industry. It is the responsibility of tourist operators themselves and of the public in Canada generally to welcome their visitors this year, to give them good service, good meals and good accommodations, and to extend such courtesy that these visitors will want to return to Canada in 1960 and bring guests, or send their friends.
In the committee on mines, forests and waters we learned that 40 per cent of the people who come to Canada as visitors come here because of something they have heard from someone else. Word-of-mouth advertising is the most immediate and important medium. We must embark upon a program of this nature. Our visitors must have some reason to come back. As I say, this summer season is our last chance to undertake this program.
We in Canada this year must bend our efforts to making our tourist season the most significant one we have had. I am very happy to say that in the area I represent, Parry Sound-Muskoka, which to a large extent is a tourist area, the picture is very bright this year. Summer came early and hot weather always drives people out of the city and into the country. The visit of Her Majesty and Prince Philip created much interest and brought many visitors to Canada early. We are off to a good start this year. I wish to appeal to all the people in Canada who are coming in contact with tourists to make it their special job this year to extend courtesy to their guests.
It may be asked what the government can do. I am not going to deal with that now because this subject was well covered in the last report of the committee on mines, forests and waters under the vote relating to the Canadian government travel bureau. In that report there are some excellent suggestions which if carried out would be of vast assistance. I leave it at that. Many answers to our problems are contained in that report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we heard this afternoon when the minister introduced his estimates what he called the first coherent account of the national development plan that had been given to the house this session. We are glad to get that account from the minister. It was certainly, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Mackenzie, a very general statement. Perhaps that is the way a statement in these circumstances should be. It was also, I believe, misleading in one or two respects, in that it gave, as I understood it, the impression that Canadian national development began in June 1957.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Minto Churchill: On June 21.


Lester Bowles Pearson: One of the least amiable characteristics of the minister is that he seems to believe that Canadian history stopped with the death of Sir John A. Macdonald and did not start again until the advent of the Prime Minister in June, 1957. But, as of course any objective or impartial student of Canadian history must know, the period in between those important events-and of course they were important events-is the period of greatest development in Canada's history, especially the period from 1945 to 1957.


Mr. McGee:: In spite of the Liberal
party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend said "in spite of the Liberal party". It is a great tribute to the people of Canada, of course, that they could have had this amazing period of development, according to my hon. friend, in spite of the Liberal party. The truth is that the Liberal government of those days provided the framework of policy within which -and this is all we ever claimed-this amazing period of development occurred.
The minister, of course, sometimes in the exuberance of his vision, mistakes propaganda for performance. For instance, this afternoon he talked about the Columbia river development as if that was something that began in June, 1957; whereas he knows the present government is carrying on-I hope to successful completion-the important plans for this development which were initiated several years ago.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, we all know that the planning and development of a nation like Canada, especially perhaps of a nation like Canada, require vision. Had there not been vision since 1867 in this country, and not merely since 1957, Canada would not have reached the position she has reached today, and therefore vision is required, but planning and development require more than vision. It requires a realistic and sober appreciation of resources and means. It must not become a development where those who are responsible for government become so dazzled by the distant scene that they stumble or ignore the steps to be taken immediately ahead. That is our criticism of so much that the government has done and is doing. For instance, the minister may remember the great vision of a third transcontinental railway. The effort to realize that vision prematurely did not help in Canada's development; it hindered Canada's development and we are paying for that premature vision at the present time.

The realization of our national development through planning has to be brought about step by step without timidity, of course, but also without rashness; with common sense as well as with dazzling optimism and within our economic resources; with regard, of course, to a particular area of the country which is going to benefit by any particular scheme, naturally, but also with regard to the effect on the nation as a whole of any plan for any particular area.
Of course, the minister pays special attention to the north and no one has any right to complain about that. It is well in this country that we should pay special attention not only to what is perhaps Canada's last frontier but in a sense perhaps the world's most important frontier. Considerations that make this last frontier important are not only commercial, not only economic, but are considerations of defence and strategy, considerations of our relations with the United States of America and considerations of our relations with the Soviet union. Sometimes we get impatient in this country and sometimes there is complaint because we have not been able to develop our Arctic areas as speedily and as sensationally as they have in the Soviet union. We forget that we are 17J millions of people; the Russians are 200 millions of people. We forget sometimes that we are a free society and that we have to persuade, induce through incentives, people to go north while the Russians can order any number of people to go north to do anything they want them to do.
There is something else about national development that we occasionally forget, and I ventured to mention this in the last session, namely that national development is not merely the opening up of new areas in our country. It can also take the form of assistance in the re-development of older areas. There is a great deal to do in this country in that respect in some of those areas which have not shared to the full, as they have the right to expect, in the economic development of our country. Perhaps that kind of national development is not as glamorous as looking ahead to arrange for submarines to sail with oil under the Arctic ice, or building glass palaces at Frobisher; but it can be even more important to the country as a whole. However, as I have said, I have no complaint with the minister's concentration on the north, with his vision of development in the north, but I do, complain, Mr. Chairman, about exaggerations and distortions and indeed the falsification of that particular vision.
I am thinking particularly of a subject which has occupied this house for a good deal of time this session already, and concerning which there has been discussion both

in the house and before the appropriate committee, namely the question of permit rights and applications for gas and oil licences in northern Canada, and in particular an attempt by the Prime Minister, the minister and at least one of his colleagues, to associate that development with claims for the protection of our sovereignty in the area against the encroachment of the United States; in contrast with the situation which existed before 1957. In particular there is the contention of the Prime Minister that the granting of those rights has been a major means of preserving the sovereignty of Canada by the present government in those northern areas. I would like to begin by quoting again what I put on the record of the house on March 9, namely a television broadcast of the Prime Minister on the nation's business, one paragraph of which reads:
It was because I knew Canadians felt so strongly about the necessity of preserving Canada's destiny that I have advocated and the government has launched its national development policy to push back our northern frontiers. The result of our action has been that in the last several weeks-
This was in March, 1959.
-over 75 million acres in northern Canada have been taken up for oil and mineral development, and I want to underline this that this is a major means to preserve our sovereignty.
The expressions used by the Prime Minister that I would emphasize are, first, "in northern Canada" and, second, "taken up for oil and mineral development". We also noticed at the time that he used the figure of 75 million acres. It was perfectly natural to connect that figure of 75 million acres used by the Prime Minister in that particular broadcast with the statement made earlier in the house by the minister on February 13 when the minister said, and I quote from page 995 of Hansard:
I should like to emphasize to the house that this is in addition to the 76 million acres-
The Prime Minister had said "over 75 million".
-now under permit in the mainland of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
The minister was referring to 76 million acres on the mainland of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon which presumably was the area which the Prime Minister was referring to when he talked about almost 76 million acres. Then, on March 10 of this year the minister on his own initiative made a statement in the House of Commons in connection with the public sale of oil and gas permits in northern Canada for 3,546,829 acres. The minister had this to say on March 10 as found on page 1774 of Hansard:
Supply-Northern Affairs
All the acreage, except for some 250,000 acres, lies in the southwestern Northwest Territories and southeastern Yukon in the general vicinity of Fort Liard.
That reference was to the sale of oil and gas permits in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory, not, I point out, to the Arctic islands at all. The minister also made the following statement on that occasion:
I should emphasize that this sale is for exploratory privileges only, though if the permittee complies with the regulations he may acquire up to 50 percent of each area as an oil and gas lease. He must apply for such a lease if he discovers oil and gas and wishes to commence production.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the issue of a permit has certain obligations and gives certain privileges. In view of the Prime Minister's statement made the preceding evening on a national network I asked the minister when he finished that statement how many of the bids he mentioned were made by United States corporations or Canadian subsidiaries of such corporations because the Prime Minister had made such a point about the preservation of Canadian sovereignty in this way. Later in answer to a question by the hon. member for Mackenzie River the minister provided the percentage acreage which showed that for that particular sale of something over three million acres on March 9 Canadian corporations held only 4 per cent and United States corporations and Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations held 93 per cent of the acreage under permit in that particular sale of something over three million acres.
It was certainly clear that in so far as this particular sale was concerned there was very little done to enhance or protect Canadian sovereignty because of the fact that 93 per cent of these permits went to United States corporations or Canadian subsidiaries. I made reference to this fact in my speech in the house on April 21 and the minister and some of his colleagues took violent exception to the way I put it. They said I was misrepresenting the situation because I was giving the impression that these percentages applied to the 75 million acres. I admit that certainly was an impression that could have been taken and so when they made their complaints, as found on page 2911 of Hansard, I corrected myself and I mentioned that this particular sale applied only to the parcel of land in question of something over three million acres.
However, in the light of the minister's violent, and it was violent, intervention on that occasion we on this side decided to seek from him information with respect to the whole of the northern area of which the minister had provided us with information for only one sale, that on March 9. For that

Supply-Northern Affairs reason the hon. member for Ottawa West asked a further question, the answer to which will be found in Hansard for April 29, page 3148. The question read as follows:
1.	Were 75 million acres recently taken up in northern Canada for oil and mineral development?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What percentage has been assigned to (a) Canadian corporations; (b) United States corporations and Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies; (c) British corporations; (d) others?
The minister replied to that question in a most peculiar manner. He threw up quite a smokecreen to conceal the actual facts. In fact, he shifted the discussion. Whether he threw up this smokescreen for that purpose I do not know. Perhaps I should not say he did it for that purpose but that certainly was the effect of the answer he gave because he shifted the discussion from the subject which had been under discussion up to that point, namely permit rights on the mainland-that is what we were talking about-to applications for exploratory licences in the Arctic islands. On the basis of such applications for exploratory licences in the Arctic islands, which had nothing to do with the question at all, and not on the basis of permits granted, which was the question, not even on the basis of applications granted, the minister was able to show to the house and to the country that 68 per cent of the 86 million acres for which applications had been made consisted of Canadian applications.
The minister is pretty naive if he thinks he can get away with such an obvious effort to confuse the discussion and to mislead the opposition in that way in a matter which is of such importance in view of what the Prime Minister and the minister himself had been saying about it outside the house. So, in awareness of this particular technique and after a very strange speech indeed by the Prime Minister in Montreal which I will deal with a little later, the hon. member for Mackenzie River put a further question on the order paper which was answered on May 20, 1959, page 3836 of Hansard.
In that question the opposition made a further attempt to get information covering all the northern areas on the mainland which the minister accused me of failing to provide in my speech on April 21. So we asked what was the total acreage for which exploratory oil and gas permits were issued, not applications for licences, between July 1, 1957, and March 31, 1959, on the mainland of northern Canada. The Prime Minister had said that there were over 75 million acres for which permits had been granted in his television broadcast in February. The answer given by the minister was that in 21 months, not in recent weeks as the Prime Minister had said,


permits had been issued for 60 million acres on the mainland of northern Canada.
So we now ask the minister how Canadian sovereignty, in the words of the Prime Minister, was preserved by issuing under his jurisdiction in that period permits for 60 million acres on the mainland of Canada.
The answer to that question is quite clear because according to the minister's own figures more than 70 per cent of this total acreage of 60 million acres was granted to non-Canadian companies, a total of 63 per cent to United States corporations or Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations and less than 30 per cent of the total acreage was granted to Canadian corporations. Now I ask the minister, based on the information given for all the northern areas, all the mainland, based on the figures that were given and not just on the sale of March 9 about which he complained earlier, was he justified in saying that this is a major means of preserving our sovereignty? If it is, then it is less than 30 per cent sovereignty.
In this same answer, which will be found on page 3836 of Hansard if the minister is looking for it, the minister did something else. He tried to produce a figure for both the mainland and the Arctic islands by adding together the permits granted on the mainland and the applications for licences on the islands. He produced, in that strange way, a figure for the whole of the north, the islands and the mainland. Mr. Chairman, that figure was nonsensical and misleading, I would say, because by adding applications to permits- two very different things-he made a total which was just about as sensible as if he had added oranges to apples and got 50 of the former. It is quite true that applications made for the Arctic islands by Canadian individuals and corporations covered 68.74 per cent of the total acreage. As we know, some of these applications were from very unusual sources indeed. However, of the 60 million acres for which permits were granted, less than 30 per cent went to Canadian corporations or Canadian individuals.
The conclusion to be drawn from the additional information provided by the minister is even more damning than the information provided for the sale of March 9 covering only three million acres. The information now shows that while Canadian individuals and Canadian corporations made most of the applications, United States corporations got most of the permits in the Canadian north. The minister, in explaining to the committee how these applications are received and how the permits are granted, has said that there are three categories or stages, as follows: First, there is the application; second, there

is the exploratory licence which is valid for one year and which allows geological reconnaissance; then, third, there is the exploratory permit which imposes obligations, which allows drilling, and later can give rights for leases if the permittee fulfils certain undertakings.
The minister has now given us the acreages for the Arctic islands and the continental shelf covering applications and nothing else. He has given us the acreages on the mainland relating to exploratory permits. Now, let me talk about the exploratory permits, and we are getting down to business. With all this information before him, with all this information having been made public, it is amazing that the Prime Minister in May would repeat the kind of statement he made over TV. I have his statement here. This was, I think, on May 8. I am quoting from page 10 of the text of the Prime Minister's speech, where he had this to say:
In the far north, as a direct result of action taken by this government 85.9 million acres on the Canadian mainland in the Mackenzie district and the Yukon have been taken up by firms and individuals for oil and gas development.
A few weeks before he had restricted it to 75 million acres, and the minister said the figure was 60 million acres. Now, before this great Conservative dinner in Montreal on May 8 the Prime Minister has a figure of 85.9 million acres as the acreage which he said had been taken up by firms and individuals for oil and gas development and which was apparently meant, if the Prime Minister's words meant anything, to cover exploratory permits whereas, as I have said, the minister in his official figures said only 60 million acres had been given out since July 1, 1957, and of these 60 million acres less than 30 per cent had been given to Canadian companies. Then, the Prime Minister in the next paragraph of his speech had this to say:
Another 86.5 million acres on the continental shelf in the Arctic islands are now being developed under exploratory permits. These are stupendous figures.
They certainly are stupendous, in more ways than one. I continue to quote:
The potential of expansion which they imply for the Canadian economy is almost beyond imagination.
These figures are almost beyond imagination, too, because the Prime Minister said 86.5 million acres were under exploratory permits in the Arctic islands. Not so, says the minister, there are no permits on the Arctic islands, only applications, as I shall be able to prove later by quoting the minister's own words. Then, the Prime Minister went on:
What is equally important in this connection is that Canadians are taking the lead in this
Supply-Northern Affairs
development of Canadian resources. 68.7 per cent of the applications covering these 86.5 million acres are from Canadian corporations and individuals;-
Yet we know that that is true only in respect of applications and is quite wrong in respect of permits granted because 60 per cent or more of those went to the United States. Then, the Prime Minister finished by saying that it is apparent Canadian sovereignty has not been neglected; that Canadians are taking the lead in this matter and Canadian sovereignty this time has not been neglected.
Canadians are taking the lead all right in making the applications because the figures given refer to applications, not to permits. Making applications is hardly the development of Canadian resources. We claim, and the figures given by the minister himself prove it, that the United States is taking the lead in getting exploratory permits and Canadians are taking the lead in making the applications. The Canadians apply and the United States citizens receive. As a result of this, the Prime Minister said that Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is being protected in this particular way.
In his earlier speech the Prime Minister had said that 75 million acres were taken up recently, and now he gets this figure of 75 million raised by May to 85.9 million acres. What did he mean by "recently" in the earlier speech? We do know, I repeat, that this particular government gave permits for 60 million acres, of which more than 70 per cent went to non-Canadian corporations.
When I stated, as I did a few moments ago, that when the Prime Minister talked about permits being given in the Arctic islands he was contradicted by his own minister, perhaps I had better prove that particular statement. Not only did the minister contradict the Prime Minister, but he has contradicted himself in this matter. Here is what he said to the committee, and I am reading from report No. 14, page 351 of the committee evidence, and this is in respect of the issuing of permits:
A question was asked yesterday in the house by another hon. member which allowed me to state what was happening in the area of the Arctic islands-
Then he went on to say this:
-where there are now 86 million acres under permit.
That is what the minister told the committee. Perhaps that was the basis upon which the Prime Minister made his statement in public. But what did the minister
5824	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs say in the House of Commons? I quote from Hansard of February 13, page 995 as follows:
In the Arctic islands the oil and gas regulations are being revised, and until such time as the revision is complete no permits are being issued.
Then later, just a day before the statement he made to the committee which I have quoted and in which he said there were no permits being issued in the Arctic islands the minister had this to say on April 29, as reported at page 3149 of Hansard:
Very recently, however, interest has been shown in the Arctic islands and in the sea bed and subsoil of the continental shelf off Canada's northern coast. If the hon. member refers to this more recent activity the strict answer to his first question is no, since up to the present no permits have been granted in the Arctic islands or the continental shelf.
Which are we to believe? Are we to believe the minister in the committee, or the minister in the House of Commons? Later, on May 6, just before the Prime Minister spoke in Montreal-in fact two days before the Prime Minister spoke in Montreal-the minister had this to say as reported at page 3377 of Hansard:
These companies simply requested priority to obtain oil and gas permits when the revised oil and gas regulations are promulgated-
The licences issued do not cover a specific acreage but are designed for general geological exploration anywhere in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory, including the Arctic islands.
In other words, they were not permits at all. Then again on May 11, just after the Prime Minister spoke, the minister as reported at page 3514 of Hansard had this to say. This was after the Prime Minister had made his statement in Montreal.
First of all I would like to make it clear that we have not issued any exploratory permits . . . with regard to the Arctic islands and the continental shelf.
Perhaps the minister, before these discussions end, would try to explain some of these contradictions. If we on this side of the chamber have some doubts as to the reality of the minister's statement with regard to the vision, perhaps contradictory statements of this kind in the house and in public, perhaps this kind of statement of the Prime Minister made about the protection of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, give us some justification for having those doubts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the obvious sensitivity of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the terrible fluff that he made in the house some weeks ago on this matter of describing the sovereignty of the north on the basis of one sale of three and a half million acres, I think I should like to clear that record up but fast. I am going


to say frankly to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to make use of dialectics in quarrelling over the words "exploratory licences" and permits that are waiting servicing, let him go ahead.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just tell the truth.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: However, the thing be remembered is this. At no time did the Prime Minister ever make a false statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read his speech.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up in this house and say that he made a false statement, let him stand up and say so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those are dialectics.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All the hon. member does is to comfort himself by saying that at one time the Prime Minister spoke of 75 million acres, another time I spoke of 60 million acres, another time the Prime Minister spoke of 85 million acres or 85.9 million acres, to be accurate, and another time he spoke of 86.5 million acres. Let me explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. Right tonight, July 10, the number of acres that are out under application for permits in the Arctic island is 95.4 million acres.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How many permits have been issued?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I make this statement I expect the Leader of the Opposition to go up and down the country and to say that I have contradicted myself. The only thing he cannot stomach is the fact that business people from all countries are taking an interest in our resources and these applications for permits are coming in every day. That is the thing that he cannot stomach.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why don't you tell the truth?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: His advisers told him in 1958 that all this program was a program from igloo to igloo, and he has lived to regret it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why don't you answer with facts?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That facts are as I have given them here now. Up to the period of 1957 there were in the Yukon two reservations of roughly 6 million acres. A recent figure is 6,133,760 acres. This was by reservation. In addition, up to July 1, 1957 there were 18,794,504 acres given out before this government changed.

This was over a long period of time and some of these permits for exploration are now running out. After the change of government there was an obvious increase in interest which was shown particularly in the fall of 1957; and during that period on the mainland and to the present time-up to roughly about three weeks ago when these figures were compiled-the figure had risen to the figure quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. On the mainland in addition to the reservation of permits before July, 1957, an additional 60,942,006 acres were given out. Then starting last February there was a rush on the islands off the shores of our mainland covering some continental shelf and covering these islands and this figure in this tabulation I have here, is shown at 89,018,364 acres. The most recent figure to date, the total in the Arctic islands now under application for permits is now 95,451,508 acres. The total in the Arctic islands under application for permits is now 95,451,508 acres. Those figures will change day by day. Therefore every time I give up to date figures I suppose I contradict myself.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Give the exploration permits.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister not know the difference between an application and a permit?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Leader of the Opposition made a great play over this difference between applications for permits and permits. I want to assure this committee that as far as the development of resources is concerned-and his own words were that applications are hardly the development of Canadian resources-at this very moment there are-and I am just trying to check the figures-either 10 companies or 12 companies actively engaged in work in these northern islands under these applications for permits and such work is just as useful for the development of resources whether it is done under application for permit or under actual permit.
What was the reason why we let them have these exploratory licences or to work, as I call it, under application for a permit? The reason was simple. To any person knowing the difficulties in the northern islands it was obvious that there had to be promulgated a set of regulations that would meet the conditions there; first of all to encourage companes to go into this area and, second, to make sure that the resources there were effectively administered and used in the best interest of this country. We were therefore working on these regulations last fall with no expectation that this rush would suddenly break out in February. When the rush actually did break out we drafted quickly a series of regulations and intended to put them into
Supply-Northern Affairs effect. The government has been studying these regulations with the idea of seeing that everything is done not only to protect the utilization of these resources in the best interests of the people of Canada, but to make sure, as far as we can go, that there is effective administration by the Canadian people of these resources.
Mr. Chairman, a great deal of play has been made over these percentage figures. I have been quite candid with the percentage going to Canadian companies, the percentage going to Canadian subsidiaries, to United States companies, British companies, Dutch companies, French companies, to other foreign companies, and the percentage going to United States or Canadian individuals. These percentages do not mean anything in the long run.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why give them then?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What does
mean something is who has the oil and gas when it is found? I heard from the hon, member for Bonavista-Twillingate the expression, "Why give them?" The answer is is that I was not the person who asked for these percentages; they were asked for by the Leader of the Opposition, and all across this country went a headline that 93 per cent of our northern oil and gas lands had got into the hands of United States companies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who said that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That was a statement of the press.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quote a headline.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the Canadian Press. I stood up on a point of order that night and tried to correct the Leader of the Opposition, and my correction was not allowed. He kept going on and on, and finally Mr. Speaker had to let me have two minutes before the vote was taken to try to correct the Leader of the Opposition. Now he comes along tonight, on July 10, several months after this occasion, and admits he is wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like to call the minister's attention to page 2911 of Hansard for April 21, where I said:
-we get specific information covering about three million acres, we find that 95 per cent of these leases were granted to United States corporations-
I made that statement after the minister corrected me.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: That is not a point of order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I understand how sensitive the Leader of the Opposition is, because when a person has

Supply-Northern Affairs made a horrible blunder of the calibre the Leader of the Opposition made I can understand him trying to get out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: But it is apparent to the people of Canada that the hon. member has a great deal to learn about domestic problems in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is also apparent, too, to this house that we have been very patient while the Leader of the Opposition tries to learn something about what goes on in Canada. I can see from the annoyance of the hon. members across the way that they are not too happy about the fact that with regard to the oil and gas development in the north there is, or rather was up until a few weeks ago because the figures are higher now, a total of 168,754,876 acres out under permits for exploration and exploratory licences, or, if you want to be more accurate, applications for permits.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; be accurate, that is all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am accurate.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Be honest.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In addition
there is this reservation of six million acres, and to be even more accurate, Mr. Chairman, with regard to waters under territorial lands there is the additional seven million acres out under permits or applications for permits at the present time. I think the Canadian people will be satisfied with this work which is going on, and I want to conclude my remarks with what the Leader of the Opposition has said on this salient point of sovereignty. If the Leader of the Opposition goes back-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the Prime Minister who talked about sovereignty.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us be accurate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -knows that he can make a speech any time he likes on my estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And he will.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish he would let me finish this topic, because I know he will wish he had not interjected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Coming back to this salient question of sovereignty, in my opinion there is no question of sovereignty on any part of the mainland of Canada; but there is a small question of doubt in the


minds of some who are unaware of the facts about our sovereignty on the Arctic islands and the areas around them. Therefore this is, if I may use the word "sensitive" in the correct way, a sensitive area for Canada, and if the Leader of the Opposition goes back to the discussion of the estimates last year he will find out that he agreed that the only way we could maintain sovereignty in our far northern areas was by effective occupation. That is not my phrase. It is not his phrase. But we both agreed that this was the effective way, and I think that he would be fair enough to admit that the most effective occupation that Canada can provide is effective, tangible administration. Whether it be the operation of airfields or D.E.W. line stations or weather stations or the new airfields we are constructing in the islands or the research teams we have there or the company activities looking for oil and gas, so long as that is done under our effective administration, that is the most tangible evidence to any person in any part of the world that this is Canada and that this is the land we will fight for.
I hope I have said enough to answer the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that he should join with us and be proud that this development has taken place. I know that the development of these northern areas will take a long time, but I believe, not only in theory but in fact, that the most realistic way to do it is to approach our undeveloped territories from the south up through the provinces and through the east and north at the same time in a vast pincer movement. It is very important to us as a nation to make certain that with submarines going around the Arctic seas this area is beyond question the sovereign area of Canada, and this oil and gas exploration in the northern areas has come as a great boon to us. We are rather happy that in the figures I have quoted in answer to one of the questions the percentage in the Arctic islands at that date, of Canadian companies or Canadian individuals who held licences was 68 per cent. At the present time the percentage is a little higher. I know, as I said earlier, that percentages do not mean anything. It is who has the oil in the end that counts, after all. But as far as sovereignty is concerned, as long as that company is working under our direction, then by effective administration of that resource in that area we are giving the best evidence of sovereignty that we can give. If more Canadian individuals and more Canadian companies and more Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies get this acreage than outside companies, it will make us all a little more nationally conscious that Canadians are getting up there and getting their share.

As a matter of fact, I think the committee would like to know what the percentages are over this whole area. I will be very careful here. I am now quoting from the document I have before me which goes back two or three weeks to the time of the committee. These are the percentages on the mainland and on the islands, and they include permits and applications for permits, because in our minds, and in the mind of any person who is sensible, when these applications go in the permits are taken out and it is in effect the same thing. If one or two dropped out it would not seriously affect the figures. At the present time, over the whole north-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister starts on that, would he permit one question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say
whether every one of these applicants is going to be given a permit?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Each one of these applicants has established a priority and will be given a permit provided he shows that his operations are sufficient to carry out the requirements necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Ah, there is a proviso.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I see the Leader of the Opposition smiling at that. I heard one suggestion in committee that one of these men was a bartender. I happen to know this fellow is a bartender, but he was once, and still is, a prospector who has gone out and found resources in this country, and prospectors' fortunes go up and go down. I never met this man but he wrote me a letter and thanked me for coming to his defence in the committee.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Was he ever in the Arctic islands?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I never asked him. However, I do not like this kind of ridicule.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: How would he know what acreage to take up there?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just cool off and you will be all right. I was just about to give these figures. As I say, the criteria is not who has the highest percentage. Who ends up with the oil is what counts. I refuse to get involved in a fight about these percentages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If they do not mean anything why waste our time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The figures are as follows. These totals are for all permits issued to date from the very beginning.
Supply-Northern Affairs Mr. Pearson: And applications?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, and applications for permits, from as far back as 1952 and 1953 up to three or four weeks ago. The tabulation is as follows:
Total Permits and Applications for Permits to Date (Excluding Reservations and Areas under Territorial Waters)
Per cent
United States companies	 20.02
Canadian subsidiaries	 14.25
Canadian companies	 31.28
United States citizens	 9.68
Canadian citizens	 21.65
Joint holdings	 1.47
British companies	 1.65
This does not include the reservations nor does it include the areas under territorial waters which total another 13 million acres. I hope that what I have just said makes it very clear to the committee that there is no intention to conceal. We are so proud of these figures we want the whole country to know about them. We are proud that this development has come with such a rush within the last two years. We are happy that an interest has been aroused in Canada's northland, both in Canada and all over the world. Surely the opposition cannot blame us if we take just a little credit for being an active government instead of a passive government.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a word or two about the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie River this afternoon. I want to compliment him for taking the time to work out a constructive program as he did. I think he can say with some accuracy that he too has a vision. I was examining his remarks over the dinner hour and they represent a practical approach.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These wintei
roads in these areas may very well be the answer to the problem of these areas. I will not quarrel with the accuracy of his estimated figures because I have no way of knowing what is right. I would suggest, however, that the figure of $20 million for hard surfacing the Mackenzie highway right to Yellowknife is a little low. The Alberta government asked us to hard surface up to the territorial boundary. Whereas the hon. member estimated $20 million for the whole highway the estimate of the province for that small part of it was $70 million. But that is not the main thing and I do not seek to quarrel. The main thing is that the hon. member came forward with a constructive approach.
The hon. member referred to flight strips. These would be of benefit to some of the

Supply-Northern Affairs mining operations. They are not so important to some of the oil and gas companies because I inquired about it and they suggested that their areas are so large that a helicopter would serve them better.
The hon. gentleman's suggestion about electromagnetic surveys is absolutely sound. It will interest him to know that this is the type of survey we have requested the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to undertake in south Yukon and Great Slave lake.
I could go through the hon. gentleman's remarks and comment on each point but I will content myself with saying that these suggestions will not only be considered but will be considered favourably and realistically. The hon. gentleman is to be congratulated for the constructive speech he made.
As for the political stuff at the beginning of his remarks about how this road program in the territories was all taken from royal commissions, let me say that the hon. member knows as well as I do that it is one thing for a civil servant, knowing what is necessary, to make recommendations to a royal commission and it is another for a government to accept recommendations from that civil servant. The fact is that the previous government did not accept those recommendations and those programs. If the hon. gentleman wants to call this a Liberal program, let him go ahead but the chief difference, I might point out, is that-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: One was practical and one was impractical.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -we simply squeezed it into a smaller period so that a person living in the north could see some sort of development going on there before his death.
There was a question raised about Frobisher Bay. An investigation is now being conducted and a group of architects and engineers are looking at the plans. I want to tell the committee there will be no plastic cities at Frobisher Bay unless they are a lot cheaper than those about which we have heard to date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why talk about them, then?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Because that happened to be the first sketch that was produced for us. I was not the one who talked about them. The sketch appeared in an architectural magazine; how, I do not know. I am not going to quarrel about that either because I do know from examining these costs of construction of housing and the building of sewers and water facilities

in the north that the north cannot be developed as we feel it should be developed on the basis of these high costs. I believe that the ingenuity of our scientists and engineers will find answers to these problems in the very near future.
The hon. member for Port Arthur rose and made what I thought was a quiet and sensible speech. He was not too impressed with the committee's findings with respect to the forestry branch. I would think that any person who reads that committee report could reach one of a variety of opinions concerning it. I said this afternoon that I thought it was a pretty hard-hitting report and that we were going to examine it carefully. If I were a strong forestry man I perhaps would not support the setting up of a forestry department but perhaps it would be a wise thing. The whole report will give the department something to get its teeth into for the next year or two.
I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur that hon. members of the committee should take a trip to the north, particularly along the Mackenzie valley and see for themselves some of the things they have taken the liberty of criticizing. I for one have not seen some of the things that were criticized by the committee and I have held back my criticism until I can see them and make up my own mind.
The hon. member also spoke of the development of northwestern Ontario. He knows that I am right with him on that because I believe that is one of the most promising areas of our country. I should like to remind him that the resources are in the hands of the province and we will do everything we can to co-operate with Ontario. I understand that this province has now agreed to the roads to resources agreement. I expect that will be up before the government soon for approval here.
I thank the hon. member for handling the discussion of the museum as he did. As a school teacher he knows that when difficulties arise on a staff where personalities are involved it is very difficult for the principal of the school or the school board to take a position without hurting someone. I attempted to act in a manner that I thought would protect the museum. I thought no good purpose would be served by bringing personality clashes out in the open. I examined the evidence and found I had no choice in this matter. If there has been any personal frustration for anyone I can only say I am sorry. I do think the museum is settling down. I know the great work that it can do will go forward. We are going to be pretty busy for the next year or two as

the geological survey and the art gallery move out and the museum commences to make adjustments in their new surroundings. We are rebuilding the staff. I hope all hon. members of the committee will support me in attempting to assist the museum to proceed in its important work under pleasant and happier circumstances.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka, made a thoughtful speech about the tourist industry in Canada. I do not think there is a person who will disagree with him in saying that we should all do a little more advertising and should win more tourist friends for Canada. We must discriminate in our advertising but only in the sense of going after those markets that bring us the highest returns. We have met with more success than the amount for which the committee gave us credit. With respect to camp grounds and picnic sites, over the last few years-I am trying to think of the figures; if I may I will just use round figures -over the last two winters over 500 camp grounds and picnic sites have been built along the highways in the provinces of Canada thanks to the 50 per cent contribution by the federal government, and the 50 per cent contribution by the provinces. In addition to this, there are over 100 camp grounds planned along the trans-Canada highway, and I think that the two of them at the end of the next two or three years will provide in dollar value at least roughly about $10 million worth of places where people can stop and rest themselves and enjoy the scenery that is about them.
I should like to suggest that in addition to advertising for the tourist industry we have to provide plants. I have given one example of how we as a federal government can help the provinces provide the type of plant that private enterprise does not as a rule provide. I can mention in addition to that the forest access roads which have opened up many miles of forest and I hope over the next few years will open up a good many more miles of forest in Canada which will make accessible places for people who like fishing and hunting and the scenery of our back roads.
Finally, our roads to resources program has proven successful already in taking tourists into areas where they could not get into before. As the years come along I think hon. members will see that the tourist industry in Canada can be made even better than it is today. We all regret the drop in income last year. We have not any figures that are final for this year yet, but we must make an effort to maintain this great dollar earning industry at the level that it could be.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I must say I was very pleased to hear the minister's response to the very constructive proposals made by the unassuming but hardworking hon. member for Mackenzie. 1 know the member has long thought of those questions that he brought before the committee this afternoon and indeed, in listening to his speech, I thought he made a very comprehensive and constructive approach to the questions with which he dealt.
As a backwoodsman who has had an interest in forest conservation for 50 years, and who happened to be a forest farmer during that whole period, I am going to confine my remarks entirely to the forestry section of the report of the committee on mines, forests and waters. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that during my whole life I have had four major affections and interests: the first, the ladies; the second, trees; the third, horses; and the fourth, ships; but this evening I am going to deal with the question of trees-


An hon. Member:: Why not women?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -first of all, because of my particular interest in this question over practically my whole life time, and because of the fact that 40 per cent of the production of the province from which I come, British Columbia, results from the forest industry.
We have made considerable progress since the second world war. I remember before the Canada Forestry Act was passed there were representations, in the first instance I am very proud to say, from the representatives of the forest industry in British Columbia urging that such an act be passed by the federal government, and representations from the Canadian Forestry Association and the Canadian Institute of Forestry. That was the first, shall I say, great step so far as the federal government was concerned with respect to legislation which provided for cooperation between the federal and the various provincial governments. Since that act was passed there has been a great deal of good accomplished. Forest inventories have been undertaken in the various provinces as a result of the agreements, and I understand that most of those are practically completed. There has been work undertaken with respect to reforestation as a result of agreements between the federal and provincial governments and some very effective work undertaken as a result of agreements with respect to forest fire protection and some limited work undertaken as a result of agreements with respect to aerial spraying projects.
Also, since the passing of the Canada Forestry Act, there has been considerable

Supply-Northern Affairs extension of the research work undertaken by the forestry branch of the minister's department and also quite an advance in education. But, as the minister mentioned previously this afternoon, for 25 years the committee on mines, forests and waters had not met. I had the honour of being a member of this committee from 1945 to 1957, a committee which never met during that whole period. However, I must say that the question of the necessity for the committee meeting and the other questions related to further interest required on the part of the federal government in forestry projects were kept alive by the Canadian Forestry Association, the Canadian Institute of Foresters and various conservation organizations across this country.
I cannot pass by this aspect of the question without referring to the excellent work done by the British Columbia natural resources conference which was established in the first instance, I think in 1949, under the coalition government of British Columbia at that time. There is no other province in Canada that has undertaken a series of annual conferences of' this type which have contributed a great deal toward an understanding of the problems with respect to the innumerable natural resources in the province of British Columbia.
I notice while I am speaking that my colleague from Port Arthur is mumbling and growling because I am making some complimentary references with respect to what we do in British Columbia, but I shall not take any notice of him. I want to tell hon. members on behalf of the C.C.F. group that we discuss these questions in our caucus. We have urged a number of things. I might say I am very delighted with the report that the committee on mines, forests and waters had presented to this house, and in particular with respect to the forestry section of the minister's department.
For years I urged that the committee on mines, forests and waters meet and that the estimates of the minister's department be referred to that committee, without result. My pleas fell on deaf ears. I am very glad to know that since the minister has taken office the committee on mines, forests and waters met in 1958 and again this year. I just want to mention that because it indicates that there is an influence from the C.C.F. group in this house throughout the years. It is the eroding of the hard stone, but we do find that we accomplish our objectives.
For some 12 years I have urged the necessity of a dominion-provincial conference to deal with the question of a national policy for the conservation of land, forests, water and other renewable natural resources. Year after year this question has been discussed

in the house on a private member's resolution introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West on behalf of the C.C.F. group. I was very pleased at that time, when I introduced the resolution and there was an opportunity to debate it, that it was supported by the Progressive Conservative members on the opposition side of the house during those years. I am very glad to note that our efforts in that respect have brought some results. In that connection I want to put an editorial from the Lethbridge Herald of December 1, 1958, on the record because I was very pleased indeed to read this. The heading is, "Conservation Study", and it reads as follows:
A meeting of federal and provincial representatives held in Ottawa in mid-November has gone almost unnoticed, though it may turn out to have been one of the most important in a decade. For it reached agreement on the holding, no later than the summer of 1960, of a national conference on conservation "to discuss the multiple use of such renewable natural resources as soil, forests, wildlife, fish, water and recreational facilities".
Conservation has had but half-hearted treatment in this country to date. Organizations like the Canadian forestry association and fish and game associations have long been active within their respective fields, and in recent years governments have taken preliminary steps to ensure the wise use of our renewable resources. But in no province, so far as we know, have conservation measures been either co-ordinated or adequately planned, and interprovincial and federal-provincial co-operation have been negligible.
There is no guarantee, to be sure, that the national conference on conservation will utter the last words on the subject. But judging by its aims, it should bring some worthwhile improvements. Those aims are:	(1) Assembling information on
the present status of resource management and research in Canada. (A steering committee to be set up shortly to compile material from provincial governments and other agencies on resource activities.)
(2)	Discussing weaknesses and gaps in the field of resource management and research.
(3)	Indicating areas where further efforts are required.
(4)	Creating a better understanding on the part of the public at large, governments and industrial and other special groups of the meaning of conservation, its present status in Canada and its implications for the future.
The very fact that conservation is to be examined at the federal-provincial level is a happy augury. We congratulate the Diefenbaker government for initiating this development; and we think praise is also due to Mr. H. W. Herridge, M.P. for Kootenay West, who over many years has been a persistent advocate of just such a move as this.
I could not resist reading that editorial, Mr. Chairman, because although my pleas fell on deaf ears in the case of the former Liberal government I am delighted that finally the present government has taken action in that respect because I think it is a most important subject and I look forward to some very excellent results from this conference.

Another thing that I want to urge on behalf of the C.C.F. group is the necessity for the establishment of a department of forestry separate from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, to know that the committee has recommended exactly that, following right in our trail. Once again the C.C.F. has indicated that it thinks well in advance and that its policies are sound.
Then I have urged for years on behalf of this group the necessity of an increase in the money appropriated for research, the necessity of the expansion of research with respect to our forest products laboratories and research in the field. I am therefore pleased to note that in the committee's report it recommends that very thing, the expansion of research so far as the forestry branch is concerned.
Then again, for some 12 years I have urged on behalf of this group the point of view that there should be a review of taxation policies with respect to federal government and provincial government taxation. I have urged for years that there should be similar consideration given to the forest industry, the lumber industry and the pulp and paper industry, with respect to exemptions for roads, firefighting equipment, trails, telephones and all these extra costs associated with development, as is given at the present time to the mining, gas and oil industries.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is there anything you have not asked for?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Very little. Then again, on behalf of this group I have urged the necessity for expansion of access trails and roads to make possible the more efficient fighting of fires in the forests of Canada, and I am very pleased to notice that the committee has recommended exactly that. Speaking always on behalf of the group I am associated with, the democratic socialist group in this house, I have also urged consideration of the development of our oriental markets and in recent years recognition of China because of the great possibilities of markets for the products of the forests of British Columbia in that country. In that connection, as the evidence before the committee will show, we have the heads of the great firm of MacMillan, Bloedel and Stewart, other representatives of the forest industry of British Columbia, the Vancouver board of trade, all the trade unions of British Columbia, in fact, all the sensible people of British Columbia, supporting this policy at this time. I am very pleased to note that the committee makes exactly this recommendation in its report.
Supply-Northern Affairs
These things that I have advocated on behalf of this group have not been advocated out of thin air. They are the result of discussion and consideration. Every one of these policies that have been advocated over a period of 13 years by the member for Kootenay West on behalf of this group has received the support of the entire forest industry of British Columbia and the trade union organizations associated with it.
I do want to say Mr. Chairman, that this excellent report of the committee clearly indicates a lack of action on the part of the government of Canada, action that should have been taken before now. I must say that I was very pleased to hear the minister say that he gave his officials carte blanche to answer freely the questions asked by the committee. It is quite evident from the report that the committee has made to the house that the committee has not been under any duress or pressure whatever from the minister or the government to restrict or modify its report. I am very pleased to note that. Mind you, it is a very forward looking report and possibly contains some things that will give the minister headaches in future months or years, but I think it is a genuinely democratic report that expresses the opinions of the members of the committee.
I may say that I was not a member of the committee but I was allowed to sit in when forestry was under consideration and have my little say from time to time. I appreciate very much the kindness of the committee in that respect. This report is a democratic report from a committee without any strings attached which offers a great opportunity to the minister and the government in the days ahead.
Before concluding I do want to urge on the basis of this report that the minister give consideration to further amendments to the Canada Forestry Act which are required if the act is going to function satisfactorily under present conditions. I think that the report offers a sound basis for amendments to that act. The national conference proposed by the minister not later than 1960 offers a very sound basis for the government to take the lead to write the first dominion-provincial charter for dominion-provincial co-operation with respect to the conservation, utilization and development of our natural resources.
Before I sit down I want to say a few words with respect to the staff. We are most fortunate in the staff at present employed in the minister's department and the high standard of their academic qualifications and experience. Anyone who knows anything about the forest industry will know that they

Supply-Northern Affairs are not receiving the salaries they should. In a company with which I am acquainted there is one forest engineer who gets almost as much salary as the deputy minister of the department. Private industry is offering much larger salaries to this type of official than is being offered by the federal government. Provincial governments are offering much larger salaries than are being offered by the federal government.
As an illustration, I may say that the premier of British Columbia went out and, unrestricted by a civil service act or other regulations which are some restriction upon the minister and other members of his government, simply offered Mr. Keenleyside $25,000 a year to come and take over a position with the British Columbia power commission. That sounds like a lot of money. However, the premier of British Columbia was smart in doing that. He picked up a first class man with great capacity, academic qualifications and great experience and secured his services for the British Columbia power commission. Unfortunately, our federal ministers cannot do the same sort of thing. They are restricted by the Civil Service Act, the treasury board, regulations and so on. I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we are going to maintain the services of this type of qualified people, some of whom have given long and devoted service to this and other departments of government, and if we are going to get the best of the younger people who are coming along, then the government should give consideration to changing its salary schedules in the very near future.
It is not fair to expect men with high qualifications and experience to continue serving the government of Canada and the people of Canada for salaries which, in some cases, are about 50 per cent of what these same people could obtain with provincial governments or in private industry. I do urge, Mr. Chairman, that the government give consideration to this problem so that we can retain the excellent staff we have at the present time, and can recruit the services of the brighter young men who are coming forward to take their part in the government service of the future.


Mr. Baldwin:: I should like to make a few brief comments here with regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister on June 4 regarding the appointment of the personnel of a board to inquire into and report upon the respective merits of the alternative routes which might be followed by a railway line to be built from northern Alberta, and so on. I am just reciting part of the terms of reference. I was most happy to hear of this


announcement because it seems to me that it was the only thing to do under all the complicated circumstances which surround the program. It also carried into effect suggestions which had been made by various organizations in the Peace river country.
I think I should make it crystal clear that this is not a case of an argument between two towns as to which should have a post office constructed or as to which one should get an airfield. There is a very great and considerable measure of principle involved. Are we going to open up the development of northern Canada for the benefit of a few large privileged companies, or is this development to be for the advantage of the people of Canada? This is not the time or place to argue the pros and cons of the respective alternative routes, but there is no doubt that the Canadian Pacific and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and two large lumber companies have come out very strongly in favour of one route, as has also the Social Credit government in Alberta, if we are to judge from the report of the provincially appointed MacGregor commission. However, the Alberta government did become alarmed at the public outcry and ultimately reversed its stand in a somewhat weak and tepid fashion. But up until slightly more than a year ago it did appear as if these people were going to have their way and cause the breach of a solemn covenant and undertaking made over 25 years ago and which led, in a large measure, to the settlement of the northern part of the lands drained by the Peace river.
Now, all this has been said before, and I am not going to labour the point. I want to make it clear that northern development must not be thought of as a one-way street down which is to flow the spoils of the north country. If we take out the capital goods of our natural resources we must replace them with something of equal value which can and should include people, settlement and industrialization, all of a permanent nature. It seems to me this would be a good place to refer to an issue which relates to my remarks and which I think is also pertinent to the item under discussion. When I was making inquiries over a year ago on this particular issue I was, to some extent, puzzled because the proponents of the eastern route seemed to feel that from the viewpoint of revenue there would be a great deal more to be expected from the McMurray route from lumber and lumber products than from the western route. My belief had been different, but I had not taken into calculation the timber from the great Wood Buffalo national park, which is one of the largest parks in

the world and lies partly in the province of Alberta and partly in the Northwest Territories.
I subsequently discovered that it was in this park that the timber resources were alleged to be. At a meeting of the mines, forests and waters committee during the last session, I asked one of the officials of the department a question-I think this was reported in the proceedings of July 7, 1958- and I received the information that there were approximately 1,200 million board feet of commercial timber and pulp along the Peace river estuary in this park. This session I put question No. 245 on the order paper to find out just what formed the legal basis for the commercial exploitation of lumber resources in this park because I always had been of the impression that the lumber and timber resources in a national park were not susceptible to commercial development on such a large scale. The answer to my question was given on April 28, and a synopsis of the answer indicates that the legal authority for the granting of the timber rights in the park lay in five orders in council made between August 1, 1955 and March 12, 1957.
My view, and I am not going to argue this here ad nauseam, is that each of these orders in council is, under the interpretation in the National Parks Act, quite invalid, and that licences should not have been granted in that way. If they were granted at all, it should have been done by means of a proper amendment to the act. The answers also show that the licences were granted to two companies named the Denney Logging Company Limited and the Swanson Lumber Company Limited. They secured timber berths for 1J billion board feet which constitutes most of the merchantable timber in the park.
Now, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the National Parks Act, of which I believe the pertinent section is section 4, charter 189 of the Revised Statutes of 1952, says this:
The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to the provisions of this act and the regulations, and such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Section 6 provides that the governor in council may authorize the sale, lease or other disposition of public lands within a park, for certain reasons, such as the requirement for the right of way or station grounds of any railway or the right of way of an oil or gas pipe line or any similar facilities.
The only means by which these orders in council could have been made for the purpose of granting these timber rights would be under section 7 which makes provision
Supply-Northern Affairs for the governor in council to make regulations for, and then in subsection (i), paragraph (iii) it states:
(Iii) the cutting and removal of dead or diseased timber and such green timber as may be necessary for the protection and management of forests in a park,-
My submission here is that these are limiting words "forest protection management" and there cannot be encompassed into this small space the rights which were here given to exploit commercially timber resources amounting to one and a half billion board feet purely under the limiting subsection of forest protection and management.
I am not taking exception to the proper development of that area. If and when it is necessary and is essential I think it should be done. I think it should be done but should have been done properly. I think that was a time when there should have probably have been an amendment to the act. I have here one of the orders in council. I am not going to go into all of them. They are all of a kind. This one is dated May 24, 1956 and refers to the fact that the committee of the privy council have had before them a report from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources:
That application has been made by Mr. R. B. Denney, Jr., of Healdsburg, California, U.S.A., for permission to cut timber on two parcels on both sides of the Peace river, including certain timbered islands lying between 112 degrees 00 minutes and 114 degrees 00 minutes west longitude;-
By the way I may say that I looked that up on the map and it covers an area of approximately 102 miles on both sides of the Peace river. The paragraph continues:
-one parcel contains approximately 192 square miles and the other approximately 24 square miles, containing approximately 700 million feet board measure of mature white spruce and approximately 150 million feet board measure of mature poplar;-
Those are miniature principalities. I think there should have been an amendment to the act in order to have amputated areas to that extent from one of our national parks. I think there is further complexity to this issue because by what is known as the Alberta Natural Resources Act of 1930 the natural resources which had until then been held by Canada or by the crown in the right of Canada were transferred to the provincial government of Alberta but there was retained all the natural resources within the limits of any national park which included Wood Buffalo national park. There was appended to that statute an agreement which was ultimately signed by both Canada and Alberta and became enacted by statutes in both jurisdictions. Section 14 of that agreement says, -I will just give a digest of it-that the parks mentioned in the schedule will remain

Supply-Northern Affairs the property of Canada and include the natural resources, which of course includes the timber. Then it goes on to say this:
-but in the event of the parliament of Canada at any time declaring that the said lands or any part thereof are no longer required for park purposes, the land, mines, minerals . . . specified in any such declaration, shall forthwith upon the making thereof belong to the province-[DOT]
Very simply and briefly I may say that I think it is quite anomalous and was quite anomalous at the time, for a federal government to be concerned in the administration of the natural resources of a large area within the limits of any provincial jurisdiction. This is a problem which of course the minister inherited and it is a difficult one having in mind that there are vested interests. I think it is possibly a question where some examination might be made of this particular section and negotiations arranged with the provincial government so that if there is to be commercial development not only of timber resources but of mineral resources in that park, then it might well be in the hands of the provincial government. I do not subscribe to the beliefs of the provincial government of Alberta but I think that is a point which I am compelled to take up.
Finally, it is because of facts like these that I think it is most essential that there should be a fair, impartial, unbiased examination of the issues involved in connection with the construction of this railroad. Others have looked at the problem but I feel that none of them have been entirely free from prejudice. Fortunately at this time the composition of the present government and the known respect of the Prime Minister for the rights of the ordinary man have been factors which have led to the appointment of the Manning inquiry. I am confident that from this inquiry will come a proper appreciation of the problems which are involved in the construction of this particular development program.
May I here make some mention of the fact that the hon. member for Mackenzie River did suggest that the railroad should be commenced and should run from Grimshaw. It is, of course, a fact that is appreciated by the people in my particular constituency. But I would make this point clear. We have never asked for anything to which we are not entitled. We think that the construction of this railroad was promised many years ago. We think that it is necessary and essential for the proper development of the Canadian north. I am quite confident that the reports and briefs which will be submitted to this commission will justify my expectations.
Finally, I think that our whole scheme of northern development is in issue here and I think as a suggested theme I can do no better


than quote what appeared on the frontispiece of the MacGregor report to which I have already referred. I do not need to apologize for plagiarism here; there is no copyright on this quotation. I will just put it on record:
And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them,-
See the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many;
And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strongholds; And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Earlier this evening the minister, in referring to a figure I had given earlier this afternoon with regard to the rebuilding and part surfacing of sections of the Mackenzie highway to Yellowknife mentioned that the cost of hard surfacing the road on the Alberta side would be $70 million. I am sure the minister would want to correct that statement. I am sure he realized that this means over a quarter of a million dollars a mile.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman. This was a formal application from the government of Alberta and included the route from Grimshaw to the northwest territories which is nearly 400 miles and the figure they quoted for rebuilding and resurfacing was $70 million.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, like any other member, when I wanted to enquire whether the federal government was participating in the building of a bridge in a city I thought the question was to be asked of the Minister of Public Works. Hence on March 4 I asked if he could tell me whether the bridge at Prince Albert is to be paid for entirely by the federal government or whether the provincial government is paying part of the cost. At that time, as reported at page 1595 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker said this:
If the minister is able to answer without notice he may do so, but this is a question which should more properly be put on the order paper, as it asks for statistical information.
I therefore came along later and put on the order paper a starred question. On March 11, as found at page 1829 of Hansard, I was astonished to hear the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources tell me this in answer to my question. The question was this:
1.	Has the federal government built, agreed to build or made any contribution to the cost of building a bridge across the Saskatchewan river in the city of Prince Albert?
2.	If so, what proportion of the cost of the said bridge will be paid or has been paid for by the federal government?

Then the minister of northern affairs answered and this is where I was astounded. Instead of having the answer from the Minister of Public Works I received the answer from the minister of northern affairs. He said:
1.	Yes; under the roads to resources program.
2.	Fifty per cent up to a maximum of $1,250,000.
At that time I was so surprised I could not go any further with my question. But on March 12, 1959, at page 1864 and page 1865 of Hansard, I came back to the question. I said:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In answer to a question of mine yesterday with regard to the Prince Albert bridge over the Saskatchewan river, the minister said it was built under the roads to resources program. Does that mean what are generally called access roads?
Then the minister answered:
The roads to resources program, Mr. Speaker, has been explained in the house on several occasions. It covers the roads we are building in agreement with nine of the provinces-
That excepts Quebec.
-to open to new resource areas in these various provinces.
Then I came back:
A supplementary question. Are there any roads within or immediately outside Prince Albert in that program? What I mean is, in the program of roads are there any within the city of Prince Albert or in the immediate vicinity?
Then the minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, the main project in the agreement in the province of Saskatchewan is a road to Uranium City, of which the southern terminus is Prince Albert.
Then I came back with another question:
Does that road at the present time go any further than Lac la Ronge, which is 150 miles from the city of Prince Albert?
Then the minister answered:
I cannot give the house the exact mileage that the road has gone beyond Lac la Ronge, but I would say 30 or 40 miles at least. When the road is finished it will go 550 miles beyond.
Then the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked a question:
Might I ask the minister a further supplementary question? Is it not a fact that the only new road being built is from Lac la Ronge northward and that Lac la Ronge is some 150 miles away from the city of Prince Albert? Therefore the bridge is not anywhere near this road the minister mentioned?
The minister answered:
I can inform the hon. member that there are several roads in this program in the province of Saskatchewan.
As the minister answered that, I was wondering if I was making a great mistake in speaking of access roads or the roads to resources program. I find that in the estimates
Supply-Northern Affairs the explanation is given like this. When we speak of access roads we mean establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate fire protection as well as other aspects of forest management. I have looked at the description given to roads to resources in accordance with the agreement, and it says:
Contributions to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the federal government participating in building a bridge in a city, or between two cities or between two provinces. This has been done before and it will be done in the future. What I am opposed to is the fact that when members of parliament think of a bridge in a city or around a city or between two provinces we never think for a moment that we will have to go and look in the estimates of the minister of northern affairs, except if the bridge is built under a roads to resources program or under access roads.
We find now that this bridge being built in the city of Prince Albert has been contributed to 50 per cent by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and we can find on the map that Lac la Ronge is at least 150 miles away from the city of Prince Albert. The road which goes straight to Lac la Ronge is one of the main roads of the province of Saskatchewan. It starts in the United States and goes straight to La Ronge on the border of Lac la Ronge, and then goes northwards to Uranium City. They are roads to resources started both by the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan. How is it possible, then, that the federal government should take the money from the department of northern affairs to build a bridge in a city? Was it a case of an apple for the teacher so that the good graces of the Prime Minister should fall upon the head and shoulders of the minister of northern affairs, or was it a case of an order given by the Prime Minister who wanted a contribution to the bridge in the city of Prince Albert? In the two cases I think the way it was presented is a case of false representation. It should have come from the Department of Public Works if it was within a city, particularly as the bridge was 150 miles away from the nearest road to resources.
If we went on in that way every member in this house could come and ask the minister of northern affairs to build bridges in their constituencies. I have a mine two miles away from Hull, so I could ask the minister to build an interprovincial bridge contributed one-quarter by the provincial government of
5C3G

Supply-Northern Affairs Ontario, one-quarter by the provincial government of Quebec, and then it will be the very same principle. The only difference would be the cost of the bridge. I do not understand why the minister should try to hide this thing from the members of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Would the chairman call it ten o'clock?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to
make this request this evening, but I would point out that we are still very hopeful that it will be possible to end the session a week from tomorrow, and it helps a great deal if we can spend the extra hour in the evenings. Of course we are in the hands of the hon. members in the house, but I put this forward as a suggestion and it might make all the difference if we go on for another hour this evening. We are hoping to get through the estimates of one or two other departments tomorrow, but if we only get the estimates of northern affairs and national resources through this week and the others pile up, then it would be extremely difficult, probably, to finish the session by the end of next week, and then once we break into a new week that probably means a second full week. Therefore I make this appeal to hon. members that nobody is going to be very seriously prejudiced if we should consider and discuss these estimates for, say, another hour this evening.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that there are still eight departments to be studied, and there are still a few speakers who want to speak on this matter, and even if we wanted to we could not finish the first item tonight. Even if we wanted to close on July 18, it would be impossible with eight departments to go-especially when one considers that there are still outstanding the estimates of the Minister of Finance who has a marked talent for extending discussions- and in view of the legislation.


Harold Edward Winch: We have regulations governing the hours of the sitting of the House of Commons. Last night we broke those rules and we are doing it again now. We would like to know what is the target of the government. What is the procedure to be? What is the government working toward? We have been here for six or seven months. Most of us in this group are from western Canada and would like to go home but, like the house leader, we will stay here as long as there is business of parliament requiring attention. Is there any understanding about the closing

date? What is the target? We will co-operate right down the line but we want some understanding.


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, the government is not in a position to say when the house will be prorogued. This is almost entirely in the hands of the opposition, as I know myself from long experience on the other side. The rules of the house say that the sittings should end at ten o'clock. Mind you, it would always be possible for the government to bring in a motion changing the hours of sitting but we have no intention of doing that.
As I pointed out last week, we had hoped that the session would end by a week from tomorrow. It is with this thought in mind that I took the liberty this evening of asking the committee to carry on until, let us say, eleven o'clock, with these estimates. There is no agreement to be enforced. This is entirely in the judgment of hon. members themselves. That has been the case each evening when the house has sat beyond the normal closing hour of ten o'clock. If hon. members of the C.C.F. do not want to stay beyond ten o'clock, certainly there is no intention of forcing them to do so. If we wished to force them it would be quite impossible to do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: How would it be if we
agreed to adjourn now and the whips could come to some arrangement tomorrow? I think we could reach a mutually satisfactory agreement concerning the best use of our time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree that the suggestion made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat is a sensible one. There does not appear to be a disposition to continue this evening. I think if those who usually work out the business would try to get together and achieve an understanding for next week that would be an understanding that would be adhered to, that would be the best thing. We should abide by the rules today.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day, reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I presume the business that was indicated last evening will be the business for tomorrow but could the leader of the house give us some indication for at least Monday and Tuesday of next week.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the intention is to commence on Monday with item No. 12, the resolution concerning additional grants to Newfoundland; then item No. 1, further

consideration of the farm loan credit bill; then item No. 11, the international wheat agreement; then item No. 9, the convention on the nationality of married women. I have been under some pressure from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration during the last few minutes. We then propose taking item No. 4, dealing with an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick concerning Indians; then item No. 7, a similar agreement with the province of Nova Scotia, then item No. 6, an amendment to the Public Lands Grant Act.
We will continue with this program on Tuesday. I would hope that the bill concerning Newfoundland grants could be considered on Tuesday. There is also a bill coming on the order paper dealing with humane slaughter which I think is based on the recommendations of the agriculture committee. We will probably take that on Tuesday. I do not think it could be taken on Monday except by consent. There are other odds and ends but we are hopeful of finishing this legislation by Tuesday night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that the combines legislation will not be proceeded with on Monday or Tuesday?
Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: No, it would have to be taken later in the week because the Minister of Justice is away in connection with the royal visit.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the target for prorogation the 18th or the 27th of this month? Quite honestly, what do you think we can do if everybody is honest, does not talk too much, and if there is not too much repetition?


Howard Charles Green: I think we could finish tomorrow night under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the estimates and legislation outstanding, what is the minister's considered opinion as to the target date for prorogation if he has the co-operation of the opposition?


Howard Charles Green: The target would be a week from tomorrow; that would be July 18.


Mr. Badanai:: May I ask the house leader whether he can tell the house if it is the intention of the government to bring in amendments to the board of grain commissioners act?


Howard Charles Green: No, I have heard of no such amendments.
At 10.12 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO 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. Robichaud: Since work has been initiated on the construction of Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, what has been the amount spent by the federal government in each of the fiscal years, including the year ending March 31, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence): [DOT]
Fiscal year	Expenditure
1952- 53	 $ 2,447,490
1953-	54	
6,363,8641954-	55	
13,548,1211955-	56	
30,638,9471956-	57	
25,742,7201957-	58	
16,346,4311958-	59	
8,137,485


CUSTOMS HOUSE, CORNWALL HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE AREA
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a customs house been erected within the last five years on ground adjacent to the Cornwall high level bridge? If so, on what date?
2.	Were test borings of soil conditions taken prior to erection?
3.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) by whom, and what were his qualifications?
4.	Were reports made regarding the condition of the soil?
5.	If so, (a) on what dates; (b) what was their nature; (c) who signed each?
6.	Were the original plans of the customs house altered to suit the soil conditions?
7.	If so, (a) what changes were made; (b) why were they necessitated?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Yes. The building was occupied by the customs and excise division on November 29, 1958.
2.	A test pit was dug indicating the soil conditions prior to the commencement of the contract.
3.	(a) July, 1957.
(b) The St. Lawrence seaway authority engineering staff.
4.	A report on the anticipated soil conditions was included with the site information received from the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
5.	(a) July, 1957.
(b)	Information indicated that the normal spread foundations would be satisfactory.
(c)	The information was given by seaway authority engineers at Cornwall.
6.	Yes, in part.
7.	(a) The foundation was redesigned to permit the use of piles and the basement was eliminated; the building was also relocated.
(b) To provide a higher bearing capacity and to relocate the building further away from the existing Indian reserve roadway.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
448.	Departmental administration, $2,437,352.
449.	District services-administration, $3,271,281.
450.	Veterans' welfare services (including the former veterans insurance branch), $3,540,739.
Treatment services-
451.	Operation of hospitals and administration, including authority for payments, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to canteen funds of departmental hospitals in amounts equal to the amounts of commissions received by or on behalf of Her Majesty from pay telephones in such hospitals, $46,264,751.
452.	Medical research and education, $350,000.
453.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,811,370.
454.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,211,245.
455.	Veterans' bureau, $625,296.
456.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $155,974.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
457.	War veterans allowances, $59,785,000.
458.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $2,550,000.
459.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,850,000. Miscellaneous payments-
460.	Payments to the Last Post fund; the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium; Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission; and production of Books of Remembrance, $1,527,800.
461.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8000.
462.	Grant to Canadian legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
463.	Administration expenses, $2,593,195.
464.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $151,474,000.
465.	Gallantry awards-world war II and special force, $21,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
466.	Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $5,152,331.
467.	Upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $55,900.
468.	Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and grants to veterans settled on Dominion lands in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $190,000.
469.	Grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $75,000.
Supply-Items Passed
470.	Reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,500.
471.	To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act and to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible; and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $11,850.
Terminable services-
472.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $767,900.
473.	Repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made, $225,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
487.	Protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $4,550.
488.	Purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $15,687,465.
Treatment services-
600.	Operation of hospitals and administration- further amount required, $116,978.
601.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land-further amount required, $810,000.
602.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration-further amount required, $50,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
603.	Grant to army benevolent fund-further amount required, $10,000.
609.	Advance to the working capital fund of the imperial war graves commission in the amount of £10,000 notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1959, which is, $27,065.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
610.	Purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $12,937,500.
66968-9-370
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, July 11. 1959