1959-07-11

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he be good enough to comment on the statement made in a news broadcast last night to the effect that according to plans in his department the locks of the Welland canal will be duplicated at a cost of $150 million?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all in the statement. I was asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia yesterday if we had started studies regarding the need in the future for twinning the Welland canal locks, and I said that such a study had been started some time ago. I think the hon. member, having been the minister of this department, will agree that long range studies well in advance of any possibility are the sensible thing to do for a person in my position.



NORTHLAND NAVIGATION COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister able to assure the house that no portion of the $294,500 subvention which is payable to the Northland Navigation Company is being used to finance the activities of gangsters and racketeers in their attempt to destroy a legitimate and responsible union which is the certified bargaining agent for certain employees of that company?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[Later:1


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East directed a question to me. He asked whether the chief executive officer of the labour relations board advised that a ballot would be permitted in connection with the bargaining agents of the Northland Navigation Company engineers, and whether that commitment was later reversed.
66968-9-370J
I have checked this matter with the department and the answer is no.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can bring the house up to date on the plans of the government for the celebration of the Canadian centennial, and whether any consideration is being given to the recommendation of the Canada Council that a national theatre should be constructed. I am certain that Canadians are interested in the very important plans that the government no doubt has under consideration.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that this is a proper question for the orders of the day. However, I realize the great importance of preparations being made for the celebration of Canada's centennial. Some months ago I referred to the question at length, for I believe that Canadians as a whole will expect that on the occasion of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Canada's nationhood, the necessary plans in keeping with the importance of that occasion should be made far in advance. In so far as detailed consideration is concerned, there has been none as yet. There have been preliminary discussions and also a general review of the problems that must necessarily be considered in making those preparations which will assure that proper celebrations will be achieved.
In so far as the national theatre is concerned there have been suggestions in the past, and those suggestions have met with general approbation in the house, that artistic considerations and our national destiny demand that the fullest comprehension of Canada's artistic past as well as assurances for the future should be a matter of serious deliberation on the part of every level of government. I realize that there has been a suggestion-the hon. gentleman called it a recommendation-from the Canada Council, and that would be one of those matters which would be deserving of the most serious consideration on the part of the committees to be set up and those whose responsibility it will be to assure that the centenary celebration shall be in keeping with Canada's destiny.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): In view of the fact that these preparations will not likely become active for about three years or so, may I assure the Prime Minister that at that time we will be glad to associate the opposition with the full preparations.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say that I think Canadians as a whole would want to be so
associated, and I know the hon. gentleman would not want to be left out.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I must apologize for not having given him notice of my intention to ask the question, but he may take this as notice. My question arises out of a telegram which was handed to me yesterday, and with your permission I should like to quote two sentences:
The Evening Times-Globe, Saint John, N.B., July 4, 1959, reports: "Word from Ottawa was still being awaited here this morning as to what action will be taken regarding a harbour bump which might be the wreckage of the pilot boat sunk with all seven hands in the harbour approaches in 1957".
Since none of the bodies have been recovered there is strong possibility they were trapped inside the boat which lies only 18 feet below water mark on the land side of the fairway buoy as reported by the survey team from the federal department of lands and mines.
My brother pilot William J. Murray lost his life in that ship-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is laying a very long factual background. Can he come to the point? I understand he is referring to a matter that happened in 1957.


Augustin Brassard: Yes. My question is this. Will the Minister of Transport tell the house if any action is planned in this connection?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member spoke to me about this matter yesterday. I can assure him that we will investigate this matter and see what information we can obtain.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Can my
hon. friend the Minister of Labour tell us what steps have been taken, if any, by the government to provide supplies for people

in the up-coast communities, in view of the situation which is very serious at the moment, I understand.


Michael Starr: This matter does not come under my department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, but since the Minister of Labour is concerned with it and since, as a result of the strike there is human suffering, perhaps the minister could tell us what steps have been taken by the government to provide supplies for the people who obviously need them.


Michael Starr: Probably my colleague the Minister of Transport would be able to give that information.


George Harris Hees: I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to pose the question again. I was jotting down some notes about the last one that was asked and I am afraid I am one question behind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of the strike at the Northland Navigation Company there is, we are advised-and as undoubtedly the minister has been advised-[DOT] great discomfort because of the lack of supplies. My question which was addressed to the Minister of Labour and is now addressed to the Minister of Transport is this, what steps has the government taken or does the government propose to take to relieve this situation?


George Harris Hees: I immediately got in touch with the chairman of the maritime commission as soon as the strike went into effect. He is investigating all possibilities of supplying vitally needed supplies to isolated communities in British Columbia. I expect to be able to report further on that matter early next week when the chairman of the maritime commission has reported to me what he has been able to do.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Transport when it was that he discussed this matter with the chairman of the maritime commission? Just the other day I asked him precisely the same question and he said the government was making no effort to deal with the situation.


George Harris Hees: I took it from the original question posed to me by the hon. member for Skeena that he expected us to engage in strikebreaking activities. That never is the intention of this government, as I thought he would know. Certainly I would have told him if he had taken the trouble to see me about if after the sitting, if he was worried

about it, or before, he would have realized that this government, which is always interested in and vitally concerned with the welfare of Canadians, would naturally take all steps to see that human suffering is alleviated to the greatest possible degree.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The little people.


Frank Howard: I appreciate all the applause following the minister's remarks, but he did not answer my question and I rise on a point of order. I would request the minister to withdraw his charge that I was suggesting that they had engaged in strike-breaking activities.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it was my firm impression from the way the hon. member asked his question that day that that was what he was suggesting. I am saying that was my impression, and I am entitled to form an impression from what any hon. member of this house says.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I go further with my point of order and clear up that erroneous impression.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see a point of order there. Does the hon. member for Ottawa West wish to say anything on the point?


George James McIlraith: The only point I want to draw to Your Honour's attention is that the minister's answer undoubtedly contained gratuitous references, which I submit is contrary to the rules as they appear in the fourth edition of Beauchesne at page 153.


Mr. Speaker:: That is quite another point of order. It is true that the minister did range beyond the question. In fact I do not think he came to the question.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate at what level and with what United States departments any discussions on pilotage are taking place and whether the tenor of these discussions indicates any firm legislative possibilities in this field for the next session of this house?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member asked me a similar question a few days ago, at which time I told him I did not have any further report. That answer still stands.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to know whether the minister is working through the department of the Secretary of State or whether
Inquiries of the Ministry he is working directly with the coastguard which we realize is involved in this deal, and how high up in the United States echelon he is working with them, so we can get some indication whether there will be a likelihood of success in these negotiations.


George Harris Hees: As I think the hon. member knows, this matter is handled both by the Department of Commerce and by the coastguard in the United States. We are in close touch with both of them and are working closely with both departments.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur. Has the minister seen the reports in the press to the effect that there is now before congress an amendment to the bill dealing with pilotage in which it is suggested that a pilotage board be established by the United States congress, and that that board enter into an agreement with Canada on the subject of pilotage on the great lakes?


George Harris Hees: I have not seen that particular report, Mr. Speaker, but I am very glad such a report has appeared, because it is following along the lines of my discussions with the United States authorities when I went to Washington, and it shows that the trip was worth while. I think we are drawing toward the conclusion at which this government had hoped to arrive.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a statement in this morning's press in which Rear Admiral Thach, of the United States navy, is reported to have said that Canada should not build nuclear subs until she has built a more diversified navy, and that at a later stage it would be a good idea for Canada to build nuclear subs. Can the minister say whether this statement was made after consultation with him or his department, and is this the view of the Canadian government? If it is not, does the minister not agree that it would be more appropriate for statements regarding Canada's naval policy to be made by our own distinguished Minister of National Defence?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The statement was not made after consultation with the Canadian government, and the matter of whether or not Canada
5844	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry adopts nuclear submarines is under very-careful consideration. As has been said in this house a great many times, nuclear submarines are very expensive weapons, and we are not going to commit ourselves to the purchase of these weapons until we have obtained all the information that there is available on this matter. The opinion which was expressed was that attributed to a United States admiral who is visiting this country.



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, I wonder if on this quiet, pleasant morning the Minister of Finance would not take offence if I asked him a question. Is it a fact that when he asked for a conference between the different levels of government on the matter of dominion-provincial fiscal relations, the premier of Manitoba also asked at the recent meetings in Ottawa for an interim payment; and if that was requested, can the Minister of Finance indicate to the house what kind of reply the government of which he is a distinguished member permitted him to make?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Replying in kind to this unusually inoffensive inquiry, I may say I do not quite know what the hon. gentleman refers to when he said I asked for a two-level conference, or two types of conferences. I must be very wary of these inoffensive questions of his.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can fully appreciate that the hon. gentleman's preoccupations are so heavy that he finds it difficult at the moment to understand a very simple question. The question I asked him was this. What reply did the hon. gentleman give to Premier Roblin who, when he asked for a full-fledged dominion-provincial conference, associated with that request a further request for an interim payment from the federal government to the province?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In answer to that now simplified interrogation may I say that the purpose of the several provinces which sought a plenary, negotiating dominion-provincial conference to obtain a variation in the terms of the existing agreements entered into in pursuance of the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act in order to derive larger sums under the terms of the agreements and the legislation. That was the purpose which was associated with the request for the calling of a plenary conference, and it was to these proposals that I indicated in


reply, as I have told the house and the hon. gentleman on several occasions, that obviously if that were the purpose there would be little point in calling such a conference unless the federal government was in a position to comply in some measure with the request for that kind of variation in the terms of the agreements.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will have to read what the hon. gentleman has said in such a complicated way with regard to such a simple question. May I ask him another question. Is it a fact that his seminar or study group has decided not to hold any sessions during the hot weather?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The weather is never hot for the government. I can imagine, looking at the hon. gentleman, that the weather has been hot for him for a long time. I am not aware of what he has in mind in talking about a seminar or a study group. If I were organizing such a thing I can assure him he would be one of the first I would nominate to enjoy the benefits of that kind of instruction.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT ON PAYMENTS BY FEDERAL TREASURY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance a factual question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister explain how it happens that the estimate of the payments to the province of Quebec under the tax-sharing arrangements act which he gave yesterday are almost precisely $8 million higher than the estimates printed in the blue book?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is refreshing, for a change, to be asked what the hon. member calls a factual question, particularly after the type of question we have been listening to by the hon. gentleman from Essex East.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked a question on this subject yesterday, which will be found at page 5779 of Hansard, pertaining to the table of payments for the province of Quebec which I put on the record yesterday. His question asked for a comparison of the basis of those figures with respect to that one province with those given in the table which I placed on record in the budget speech as reported at page 2410 of Hansard of April 9.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the table on page 2410 was based upon the blue book

of estimates which, as hon. members will appreciate, was prepared last autumn. The figures I gave yesterday were a projection of the budget estimates of revenue for the current fiscal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the minister a question which is not so factual. In view of the obvious reflection of buoyant revenues evidenced by this increase, does the minister not think the time has now arrived for the government to reach the conclusion that it should have a plenary conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thought 1 had made it clear on earlier occasions, at least to all other hon. members of the house, that the budget estimate, which included our forecast of the gross national product and our revenues, was based upon the considerations, including the expansion of the economy, that we found when the budget was submitted to the house on April 9. There had been a considerable change in conditions since the previous autumn, and those matters were largely taken into account in the anticipations for the current fiscal year, based upon the expansion of the economy that had already taken place up to April 9 and which we were then quite confident would continue at an increasing tempo. The expansion which has taken place in the economy since that time at an extraordinary rate had been largely foreseen then and had entered into our budget calculations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A further supplementary question. Does the minister still expect a substantial deficit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members should bear in mind that the estimates of the Department of Finance are still to be dealt with. There will be ample opportunity to debate federal-provincial relations at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister's reply was too long, in any event.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the hon. lady yet in a position to table a return respecting the Chippewa Indian reserve at Sarnia?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say I did not get a report of the progress being made yesterday and, of
Inquiries of the Ministry course, as the hon. member knows, the staff is not working today, but I shall inquire into it the first thing Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fairly definite indication which was given last evening by the house leader that he hopes prorogation will take place on July 18, may I ask the Prime Minister when we might expect the introduction of the bill of rights, if it is to be introduced this session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope that on Monday there will be a full statement of the legislative program for the rest of the session. I must say that I trust that program, while receiving the fullest attention, will achieve the hope expressed by the house leader.


George James McIlraith: I should like to raise for the Prime Minister's attention a matter concerning the business of the house. He will find in last night's Hansard it was indicated that the bill dealing with the humane slaughter of food animals probably would be taken up on Tuesday. I see it is indicated in Votes and Proceedings this morning that first reading would be moved on Monday. Would the Prime Minister consider asking unanimous consent to give first reading today so the bill could be made available to members by Monday morning? It would mean there would be an opportunity to see the bill a day before it was dealt with.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the suggestion is a very good one. This matter is one that has received the consideration of a committee, and the bill to be submitted I believe embodies the general recommendations made as a result of the deliberations of that committee. The suggestion is a good one and I would accordingly accede to it and suggest to Your Honour that, by leave of the house, this course be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent the Prime Minister, for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) asks for leave to introduce a bill which is contained in Votes and Proceedings of July 10 as a notice of motion. The bill is entitled "An act to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals". Does the house agree to the suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Northern Affairs LIVESTOCK



LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE HUMANE SLAUGHTER OF FOOD ANIMALS

John George Diefenbaker: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-71, to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
261. Departmental administration, $866,273.
The Deputy Chairman:: This item will be found on page 54 of the blue book, and the details are on page 362.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, when the clock struck ten last night I was dealing with the bridge which is being built over the Saskatchewan river in the city of Prince Albert, under the vote having to do with roads to resources. The city of Prince Albert is 150 miles away from the nearest resource road in the province of Saskatchewan. When I look at the explanation in the estimates book this is the kind of explanation I get: "Contributions to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources". I wonder how it could happen that the minister could say that Prince Albert is the southern terminus of this road leading to Uranium City or lake Athabasca. I think it is a way to divert the attention of members of the house.
I wonder why they took this means of providing for the building of this bridge under the roads to resources program. Any member who wants to know if a bridge is being built within a city or between two cities or between two provinces would never resort to the estimates of the northern affairs department to find that out. He would go straight to the Minister of Public Works. As I said last night, I do not object to the idea of the federal government participating in the construction of bridges, because it has been done in the past and will be done in the future. What I object to is the fact that this is being done by a department which is not supposed to act in this way. What I object to is the fact that when we vote certain moneys to help a certain department they take those moneys and use them somewhere else.
[Mr. Speaker/}

I do not know, as I said, if this was done by the minister just to be in the Prime Minister's good graces or if it is a fact that the master ordered the serf to act accordingly. But one thing I do know is that if the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, had asked Mr. Lesage to build a bridge in the city of Quebec on the ground that it was the terminus of a road to the resources in Ungava, where there is iron ore, the present Prime Minister would have been the first one to protest against such action and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would have protested because Mr. St. Laurent had so asked or ordered.
I want to know today why the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had to go through this strategy to cover up something which should have been handled openly through the Department of Public Works. Nobody in Canada will believe that Prince Albert is the terminus for a resources road to Uranium City. I also want to know if this is a new way by which the government can show political favouritism in the riding of the Prime Minister, by taking money from a department from which it should not be taken and spending it there to please the electors of that one riding. I do not believe that the Prime Minister of this country should have special privileges. I think he should be the last to ask for special privileges, and if the minister adopted this strategy just to please the Prime Minister then in my opinion he has not measured up to the high responsibilities he has in the government.
The minister should be man enough to resist the demands of the Prime Minister if they are not according to the rules and practices of the house. I want the minister to explain to members of the house and to the people generally why he has had recourse to such a means in order to try to cover up political favouritism for the Prime Minister of this country.


Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Chairman, I could not quite understand the argument last night between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources over permits, exploration leases and so on in the northern Arctic, because anyone who knows anything about the situation knows that the next great oil development could well be along the British Columbia coast. I have given a good deal of study to the program of the government for the development of the north. I think in most respects it is a very sound program. The development is pointed at the Mackenzie river valley which, as is well known, is probably the area of the north country with the most resources.

Sometimes I rather wish that a little more consideration with respect to development of resources would be given to the resources south of the 60th parallel. By far the greatest proportion of our undeveloped resources still lie south of the 60th parallel. I would be most happy if greater consideration could be given to the program of roads to resources in co-operation with the provinces. I have spoken before about what I think is a well merited roads to resources development in the northern section of Vancouver island, but I suppose because that is getting down toward the 49th parallel, and because it is along the coastal area, that project has not seemed to be considered worthy.
I was quite interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to the report on forestry made by the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. Having been a member of that committee, having attended most of the meetings, and having contributed somewhat to the preparation of the report, I was pleased that he approved of it. Of course that is only natural when you stop to realize that in the house he is considered to be the C.C.F. representative of the forest industries, and many people consider me as one who represents the British Columbia forest industry particularly. Therefore two capitalistic minds are bound to think the same.
I hope many of the recommendations in the report will be effected. I think they are sound recommendations. They are not new and have been made for years and years by most forestry and forest industry associations across Canada. By and large they are all very sound recommendations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question. This is most unusual, but is this British Columbia member admitting that places other than British Columbia have made some good suggestions with respect to forestry?


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Kootenay West was complaining last night about his colleague muttering about him being parochially minded. I certainly am not parochially minded with regard to the forest industry and the forest problems of Canada. One of the recommendations has to do with the forest access roads program in co-operation with the provinces, which has been very well received. The committee recommended that the program be extended from eight months to twelve months, with a lesser share contributed by the federal government toward labour costs in the summer months; 40 per cent, I believe, and 60 per cent in the winter months. One of the reasons for this recommendation is that in a 66968-9-371
Supply-Northern Affairs great many parts of Canada, particularly British Columbia, it is almost impossible to build forest access roads in the winter. For that reason I heartily approve of that recommendation.
I should like to speak for a few minutes about the Columbia river. I have attempted in the past to get some figures from the department concerning the possible volume of timber that would have to be removed in the event that they proceed with the power development. I may be making a wild guess, but I know that country very well and in years gone by I have cruised timber there, and I would think there is perhaps somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a billion feet of timber in the area that may be flooded.
The point with which I am concerned is that this timber should not be removed without careful planning as to its disposal. The sudden dumping over a period of two or three years of hundreds of millions of feet of sawn lumber on the market, some of it of low grade, would have a disastrous effect on the lumber economy of British Columbia and Alberta as well. I trust that the Columbia river problem will soon be solved and we will be able to get ahead with this development.
I sometimes become a little concerned over the fact that we are not moving fast enough in British Columbia with the development of our power, and we may find in the years to come, if we fail to develop it early enough, that it has lost its value because of the progress in establishing thermal and nuclear plants which can be located in close proximity to markets and raw materials. By that time there may be a lessening in the differential between the cost of hydro power and other forms of energy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that covers the remarks I wish to make at this moment. I have a few more remarks to make on the items.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of saving time, I wonder whether I could ask the minister if he would like to reply at this time to the problem which has been raised by the hon. member for Hull in connection with the bridge, because if he did reply now he might save me from making a half hour speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the minister replies I wish he would reply also to this question. He could reply to both questions at once and that might save me from making a half hour speech as well on this subject. On May 8 the Prime Minister, in a speech at Montreal, had this to say:
Another 86.5 million acres on the continental shelf in the Arctic islands are now being developed under exploratory permits.
584S

Supply-Northern Affairs
I emphasize those words, "under exploratory permits". On May 11, three days later, in this house the minister said, at pages 3514 and 3515 of Hansard:
-we have not issued any exploratory permits, as this article states, with regard to the Arctic islands and the continental shelf.
One of those statements is manifestly not true, and I think the minister should tell us which one is not true.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Chairman, I am glad in a way that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has raised the question as precisely as he has this morning, because if it is true that I am not telling the truth, as the Leader of the Opposition said last night several times-I will just read his remarks. I was asked about these exploratory permits and the permits that were awaiting servicing, and the Leader of the Opposition said, "Just tell the truth." Later on I went on to say that at no time did the Prime Minister ever make a false statement and the Leader of the Oppositon said, "Read his speech." The implication there is that he did. Later on the same page of Hansard I was pointing out to the Leader of the Opposition that the thing he did not like about the operation was that it was so successful, and his answer was, "Why don't you tell the truth?"
Now we have the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate coming here and putting it down precisely that on May 8 the Prime Minister, at Montreal, used the figure of 86.5 million acres. I assume he is not quarrelling over the 86.5, because the figures change from day to day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; it is the phrase, "under exploratory permits".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He therefore wants me to explain "under exploratory permits".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want you to explain it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was the one
who provided that information to the Prime Minister, because under these applications for exploratory permits work is being done. If you want to lay the blame on my shoulders for having put it forward in that way, I can only say that it was made quite clear in the house last night that work is being done under these applications for exploratory permits just the same as if the exploratory permits had been granted.
We have not the regulations ready for final approval by council; at least they are ready, but council is studying them now. If you want to quibble over that you can make me out to be in error. The Prime Minister


said "taken out", and there is development going on under these applications for exploratory permits.
As to the other statement I made in the house, at page 3514 of Hansard, I may say, as I made clear last night, that when you ask for precise terms there are actually no permits granted. An application for a permit has been received, priority has been established, and in the meantime for those companies which want it there are exploratory licences for them to go ahead. I made it clear last night that there are 10 or 12 companies actually doing preliminary work just the same as if they had exploratory permits. If the regulations are approved by council in the next week or so and the companies pick up their permits, as I am quite positive they will, there has been no time lost and we have been able to gain this year in exploration.
I am very unhappy that the opposition is trying to make a point of quibbling over phrases, but if you want to go out and say the minister was not too precise in using these phrases, then I am guilty. However, to say that I have not told the truth is going a little far, and I hope the hon. member will admit that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, I did not say the minister had not told the truth. I did not say the Prime Minister had not told the truth. I said that one of those statements was manifestly untrue, and it is untrue. May I read them again. The Prime Minister said there were 86.5 million acres being developed under exploratory permits, not under applications but under exploratory permits. Then, three days later in this house, the minister says we have not issued any exploratory permits. It is not quibbling. One of those statements is a direct contradiction of the other. If the minister had had the advantage, like some of his colleagues on the treasury benches of sitting over here, he would have seen a great deal more made of a great deal less than this contradiction by the opposition to which his leader belonged, and by no one more than by the Prime Minister himself.
Now, I say this statement by the Prime Minister, which the minister has admitted is not correct, was certainly misleading to the public. The Prime Minister at that meeting in Montreal was trying to blow things up. I shall tell you something else he said at that meeting, since the subject has come up, which shows what a modest fellow the Prime Minister is. Here is what he said:
I have no hesitation in saying at this time that I believe that the government has accomplished more in those two years than any other government at any time in our history.

That is the modest claim the Prime Minister made at the Montreal meeting. That is one of the alleged facts that he produced to prove that. Then the minister three days later says there were no exploratory permits whatever.


Mr. Morton:: Work was still being done.


Mr. Hardie:: Work was not being done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is another matter entirely. The Prime Minister has the responsibility to the public to inform the public accurately, carefully and precisely. No one was more assiduous than was the Prime Minister in trying to check up even the slightest deviation from technical accuracy on the part of his predecessors. He cannot expect and he is not entitled to any other treatment. Prime ministers even more than ministers should be careful of what they say and be sure that what they say is at all times accurate. This statement is inaccurate. It is preposterous. Imagine the Prime Minister saying in this modest fashion:
I have no hesitation in saying at this time that I believe that the government has accomplished more in those two years than any other government at any time in our history.


An hon. Member:: That is accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; that is accurate. It is true that he obtained more seats than any other government in history. It is true that he has a higher deficit than any other government has had in our peacetime history. It is true that he has spent more money than was ever spent before in our peace time history and-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -it is true that he has more people on the government payroll than ever before in our history.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member will take his seat when the Chair calls order. I also hope the hon. member will come back to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall stay completely within the ambit of the opening speech of the hon. gentleman whose estimates are before us. He started out with wheat-I do not know whether Your Honour was in the chair at the time-and ended up with external affairs in the first paragraph. I do not intend to go beyond those two limits. I should just like to remind Your Honour that the minister's speech was about all aspects of national development. He praised the Department of Transport. He dealt with all sorts of other subjects. Surely we in 66968-9-371J
Supply-Northern Affairs the opposition are going to be given on the estimates the same freedom that the minister was given.
I just want to say one thing about this extraordinary statement which the Prime Minister was trying to bolster up with these phony statistics. I will just say this-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman,
I want a complete withdrawal of those words "phony statistics".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe I have the floor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have the floor on a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: The minister is speaking to a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I must insist that the hon. member withdraw those words "phony statistics" and in all fairness I think that he should apologize to the committee for following the example of his leader last night by making this flat statement that I was not telling the truth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman has asked for the withdrawal of the words "phony statistics". I would remind you that a similar request was made from this side of the chamber by myself, and it was decided that the word "phony" was not unparliamentary. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the rule that was applied on that occasion must apply now.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I was in the
house when that ruling was made, and of course I think that ruling will carry on at this time. I will ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have only one sentence to utter on this statement; then I am coming back to the other point. I want to say that the Prime Minister who made this modest claim is the successor of a prime minister who in the first six months he was in office took this country into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and completed confederation with the union with Newfoundland. Then this government come along and say they have done more than any government in the history of this country; more than Macdonald, more than Borden. I am not surprised that he asserts he has done more than Bennett. But this is the kind of thing the Prime Minister goes about this country saying, and he bolsters it up with the statement that 86.5 million acres are under exploratory permits. Then the minister comes

Supply-Northern Affairs into the house and says, "We have not issued any exploratory permits".


Mr. Dumas:: The minister should resign.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is very difficult in the circumstances under which I am operating to decide what I should say. I know what the hon. gentleman thinks I should say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you want to get your estimates through, if I were you I would say nothing.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to make it clear that I think we all appreciate that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has to put on quite a show to make up for the fact that his own leader made such a tragic blunder in this house a few months ago in misinforming the public over some very statistics that I put on the record. This whole dialectical demonstration by the Leader of the Opposition last night and by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is as phoney as anything can be.


Mr. Habel:: As you are.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Any person of reason will accept my word that I provided the figure that he quoted from the Prime Minister's speech in Montreal. Whether it is an application for a permit which is waiting to be processed or whether it is a permit that has been processed, as far as the public are concerned they want to know only one thing and it is this. Is the development being done? I said yesterday, I thought very reasonably, that we had a right to take some pride in the fact that this area of the northern islands, where nothing had been done, had suddenly come to life in the last year or so. I think a political party has the right to take credit occasionally. This makes hon. members opposite angry because they have been brought up not with the theory of history that believes there is a right and a wrong, and not the theory of history that there is a scientific interpretation, or that God enters into this also. They have been brought up on the interpretation of the Sifton press that what is Liberal is blessed and that all those things that are not Liberal are the opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is fairly close to the truth.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can understand why that is so, particularly with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He has done a fairly creditable job of making this a great big issue, but I think the people, as they see the development of the country going ahead, will measure this country in their own way. All these storms raised in the house are not for the purpose of getting
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

information but rather are for the purpose of making up for what they felt were the stings and arrows of events long since past. I am only here trying to present my estimates and I will answer any questions that hon. members put forward. But if there is going to be any blame attached in relation to this figure of 89.5 million-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is 86.5 million.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -or 86.5 million; it changes from day to day-and with the words "application for permit", whether "application" or "permit" is in order, put the blame on me where it belongs and not on anybody else.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I do not think that was actually the point of the hon. member's question. The question was as to which of these two statements was right. I will read the statement of the Prime Minister on May 8:
Another 86.5 million acres on the continental shelf and the Arctic islands are now being developed-
I think those are the important words in that statement. Last night the minister pointed out to the committee that 10-he now says, 10-out of over 30 applicants or people who have applied for permits in the Arctic islands are now doing active work. That was yesterday. Since the Prime Minister made that statement we are told in the committee on mines, forests and waters when considering the minister's estimates that no development work had been done up until, as I recall it, the end of the first week in June.
I think at that time the minister said this development work, or at least the beginning of it, was based on the approval by cabinet of new regulations for Arctic oil development. He said at that time, in the first week of June, that these regulations were before the cabinet for approval. I have continually asked him week after week, and yesterday I asked him, if these regulations had been approved, and the answer yesterday was "No".
As I said when I first stood up, the important point is that the Prime Minister has said that the Arctic islands are now being developed. Yesterday the minister said that 10 of the permittees who have some of this acreage are engaged in active development. This statement was made on May 11, and in June the minister said nothing was being done at that time, that things had to be held up until after the regulations were passed.
I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is quite justified in asking if this statement by the Prime Minister on May 8

was right, or whether the statement of the minister a few days later was right. From the evidence we heard in the committee on mines, forests and waters I would say that the minister's statement of May 11 was right and not the Prime Minister's statement of May 8.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister ready to make an announcement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. There has been a lot of excitement over the bridge, and I would like to point out that in the roads to resources program we have bridges in agreements with several provinces. In the first instance, under the roads to resources program there are bridges in New Brunswick and several in Newfoundland. I am not too sure about some of the other agreements, because they are not all here. There are bridges in Ontario, and also as part of the over-all agreement there is a special agreement to do a geological survey, which is an electromagnetic survey of the area, before we finally decide on the route of the road. Therefore in the roads to resources program the first point is that there are bridges and a special agreement on the geological survey. The bridge which is part of the agreement is not part of the issue.
The second suggestion made is that the bridge should be part of the public works program rather than part of the roads to resources program. We probably look on this a little differently from the way the hon. member for Hull does, because for years it has been the subject of great complaint in Saskatchewan that there is no way of getting across from the north side of the river to the south side of the river, and the geography at the present time forces you to come across the river at one of two places in that part of the province, namely at Prince Albert or at Nipawin. One of these roads, the Hanson lake road it is called, runs from a place near Flin Flon and works down between Nipawin and Prince Albert. The Uranium City road curves round through Uranium City right through one part of the province to Lac la Ronge, the final part of the route extending down to the city of Prince Albert.
We have maintained over the years in Saskatchewan-not just the Prime Minister, the people of Prince Albert but the province -that this bottleneck had to be eliminated, and for years there was quarrelling between the city and the province over who would build the road. One argued that it was outside the city and should be built as a highway, and the other argued that it was within the city and should be built by the city. But the whole thing was slowing down the development of the northern part of the province,
Supply-Northern Affairs and if we did not build this bridge there would always be this bottleneck.
I might say that this is not a new precedent. I believe when Mr. Mackenzie King was the prime minister of Canada and representing the people of Prince Albert he saw that a bridge was built south of there to make the Prince Albert national park more accessible to people from the south. That was a long way from the park, I would say the same kind of distance, but the people of that day were glad to get that help to funnel their trade and tourist traffic into the north, and they will be equally glad to get this help at this time.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister has completely evaded the contention made in this committee on this matter. I first raised the matter when I spoke in the debate on the speech from the throne, and I am very pleased at the able manner in which the hon. member for Hull has presented his argument. Yet the minister completely evades the argument and offers no reply whatsoever.
The minister says there is a little excitement about this bridge. Naturally there is a little excitement about this bridge, because we need more bridges all over the Dominion of Canada and all communities are very excited about the federal government having announced, in effect, a new cost sharing program in the matter of building bridges. We are certainly anticipating that when we want to build a bridge across the Fraser river, or when we want to build a bridge across the Pitt river, or any other river in British Columbia, or when the people in Montreal need a new bridge, or the people in Ottawa, they can now expect the federal government to share the cost of that bridge.
The federal government has departed here from the old attitude toward cost sharing in the matter of bridges. The federal government hitherto would share the cost of the bridge if it was part of the trans-Canada highway. The federal government used to share part of the cost of a bridge if it was used over a river that separated two provinces. The federal government would share the cost of a bridge over navigable waters. However, any community bridge has had to be paid for, hitherto, either by the provincial or municipal governments or by the two of them together.
The minister rather surprised us, or I should say the Minister of Public Works rather surprised us, when some months ago in this house he first indicated that the bridge at Prince Albert came under the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. We found it a little hard to believe our ears at the time. However, the minister said he had

Supply-Northern Affairs explained all this to the committee. He had explained to the committee last year how this bridge at Prince Albert happened to be a part of the roads to resources program.
As the minister's department knows by now, the minister did not explain to the committee how the bridge at Prince Albert was a part of the roads to resources program. We are hoping that the minister will now explain how a bridge 150 miles removed from the highway is a part of that highway. If that bridge is a part of the highway, what about all the other bridges south of Prince Albert down to the United States border? Cannot they also be said to be part of that highway?
We have need of a lot of bridges over the Fraser river, all of which would lead to some natural resource. There is hardly a bridge in Canada that does not lead to a natural resource, and the existence of which aids in the development of that resource. We are very happy that the people of Prince Albert are getting a new bridge. We hope this is the beginning of a new policy on the part of the federal government, and that henceforth any major community which is in need of a new bridge can apply to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and argue that it is within 150 miles or within 1,000 miles of a road he is already helping to build, and therefore the minister will agree to share the cost of building the bridge. We are very happy that the people of Saskatchewan are to be blessed with a new bridge. However, we do insist on an explanation as to how this bridge is part of a road the beginning of which is 150 miles away from the bridge. And how is it that the cost of this bridge is shared by the federal government through the agency of the department over which the minister presides rather than the Department of Public Works, which ordinarily is the department seized with the responsibility for matters of this kind?


Charles Edward Rea: Shall this item
carry?


Erhart Regier: No, Mr. Chairman. I hope the minister will answer the reasonable request of the hon. member for Hull and tell us how this bridge is part of that road.


Mr. Martel:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Erhart Regier: Yes, but I am not the minister. I assume the minister has these answers.


Jean-Jacques Martel: Was that bridge in Saskatchewan not built by the Saskatchewan government under the roads to resources agreement signed at Ottawa?


Erhart Regier: That may be so. What we want to know is whether the corporation of the

district of Burnaby or the government of the province of Quebec or the government of Prince Edward Island or any other provincial or municipal government now has an invitation to go to the minister if it needs a bridge, and the minister will say "Let us see; there is a road somewhere in that area, within hundreds of miles of the proposed bridge. Therefore I am able to share the cost of building that bridge with you." If that is the new policy I welcome it, and I think the whole committee would welcome it. However, let us not have a situation where only one community in Canada, which happens to have particular representation in this House of Commons, is able to obtain a bridge which, so far as we can see, has nothing whatever to do with the roads to resources program while other communities in Canada are to be denied equal treatment.


Mr. Henderson:: Would you want us to dictate to the provincial governments where they should use the money provided for this roads to resources program by the federal government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I must tell the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the answer to his question is yes; if a provincial government suggests to us that a bridge would play a vital part in the development of our resources I am certainly going to consider it. This proposal for a bridge at Prince Albert was not made by the federal government. It was made by a committee composed of several members of the Saskatchewan government, including also the mayor of Prince Albert, which argued that this was a very necessary part of clearing away this bottleneck into the northern part of Saskatchewan. We accepted that argument. It also happened to be near a road to a national park which, I think, was the earlier reason given.
With regard to the other matter which was raised, the government of New Brunswick asked us to bridge a gap at Fundy park which is not connected with another road-there is a gap of 20 miles-and we said, "Yes; it opens up facilities to tourists, and we accept it". So if a province wants to prove to us that the construction of a bridge is part of a resource development, we shall look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that very point, the hon. member for Hull brought out very well yesterday that one of the most badly needed bridges anywhere in this country is right in sight of this very building, and not only is it near a national park but it is near a unique national park, one which was established in part as a memorial to those who died in the second world war.


Walter Clarence Henderson: What happened when this government was in power for so long?


An hon. Member:: Same old story.


Walter Clarence Henderson: No, it is not the same old story. I am telling you, you can look right out here and see the bridge-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not stand up and make your speech?


Walter Clarence Henderson: All I can say is I have stood here all the spring listening to a windbag like this talk and not know what it is all about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened, as I always do, to the hon. member for Cariboo, and there is no hon. member of the house for whom I have greater esteem. I do not take the slightest exception to what he has said, but I think I ought to reply to his argument, since I think it is a serious argument. He asked why we did not do anything about this bridge when we were in power. Well, we did not build a bridge at Prince Albert, either, because we did not have a roads to resources-


Walter Clarence Henderson: I will tell you this-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you like to make your speech now?


Walter Clarence Henderson: Go right ahead. You would talk, anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did not have the kind of roads to resources program which the minister has before the committee now, because when we were in office we had full employment and did not have to think up schemes to keep the people of this country working. But since the minister has said he is building bridges anywhere within 150 miles of a national park to improve access to that park and other resources, here is a bridge which is within 10 miles of a national park and which is very badly needed, also, for the proper functioning of the government of Canada itself. It might be that if we had a good bridge across the Ottawa river, government employees could get to work at a reasonable time and not be delayed day after day. It might be we should not need to have as many civil servants and we could pay those we have better, as they should be paid. There are a variety of reasons.
I suggest that if this is to be the policy there is no place where it could be better applied than right here, and it might well be that if the minister would take the problem over from the national capital commission, which does not appear to be making much progress, under his roads to resources program, with his extraordinary capacity for persuading people he could see the premier
Supply-Northern Affairs of Quebec and the premier of Ontario and say "We will give you half the cost of this bridge", we might be a little nearer to getting the bridge. It seems to me that the hon. member for Hull made an unanswerable case for equal treatment with regard to that bridge, when he spoke in the discussion.


Erhart Regier: All I want to do is express the great pleasure of this group at the new policy which the minister has announced. If I understood the minister correctly, any municipality or province that needs a bridge-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Province.


Erhart Regier: Any province-I am sorry- the building of which would help to develop the national resources of Canada, then a request for aid from the federal government would receive very sympathetic consideration. I can assure the minister that our minister of highways in the province of British Columbia will not wait many hours before he will have a few proposals to make to the minister.


Walter Clarence Henderson: A point of order. You are doing a lot of talking about the minister of roads in British Columbia. That government has been trying, and sending out Mr. Gagliardi here, and he comes down here with a story and never does anything; just the same as you, chock full of b.s.


Erhart Regier: I regret that the hon. member for Cariboo is not as happy as I am about the new policy the minister has announced; because that new policy, if the minister really meant what he said and he will implement his answer and have some consideration given to these proposals, will mean more for our province than anything which a federal government has done for British Columbia for many a long year. We badly need several new bridges across the Fraser river, several new bridges across Burrard inlet, all of which would aid tremendously in the opening up of the resources of our province. I can assure the minister that not much time will pass before he will be asked to implement his words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. In view of the fact that the premier who is provincial treasurer of his province is going to wipe out the remains of the debt of that province; in view of the fact that they have a huge surplus and that the federal government is virtually bankrupt, does he think it is reasonable for the government of British Columbia to make those demands on this government?


Erhart Regier: In answer to that question may I say that if the people of the province

Supply-Northern Affairs from which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate comes had the same faith in a high standard of living and in decent wages, then his province might also be in a satisfactory financial position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the minister replies, may I ask him a question. Will he give consideration to the appointment of the member for Cariboo as his parliamentary assistant?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I am going to say to the hon. member for Essex East is, beware of caribou; they have sharp horns.
I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam kind of worked up a head of steam. I hope no one in the press gallery is going to take his word for that and say they are going to have all sorts of bridges in British Columbia, for the very simple reason that British Columbia signed the agreement and, like any province, will have to work under the terms of the agreement, which are a maximum of $15 million and in any one year a maximum of $1,500,000. If he wants to go back and say that this program is available under those terms, he should also tell the people of the province that British Columbia signed an agreement. Other provinces have agreed with us and with the program as indicated which provides for bridges already in their programs, and that is about as far as we can go at this time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: At the same time that the money was spent for the bridge in Prince Albert was any money being spent on roads to resources in other provinces over the $1,500,000?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I think that is true because there are those under the special agreements-the same as the city and the province-the same as the special agreement we have in Ontario on the electronic, magnetic and ground surveys.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Any other province that entered into a special agreement would receive like treatment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If they came within the terms of the agreement and the ceiling of the agreement, yes.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two comments I would like to make about the roads to resources program. After listening to the minister's opening, sort of freewheeling, all-embracing remarks, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who covered a wide range of subjects, perhaps we should classify the minister as the "minister of everything". He has certainly the fullest scope of matters under his jurisdiction, apparently.


I should like to make a comment or two, if I may, on the roads to resources program and the road which is being built in British Columbia, which is generally classified as the Stewart-Cassiar road. First, even though the contract has been signed with British Columbia on a 50-50 basis, I am sure this will also be the basis of the financial arrangement which will be entered into with the other provinces. It does not appear to me that the policies advocated or put into effect by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources are in keeping with the policies of the government itself, because there is another department that participates with the provinces in the building of roads, namely the Department of Public Works.
I am thinking now of the trans-Canada highway arrangement under the Department of Public Works. Some time ago this department saw fit to make financial arrangements with provinces beyond the 50-50 program, and agreed to participate to the extent of 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the highway being built in a province. It would certainly seem to be sensible and in keeping with governmental policy for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to adopt the same attitude, the same sort of approach when it begins suggesting that contracts be drawn up with the provinces with regard to the roads to resources program. If it is sensible to pay 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the trans-Canada highway in each province, then it is equally sensible to pay 90 per cent of the cost of the so-called roads to resources program in which the government is also participating. I think this is something the minister should keep in mind; it is something that he should advocate to his colleagues in an attempt to have government policy, in so far as participation in road-building programs is concerned, at least uniform.
I certainly hope the situation which existed on the Stewart-Cassiar road and which was fostered by a number of people out there will not occur in the other provinces, because it has meant quite a set-back in the progress that could have been made on the building of that particular road. As the minister will know, there was quite a bit of conflict of opinion as to just where the southern terminus of that road would be. Would it start around Alice Arm, or Terrace, or Hazelton, or some other place along the line? In those communities there was conflict as to just where the southern terminus would be.
Unfortunately this controversy about the southern terminus came at the time of an election campaign, and as a result every political party and every candidate got into the controversy and suggested that the southern

terminus for the road should be here, there and so on. All that the controversy did was to delay the actual program of construction of the southern end of the road. For instance -I am not imputing these words to the minister-I was told this and the story was quite widespread in Alice Arm. I was told by a person from there, who during the election campaign had been visiting relatives in Saskatchewan, that he had met the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and told him that he came from Alice Arm and that this place was one of the sites being considered for the southern terminus of the road. He spread the story that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources absolutely guaranteed to him that Alice Arm would be the southern terminus of the road that is being built up there.
This was an unfortunate incident. Whether the minister said that is beyond my knowledge. I am sure that when I finish the minister will take the opportunity to indicate whether he did or did not say that, or whether he recollects saying it, but the fact is that the story was spread pretty far and wide, in Alice Arm particularly and in other communities out there, and all it did was help to stir up more animosity among the communities as to which was going to be the southern terminus.
Unfortunately it had a bad effect not only in that way, but it had a bad effect on one of the communities in so far as its economic position was concerned, namely the village of Stewart, which is now to be the southern terminus of the road. The people of the village of Stewart had a pretty rough time last winter and the winter before because this government and the provincial government could not make up their minds as to where the southern terminus of the road was going to be. They would not make up their minds because an election campaign was in the offing, and if they made up their minds they might alienate some support in the village of Stewart and in one or two of the other communities.
I should like to pose some questions with respect to this roads to resources program. The minister says that British Columbia is the only province which has signed a contract on the basis of 50-50 financial participation. Other provinces have not yet signed agreements. It was our understanding originally that the contracts would be identical and there would not be differing provisions in the case of one province with respect to the arrangements with the federal government. It was our understanding that the contracts would be uniform. I should like the minister to indicate what the differences are and
Supply-Northern Affairs what is the reason for the delay in signing contracts with other provinces.
The $15 million is to be split equally between the province of British Columbia and the federal government, with each contributing $1,500,000 a year for a period of five years. In so far as the Stewart-Cassiar road is concerned, the rough estimates of people who have lived in the region for many years and of engineers who have surveyed the road indicates that the cost will be closer to $20 million than $15 million. This is common knowledge, and has been ever since this program started and ever since the provincial government participated, through its department of mines, in building a section of the road near Cassiar many years before the federal or provincial governments started to think in terms of a roads to resources program.
I should like an indication from the minister of what will happen if the contractual obligation of the federal government to pay half of $15 million will not fully meet the cost of completing the road. What will happen then? Will additional provision be made in order to complete the road?
We have heard quite a bit of discussion about oil and gas leases and the development of industry in the Arctic, the Northwest Territories and on the continental shelf. I am sure the minister has this in mind, but I hope he will keep in mind and carry out this general philosophy when it comes to entering into agreements to develop resources in the northern part of Canada. The history of industrial development and expansion throughout Canada has not been good. There are many cases on record where governments, provincial and federal, in past years entered into a fire sale of our natural resources in their haste to get some sort of development program under way. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a case in point, where acres and acres of land were given away. Forest management licences in British Columbia are another case in point. The proposed Wenner-Gren program would be nothing but another fire sale of our natural resources to outside private interests.
This is one thing the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should guard against in his dealings with industrial people, particularly foreign and international concerns. He had better guard against entering into any sort of give-away program which will tie our children and our children's children to a contract which they cannot change in later years when some of them become members of parliament.
The minister has been referred to as a visionary. Of course I would classify him in the same way as the hon. member for

Supply-Northern Affairs Mackenzie River did the other day, when he quoted the dictionary definition of a visionary. The minister may be as dedicated and sincere as a person can be with respect to the development of our resources in the north. I do not question his sincerity, integrity or honesty in that regard but he should realize that neither he nor anyone else is infallible. We have no crystal ball in which we can see 30, 40 or 50 years ahead and determine whether what we do today will be acceptable and beneficial 50 years from now.
Experience has shown that past governments were not right in binding future generations to accept the give-away contracts into which they entered. We have found by sad experience in later years that previous governments were not so farsighted as they thought they were. We are now realizing the errors made by previous governments in attempting to have our natural resources developed and the production therefrom and the distribution of that production carried out in such a way as to be most beneficial to Canada and the citizens of other nations of the world. The minister must guard against that more than any other single thing. Do not be in any obscene haste, shall I say, to develop our natural resources. Do not give them away under conditions that bind the hands of the people of future generations, who may decide that the minister was not so clever after all, so that they will not be able to do anything about it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to thank the hon. member for Skeena for being kind enough to verify my honesty and integrity. I appreciate it very much after what has been happening in the last couple of days.


Frank Howard: I was not talking about statistical things.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Well, you are either on one side of the fence or the other.


Frank Howard: Oh, no.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As far as the
contracts with the provinces are concerned, we make a different arrangement with each province in order to fit the needs of that particular province. The province suggests the roads and we see that they meet our criteria. But with respect to all the legal provisions the agreements are identical. They follow the type of contract used in the case of the trans-Canada highway.
One new factor has come into the picture since last year which has affected the identical nature of the agreements with the provinces. That is the factor of time. The original proposal put forward by the federal government was that there would be a five-year

limit, and this was one of the causes for delay in getting agreements signed last fall. One of the provinces-Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact-took exception to the way the time payment clause would work out in effect. They asked for an extension of time. We asked the other provinces what they thought about it, and the final result was that we took out the five-year mandatory provision. You will find now that the new agreements run from five years to as high as eleven years, whatever is mutually agreeable between ourselves and the province.
The key clause to remember is that the maximum financial commitment by the federal government, agreed to earlier, is 50 per cent of $15 million over the period of time. With regard to the agreement with British Columbia, the provision of a maximum of $15 million is identical with the term that will be in the agreements with other provinces. If the estimate proves correct and the cost of the program is $20 million, then under the agreement the province has covenanted to complete the road, but there is no federal commitment to spend more than 50 per cent of $15 million during the life of the agreement.
With respect to the resources outside of the provinces, over which we have control, I can assure all hon. members that no person more than myself will seek every avenue to see that as much as possible these resources remain in the hands of Canadians or Canadian companies. I am not narrow in this matter at all. I welcome the setting up in Canada of subsidiaries of outside companies. I am very happy to welcome the interest of British, French, Swiss and Dutch capital at this time in our oil and gas resources.
I can assure the hon. member that I agree with him fully when he says that those in charge of resources have a great responsibility to remember that we hold these things in trust for future generations, and not to make commitments whereby we give away rights to our forests and mines for more than a reasonable period of time, and also to see that the terms of any agreement provide for renegotiation. I should not have used the word "mines" because there is a little different philosophy accepted in that regard. In so far as renewable resources are concerned, and even some that are not renewable, more and more we are thinking in terms of short term leases like 21 or 33 years than we are in terms of the perpetuity leases and these long leases of 200 or 300 years that used to be given occasionally.


Mr. Peters:: We are very pleased to find that this particular department has grown rapidly over the past two years and that it is now engaged, in co-operation with the

provinces, in many fields which were previously provincial in nature. We feel that this could be a good thing; and if the program the minister has outlined is accepted by the provinces, then a great deal of good can accrue from the work of this department.
These facts, Mr. Chairman, make this department one of the most important in the government and make this one of the most extensive departments, and the responsibilities of the minister have grown since he took office. This will all be to the good, provided it is used in an advantageous manner.
I was very interested yesterday in listening to the remarks made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. One of the problems he mentioned was the tourist industry, and in recent years we have heard of some of the problems connected with that particular industry. A few years ago in northern Ontario we used to receive a great number of tourists from the United States, but the number has been dwindling in recent years. I think there are several reasons for this, and some of the most important ones were pointed out by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. These include the establishment of new and modern tourist camps, and making money available to tourist operators so they can bring the accommodation they offer up to the standard the people from the United States desire.
There was another point raised in the committee, I understand, by the hon. member for Calgary South. This related to the fact that for a number of years we in Canada have concentrated in our advertising on the fact that we are a wild, rough, frontier country; that the people from the United States should come over to Canada and rough it. I do not believe the United States tourists want to come to Canada to rough it. I do not want to rough it, as we are told to do in the various tourist pamphlets. We have become accustomed to certain standards of accommodation, and I do not think we want to be told that the Indians are running around in their native habitat and we are going to spend a couple of weeks with them and this will be fun.
I do not believe that is what really happens, but I think it is the impression that many United States tourists are given. As the hon. member for Calgary South said, we should impress upon them that we are a civilized country; that we do have shows and the things to which the United States tourists have become accustomed. Then the United States tourist would come into this country knowing full well that his wife would be able to get the accommodation and facilities that she wants.
At the same time, these United States tourists will continue to push further into
Supply-Northern Affairs the hinterland, where conditions are not as good as they could be, and this will bring more money into those areas and give the tourist operators an opportunity of improving the standard of accommodation they offer. Then the United States tourists will be quite pleased with their visits to Canada and will continue to push farther into the undeveloped areas, thus enjoying many of the things those areas have to offer.
I should like to mention, as an example, that conditions around Moosonee were relatively primitive until a few years ago. Tourist operators there have improved their facilities and are bringing in United States citizens by the thousands for duck hunting and fishing. Once these people come for a specialized reason, they will come back after they find that Canada is not a bad place. I would encourage the minister to ask his people to continue to press for the establishment of standards that the government could recommend for use in these brochures that are sent into the United States. Nothing is more disheartening than to go into a tourist camp which you may think is rated No. 1 or No. 2 and find that with regard to cleanliness and food it is not even up to the most elementary standards.
I should like to say a word now on the progress the minister is making in connection with these roads to resources. I find it difficult to understand why Premier Frost of Ontario, who has been talking about northern development for some time, has not negotiated a program for building a resource road from Kapuskasing to Moosonee, and one from the town of Cochrane to Moosonee. Both these roads would open up large timber and mining areas. If these projects were undertaken next winter they would alleviate a great deal of the serious unemployment that has been prevalent in that area. With the developments that are taking place there, power will be available, and I would suggest to the minister that he ask for the co-operation of Premier Frost in developing resource roads in that part of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Before lunch, Mr. Chairman, I was suggesting how this department had been extended and how the work of the department had increased. This gives me some hope that in northern Ontario we shall see

Supply-Northern Affairs something of the natural resources development that we know can and must take place and the follow up, which will be the secondary industry which will follow the development of our natural resources. To do this I would believe that we are going to have to have a focal point on the shores of James bay, the town now commonly known as Moosonee. The provincial government has been very much interested in this project. I know the minister is interested in it. It was discussed widely during the last election. The Conservative party during the last election, and in particular the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, made several references to a railway from the town of Churchill, Manitoba to Moose Factory and that this would provide, as the press release points out, a rail link between the two settlements, each of which is connected now by rail with the outside and to open a large portion of the coast of Hudson bay to exploration and development.
The minister also pointed out that they were willing to spend $36 million to start a survey for the planned railway extension and Ottawa would probably pay the whole shot. It went on to say what this will mean to the economy of the country. Over a number of years the Ontario Northland railway which runs a line from North Bay to the port of Moosonee has been very much interested in this matter. After conducting a number of surveys into that field they have ascertained the cost necessary to develop a deep sea port. They have done considerable work on it. On a number of occasions the premier of the province has indicated his willingness to spend upwards of $5 million on this port. I would suggest that the minister of northern affairs, if he believes in the development of the north, can find no better focal point than the port of Moosonee which will open up all of the Hudson bay area to further development. Much of this development has been curtailed for the simple reason that there is no port at the railhead at Moosonee and ships of any size are unable at the present time to come into the port. This is a sea port on salt water. It has a five-foot or six-foot tide and would open up to Ontario a second route competing only with the St. Lawrence seaway as a route to Europe and the markets of that area.
Mr. Frost, when asked about this matter, is reported in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, January 16,	1959-the heading is
"Frost 'Expects' Federal Government to Build Moosonee Harbour"-as follows:
Premier Frost has indicated he expects the federal government to build the harbour at Moosonee planned by the Ontario government.

He goes on to point out that the jurisdiction falls within the scope of the federal government. A great deal of work has been done in this particular field. There are a number of reasons that would make this a centre of attraction for a development port in that particular area. A great deal has been said about it politically, economically and otherwise in the last twenty or thirty years. The day is coming closer and closer where some of the objects and the need for attention in that particular area become more and more important.
Mr. Chairman, we should just like to point to the development that took place on the mid-Canada line. The great amount of material that was sent into that line came through the port at Moosonee. Many difficulties were encountered because of the fact that this was not a deep port, a port sufficient to handle boats having a draft that would be necessary to carry the freight they have in that area. But continually during the summer small boats ply that area carrying fuel, food and all the necessary equipment for the maintenance of that line. I think it is quite clear that if this port had been in effect in the days when they started to build the D.E.W. line the expense of transportation involved in the building of that line would have been much less.
The Moosonee area on the Moose river near the south-western tip of James bay has been a port for small ships since 1673 when the Hudson's Bay Company established Moose Fort as a trading post. It was customary in the early days for these ships, which though small were of considerable draught, to lie at anchor near the mouth of the river at what was known as Ship Hole. Cargoes were lightered from that point to the fort about fourteen miles up stream. With the extension of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway to Moosonee fourteen miles from the mouth of the river, the Hudson's Bay Company ships, all of small tonnage, loaded and discharged cargo at the railhead. In 1956 ships of much greater tonnage and up to nine feet in draught took on cargo at Moosonee. Depending entirely on its natural advantages, Moosonee has become a practicable rail to ship transfer point. With port facilities and remedial works it could become an ocean port of prime importance.
Interest in Moosonee as a port is aroused at this time because of the very extensive deposits of iron ore which during the last few years have been outlined and evaluated on the Belcher islands and inland a distance of 37 miles from Great Whale on the southwest coast of Hudson bay. These deposits are now definitely known to contain hundreds of millions of tons of good concentrating ore

ranging from 35 per cent to 45 per cent iron. While the Belchers have no source of power and would have to depend on imported fuel, the iron deposits in the Great Whale area have three potential sources of hydroelectric power within a radius of 22 miles. Neither location will present any great difficulty in establishing proper port facilities and Great Whale has a naturally well-protected harbour.
The advantages of a route through Moosonee for shipments to and from either of these points must be apparent to anyone at all familiar with James and Hudson bays. At best the northern route through Hudson strait is restricted to a three-month navigation period. It has been proposed, in connection with the shipment of ore from the Belchers, that this short period might best be utilized by establishing stock piles of ore at some ice-free winter port, possibly in Greenland. While this may be feasible, it does involve the expense of two extra handlings of the ore as well as very extensive docks and ore handling facilities at the chosen port.
A route to the south through Moosonee, on the other hand, would normally be open to shipping for a period of five months and under much less hazardous conditions than on the northern route. Stockpiling, if desirable, to extend deliveries to destinations over the entire year, could readily be effected at Moosonee and without the expense of building docks for this sole purpose. If this Canadian ore is to be shipped abroad to be smelted and manufactured for the benefit of a foreign country, there is little point in presenting the advantages of the southern route. If, however, the prevailing official and national opinion that Canadian ores should be processed for the benefit of Canada is to prevail, there is every argument in favour of the southern route.
Mining operations in remote areas can progress only if given transportation facilities which ensure prompt deliveries during the navigation season. Such deliveries could be made through Moosonee and by no other route. A return trip from Moosonee to the Belchers or to Great Whale could be made, with cargo in each direction, within a week or ten days. From Montreal by the all-water route two round trips during the navigation season are all that could be reasonably expected. It might further be pointed out that perishable foodstuffs, greatly to be desired in northern latitudes could readily be transported over the Moosonee route, whereas the all-water route would make this difficult and extremely expensive.
While the Moosonee route has the obvious advantages of a longer navigation season and
Supply-Northern Affairs is time saving, it also presents unique opportunity for additional savings. With hydroelectric power available from existing and potential sites on the Abitibi river, conversion of low grade iron ores to concentrates of 65 per cent iron content could readily be carried out. By using the natural gas which will be available in northern Ontario this year this process might be carried a step further, by a recently perfected process, to the production of pig iron directly from the ore. Such an advance would materially reduce the carrying charges over the railway portion of the route and at the same time establish a highly desirable industry with its consequential allyear round employment in northern Ontario.
It may be suggested that once the traffic in iron ore has been established the route would be of considerable advantage to the promotion of the development of other mineral deposits in northern areas. It would prove a direct incentive for intensive prospecting and development over a wide area with enduring possibilities. It could also be-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if the hon. member obtained unanimous consent of the house he could file this statement.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, if that suggestion were put into practice there is no question in my mind that it would make a lot less effective many of the speeches of even the hon. member. It would prove a direct incentive for intensive prospecting and development over a wide area, which I am sure would add to the vision that the minister has seen in that particular area.
So much for the advantages of this rail and water route from the awakening northland to the heart of industrial Canada. It is a development which must be undertaken immediately. This proposed route has been suggested. Development work has been done by a number of people. Development work started in 1911 when the federal government, under E. C. Ells, undertook a survey of this area. Many surveys and many phases of development and potential development have been carried out since that time. On one occasion the navy was interested in this and an extensive survey was carried out. From these surveys it has been readily assumed that the work of dredging from Ship Sands to the port of Moosonee can be easily undertaken. Docks can be established on the shore to provide docking facilities. These can be built into the shore where there is quite a height of land. This can be done so that ice and other conditions which exist each spring will no longer be a hazard, and dredges can be put into that area as they have been in

Supply-Northern Affairs the past. It has been established that dredging work can be maintained, and that when the silt and the gravel at the bottom of the river is removed the natural flow of water itself will keep this port open.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite easy for all hon. members to understand what this can mean to northern Ontario. If we have a flow of traffic, whether it be ore going south or north into the European markets, secondary industry will obviously follow in that area to supply the needs of the mining communities which will be set up in the area of the Belcher islands. This development is absolutely essential in northern Ontario where mining, particularly gold, has reached its apex and no further developments have taken place in that field. We have large cities and communities which are completely dependent upon the natural resources they were built to supply and maintain, and as these industries decrease and the mines are worked out it is absolutely necessary for this department to supply the leadership necessary to develop secondary industries, and I suggest to the minister that this is probably one of the most effective ways.
Just as an added incentive, it has been established in the last few months that the work that is being done in northern defence in connection with the Bomarc missile site in North Bay will mean the installation in James bay of heavy radar equipment and communication equipment. I would suggest that this is an opportunity for the minister to put into force somethiing which will be much more effective than the $3 million his department is now spending at Father Point, Quebec, near Rimouski. If the department is in a position to build a port, which I suggest to the minister is probably very badly needed in the area, there is all the more incentive for the minister to give consideration, in conjunction with Premier Frost and the Ontario government, to the building of Ontario's first salt water port at Moosonee.
The result of this will be more than beneficial to northern Ontario, because it will mean a flow from the industrial part of Ontario through northern Ontario and into the European market. This route will establish a much faster and cheaper method of transporting goods into the northern parts of Europe. I suggest that if the minister takes a look at the vision of which he spoke, this port is much more important than building a railway from Churchill down to Moose Factory. We would much more appreciate a port so that we can go by water from Moosonee to Churchill. I think this port will give the minister all the added facilities that he would need if he wishes to

transfer some of the grain shipments from the port of Churchill to a port at Moosonee, where he would be able to take advantage of a shorter route from Winnipeg than we now enjoy.
For these reasons I suggest to the minister that he go into northern Ontario this summer to take a look at the facilities there, discuss with the premier of Ontario, who has made many statements about his willingness to co-operate and spend Ontario's money in this regard, and that the federal government give the leadership in the jurisdiction they have assumed. It will be very advantageous to northern Ontario, and I am sure it will give the impetus necessary to supply northern Ontario with secondary industries.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I want to raise having to do with the general administration by the minister of the items voted to the department by parliament. The matter arises out of what has been said in the discussion of this item so far, and it has to do with his whole attitude concerning the administration and allocation of the funds voted by parliament. We heard the discussion about the Prince Albert bridge and we heard the extraordinary argument advanced that the contribution to that bridge was made under the item under the minister's jurisdiction No. 280 and under the corresponding item last year. Item 280 reads as follows:
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.
Two points arise from this. There is no specific reference to bridges, but I take it that bridges would be included under the item relating to roads; they are an integral part of a road system. I take that to be elementary. But the particular road with which we are concerned and in respect of which money was voted by parliament under the item I have just read is a road which, as I understand from the debate, starts 150 or 175 miles to the north of the bridge. It starts at Lac la Ronge and extends from there a considerable number of miles northward. In other words, there is a gap between the bridge in question and the roads to which parliament has authorized contributions to be made, a gap of some 150 miles. A road to the start of the authorized road is already in existence and, presumably, has been provided by the province and there was, of course, a bridge in existence which was serving that road. I take it the bridge with which we are now concerned is to be an

additional bridge in Prince Albert. It does seem to me that it is stretching the language used in the estimates unreasonably to interpret the expression "roads to resources" to include bridges which are some 150 miles away. It is not realistic at all.
While I have no doubt that the bridge is a very good bridge and that it is needed very badly, I am raising this other part of the question. Is the minister using funds which have been voted for a particular purpose set out by parliament for what appears to be another purpose altogether? Surely we are entitled to some better information and explanation than the minister has so far given us. If there is no better explanation, then, surely, proper legislative authority should be brought forward regularizing what has been done. Certainly nothing which the minister has said so far, either in this debate or in answer to questions which were put to him on earlier occasions when this matter was referred to, can be regarded as satisfactory. Something further will have to be done, either by way of enlarging on the answer given on those occasions or by way of an indication of an authority other than that which is to be found in the item which I have just read. Hon. members will see that there will be no control whatever over the use of funds voted under this item which deals with access roads leading to resources under agreements with the provinces, unless a stricter standard is adhered to. One could find examples which would reduce this whole situation to absurdity, in the light of the distance which the minister has gone today.
The point I wish to make is that the minister must apply the moneys voted by parliament for the purposes for which they were voted. They may not be used by the department under his direction in any way which seems desirable, no matter how laudable the purpose may be. No one who has listened to the discussion on this first item so far can fail to be alarmed, because not only had we this example but we had a rather extraordinary explanation and argument coming from the minister on another point when he was dealing with some statistical information he had given as to development permits for oil and gas when the hon. gentleman argued that development permits and applications were one and the same thing. Looseness of view of that kind, when applied to all these matters, could become serious.
One further question arises, and perhaps I may deal with this same item as an example. The minister, in his answer to questions on July 4 and July 6, concerning the roads to resources program gave some very strange
Supply-Northern Affairs answers indeed. If he would refer to a question asked on July 4 this session, as appears in Hansard on page 5469, he will find the following exchange-I will try to paraphrase the question and answer, but it is there for any hon. member to see who wishes to read it. The minister was asked about federal assistance for an extensive highway program in northern Manitoba, and in answer he said the province was already working on certain of the roads, but an agreement had not yet been signed. Then, in answer to a supplementary question, he said that the road about which inquiry had been made was a part of the roads to resources program. Then there was a question about the limit of the funds that could be spent, and the minister went on to explain the amount that could be provided. What concerns me with regard to this aspect of the question is that on July 6 the minister was asked which provinces had signed agreements dealing with the roads to resources program, to which the minister replied: "British Columbia". In other words, he made it abundantly clear that Manitoba had not yet signed such an agreement. I point out to the committee once again, that the item under discussion reads:
Contributions to provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces.
Observe that there is a definite limitation in that item. There must be an agreement between Canada and the province concerned. I should like to ask the minister to what extent has he been spending funds under this item prior to an agreement being reached and, if he has been spending moneys in this way as his answer would indicate, what is his authority for such expenditure? By what right has he spent this money, because not only must there be a vote-there is an interim supply vote-but there must be an agreement with the province. That limitation is imposed, and I think the minister would agree with me that this is a serious matter. If there is some authority of which I am not aware, I wish the minister would clear up this matter. If there is not, may I say to him that I regard it as a serious thing and something which ought to be clarified by the proper authority and regularized in the proper way, because if the minister will consider the other items in his estimates he would realize how far one could go in applying them if I am right in the facts as I have put them forward.
You can see how, for instance, under construction or acquisition of buildings and works, arising out of the reallocation of the town of Aklavik, item 279, the same principle
5862	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs could be applied to some other city in the country or area, and so on. One could give unlimited examples. I think the minister will agree, and I think all hon. members will agree, that the method of providing the funds through these estimates, with the approval of parliament, is a method that provides for a precise procedure. The bringing forward of these estimates by the government is not in the nature of giving the department a blank cheque. The expenditure cannot be defended merely on the grounds that it is a good expenditure in the circumstances. It must be defended as being within the authority granted by parliament. It is with that point in mind that I would like the minister to clear up these matters.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To speak to the last matter first, there are letters between the governments which in effect legally form the agreement. With our legal representatives we are in the process of working out the terms of the final agreement. In the meantime I am informed that the letters between the two governments have the legal effect of an agreement.
As for the changing of the wording of the vote to cover such things as bridges in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, and the special deal in Ontario, I think we can take that under consideration. But the putting in of the bridges was well known to all of the officials and I think it is legally sound, but I will inquire. I cannot give the answer off-hand.


George James McIlraith: The point I am making in both cases has not to do with the appropriateness of the particular works undertaken or whether or not the federal government should in fact contribute to them. The point has to do with the legal situation.
I want to pursue the point about the highway in Manitoba. I understood the minister to say that there had been an exchange of letters between the province of Manitoba and the federal government as to the roads to resources program, and I take it from his remarks he expects the agreement will be signed shortly. My question is this: Did he, or did anyone, raise the point I have raised and did he obtain a report from justice, or indeed from any other authority, as to the propriety of his spending the money provided under the vote I have mentioned before the agreement was signed? I do not think there is any legal authority for expending it before the agreement is signed. I could be wrong. I do not set my opinion up against another opinion; if one has been obtained, I would like to see it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand it, the legal authority for the vote


cannot be applied for unless the work is finished. No money has been spent under these votes because the money will not be paid until the agreement is signed. There is one exception, which was taken up with treasury board officials, because it was work that had been completed entirely on one portion of a project in Saskatchewan. They asked for an advance and we gave them an advance on it; but legally you cannot pay until the agreements are signed.


George James McIlraith: That is precisely my point. Then some money was paid before there was legal authority. What protection is there? I want to make myself perfectly clear in this. My concern arises out of what I fear to be a loosening up of the financial control by the commons over expenditures. I think that is very important and a rather basic matter in our parliamentary system. We had a case the other day in the Department of National Defence where an expenditure was being made on the termination of a contract that had been terminated last year; but it was being provided through a vote for the acquisition of materiel. I pointed it out to the minister and he undertook to have the point looked into. Then the debate today and last night on this same point rather alarmed me. In addition to the two instances I have mentioned the minister has said that there was an expenditure made in Saskatchewan, although there is no agreement with Saskatchewan. I wonder whether the minister will have this whole practice looked at and get a legal opinion on it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall be glad to, but I would think that the members of the treasury board before whom I placed this application of Saskatchewan for an advance payment would have examined into the legal implications of that payment, Mr. Chairman. It was discussed by the officials of treasury board, with full treasury board, and it was agreed upon. I shall be glad to look into it again.


George James McIlraith: I hope the minister will not find me too persistent when I say I do not find the treasury board infallible. I find it tending to be used very often as an excuse and sometimes blamed for a great many things. I must take the view that I neither regard them as infallible nor as the last word in any of these matters. I still think that parliamentary control is the last word in these matters of voting the taxpayers' money and must be preserved as the last word. The mere fact that treasury board said it is all right to do it may be the beginning of a very bad practice. I hope that he will not be too

respectful of the mere say-so of the treasury board, with all deference to it.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, this whole question of roads to resources is something which is very close to the hearts of my constituents in northern Alberta. I am very pleased to see that there is some hope that the mines committee may go north, and I hope that they will look into the northern half of Alberta while they are touring the north country because the transportation facilities up there are just about unbelievable. McMurray and Waterways are 150 miles from the nearest road, and our province is so vast that it is apparently outside the ability of the provincial legislature to build roads into those outlying communities where the population is small but the need is great.
I am only too pleased to see that the policy of the northern affairs department is flexible enough to provide such things as access bridges which make it possible to get onto what roads they do have in the north country.
We have another bottleneck apart from the physical bottleneck and that is the political one. The government of Alberta refuses to build roads into the north for reasons perhaps best known to themselves. I represent this great northern community but it is very difficult for me to get transportation facilities into those northern districts without emphasizing the needs to the northern affairs department in the hope that the roads to resources program may give them the only hope they have for a road. This also has a bearing on the question of building a railway up through my constituency. I have been accused at times of not pressing this railway as vigorously as I should. This is not the point. A good road into McMurray and Waterways would drastically reduce freight rates into the north and this would speed up the development of the whole of the north country from McMurray and Waterways right clean down to the Mackenzie delta and the whole of the Canadian shield. It is my considered opinion that a good all-weather road north between Edmonton and McMurray would do more to reduce freight costs in that whole country than anything else we could do. It may be significant that the only Liberal member returned in Alberta was from a provincial riding in my district where he has made himself vocal about transportation. These people, desperate as they are for transportation, saw fit to return a Liberal member to the legislature.


George James McIlraith: That was a good thing to do.


Mr. Churchill:: What happened to the other 14?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am quite sure that if I had been able to promise them something from the dominion side the situation would have been different. Certainly it appears that if we rely on the Social Credit party to produce roads to the resources of the north we will wait a long time. I should like to suggest to the department that if the Alberta provincial government should make any suggestions as to building this road we should give them very careful attention not only politically but from the point of view of the development of the whole of the north country.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, first of all I think I should take this occasion to compliment the minister at least on his industry and zeal. I cannot agree that he always makes the right moves, but then there is the old story that the only man who does not make a mistake is the man who does not do anything. Certainly I think the minister has shown considerable industry and zeal in the pursuit of his duties in the department.
I should also like to say that I think the standing committee on mines, forests and waters did an outstanding job both this year and last year in dealing with the estimates of the department. I think their actions have been an example that many of the other committees could follow.
This department deals with the far north and I prefer that description because the riding I represent has been known for many years as the "north" and we have always considered ourselves as such. When this new great northern vision came along in the last federal election the people of northern Ontario more or less got the feeling that they were being by-passed, that they were no longer the north. I do not know whether you would call that area the near north, but it seemed that all the direction and energy of the federal government with regard to this vision was concentrated on the far north and by-passed the northern part of Ontario.
Of course, it is true that the government has continued, as the former government did, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and has increased the assistance under that legislation. But many people, particularly in my riding, which possibly is affected as much as any riding in Canada by this legislation, have thought for a long time that rather than subsidizing these gold mines there might be other methods of using this money that would better implement the original intention of the legislation, that is, the maintenance and development of the mining municipalities of northern Ontario. That is why I was so pleased today, along with the hon. member

Supply-Northern Affairs for Burnaby-Coquitlam, to hear the new policy announced by the minister. I think that the municipalities in the area I represent will certainly be very pleased to know that any assistance along this line may not necessarily be confined to more northerly regions and that if a case can be prepared justifying local assistance it will receive favourable consideration similar to that extended to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
However, Mr. Chairman, I think I should warn the minister at this stage that if any bridges are going to be built in northern Ontario he should keep a very close eye on them. We have learned from bitter experience in the past that bridges in northern Ontario by the Ontario government have a habit of disappearing and that although you may pay for them you are never able to find them. I suggest that if the construction of any bridges is embarked upon in this area the minister and his officials should keep a very close eye on them. Any assistance along this line will certainly be a terrific boon to the area I represent.
One thing that the area has needed for many years has been the opportunity to participate in the tourist industry but the industry has always fallen a little short of reaching our area. We are very hopeful that this situation can be corrected in the not too distant future. Certainly any consideration that the minister and his department can give to assistance along this line will be very much appreciated. We have all watched with some interest the recent development whereby the town of Timmins, which for many years has been known for its production of gold, suddenly became internationally known over night for its production of bears. I am sure that in the future that will stimulate the interest of many tourists in the area.
I should also like to endorse heartily the remarks of the hon. member for Timiska-ming with regard to a port at Moosonee. If this very worth-while project is carried out the area I represent will no longer be the end of the line as it has been in the past. I think that possibly one of the greatest drawbacks to the establishment of secondary industries has been the fact that the area was the end of the line, and if the project to establish a salt water port at Moosonee is ever embarked upon it will have very beneficial effects.
Possibly one of the biggest shadows hanging over any mining municipality is the fact that the gold, or whatever the mineral is, is an expendable resource. There is always hanging over people's heads the thought that some day, be it ten years or fifty years from now, the ore will be exhausted in the area and, of course, that creates a sense of urgency

with respect to the need for other industries and occupations to take up the slack which inevitably will come. Any development of the port or of the area leading up to the port of Moosonee will lead to new mineral exploration so that the secondary industries may very well be new mineral projects.
I should also like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena when he warned the minister to guard rather carefully our resources which, to use the minister's own words, we hold in trust for future generations. In today's Globe and Mail I noticed something which bears this out very well. I do not know whether hon. members have read this article on page 7 of today's paper. It deals with the big nickel development in northern Manitoba. It is a fantastic story, one which most people would never even dream could happen in Canada today. I should like to put a few excerpts from the article on Hansard. It deals, of course, with the giant company that put up $175 million to develop this resource in northern Manitoba.
The provincial government was so delighted to see this new industry established that they leaped before they thought. They tied themselves up under agreements and it did not take very long for them to rue the day. In fact, I believe even before the industry had gone into production they were finding, to their grief, they should have been a little more careful before they signed this agreement. The article deals with a member of the provincial legislature who wanted to go into the area to see what was transpiring in this new municipality of Thompson in northern Manitoba. Here is what happened, and I shall read from this article:
He telephoned Inco at Winnipeg.
This was to procure a train ticket to go into this area. He was told no by a company executive.
Mr. Orlikow could not go to Thompson: There wasn't room for him there. Under the agreements the company owned everything. The railways could not even sell a ticket into Thompson, except to persons with a company pass.
Of course Mr. Orlikow, the provincial M.L.A., did not possess this pass. Then, when he decided to go in anyway, according to this article, he found that he could not rent a room because all the buildings were owned by the company and the people did not feel free to rent him a room. So he wanted to know if he could buy a tent and camp in the town.
The article reads:
No, the town's zoning regulations prevented camping. Could he camp across the river from the town? No, under the agreements, the town controlled all such practices in the vicinity, even though, of course, it was crown land.

Then farther down on the page we find this:
Provincial officers went to Thompson to arrange a poll in the provincial election. No, said the company, there could be no poll on company property. It had to be a mile away. The result: 50 of Thompson's 1,000 voters cast ballots. A new inquiry has been started by the municipal affairs department to see what the election act has to say about that.
This illustrates very clearly the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena this morning to the effect that great care must be taken, and we must not leap in too quickly in signing agreements which could lead to situations such as this. The hon. member for Skeena mentioned what may happen 50 or 100 years from now, but here we have an example of what happens a few years after such an agreement is signed. In fact, the closing paragraph of this article poses a very significant question:
The question government lawyers want to answer: Just how much can you buy with $175 million?
So, Mr. Chairman, I would once again say how much we welcome the new policy the minister announced this morning. However, there is one thought that occurs to me. I understand that one province has already signed an agreement with the federal government with regard to these roads to resources. Now we find a new policy has been announced from that which I imagine was on the table during the discussions with the province that has already signed. I think this may hinder or further delay the signing of agreements with other provinces because when they see this change they will hope that there may be further changes in the future, and this could lead to considerable delay of this worth-while project in connection with roads to resources.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I should like to say just another word in connection with the bridge in the city of Prince Albert. I was wondering why the federal government was so generous to a city which is 150 miles away from the first road to resources. I should like the minister to confirm to us the truth or falseness of what a Conservative member told me. He said this generosity was to make an alliance between the C.C.F. and the Conservatives so they could more easily defeat the Liberals in that province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was
wondering, too, whether perhaps the transaction could be summarized in another way. Perhaps this bridge was not so much for access to natural resources as for the conservation of political resources. I did not rise to discuss the bridge in Prince Albert, and I do not intend to make a speech. I am sure that will be very reassuring to the hon. member for
Supply-Northern Affairs Cariboo. However, if I may borrow a phrase used by the hon. member for Cariboo this morning, in one of the windier answers given in this house by the minister-it is rather difficult to compare one of the minister's answers with another on that particular score, but this one was exceptionally inflated-given on June 10 to a starred question asked by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, we find the following. The question reads as follows:
Have any measures been taken since March 31, 1958, to implement a national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces,-
You will note the limitation upon the question, since March 31, 1958.
-having regard to their differing needs and varying financial capabilities.
I have no doubt the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador used that language because, although it is rather windy, it happens to be the precise language that was used in the Atlantic manifesto of the Tory candidates in the 1957 election. We were naturally anxious to find out how much had been done toward carrying out these windy promises. The minister then took it upon himself to answer this question:
If so, what are those measures?
I am not going to read this long, windy answer. I am only going to give you two or three examples of the things the minister claimed to have done since March 31, 1958. One of them was the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, which was put on the statute books, of course, when the Liberal party was in office; another was the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and so it goes. One could give a number of similar examples of the things the minister claimed were done since March 31, 1958.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They were increases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All of these items were of somewhat earlier origin, and I was going to ask the committee if I could have permission of the committee-the minister said they were all increases.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Over what the Liberals gave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I could have the permission of the committee, I should like to place on the record a document which was prepared in the office of the economic adviser, Department of Trade and Commerce, for a seminar of the Atlantic provinces council at Fredericton on September 14, to 16, 1955. This document is entitled "Federal Government Assistance Programs in the
5866	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Atlantic Provinces". It seems to me in view of the claims that have been made if we could have this basic information available in Hansard we would then have a background to which to refer what has been done since that time. I wonder if I could have the permission of the committee? I could, of course, read it.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be perfectly
within my rights to read it.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member unanimous consent of the committee to put this document on the record?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I could read it within the half-hour allotted me, if that is the preference of the committee, but I do not intend to take advantage of the rules of the house by doing that. I have not been extended a courtesy which I think I have invariably accorded so far as I was concerned to hon. members on the treasury benches ever since I sat over here. It is very exceptional, I might say, not to afford such a courtesy when a document is an official document. Since I have not that courtesy, thanks to the generous attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is now leading the house and who is not very pleased with something that was produced in his own department-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very pleased with what is produced in the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I shall just content myself with reading a list of the programs which are listed on this document and will not go beyond that point. But I think they will indicate fairly clearly that a great deal was being done in this field before the advent on the federal scene of the hon. gentleman who is now presiding over this department. The programs listed are as follows:
1.	Transportation subventions-coal movements.
2.	Subsidy payments on coal used in manufacture of Iron and steel.
3.	Coal production subsidies, loans and rentals.
4.	Coal production assistance.
5.	Export subsidy-coal.
6.	Steamship subventions for coastal services.
7.	Freight assistance.
8.	Fishing bounty.
9.	Bait service-fisheries.
10.	Bounty for destruction of harbour seals.
11.	Educational service for fishermen.
12.	Industrial development-fisheries.
13.	Assistance in construction of fishing vessels.
14.	Construction of bait-freezing and storage facilities.
15.	Assistance in reclaiming and developing marshlands of the maritimes.
16.	Agricultural lime assistance.


That is another thing that the minister claimed credit for in his answer he gave the other day.
17.	Freight assistance on western feed grains.
18.	Assistance-cheese and cheese factories
19.	Premiums on hog carcasses.
20.	Assistance in removal of apple trees.
21.	Assistance in the construction of coal storage warehouses.
22.	Canadian farm loan board operations.
23.	Loans for farm improvement.
24.	Forest protection, development and utilization.
25.	Assistance to combat spruce budworm infestation.
26.	Industrial development bank.
27.	Assistance to defence industries.
28.	General health grants.
29.	National Housing Act operations.
Then there is a long list of projects which I should like to have put on Hansard but which I do not think-


Mr. Lambert:: You had plenty of time earlier.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not take that time earlier today. I recognized the fact that there were a great many hon. members, including some supporters of the government who wanted to speak and who do not speak perhaps as often as I do in the house.


An hon. Member:: That is impossible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I waited until they had all had an opportunity before I had anything to say. I may say that I shall not forget the courtesy that I have been extended this afternoon.


Norman Platt Lambert: Neither will we.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But notwithstanding that fact I shall not attempt at this time to put this list of projects on Hansard.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Put on the
figures that were put on these things compared with the figures when you were in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have been very happy to do so if hon. gentlemen opposite had accorded me the courtesy sought. I am quite willing to read them in.


Mr. Aiken:: I rise on a point of order. This matter has been mentioned two or three times and I should like to clear it up now. The objection did not come from the treasury benches. I think that point should be clarified. It came from some of the backbenchers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The objection came from the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


An hon. Member:: It was unanimous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and he was ably seconded, as he so often is, by the hon. and distinguished member for Victoria.


An hon. Member:: He was not even here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. gentleman's intervention.


Mr. McPhillips:: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I had nothing to do with this matter. 1 was not in the committee when this incident occurred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understood the hon. gen-leman to be expressing his approbation when he made his intervention; but if I have done him any injustice I will, of course, apologize.
There is one aspect of this answer that is extremely curious indeed and that is that it does not mention any project that was started after March 31, 1958. It is true- and I want to be quite fair to the hon. gentleman-that it does mention the Atlantic provinces grants and it also mentions the Atlantic power development, both of which were, of course, initiated before March 31, 1958. But the one thing that is very clear from these several pages of Hansard which the Minister used in purporting to give an answer to that question about what was being done by the government is that, in fact, nothing new whatever has been undertaken since March 31, 1958. That is the point that I wanted particularly to draw to the attention of the committee. I should like also to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the minister was accorded the courtesy of putting on Hansard a long answer without being asked to read it.
I now come to another question that was answered by the minister. This was a question answered on July 1 and asked by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska or rather, it was asked by the hon. member for Gloucester. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is not very often here. The question was:
1.	What is the total amount of money provided in estimates for advances in accordance with agreements entered into or to be entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. for each of the fiscal years since the said act came into force?
The answers given to that question are, of course, in conformity with what appeared in the estimates and I do not think I need to burden the committee with them. The answers I want to draw attention to are the answers to the second and third parts of this question. The second part is as follows:
2.	What is the total amount actually spent in the province of Nova Scotia for each of the fiscal years mentioned in question 1?
There is no answer to question 2 for the first fiscal year, namely 1957-58 so I take it that no money was spent. In the second fiscal year the amount actually spent was approximately $1,130,000 and that is all there
Supply-Northern Affairs is any record of actually being spent. But the minister, with that anticipatory quality which characterizes all his utterances, then refers to the fiscal year 1959-60 and he gives an estimate of what the claims may amount to, and that figure is $7,739,684.48. I must say that it sounds like extraordinarily close estimating when the year is not more than a quarter over. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the result of this kind of misleading answer was the stories appearing in the press about $9 million for power this year. We have not any notion at all whether in fact-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Is the hon. member suggesting that I misled the house in giving information at to what we spent this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question asks what is the total amount spent. It does not ask for estimates of what may be spent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member again to ask him a pointblank question. I do not want any diversion. I asked him whether he is saying in the committee here that I misled the house by saying this is the amount of money that would be spent in the province of Nova Scotia this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am saying that the question-


Norman Platt Lambert: Answer the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall answer it in my own way and I will need no assistance from the hon. member for Edmonton West. I do not think the minister will like my answer very much, however. The question which was asked and which he purports to answer was what was the total amount actually spent. This is the answer he gave.
Fiscal year 1959-60, (province estimates claims may amount to)-
That is not actually spent, and I say that that is a misleading answer and it is a very characteristic misleading answer from this minister. It is exactly on a par with describing applications as permits. I proceeded-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the expression the hon. member used, "a characteristic misleading answer", implies that the minister is continually misleading the house. I suggest that that expression should be withdrawn.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in this house repeatedly by members on both sides of the house that other hon. members had mislead the house, and the Chair, as well as the

Supply-Northern Affairs Speaker, has not required the so-called precisely the kind of trouble the minister offending member to withdraw those words himself admitted he got the Prime Minister because they are not considered un- into in Montreal on May 8. parliamentary.	Mr. Lambert: You should know.


Charles Edward Rea: I did not hear the hon. member say that the minister had deliberately done so-and-so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the words "characteristic misleading answer" imply that this is a constant practice-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member says it is, and therefore I say that he must withdraw that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not imputing any motives of any kind. I have read an answer to a question which asked for facts, and the answer gave estimates. I say that is a misleading answer. I am not saying that the minister deliberately intended to mislead us; he may have been just confused. In fact, I am more inclined to believe the latter than the former. But I am saying that the answer is misleading, and it is just as misleading as the sort of thing we had this morning, and it is just as misleading as describing applications as permits.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I can say is
that if the hon. member picks his own practice the house will judge it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister may reply when I have finished.


Norman Platt Lambert: Finish now, Hurricane
Jackson.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I started to say when I was interrupted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I presided over a department which is now presided over by the hon. lady from Hamilton, where we had many thousands of applications from people every year to come to Canada, but it never occurred to me to count all those applicants as immigrants. But the minister gets applications for claims up in the Arctic islands and calls them permits. I submit that is in fact misleading. Whatever the minister's motives may be, that is what I am talking about, this constant suggestion that something that may or may not happen in the future has already happened. I know that people who have served in opposition as long as the hon. gentleman did get the habit of thinking that when they say something it is equivalent to an action; but you find when sitting on the treasury benches that if you have not facts to back up these assertions you get yourself into


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When will you start telling the truth?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest he has done exactly the same sort of thing in these answers in the house. In actual fact nothing new whatever has been done. Nothing new whatever has been initiated since March 31, 1958 in the Atlantic provinces to implement that pledge which was made in 1957.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Utter nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To find out was the purpose of these questions. Now I want to come to the third question, and that is-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the page in Hansard, may I ask?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 5328, Hansard for July 1. The third question is:
What Is the total amount actually spent in the province of New Brunswick for each of the fiscal years mentioned in question 1?
Of course there is no amount spent in the first of the three-no, I beg the minister's pardon, there was a small amount spent in respect of the first fiscal year, that is 1957-58, though it is noted that that payment was made on February 6, 1959. I do not understand the accounting practices which make it possible to do that. I understood you could make payments up until about June and charge them to the previous year, but it seems rather a long time to be making a payment on February 6 and charging it to the previous fiscal year. But there is conceivably an explanation, and it is probably that the province incurred that expenditure and that this was a reimbursement, and if that is the explanation I certainly would not say it is necessarily misleading. Then for the fiscal year 1958-59, transmission facilities were $364,000. Coal subventions were $562,000, and then there is an item called "Claims on hand". I do not know whether that is supposed to indicate that there has been an expenditure made or that that is some expenditure which the minister expects to make, but since he was asked what expenditures were actually made it would seem to me that unless that represents actual money paid out it is misleading. Then for the fiscal year 1959-60, there is a coal subvention of $83,000. I do not know whether that is an actual payment or an estimate. Then there is another item called "Province's estimate", but it does not even say what it is the province's estimate of. I want to point out again that these items are supposed to

represent the answer to a question asking for actual money paid out, and that the most substantial amount, all but $8 million of something over $10 million, is for something called "Province's estimate", and another is for "Claims on hand" about which it is very hard to make everything.
The fourth question is:
Of the amounts mentioned in questions 2 and 3, what sum has been spent (a) in Nova Scotia: (b) in New Brunswick, for the construction of thermo plants?
This is the answer:
(a)	It is estimated that $3,459,883.00 may be paid-
May be paid.
-in 1959/60 in connection with a 20 megawatt thermal plant at Trenton.
In other words, evidently nothing whatever has been paid, because I am sure if anything had the minister would have told us.
(b)	It is estimated that $5,632,953.00 may be paid-
May be paid.
-in 1959/60 in connection with the East Saint John plant.
Now, we have been told at other times by the minister that there is no agreement whatever with the province about this East Saint John plant. We were told last year by the Minister of National Revenue that nothing would be paid for that East Saint John plant unless it used coal. The Minister of National Revenue gave a categorical undertaking in this house that in no circumstances would the federal government pay any sum whatever for that plant unless it used coal. We do not know whether it will use coal. We do not know whether there will be any agreement, or whether any federal money is going to be paid. I do not know whether there is an agreement about the Trenton plant. I do not know whether we have ever been told. But I do say that here again we have another example of this minister inflating things which may or may not happen and representing them in language which gives the impression that it is something that already has happened. It was to correct the record, sir, that I took the time of the committee.


Frank Howard: Before this vote passes,
perhaps I might have dealt with this question under another item, but I think this might be a more appropriate place to deal with it. I understand the department in some respects has jurisdiction with respect to Indians in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and I wonder if the minister might be able to explain the line of demarcation of authority as between the Indian affairs branch and his own department so far as Indians in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are concerned?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to do with Indians in the Northwest Territories with the exception of education, and there is an agreement between the commissioner of the Northwest Territories and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to Indian education.


Frank Howard: Then education comes under the Indian affairs branch?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is an agreement with the department of northern affairs.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the minister would explain, again, what that agreement is. I understood him to say there is an agreement between the commissioner of the Northwest Territories and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And, of course, there is another agreement with us, and under this agreement we look after the education of Indians within the territories.


Frank Howard: Is there any liaison or consultation with the educational division of the Indian affairs branch in so far as a uniform curriculum is concerned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the Northwest Territories we have one curriculum for Eskimos, Indians and whites. There is no liaison as far as I know in regard to education with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Frank Howard: Would that curriculum be comparable to the curriculum established and operated by the Indian affairs branch, or to one established in a particular province, or in all the provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Generally
speaking, the curriculum in the Northwest Territories is fashioned more closely on that of Alberta than on that of any of the other provinces, but we are trying to make it a satisfactory curriculum suitable to the children of all races in the Northwest Territories, planned to meet their needs and not the needs of a province.


William Arnold Peters: Before this item passes I should like to ask the minister if he could give the committee a report on what is being done in the port at Moosonee.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This matter has been discussed between the government of Ontario and the federal government on numerous occasions. It is mostly a matter for the Department of Public Works. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is interested in the resources of the Belcher and Nastapoka islands and the

Supply-Northern Affairs continental shelf in James bay and Hudson bay, but at the present time no decisions have been reached.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have one question which I wish to put to the minister. I do not ask for an answer immediately, but perhaps he could let us have it before the estimates are concluded. Would the minister give an answer on exactly comparable basis to the answer he gave on March 9 to the hon. member for Mackenzie River, giving a breakdown for the total number of permits granted on the mainland up to the present time? The figure was for about three million acres and I think that on March 9 the minister gave a total figure of something like 60 million acres for which permits had been granted. If the hon. gentleman will give the breakdown for the 60 million acres, exactly as he gave it for this three million acres, or whatever the proper figure is, I should be glad to have that information.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have not the necessary information handy for March 9, but the information that I gave last night for the whole of the oil and gas permits in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon-and I will be very cautious and say that this includes the applications for permits as well-I will now give-


John Whitney Pickersgill: For the mainland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and for permits granted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And for permits granted.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Only. I want to make it very clear so that everyone understands what I am talking about. This tabulation here is dated about June 15 because it changes every day and you have to have some cut-off date. This is about June 15. On the mainland, up to July 1, 1957-it is divided into two categories-United States companies, 10.9 per cent; after July 1, 33.22 per cent. Canadian subsidiaries, before July 1, 30.7 per cent; after July 1, 30.06 per cent. Canadian companies, before July 1, 1957, 30.7 per cent; after July 1, 1957, 29.32 per cent. United States citizens, before July 1, 17.2 per cent; after July 1, .74 per cent. Canadian citizens, before July 1st, nil; after July 1, 6.06 per cent. Joint holdings, before July 1st, 10.5 per cent; after July 1st, .60 per cent. I have not given the acreage. These figures are for the mainland only and do not include the reservations or the applications for permits on the islands to the north or areas in the territorial waters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is for the total acreage for which permits have been granted on the mainland up to the date the minister gave.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Up to that date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the minister has not the figure for the total acreage. If he would give it later it would be appreciated.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Does the hon. member want the acreage figures under that classification?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no, the total will do.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The total acreage prior
to July 1, 1957 was 18,794,504; the total acreage after July 1, 1957, is 60,942,006.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Does that include the six million acres in the Peel plateau?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No. The reservations before July 1, 1957, were 6,133,760.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Would the minister agree that prior to July 1, 1957, including the Peel plateau reservations, that acreage, as I pointed out to him in committee, was controlled 51.7 per cent by Canadian companies and 48.3 per cent by United States companies; and that since July 1, 1957 United States companies have control of 63.6 per cent of the acreage and the Canadian companies have control of 36.4 per cent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member has his own figures and he has joined them together in the way he wishes. If he wants to call a Canadian company which is a subsidiary of a United States company a United States company, he can go ahead, but those are not my figures. I will have nothing to do with them.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I do not think we have got this clear yet. I asked if the six million acres in the Peel plateau reservation had been included in the hon. member's figures and he said, no. The Peel plateau reservation is controlled by Canadian companies who have been operating in this country since about 1952, I think. It would be only fair that if you are going to total the acreage given out by the former administration prior to July 1, 1957 you should include the six million acres of the Peel plateau, and if you do that, then it can be seen that before July 1, 1957 United States companies had control of 48.3 per cent of the total acreage while for the amount of acreage granted between July 1, 1957 and June 15, 1959, the date I think the minister mentioned, United States control increased from 48 per cent to 63.8 per cent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the committee would like to have a full record I would be glad to table this, or put it in as part of the Hansard record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I would find it very difficult to agree to that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That leaves me no alternative but to point out that if the hon. member is going to put on to the record the figures on the mainland where there is no kind of sovereignty involved whatsoever- I must repeat what I said this morning, namely that in the area which could be considered sensitive, under the present government, the interest held by Canadian companies is: Canadian subsidiaries, nil per cent; Canadian companies, 32 per cent; Canadian citizens, 36 per cent. If you add these all together it would come to roughly 68 per cent. I think that would be accurate. Therefore, I can say that in the sensitive areas under the present government 68 per cent is held by Canadians or Canadian firms and their subsidiaries and of the remainder, 12 per cent by Americans, 14 per cent by American citizens and 3 per cent by British companies. I repeat what I said earlier today. These percentages are not the key thing at all. When it is offered and the oil comes into lease and we see what happens, then we shall know. X am not going to allow the hon. member to send across the country information that he has compiled from his own figures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How can the minister say that these are held when he says all he has are applications and not a single permit has yet been granted?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He will never understand it, Mr. Chairman. Just as he said this morning that I was misleading the committee, his very answer has convicted himself because he did not understand my answer and he must assume that every person but himself is a moron because he understood it. I would say that 99.99 per cent of the rest of the people understand it if he can understand it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand this, sir, that when I apply for a job I have not got a job until I have been given it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
262. Northern research co-ordination centre, including a grant of $10,000 to the Arctic Institute of North America; and an amount of $5,000 for grants in aid of northern research subject to allocation by treasury board, $96,785.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, on this item I should like to say something about the report of the committee on mines, forests and waters in regard to this branch. In this debate we heard something about this report and recently in the newspapers, on television and radio, about the report of the mines, forests and waters committee in regard to research in northern Canada as it comes under the northern research co-ordination centre of this 66968-9-372
Supply-Northern Affairs department. I should like to quote from paragraph 24 of the report of the committee:
It became clear during the examination of the estimates of the northern administrative branch that the government policy in the north over many years has been a vacillation between inaction and reaction-inaction in not doing the things that obviously were required to be done, and reaction in doing things only when we were pushed into them by the activities of other countries.
Mr. Chairman, during the committee hearings in this particular regard the total evidence can be found on pages 467 to 470, inclusive, and this evidence is the evidence of one witness. Only one witness was called before this committee, namely Mr. Rowley, the chief of the northern co-ordination centre. In any event, the first part of paragraph 24 is apparently substantiated by questions and answers in the proceedings of the mines, forests and waters committee at page 467, which read as follows:


Mr. Nielsen;: Mr. Rowley, would I be correct in saying that policy in the past has been a mixture or perhaps a vacillation between inaction and reaction-inaction in not doing the things that obviously had to be done and reaction in doing things only when we are pushed into them by the activities of other countries.
This was the first question asked Mr. Rowley. Not one bit of evidence had come before the committee at that time. I ask members of this committee, is this a question, or is this an observation by the hon. member for Yukon that is based on any evidence? In any event, Mr. Rowley answered as follows:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fair statement that most of the research which we have carried out was initiated and appears to have been inspired by outside influence-by a fear that other people would do it, or an obvious need to keep up with one's neighbours.


The Chairman:: You mean other countries, Mr. Rowley? You mentioned "other people"; you mean other countries?


Mr.   Rowley@: Yes. largely other countries.
This is all the evidence that was taken in this committee on mines, forests and waters on which to base this part of the report. The wording is entirely the wording of the hon. member for Yukon in an observation he made in the form of a question. The next sentence in the report of the committee says:
Judging from what has been done in Canada's north the government policy has fallen far short of being adequate in almost every aspect of research. Where Canada should have been a leading nation in northern research we have fallen behind. Improvements in recent years have been made, but much too slowly.
We will go back to the evidence before the committee, Mr. Chairman, and we will find that this statement is apparently substantiated by evidence which appears on page 467 of the committee proceedings, a

Supply-Northern Affairs question by the hon. member for Yukon to Mr. Rowley, which reads as follows:
If this is not too sweeping a question to ask you, Mr. Rowley, just what do you conceive to be Canada's responsibility as a polar nation; first, in so far as resource development is concerned- well, let us stick to the item, in so far as scientific research is concerned for the area north of the 60th parallel?


Mr.   Rowley@: Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite obvious we have a large core of the Arctic region, and with our possession of that part goes the responsibility of carrying out a full program of research. As we have a very large part, I think we should be a leading nation in so far as research in the Arctic is concerned.


Erik Nielsen: Have we been a leading nation in this field for the past 10 years?


Mr.   Rowley@: No, Mr. Chairman, we have not been a leading nation. I think we have been improving our position. We have been doing more since the war. We have been increasing the amount we have been doing, but we started from virtually nothing.


Erik Nielsen: What in your view would be the reason for not taking the lead in this research: would it be a lack of funds, a lack of attention, or what would it be?


Mr.   Rowley@: Of course, it has been a lack of funds and a lack of people; but I think one must remember in saying this, that it is a particularly large country with a comparatively small population, and the demands of the rest of the country are very pressing, which has had the effect of putting research in the north in the background. There are so many things more pressing, more immediate, and more obviously of practical importance that research in the north would sometimes fall behind.
Now, this portion of the evidence seeks to substantiate the sweeping statement in the recommendation of the committee. On the rest of the page there is a question about Mr. Rowley ever having been in the Arctic, and he had been. Then I find the following on page 468 of the proceedings of the committee:


Erik Nielsen: Are you familiar with Captain
Joseph Bernier's work in the Arctic years ago?


Mr.   Rowley@: Yes, I am familiar with that.


Erik Nielsen: I believe he died in 1934. Do you feel we have made any substantial progress in our Arctic areas, since the death of Captain Bernier, along the lines on which he was thinking?


Mr.   Rowley@: Yes, we have made substantial progress, Mr. Chairman. Captain Bernier really was carrying out exploration and he was the end, in many ways, of one phase. He really came into it too late, because most of the original exploration had been carried out by the time he came along. This exploration has taken a different form since: it is a scientific exploration, dealing with the details of various scientific disciplines, rather than finding out where the land and water lie. Since then we have done quite a lot, and I think the geological survey particularly has been the most active agency in the government in this respect.


Erik Nielsen: Do you find you are restricted in the department with what you want to do or what you feel we should be doing in the Arctic because of restrictions placed on other departments, because of inability to obtain information from other departments such as that of mines and technical surveys?
[Mr. Hardie.'i


Mr.   Rowley@: Do you mean so far as development is concerned and not so far as research is concerned?


Erik Nielsen: Scientific research.


Mr.   Rowley@: Yes, I think we are. All scientific research depends on basic scientific data and there is a great shortage of basic facts about the Arctic. I think this goes into all phases of research and it affects all development, either resource development or social development. We do not know enough facts. In the case of resource development, I think to some extent it is rather better because they are well established and have extremely effective agencies gathering facts. They are not gathering them as fast as we would like, but certainly this collection of scientific data is going on.
Then, section 25 of the report of the committee reads as follows:
There are insufficient field laboratories in Canada's northland to accomplish adequate research. Small research laboratories or stations established in various northern localities are essential if we are to discharge our responsibilities in obtaining basic scientific data for development purposes.
In this regard the hon. member for the Yukon, immediately after the words I have just read, went on:


Erik Nielsen: Do you feel we have sufficient field laboratories in the north to accomplish the gathering of this scientific information?


Mr.   Rowley@: No, Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that we do not have sufficient field laboratories. I do not want to imply that I support large research laboratories in the Arctic; I would sooner call them stations. I prefer small stations, because in due course one exhausts the scientific possibilities of an area. I do not think we have enough small scientific stations in the Arctic, stations to which scientists from various disciplines can go.
Then the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked Mr. Rowley what type of research they would carry on. He said that as he came from the south he did not understand the type of research that might be carried on in the Arctic. He asked Mr. Rowley what type of research would be carried on and Mr. Rowley answered:


Mr.   Rowley@: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the stations concerned, first with the collection of what you might call the natural history of the area, and expanding that to the study of biology-the relationship between the animals and the vegetation, and I would also see the stations used as a basis from which investigations in other disciplines could be carried out-in archaeology and so on.
There is very little more in the evidence of the committee in this regard except that there were some questions about the depletion of the caribou and what scientific research might be done to indicate the reasons for this. There were also a few words about herding muskox, reindeer and buffalo, I think. Then there was a question about the Arctic institute of North America, and so on. But this is all the evidence that came before the committee on which the committee

made the sweeping recommendation that we find in its report. That is all the evidence we received. Only one witness was called. Although I agree with some parts of the report, I cannot agree with a sweeping recommendation such as this one made on the basis of the evidence we obtained. I do not think we have any evidence. As a matter of fact, I think that in most cases words were put in the witness' mouth and then written directly into the report in the same wording. As a matter of fact, it looks to me very much like a prearranged deal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Yes, sir.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Was the hon. member on the steering committee of the mines, forests and waters committee?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You can sit down. No, sir.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Did the hon. member attend when the report of the committee was drafted?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I told the chairman that the report would be passed on division and that my support would not be recorded in favour of it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I merely asked if you were there.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I was there. I told the chairman. I am not going to go over the whole report but I should like to refer to section 28, paragraph (b), which reads as follows:
Your committee expresses concern that . . . the projects which are undertaken on the basis of past policies will result in the setting of standards which are unnecessarily high.
Then, section 29 reads as follows:
For instance, the standard of facility provided for the education of native northern children has been quite high. The hostel at Fort McPherson, the various buildings at Inuvik, and similar undertakings in other northern locations are examples in point.
I went through the evidence of the committee from one end to the other, Mr. Chairman, to find out on what they based this recommendation and how the hostel at Fort McPherson came into the picture. There was only one question in the whole of the evidence before the committee and that question was as to the cost of the Fort McPherson school. I forget the exact answer but I think it was something like $1,200,000. There was not another question. They did not know the size of the hostel, how many pupils there were, was there a playroom or an auditorium. They did not know how many cubic feet there 66968-9-372|
Supply-Northern Affairs were. There were no questions and no answers and yet they make this type of recommendation to the house.
As far as the buildings at Inuvik are concerned, there was no evidence given before the committee to justify this sort of sweeping statement. There is no evidence whatever. Look through the committee reports. I hope the minister will read them if he has not and tell us whether or not he agrees with the type of sweeping statement I have referred to in sections 24 and 25 and particularly in section 28.
I am not going to go through the rest of the report. I did not intend to take too much time on this matter but I want to point out that in my view the committee on mines, forests and waters had no right to bring in recommendations such as the ones to which I have just referred because there is no evidence in the committee reports to substantiate sweeping recommendations of that sort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
263. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for campground and picnic area developments, $1,500,000.
Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask the minister if the province of Quebec has entered into any agreement with the federal government for campgrounds and picnic grounds?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks branch-
270. Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $686,739.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if I could ask the minister if he could give the committee a progress report on the studies being made in the north in regard to the depletion of the caribou?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the studies of the declining caribou herds in the north have been fairly well completed. The conclusions reached, in brief, are that the situation is very serious and that strong measures will have to be taken if the caribou herds are to be saved. The department is now in negotiation with the governments of the three prairie provinces, the government of the territories and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to see if agreement can be reached whereby these strong measures would be successful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs
Water resources branch-
271. Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, $1,389,466.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might, under this vote, inquire of the minister whether the Fraser river board has been reconstituted or if the cabinet has approved the re-establishment of the Fraser river board? Who are the personnel of the board, and what are the terms of reference, if that has been established by the cabinet?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Both governments have agreed and are disposed to reconstitute the Fraser river board. However, the terms of the agreements are being worked out between the two governments.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could get some information from the minister concerning a statement that was made recently by Robert Moses, president of the New York state power authority. This is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the minister. He said recently that there were billions of gallons of water that were going to waste because of the inability of certain boards to come to a decision concerning the regulation of the flow of the water in the international section of the river. I know that one of these boards is under the jurisdiction of the minister. It has to do with the method of regulation of certain waters in the international section. I wondered what the minister had to say in connection wtih the statement made by Mr. Moses, and whether or not the method of regulation as approved by the international joint commission is operating effectively?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This matter came up in the house a year ago. I can only add at the present time that it is not working effectively. The hon. member will recall asking me about plan 1958-A and I believe -I am speaking from memory now but I have the officials here to verify it-that the international joint commission direction was that plan 1958-A be followed. This plan has not been followed. The federal government has formed an interdepartmental committee at cabinet level and at the official level and is trying to reach some understanding with the province of Ontario concerning the agreement of 1951.


Lionel Chevrier: I just have a few questions, if I may, in connection with this. The minister says that the plan is not working effectively. What means are being taken by the government or by the board over which he has jurisdiction to make the plan work?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the first place, on a question of accuracy, the board
fMr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).]

comes under the international joint commission; it is the St. Lawrence river board. The board reports to the minister of external affairs, but I am on the committee so I would have some knowledge of it.
The action we are taking is as I have described. We have formed a committee at cabinet and the official level and are negotiating with the government of Ontario.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the statement made by the chairman of the New York state power authority accurate?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I am accurate in this, but I am informed they are operating under pre-project conditions and water is going over that could be stored. For that reason plan 1958-A, as set out, is not in operation.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that the power development has been completed and it would be possible, I think from the information I have, to develop pretty close to the full potential in the international section. The chairman of the New York state power commission says that is not being done, and not nearly that amount is being developed. My question now is, why is not the power being developed in accordance with the agreement and the decision made by the international joint commission?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer I can give to that is, first, the statement is correct, in fact, and water is going over, but also all the equipment that is in there is being used.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask this additional question? I know that some of this is under the jurisdiction of other departments, but the minister said something about the Ontario agreement. I understand that the Ontario agreement is ineffective; is that the case?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is in effect.


Frank Howard: I should like to leave a couple of thoughts with the minister in so far as the operation of the Fraser river board is concerned, and particularly some of the material contained in the preliminary report on flood control which was issued in June of 1958. I imagine that this preliminary report, like the interim report before it and the appendices, have been very carefully studied not only by this department but other departments of government of both the federal and provincial governments involved. There appears to be one matter dealt with in the preliminary report that would warrant action being taken on the material contained therein without waiting another three or four years until

the board has completed its studies, as I understand it will take that length of time when the board is reconstituted.
In order to give some of the hon. members an understanding of the length of the area that is contained by the Fraser river, perhaps I could just say that it is over 800 miles in length and that it drains an area larger than the four maritime provinces put together. It is the most important fish river in British Columbia and one of the most important fish rivers in the world. This is one of the points of conflict in British Columbia at the moment and the federal government is involved. I refer to the fish versus power question, and whether or not dams should be placed on any of the tributaries to the Fraser or on any parts of the Fraser itself. However, I do not want to deal with the question of the hydroelectric-fish problem. We dealt with that question to some extent in the marine and fisheries committee. I should like to deal with the question of flood control.
Certainly British Columbia members who are here will recall the disastrous flood that took place in the Fraser valley in 1948 and along other rivers on the coast; but we recall the one in the Fraser valley which was the most disastrous and caused untold damage to farm lands and to buildings, to people's savings and to the very economy of the Fraser valley itself. In fact, the assessed value of the land and improvements in the Fraser valley that our now protected to a limited degree by the dikes that were established at the time of the 1948 flood is estimated or was actually in 1956 over $113 million, the market value of this land and improvements being somewhere in the neighbourhood, as the report of the board indicates, of $283 million. This report deals quite extensively with the question of flood control. It relates a number of alternate ways in which we can deal with flood control.
Before proceeding to what I think the report indicates is the most economical and fastest way to provide flood control protection for the Fraser valley I should like to point out that following the flood of 1948 the federal government and the provincial government entered into a joint financing of the diking plan along the Fraser valley, with the federal government paying 75 per cent of the cost and the provincial government putting up 25 per cent and they had completed that work in a period of a little less than two years. I believe it was a year and nine months or ten months that it took to complete the full diking that was necessary or that they felt was necessary at that time.
This preliminary report of the Fraser river board points out that it is possible to bring
Supply-Northern Affairs these dikes up to a standard which would contain what they estimate would be the highest possible runoff which they might expect based on past experience of floods and runoffs in that particular area and that this could be done at a cost of approximately $17 million, and that the operating cost of the dikes, maintenance and so on would cost another $1,195,000.
Another part of the report dealt with an alternate system of dikes and reservoirs further up the Fraser, that is dikes along the Fraser valley at the lower portion of it before it runs out into the gulf of Georgia; dikes there and reservoirs on tributaries and on streams further up inland-at an estimated cost of $526 million. What I am suggesting- and I rather think that the Fraser river board in its report suggests this too-is that if you are going to deal with the question of diking in order to protect the Fraser valley and $283 million worth of land and improvements, homes and farms of people throughout the valley and deal with the economy and protect the economy of the Fraser valley, the best way in which to do that is immediately to start planning to rebuild the dikes up to a level that will contain the flood level waters which they might expect to occur based on past experience of floods rather than attempt over a long period of time to put, as the report indicates, $526 million into reservoir dams and into diking also.
I am sure in my own mind that this government will not be less generous than was the former Liberal government preceding it. I believe it would want to be at least as generous and, if I am not mistaken, would want to go just one better; that is, if we can take account of what the Prime Minister has said in what my friend the . hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate classifies as his very modest manner. But the federal government I think should right now start, if they have not already done so, to discuss the question of the diking of the Fraser valley with the provincial authorities and agree to be as generous at least as was the past Liberal administration in going for 75 per cent of the cost of rebuilding these dikes and should attempt to enter into this sort of agreement with the province before it is too late. We could very easily find next spring-next May and next June, for instance-that we in the Fraser valley-and in other parts of the province but in the Fraser valley particularly because that is the one I am dealing with and this Fraser river board deals with that section

Supply-Northern Affairs -would be faced with something similar to the disastrous flood which occurred in the Fraser valley in 1948.
In my estimation it is far better to do as I have suggested. There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That saying applies to the Fraser valley just as it applies to other things. The federal government should start off now, if it has not already done so, and approach the province and indicate its willingness to find at least the 75 per cent that the Liberal administration went for- at least that amount of the cost of rebuilding the dikes to withstand the flood levels which they expect might occur. That will be a great deal better than to wait and then, if we have a disastrous flood next spring, scurry around to try to find the money, to try to get men and equipment in order to build up dikes to try to contain the river and in the process do a rather haphazard job and have many of the farms and the homes and the community in the Fraser valley flooded out as they were in 1948.
I suggest that the minister should take this question as being one of paramount importance and requiring immediate action. The question of hydroelectric development and the possibility of maintaining the Fraser river as a fish river is one that does not require immediate action. We have other hydroelectric projects in the offing in British Columbia, one of which might be dealt with in the house. Undoubtedly my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West will take occasion to deal with the possibility of developing the Columbia.
Then there is this great area to the north, and so on, but that is something which is not of immediate importance as is the question of providing dikes to sufficiently high levels in the Fraser valley to protect the people who live there from being flooded out as they were in 1948. If the minister will undertake to engage in that sort of program I know he will not find any objection from the people in the Fraser valley, and certainly will not find any objection from myself or I am sure from any other hon. member who knows of the disaster brought upon the people in the Fraser valley in 1948 merely because governments prior to that time did not have foresight to see that floods could take place and practically wipe out the entire valley itself. Not only do I make this suggestion but the minister should start right now with a flood control program for the Fraser valley by participating with the province in diking. I would appreciate it if he would give the committee an indication of his attitude in this regard and tell us what action has been

taken, what studies have been made and what steps are under way to start such a program of diking and flood containment in the valley.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 271
carry?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Winch:: In view of the most important and most welcome speech of the hon. member, there must be some answer from the minister on that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I can say is
that the two governments have agreed to study the report. As to the diking, they are a provincial responsibility, and all we are doing under these studies, as I see it, is trying to make arrangements to fix the boat instead of trying to bail it.


Frank Howard: That is a pretty weak and a pretty poor answer and attitude for the minister to take. We realize that the province has agreed to reconstitute the board and study the question, but as sure as I am standing here, if the Fraser valley ends up being flooded out next year the words of the minister will come back to the people of the Fraser valley and they will not forget. The minister cannot pass the buck and say that diking is a provincial responsibility. In 1948 the minister's predecessor, whom he tries to outdo on every occasion, established the principle that it was a disaster area and that the federal government had a responsibility, and they supported their responsibility to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost.
There is a federal government responsibility in this field or you would not be involved in participating in the establishment of a board to study the question of flood control in the first place. You cannot wash your hands of it that easily especially if there is a flood. If you are gambling that there will not be a flood in the Fraser valley within the next three or four years, during which time this Fraser river board is supposed to meet and study further the question of hydroelectric power, fish runs and everything else, then I hope you win your gamble. But it will be your neck and your responsibility and your reputation, as well as the reputation of this federal government, which will be at stake. The last government indicated eleven years ago that there was a responsibility by paying part of the cost, and it will be the reputation of this government which will suffer, along with the suffering which will come to the people in the valley, if there is a flood. As I say, if you are gambling there will not be, I hope you win your bet, and that there will not be any flood; but I suggest that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and

it is far better to be generous now, as was the case in 1948, than to follow your policy of re-establishing the board to discuss the question of flood control.
If the government has no responsibility, what is it doing in the field of studying this question in the first place? It would be far better off to follow that responsibility a little further and indicate its willingness to work with the provincial government. This can be done privately behind the scenes if you do not want any publicity attached to it, but the government should indicate its willingness to participate in the question of flood containment dikes along the Fraser valley. The reference to continuing to bail the boat out rather than fix it is an off the cuff comment which does not fit the circumstances at all.
If the minister looks at the report of the board he will see, so far as flood control is concerned, that diking is an integral part of any system. Even the reservoir program and the dikes themselves run to $526 million including $17 million for diking if brought up to a sufficiently high level, and it takes into account the question that it is necessary to build dikes rather than dams farther up the Fraser river. If the minister is indicating that he is in favour of building dams, hydroelectric reservoirs, storage and every other sort of project on the Fraser river, and in the process ruin the river as a fish run, then he had better talk to his colleague the Minister of Fisheries.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get the record straight. The Fraser river board is, under the joint constitution of the two governments, trying to arrive at a plan to use the resources of the Fraser river without harm to the fishing industry and to protect the people along the banks against flooding, which includes diking, and also to provide enough power to pay for the whole operation. As I described it a moment ago, it is the firm opinion of the province of British Columbia that it is much better to get a policy which makes full use of the resources of the river without harming anybody else, and thereby, as I said earlier, fix the boat instead of just bailing here and there.


Frank Howard: May I make another comment on that, Mr. Chairman. An integral part of all the plans laid out here requires diking along the lower Fraser valley in the valley itself. Dikes are going to have to be built anyway, plus another $526 million for storage dams and reservoirs. Also, remember you have a difficult problem with hydroelectric, too. You have the fisheries interests to concern yourself with there, but it is much better to go ahead and take steps
Supply-Northern Affairs with the diking which will have to be done anyway so that some sort of flood containment will take place. I would reiterate that if the minister is gambling on no floods for the next three or four years until the Fraser river board completes its studies, I hope he wins his bet and that the people are not flooded out in the valley.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, the Fraser river is an integral part of the economy of the lower mainland of British Columbia. I would say that 90 per cent of the flood control responsibility of the Fraser river rests with the federal government, because it is a navigable river. Because it is a navigable river, there is a great responsibility on the federal government. However, that matter we cannot discuss because the minister's estimates deal only with flood control. Mr. Chairman, I have seen the banks of the Fraser overcome. I have seen a time in the past 15 years when cattle had to be moved completely away from the normal area and feed had to be brought in from the prairies. The federal government makes money out of the Fraser river from navigation. Therefore why should the minister not make some agreement whereby we do not just wait for a flood to happen again? We should build up, provincially and federally, a major diking system the entire length of the Fraser river. Why should that not be done? In the end the government will make money. If you do not, it will cost you money without any return.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
273. Studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $170,740.
Mr. Herridge:: I only wish to make a very brief comment. First, I want to say that I am very pleased to hear the minister supplement the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to the negotiations on the Columbia between the governments of Canada and the United States and to hear him say that in his opinion success will attend these negotiations. Would the minister explain what the $170,740 is required for this year in connection with this service?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The amount of $170,000 is for the continuation of the studies on the power aspect of the question. The vote is reduced from last year because the field work is coming to an end.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One more question. I know this is a very difficult question, but can the minister give the committee any information as to when, in his mind, it is possible that the negotiations between Canada and the United States will be successfully concluded. What period has he in mind? I think the public are very interested in this question.
5878	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Chairman. I can say that the matter of the type of downstream benefits and their division is before the international joint commission. When they have agreed on those principles I imagine that discussions will begin between the two governments, and when I say the two governments, I might point out that the province of British Columbia and the federal government are working as one in connection with this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to refer again to this question of the development on the Columbia river because it is one which to both my hon. friend from Kootenay West and myself means a great deal. In answering the hon. member for Kootenay West the minister said he could not inform us when a decision would be reached. May I ask him this: can the hon. gentleman tell us whether in the course of these negotiations dealing with international waters any understanding has yet been reached, irrespective of any decision between the United States and Canada on upstream and downstream benefits, on development expenditures and revenues?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That stage has not yet been reached.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it being investigated?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Both governments have raised the issue with each other. Both governments have raised the subject of the type of energy that would be developed, its financing and so on, but no decision has been reached.


Harold Edward Winch: Are any consultations going on with the government of British Columbia?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On that particular subject there is no discussion at the moment. There is close contact established. We both know the problem is there. We have talked it over, but that is as far as it goes at the moment.


Harold Edward Winch: There is no actual consultation between the two governments as to what will be the actual development of the river.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Oh yes, in so far as the physical development of the river is concerned, and the order of that development there is very close contact and consultation all the time. We have a joint technical committee which works as a unit. There is no difficulty on the technical side. I thought the hon. member was going further and had in mind the setting up of the entity, the financial division and so on.


Harold Edward Winch: When agreement is finally reached between the United States and Canada is there now the possibility of a plan


between the federal government and the provincial government with regard to the capital cost of construction.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no plan at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: Is one being considered?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Frank Howard: I am afraid the question I have to ask does not fit in precisely with this vote, but I wonder if the minister would be good enough to alow me to ask it, anyway, and give some sort of answer as to what steps if any of a similar nature to those taking place on the Columbia, for instance, are being taken either through the department exclusively or in conjunction with the province of British Columbia with regard to waters in the northwestern part of the province at Atlin lake, Sloko lake, and Teslin river up into the Yukon? Would the minister tell us whether any surveys are being made, the possibilities for hydroelectric development and the orderly development in other ways of that chain of rivers and lakes which runs through there.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no joint agreement between the two governments on the use of water resources in the northwest of British Columbia but the federal government, through the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, is carrying out studies of its own in that particular field.


Frank Howard: Are those studies being made outside the province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Both.


Frank Howard: Both in the province and outside?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And in the
territories.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the minister whether he can inform the committee whether he and his department have any connection with what is going on in the northern part of British Columbia under the authority of the government of British Columbia with regard to what is best known as the Wenner-Gren deal? I should like to know what is the position of the federal government in respect of the investigations they are making, and how they tie that in with the situation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that there is contact between the Wenner-Gren interests and the federal government to see in what respect the operations on that

river by that company will effect the federal interest in the Peace river and the waters in that area.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I ask whether or not the request for information that came to the minister's office was from the government of British Columbia or from Wenner-Gren?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that up to the present time it has been entirely from the company itself and not from the government.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand, then, that all requests in which you are now interested have come from Wenner-Gren. Is that right?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There have been requests for information on this subject from Wenner-Gren, only.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the minister what is the attitude of himself and the government with regard to these Wenner-Gren interests and what investigations have been made of this man who has been declared an enemy of democracy by the United States and characterized, by an order in council passed here in Canada, as a man who no one can deal with. He was tied up with Krupp; he was a Hitlerite.
I would like to ask this question. What position does the minister take when he gets a request from this man for the grant of one-fifth of British Columbia? That is the request that has come to his department from Wenner-Gren, a man who could not be dealt with by order in council in 1942, a man who escaped to Mexico from his own country and who one year before was declared by Washington to be non compos mentis, if those are the right words. What is the attitude of the minister in regard to an application from Wenner-Gren who, having lost the hot war, now wants to take over a great deal of Canada by way of the cold war, with the authority of the Social Credit government of British Columbia and apparently now, unquestionably, with the authority of the minister?
This means a lot to us in British Columbia because a great many from British Columbia died in the last war. We want to know why and how, under a Progressive Conservative government, according to the minister's own statement, the only information he has is that requests are made by the Wenner-Gren company. What is the minister's position? What is his attitude toward this traitor to democracy, a man who is now tied in with Krupp, who will take over a great deal of our western country? Will the minister please tell me what is his relationship to this traitor of democracy who is now going to take over a great deal of our country?
66968-9-373
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no relationship with Mr. Wenner-Gren. The Peace River Development Company has come to us with respect to their position.


Harold Edward Winch: It is Wenner-Gren, is it not?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is also Lord Alexander and a number of others.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand Lord Alexander resigned as soon as he discovered who Wenner-Gren was.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer is we simply deal with the effect of their plans on the downstream waters of the Peace river.


Mr. Bourget:: I should like to ask the minister whether that kind of agreement could be applied to flood control of the Chaudiere river in the county of Beauce? The minister will recall that on many occasions the hon. member for Beauce has tried to get some financial help from the federal government. If the province of Quebec is ready to enter into an agreement with the department, would that kind of agreement apply to that river?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am a little uncertain of my geography here but if the river crosses an international boundary we do have some jurisdiction. I do not believe this river does cross an international boundary.


Maurice Bourget: I am not sure that it does but I think it does, in the state of Maine. It comes down from the state of Maine into the St. Lawrence river. If the minister is not ready to give me the answer he could get in touch with me and let me have the information later.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We will make a note of it and let the hon. member know.


Harold Edward Winch: I have one more question to ask the minister. As the minister of his department, when he receives a request for information or powers that only he can give, what is his reaction? When he receives a request from a company and a man who was by order in council declared to be a traitor to democracy, a man with whom nobody can work, and whose bullets killed thousands of our own Canadians, what is his reaction? What consideration does he give to a man who in 1942, through his companies, was declared a traitor to democracy? How does the minister deal with such a man and what has been his reaction in recent weeks or months? The minister has to pass upon his application to obtain the resources of our country. What is his reaction and how does he decide?
5880	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no answer. I am not a psychiatrist or anything else so that I can psychoanalyse my feelings effectively.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the minister agree that Wenner-Gren was the man whose bullets shot down thousands of Canadians?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
274. Contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan. Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and water conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into between Canada and the province of Ontario, $300,000.
Maurice Bourget: I think I made a mistake a minute ago because I think I should have asked my question under item 274.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, vote 274 deals with a dam in Ontario under the Canada Water Conservation Act. Under this act the province must come to the federal government and put forward a proposition for the conservation of water. Under this program there must be a contribution by the municipality of 25 per cent and by the province of 371 per cent, and if the federal government agrees, its contribution is 37J per cent. From here on I have to give the same answer I gave before. I do not know the exact circumstances of the conservation program in this particular area.


William Arnold Peters: How is this project progressing? How much work has already been done?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand it, it is expected to be finished this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration and lands branch- Northwest Territories and other field services-
278. Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $9,692,954.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, I have a simple question to ask the minister which requires a yes or no answer. Can the minister tell me whether he agrees with that portion of the report of the mines, forests and waters committee which says:
The projects which are undertaken on the basis of past policies will result in the setting of standards which are unnecessarily high.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member wants an answer in one word?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Yes or no.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will give him that answer, Mr. Chairman, if he will


stand up in the house and tell me whether he has stopped beating his wife.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, this type of answer really shows how interested and sincere the minister is in answering questions in the committee. As was mentioned this afternoon, he has been giving misleading answers since the start of the session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely such a statement cannot be allowed under the rules of the house.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You had better study the rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have studied the rules and that is why I raise this point of order. He has stated that the minister has been giving misleading answers to the house since the beginning of the session.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: And what was that one?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That statement should be withdrawn.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that point was raised by the hon. gentleman in the same manner as it was raised earlier today and the Chair did not rule on it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether I could stop the whole thing by answering the question with neither a yes nor a no but by simply saying that the opinions I have expressed so far on the report of the standing committee have been very restrained. I think the committee and the whole house are quite well aware that the whole report of the standing committee is an indictment of the previous Liberal administration. It also demonstrates that the present government has allowed the committee to meet, which it had not done for 20 odd years, and has also allowed the committee to have a free and open discussion. Sometimes the chips fall on the department as I am now administering it but in the main they fall on the previous Liberal government. I know that the hon. member has made it very clear this afternoon that he resents any criticism of the previous government but how the hon. member can ask me to give a yes or no answer with respect to whether I agree with that part of the report of the committee referring to past policies-is that the phrase?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will read it.
[DOT]-the projects which are undertaken on the basis of past policies will result in the setting of standards which are unnecessarily high.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I made it clear in the committee that I had not seen most of these places under dispute and that I was not going to express an opinion until I had seen them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I was a member of the previous administration and I had the responsibility for Indian education. As to where the Liberal party stands on this matter there is no question. We think that the Indians are entitled to just as good standards as the rest of this country and we are not ashamed to say it plainly.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, I did not get
the type of answer I should have got. As a matter of fact, I think I can take it from the quietness of the minister that he actually approves this statement. I can take it from the lack of an answer that he approves this statement of the committee. I would point out that immediately following is section 29 which reads as follows:
For instance, the standard of facility provided for the education of native northern children has been quite high. The hostel at Fort McPherson, the various buildings at Inuvik, and similar undertakings in other northern locations are examples in point.
As I pointed out earlier this afternoon, in the case of the hostel at Fort McPherson there was only one question and answer in all the evidence before the committee and that was as to how much the hostel cost. We got the answer as to its cost. We do not know the size of the building, how many pupils are living there or anything else. Further, the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Lambton West, took a tour last summer paid for by the government through the Yukon and my own riding of Mackenzie River. In the Yukon he picked up our friend, the member for the Yukon, and the two of them did go to Fort McPherson. These two men wrote this report, but no evidence was put before the committee to substantiate these charges. In the case of the buildings at Inuvik, the hon. member for the Yukon questioned the deputy minister of the department and the chief of the education division. He asked why there was a gymnasium in the school and a playroom in each of the hostels. In his mind this was too elaborate for Indian children. This was too much. They should not have playrooms in the hostels and a gymnasium in the school too.
But the deputy minister and the chief of the branch pointed out to the committee that the gymnasium was set up for 250 pupils while there were 500 pupils in residence at the school in addition to the day school pupils. They pointed out that the gymnasium was actually to small for the number of pupils in the school. The gymnasium was also used as a community hall. The hon. member for the Yukon asked questions about the playrooms and both the deputy minister and the chief of the education branch pointed out 66968-9-373J
Supply-Northern Affairs that the Indian children were allowed 24 square feet each in playroom space. They also pointed out to the committee that the Indian affairs branch provides 50 square feet in their hostels and residential schools. However, knowing the hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Lambton West I understand very well why the Tories are not in agreement that Indian children should get the same treatment as white children.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
280. 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, $9,000,000.
Alexis Pierre Caron: This item covers agreements between the provinces and the federal government for roads leading to resources. Is the province of Quebec interested? Has any agreement been signed by the province of Quebec with the federal government for roads to resources?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No.


Alexis Pierre Caron: So that if there were any bridges to be built the province of Quebec could not take advantage of this provision as the province of Saskatchewan has.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the member knows what the answer is.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not the minister. If I were the minister I might have the answer. I should like to have the answer from the minister. Quebec would not be able to benefit from the building of bridges?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no agreement v/ith the province of Quebec. I have already answered that.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is an item of the federal government's estimates. It is not the government of the province of Quebec that is presenting these estimates, it is the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In that case the province of Quebec could not take advantage of this?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the province of Quebec signs an agreement they can take advantage of it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If they sign an agreement.


William Arnold Peters: What has been the participation of the province of Ontario under this item? What roads to resources have been constructed or what roads are provided for under this item?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The understanding we have with each of the provinces is that there will be no formal announcement

Supply-Northern Affairs as to what the roads are until the agree- government pay something toward the con-ment has been signed. There will then be struction of roads into parks and provincial a joint press statement by both governments, forests?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, all this may apply to those agreements that have not been signed yet. I should like to ask the minister what roads have been built, how expensive they are and where they are in northern Ontario?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member is still talking about the roads to resources under this vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming, surely if these roads are being built and we are being asked to vote money for them, we are entitled to be told what roads they are. I admit that if there are some roads being discussed and upon which the government has not yet reached an agreement, they cannot tell us about them. However, if a road is under construction and an agreement has been reached, taxpayers' money has been spent, surely it is treating this committee in contemptuous fashion to say that the Ontario government can announce what roads are being built and we are not entitled to know anything about them. I think the hon. member for Timiskaming should insist upon an answer.


Mr. Monieiih (Perth):: Are you advising the other party now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to advise your party any time you want, because you certainly need advice.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not going into detail in connection with the roads, but I am most interested in vote 280 because, according to the item in the blue book of estimates, vote 280 is a contribution to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces.
I have only one question there, and it is very important. Does the interpretation of that mean a federal contribution to a road into a provincial forest or a provincial park? I asked the question last year and I was told that it did mean that the federal government would make a contribution toward roads into provincial forests or provincial parks. I should like to ask the minister if my interpretation is correct. If it is, what is the contribution the federal government will make under vote 280? So far as British Columbia is concerned, has any agreement been entered into with that province to take advantage of this vote? What roads have been built, and what moneys spent? If there has been none, has British Columbia been advised that they could take advantage of this and have the federal
IMr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).]


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand that we are on vote 280. The only road being built in British Columbia under vote 280, I am at liberty to announce, is the Stewart to Cassiar road which was discussed at some length this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena. It runs from Cassiar in the north, around Dease lake down to the headwaters where the community of Stewart is. This is the only road being constructed under agreement with British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: I am asking the minister, does the interpretation of vote 280 mean that the federal government is prepared to pay the cost-what is it, half the cost? Does that mean, under this item, you are prepared in principle to pay half the cost of any access road into a provincial forest or a provincial park? You say there is only one being built now, but is that the basis of it, and does British Columbia know it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: You mean that this does not mean that you are paying half the cost of access roads into a provincial park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This means we are paying half the cost of roads to resources. If the roads to resources go through national parks, then we pay the cost. Under vote 280, there is only one road being built and that is from Stewart to Cassiar in British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: Is a provincial park not a resource?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It could be.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, now, the minister has said that sitting down. Will he not stand up and say it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Anything to oblige; a provincial park may be a natural resource.


William Arnold Peters: I think I must insist that we find out if there is any road to resources program in Ontario, where that is and how much money has been spent. I think this is information that we should have. I do not know where these roads are, but I understand there are some. I should like the minister to tell us where they are, the extent of these roads that have already been built under this program. I am not asking for confidential information on negotiations for proposed roads, but just roads that are either under construction or have been bruit under this program.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can say this, that in Ontario there are seven roads upon which agreements have been made. There are two more that are under negotiation. I am not at liberty, under the agreement I have, to divulge them here until the agreement has been signed. There is only one exception to that. If any member asks about a specific road that has been agreed upon, I would acknowledge, yes or no, that that was it.


Harold Edward Winch: Tell us now, then, what are the seven roads agreed upon, not the two under consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I just finished saying that I cannot do so under the agreement I have with the province of Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has just said he does not have any agreement with the province.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a most extraordinary situation. There have been contracts agreed upon, money spent and roads built, but we are told this afternoon in this House of Commons that the minister cannot break a confidence and tell the committee of the money spent and the roads built. Will the minister explain why, with the taxpayers' money being spent, roads built, contracts fulfilled, he is not permitted, under a confidence, to tell this committee why or where the money was spent?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have made it very clear to the committee this afternoon there has been no money spent by the federal government under this agreement and there will not be until an agreement is signed.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought you said seven had been built?


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one aspect of this, as I mentioned to the minister before, which is even more unfair than the point that has just been made. The effect of this program, in co-operation with the provinces, is that requests for information on the order paper have been denied. I am willing to concede that the minister, in confidence, has been willing to give us some information.
What is the situation on the provincial side? Can the minister explain to me why, if this is an agreement in confidence, the premier of Ontario and his disciples have been able in the last few months to range around the northern part of the province announcing these agreements in detail, even saying who was going to have the contract? This is the unfair side of it. This is where in fact it seems to me the minister has let the hon. member down. I should just like an explanation of it.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I feel that as long as I keep my part of the bargain I have done my duty. I cannot be held responsible for the leak or the use of the information that occurred in Ontario.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let me just give an example of the context in which these announcements are made. I had one report from a political rally that said: "Look what you have. Now you have a Conservative government in Ottawa. If you re-elect a Conservative government in Ontario we are going to bring all these things to fruition". We cannot be blamed for taking a sort of jaundiced look at this particular kind of partisanship. I insist that if the hon. member for Port Arthur in the provincial constituency has the right, week after week, to make announcements about the building of a tiny culvert on one of these blasted roads on the roads to resources program, I as a member of this house should have the right to have some public information on the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to support very warmly what has been said by the hon. member for Port Arthur. It is the most outrageous thing that I have heard said on the estimates in this house since I have been here. Here we are in the House of Commons of Canada being asked to vote money for a provincial purpose. The provincial government feels perfectly free in an election campaign to further its interests by broadcasting this information and we in the House of Commons are not entitled to be told, the minister says, because he has an agreement. Yet he tells us that he has not an agreement, that no agreement has been signed. He means that he reached some private understanding in his negotiations that he would not say anything about this matter until an agreement was reached.
We were very reasonable about the matter. Both the hon. member for Timiskaming and I said that if there was any road not yet in the program which they were still discussing, we would not imperil those discussions. But we know perfectly well that a great many of these roads have been agreed upon. Some of them have been started. One hon. member told me that one of the roads had work being done on it until the election and that no work has been done on it since then. I do hot know whether or not that is true but it would not surprise me. Yet here the people who are the trustees for the taxpayers who have to pay for these things cannot have any information about them. This is an absolutely preposterous situation. Of course the minister has a huge majority behind him. If he wants to treat parliament in that way,

Supply-Northern Affairs I suppose in the end we have to submit but at least we should protest about it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this attitude of the opposition this afternoon, first of all by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and now once again by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, goes a little bit beyond what they can expect the minister to sit here and take. The dirty, vicious remarks this afternoon about Indians are now duplicated by a sneering, McCarthy-like statement by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Just because there is an information leak at the provincial level he stands up here and asks me to break my written word in letters to the governments of these provinces that no information would be put out from the federal level. If he is absolutely fair he will realize this. Conservative members from Prince Edward Island have come to me with complaints that they had no information about what Liberal M.L.A.'s in Prince Edward Island are doing with the roads program in their province. Why does not the hon. member apply the same rule of ethics to the Liberal government in Prince Edward Island?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will answer that question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just you sit down until I finish.


An hon. Member:: That's the stuff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I will not sit down until the hon. gentleman is finished.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to sit down but now I rise on a question of privilege. I had not intended to bother doing it but in view of the attitude of the hon. gentleman I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman talked about my upholding the rights of parliament as being McCarthy-like tactics. That is an improper imputation of motives which the hon. member has no right whatsoever to make. I will not take up the time of the committee by asking him to withdraw it because the country is soon going to discover what attention should be paid the remarks made by this hon. gentleman. However, I will say this about Prince Edward Island. If that is being done in Prince Edward Island, it is wrong also. We in parliament are entitled to know this. Why there should be such secrecy about where these roads are going to be anyway, I do not understand. When we sat over there on the other side and proposed to keep secret certain things about the armament program of this country we were accused-
IMr. Pickersgill.]


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is not a question of privilege. The minister has the floor.


Murray Douglas Morton: I suggest the hon. member stick to the question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is that the minister has made a malicious attack upon my reputation and I am entitled to repudiate that attack. All I did which gave him any excuse for making that attack was to point out that parliament was entitled to information which provincial premiers and provincial cabinet ministers were spreading abroad about the country but which was denied us in this parliament. If that is McCarthyism, I intend to go on indulging in McCarthyism.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I gather that the chairman has ruled that there is no question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was on my
feet with regard to inferences and allegations spread around by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. You can see, Mr. Chairman, the way in which his mind is twisted. I said that he was applying to one province's political party a code of ethics which was different from what he was willing to apply to another.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say anything about any province.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then the hon. member is up like a firecracker and he tells us he is defending the rights of parliament. This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, this parliamentary institution, as we have known it, from the type of activities that have gone on the other side of the house, has taken a greater series of blows than it could sustain from any leaks or any misuse of information in the hands of provincial politicians. I should like nothing better, Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You should have been here in 1956.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -than to give the name of every road and the amount that was spent on every road. I will give to this house all the information I have here available and put it on the record so you can go back and say that this is being done.
To those in British Columbia you can say that a road is being built under agreement 255 miles in length. The amount that was spent up to March 31, 1959 was $2,040,000. You can say in Alberta there is general agreement now on a road program for 430 miles of road and that all the province spent there up

to March 31, 1959 was $500,000. In Saskatchewan there is agreement as far as the actual roads are concerned on 824 miles of road. Work started on May 5, 1958, last year, and is still continuing. The province's expenditures to March 31, 1959 are $2,500,000. In Manitoba the agreement calls for 688 miles of road. They started work on May 28 last year. The expenditures up to March 31, are $1,500,000. In Ontario the agreement at the present time calls for 355 miles of road. The amount actually spent up to March 31, 1959 was $200,000. When I hear here of all these roads starting and stopping after election time may I say that there could not have been too much there under this program because that is all we spent on this program.
In New Brunswick the agreement calls for 417 miles of road. They did $1,500,000 worth of work last year. In Nova Scotia the agreement calls for 465 miles of road and $2,500,000 was spent last year. In Prince Edward Island, 343 miles of road-on that little island-and they spent $2,500,000 last year. In Newfoundland, 269 miles of road so far have been agreed upon and they spent $220,000 last year. The total amount spent last year up to March 31, 1959 was $12,960,000. The amounts that we will have to pay can be easily discovered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the minister to say that they spent $2,500,000 in Prince Edward Island? I thought the limit for each province was $1,500,000.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The limit each year in a province is $3 million, of which we pay one-half, $1,500,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And $2,500,000 was spent in Prince Edward Island last year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is the
figure I have here.


Harold Edward Winch: The information given us by the minister is most interesting and we appreciate it. We are now discussing this afternoon the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960. The minister was most interesting, yes and informative, but I want to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that we are discussing now vote 280, which is the contribution to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance wtih agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, and for that, in the period starting April 1 of this year until March 31 of next year, the minister is asking for the sum of $9 million. That is not for something in the past but for something in the future.
Supply-Northern Affairs
The only answer we have had from the minister so far is: "It is confidential; I cannot break confidences." Mr. Chairman, I say that if the members of this House of Commons are being asked to give authority for the payment of $9 million, then we are entitled to know where and why this $9 million is going to be spent. It is not good enough for us to wait until next year when the money has been spent. We have the authority now to decide whether the money shall be spent or not and I say that it is positively disgusting and disgraceful that the minister hides himself under the cloak that he has secret agreements with provinces and cannot tell the House of Commons, which has to pass the money, how, where or why the money will be spent.
Mr. Chairman, surely that is something that no one in this house should be entitled to anticipate or expect and as a matter of fact I have not even yet got the answer to the question I asked previously as to how it ties in with roads. But the important thing is this. The minister almost had a halo around his head when he told us how the money was spent last year. We are not discussing how the money was spent last year. That is a matter of public accounts and concerns the public accounts committee. What we have before us now is not the public accounts of last year but the estimates for the next 12 months, and under vote 280 we are being asked for $9 million. The minister has not told us one word yet. He has not taken us into his confidence one iota, except to say that he cannot because it is confidential with the provinces. Mr. Chairman, you may have something in common with the provinces and you may have some secret agreements, but it is the House of Commons which has to pass this $9 million and we are entitled to know how, why and where that $9 million is going to be spent. Until I get that answer I will have to reserve my opinion whether I vote for it or not because I want to know where, how and why this money is going to be spent.


William Arnold Peters: I am not at all satisfied with the answer we got. I do not see why this should be secret in the first place, and I think it is high time the people of Ontario who have heard a great deal about access roads finally discovered where those access roads are. We have had an unpleasant record in Ontario with roads under a Conservative government, roads which were never built that we passed money for, particularly the bridge sections of those roads. I do not think that a federal Conservative government will be any better than a provincial Conservative government was, and I think parliament has the right to know

Supply-Northern Affairs where these particular roads are so that we can see if they are roads which are worth while or not. This seems to me a wonderful way of passing out patronage between the province and the federal government, when you do not have to explain where there is a road or there is not a road. We have to take the minister's word that there are 335 miles already contracted for in Ontario and that we have already spent some $200,000. He did not give us the figures for the ones which were not contracted for, I suppose because we did not ask for them.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that these roads have to serve some purpose, and they cannot serve a purpose unless they are known to the people in the communities nearby. I think we should point out to the minister that this $9 million in this particular item is not only in this year but was in last year. There is no difference between the item this year as compared with last year. I am not familiar with the geographical situation in the province of Prince Edward Island, but it always seemed to me that it was a fairly small province and I am surprised to find that $2,500,000 was spent in looking for the resources in that province. It indicates to me that there is probably not the supervision of this program that the minister envisioned for the Canadian people when he talked about it in the first place.
A great deal was said about these resource roads in the recent provincial election in the province of Ontario. At that time in various ridings there was reference to roads being built in the next riding, but there was no reference to the ones in my particular riding. I heard of roads which were going to be built from Timmins to Kapuskasing and other roads going to be built in numerous places, and I think we are entitled to this information and we are going to demand that it be made available to the committee. If not I will be quite happy to talk on this item until six o'clock and the minister can think it over during the weekend.
We are very much in favour of this roads to resources program. We know there are many areas in our part of the country in northern Ontario that have not been developed, and one of the reasons they have not been developed is that we have not been able to get roads put into those particular areas. In the province of Ontario the department of mines has gone into highway construction. Throughout northern Ontario they are building various sections of highways which the department of highways usually take over after they are completed.


I had hoped that this would be the same type of program that would happen under this particular vote.
I can envision many roads being constructed, and I want to refer to one of them, the road from Kowganda and Shining Tree, West Tree, into the area of Sultan in the Chapleau district. This road is already completed and about 80 or 100 miles is owned by the K.P.C. The Kalamazoo Parchment Company have a big business in that area and they built a road at their own expense and closed it off to traffic, with the exception of the vehicles of some private individuals who have permission from the company to go through. This is a very important road because it opens up that new area in Kowganda, which is a well developed mining area.
This would mean that the tourist traffic, particularly from the area of Sault Ste. Marie and other areas would be greatly stimulated because of the benefit which would arise through having this important area of our country opened up to the public and made available for industrial development. I should like to know what consideration has been given to the roads which, we heard a year ago, were the only ones in which the minister was going to take an interest, that is those along the north branch of the Canadian National Railways. I was surprised, I must say, to hear that some of these roads were being built in places such as the province of Prince Edward Island-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if, in an effort to save the time of the committee, I could intervene at this point by reminding the committee that I said that if any hon. member asked me about a road that was approved I could tell him whether or not that was the case. The hon. member has mentioned a road, and I can tell him that the road which he has mentioned was proposed by the Ontario government and approved.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am willing to accept that. The minister has given me the information as it affects a constituency, but it was information given to me in confidence. The fact remains that other parties had not treated it in confidence. Surely if you have a deal and they do not keep one aspect of it, you can do something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the way you would operate.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Minister of National Health and Welfare says: "That is the way you would operate." So this is a fine way to operate, is it? We have got a sunshine blowhard up

at the lakehead who announces every culvert and bridge crossing that comes along and he has been announcing them for months in connection with the roads to resources program, and I consider it an insult to the House of Commons that he should be announcing federal jobs. This affects other departments of government, and the situation produces its ridiculous aspects when you have a situation arising where a minister of defence production is unwilling to give information on particular questions addressed to him while this sunshine blowhard is spreading the information up there. All this party understanding business on the provincial and federal level depresses me. This is the sort of thing I could get very annoyed about- and I do not often get annoyed-because it involves the dignity of members of this house -I don't care whether they are Conservatives, Liberals or members of the C.C.F. I admit that the minister in this regard has been fair with me, within the limits that he has announced. I have been able to go to his office and get the information. But this is a damnable situation, and one to which I object very strongly. I suggest that an hon. member has the right to know if a contract has been broken-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon.
member will take my word for it, I will call the premier and ask permission to forget this mutual understanding of the two governments, though, no doubt, that will cause some embarrassment in other provinces. I will certainly phone the premier, and I am quite certain that if it is correct that the information is around the province he would agree that there is no reason to keep it quiet. The election is over.


An hon. Member:: There is the answer.


William Arnold Peters: What a horrible admission. "The election is over". How little use some ministers have for the rights of parliament when they can make that kind of statement. That makes it even worse-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think we had better have some order brought into this committee. I am speaking on a point of order. I gave an answer to the hon. member and in giving that answer I stated quite candidly that I could not see there was any reason whatever of a political nature-there was no election in the offing -for not giving this information and immediately this stampede starts. My point of order is this: if we are going to conduct this committee of estimates, we have to decide whether we are going to have information about my department or whether we are going to fight a political battle in this committee.
Business of the House
I think you should decide whether the type of stuff that has been going on this afternoon is in order or not.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order which has been raised, I cannot understand a man in the position of the minister of northern affairs suggesting that the remarks that have been made are remarks which should not be made by a member of parliament. We have heard the word "McCarthyism" hurled back and forth across this floor this afternoon. This would suggest to me that the minister is not only hurling the accusation, but also trying to practise it. The minister has said now: "We shall make this information available; why not? The election is over." What a slur on the House of Commons, that we should now get information because an election is over.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor on a point of order and I refuse to sit down for the minister.


Murray Douglas Morton: Kindly
address the Chair.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, that is a fine remark. I was speaking on a point of order when I was rudely interrupted by the minister of northern affairs.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, you cannot have a point of order and a question of privilege at the same time. Now, on the point of order-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want a ruling on this question regarding a point of order and a point of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Murray Douglas Morton: It
being six o'clock I do now rise and report progress.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, there is a question that I wish to bring to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: The business of the house has been terminated, though a discussion on the business of the following day is usually permitted.


Harold Edward Winch: This is on the business of the house. A situation occurred in the committee and the question was raised with the deputy chairman as to whether or not a question of privilege could be raised on a point of

Business of the House
order. I would like you as Speaker to give a direction, not perhaps now but at the next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will state his point then.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister who is leading the house what the business will be for all of next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was given to understand that some agreement had been reached among the whips of the parties and with the house leader with regard to attempting to terminate the business next week, on the understanding that we would complete the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources today and perhaps those of trade and commerce; but because of the developments that have occurred, I think all I can reasonably do at the present time is announce the government order of business for Monday.
The first item will be No. 12 on today's order paper having to do with grants to the province of Newfoundland. The second item will be No. 1 on today's order paper having to do with an extension of long term mortgage credit to farmers; No. 3 will be No. 11 on today's order paper, the resolution to approve the international wheat agreement; No. 4 will be No. 9 on today's order paper, the resolution with regard to approving the convention on the nationality of married women; No. 5 will be No. 7 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. S-25, to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia; No. 6 will be No. 4 on today's order paper, a somewhat similar agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick; and No. 7 will be the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to amend the Public Lands Grant Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what estimates will be taken up next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be advisable now to await the return of the house leader who apparently had some discussion with members on the other side as to the business for next week. We have his suggestions already with regard to estimates. I presume they would be taken in this order, the completion of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, followed by trade and commerce; then, mines and technical surveys; national health and welfare, fisheries, post office, secretary of state, privy council, national revenue, legislation and finance.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what we shall do on Tuesday in case the items that were mentioned were completed on Monday?


Harold Edward Winch: I understand legislation will be the last?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, having announced the business for Monday, in the present circumstances I think that is as far as I should go. The house leader will give the announcement on Monday night.


Lionel Chevrier: If we do not complete the business mentioned for Monday will we go on with that business on Tuesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes, and with any other bills that have not been dealt with. For example, the first item on Monday will be the resolution on the grants to Newfoundland. If that passes, then second reading of that would follow on Tuesday. I think the legislative program I have announced might well consume the two days' time.
It being eight minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on June 25.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has the government been requested to choose members of the armed forces, rather than those of our illustrious Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to carry out the daily changing of the guard in front of the parliament buildings?
2.	If so, by whom were such requests made, and on what occasion?
3.	Has the government decided to establish this British tradition permanently in Canada?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1, 2 and 3. As on previous occasions, a military guard was mounted on government house during the residence of Her Majesty the Queen. Following a number of requests, including representations from the Ottawa board of trade, arrangements were made to continue this practice during the summer months and to carry out the ceremony of the changing of this guard, which is a traditional ceremonial drill of the Canadian army, on the lawns in front of the parliament buildings.
It is not the practice for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to undertake this type of ceremony.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
261.	Departmental administration, $866,273.
262.	Northern research co-ordination centre, including a grant of $10,000 to the Arctic institute of North America; and an amount of $5,000 for grants in aid of northern research subject to allocation by treasury board, $96,785.
263.	Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for campground and picnic area developments, $1,500,000.
Supply-Items Passed National parks branch-
264.	Branch administration, $199,400.
National parks and historic sites services-
265 Administration, operation and maintenance including a grant of $25,000 towards the commemoration of Fort MacLeod as a Royal North West Mounted Police post subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $6,663,934.
266.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $18,694,912.
267.	Grant to Jack Miner migratory bird foundation. $5,000.
268.	Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
269.	To authorize payment to the national battlefields commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec (chap. 57, statutes of 1908, as amended), $178,290.
270.	Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $686,739.
Water resources branch-
271.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, $1,389,466.
272.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $214,400.
273.	Studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $170,740.
274.	Contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and water conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into between Canada and the province of Ontario, $300,000.
Northern administration and lands branch-
275.	Branch administration, $1,587,128.
Yukon Territory-
276.	Operation and maintenance, including grants
and contributions	as	detailed in	the	estimates,
[Stage Direction]
277.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $4,499,400.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
278.	Operation and maintenance, including grants
and contributions	as	detailed in	the	estimates,
[Stage Direction]
279.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as the governor in council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $18,640,498.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 13, 1959