1960-07-23

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On July 13, 1960, at page 6215 of Hansard, during discussion of the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue, I said:
Granada T.V. network, which was mentioned earlier in dealing with the Ottawa application of the United Kingdom, is owned by Roy Thomson, who seems to be gobbling up everything in Canada, not only in the newspaper business but also in the radio and television fields. Therefore, if I am correct-and the minister may correct me if I am wrong-there appears to be 331 per cent of the capital of this company which comes from outside sources.
I have received a letter from Mr. K. R. Thomson, son of Roy Thomson, who in the second paragraph says:
I know that your statement in the house was made in good faith and for this reason I wanted you to know that there is no affiliation whatsoever between my father or any of his British enterprises and Granada.
Mr. Speaker, I made the statement in the House of Commons in good faith, upon reliable information. I regret if my statement has caused these people any embarrassment or if it has been unfair to them in any way. However, I feel that the minister responsible for the board of broadcast governors should inform himself and tell the house who is the owner of Granada.



MR. CHEVRIER    PROTEST OVER LATE FILING OF ORDER FOR RETURN

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I have another question of privilege which has to do with the Acting Secretary of State and the Department of Transport. On February 8, I filed a motion for a report made by Mr. C. Gravelle, consulting engineer, concerning the representations of south shore municipalities to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and the return was made yesterday-to be exact, on July 20-after consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport, although the report by Mr. Gravelle was made more than a year ago.
I submit that although I asked the Secretary of State for this return on one and 79951-0-430
perhaps two occasions, I cannot remember which, it is of course impossible at this stage to discuss a report of this nature, and I cannot understand why it should have taken over five months to table this return.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression that my department had made the Gravelle report available to the hon. member for Laurier many months ago. If that was not done, I am surprised. I can assure the hon. member that if he had spoken to me at any time in the intervening period, I would have seen that he was given a copy of the report. It was my impression that he had been, and I agree that there is no reason why the hon. member should not have had the report. As I say, it has been my impression all along that he was given a copy many months ago by my department.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, I was not given this report many months ago, either by the minister or by anybody else. This was an order of the house, and either the minister or the Secretary of State should have complied with that order even though I had been given the report, which I deny. In the circumstances it was not possible for me to discuss it during the consideration of the minister's estimates.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: As far as my department is concerned, my officials followed the regular procedure. They communicated with the officials of the department concerned. This report was tabled the same day it was brought to my department.


Lionel Chevrier: Five months ago.



RESEARCH


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I wish to table the first annual report in English and in French of the Queen Elizabeth II fund. I would point out that section 15 of the relevant act provides:
The chairman of the board shall within three months after the 31st day of March in each year submit to the Prime Minister a report of proceedings under this act for the year ending on that day-

Labour Conditions
I leave out intervening inapplicable words-
-and the Prime Minister shall cause such reports to be laid before parliament within 15 days after the receipt thereof-
I would point out that this report by the chairman of the board of trustees was received in my office on July 22, although the letter transmitting the report to me is dated July 14. I point this out in order that no one may say there has been any delay on my part in this regard.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the dominion-provincial conference will convene on Monday and that questions will arise respecting various matters of interest to the dominion and the provincial governments, there is an announcement I wish to make at this time so that no one will find it necessary to rise on a question of privilege to point out that a statement was made in answer to a question in that conference which had not already been made in the House of Commons.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: A very good practice.


Mr. Churchill:: Not followed by the former government.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to deal with the question of a municipal incentive works program. The original announcement in this connection to inaugurate the matter was made by me on October 27, 1958; and covering, as it does, relationships between the two levels of government I now wish to advise that the municipal incentive program has in my opinion served its purpose well over the past two winters. It has provided tangible support, usually where most needed, to the overall winter employment educational efforts which have been steadily gaining momentum in all parts of the country. I think the house will have been pleased with the co-operation shown by all government agencies, provincial, municipal and federal, in carrying out this program in all the provinces.
During the past winter 860 municipalities participated, compared with nearly 700 during the first winter. While final figures are not available, it is estimated that over 51,000 men received on-site employment on some 2,600 individual projects involving close to 2 million man-days of work. These figures are also higher than those of the previous winter. It is not unreasonable to assume that at least an equal number of man-days were provided

indirectly in manufacturing and servicing material that went into these projects.
The total estimated expenditure on works projects undertaken during the period of last winter's program, namely from December to May inclusive, was $75 million as compared with $53 million the previous winter. Incentives have also been provided by several of the provinces which in total will involve additional contributions to the municipalities estimated at $4 million. Moreover, in some cases provincial assistance has been given to municipalities in securing the necessary funds to proceed with these projects.
Due to the results achieved in the experience of these past two years, and in response to requests from the provinces, municipalities and other bodies, the government has decided to continue the program during the coming winter and to extend it in a number of important respects.
During the past two years the classes of projects coming within the scope of the program have been broadly (a) the construction and major improvement of municipal roads, streets, sidewalks and bridges; (b) the construction and major improvement of municipal water and sewage facilities; (c) the construction and development of municipal parks and playgrounds. It is now proposed to considerably extend the range of this program, and in addition to the classes of projects already included the incentive payment of 50 per cent of the labour costs will be made applicable during the coming winter to the construction, major reconstruction, major alteration or renovation of municipal buildings, not, however, including school or hospitals, provided the federal incentive payment on new structures does not exceed $50,000 on each structure.
This extension I hope will encourage all municipalities with a backlog of needed projects to expand their winter works program substantially. The broadening of the program to include a wide range of municipal buildings should materially increase winter work particularly for building tradesmen, who regularly constitute a large proportion of the seasonally unemployed workers each winter, as well as for many workers engaged in the production of building supplies.
The second way in which the program is being broadened is to extend the incentive payment to a number of other projects previously excluded from the three main categories to which I referred earlier. The details of these are being sent to the provinces. They include such items as street lighting projects including traffic signals, municipal parking lots, water and sewage treatment plants,

pumping stations and water towers. In other major respects the program will remain the same.
I think I should add a word of appreciation for the co-operation of the provincial governments, municipalities and others who have made a contribution to the success of this important program. With its enlarged scope, an earlier announcement, and a continuation of the co-operation in the past I think we can be assured that the program will be increasingly effective during the coming winter.
My colleague the Minister of Public Works has already informed the house of the measures to be taken to increase financing for housing construction during September, October and November as a stimulus to winter employment. This together with the expanded municipal winter works program and the many other efforts of provincial and federal government departments and agencies in this field to step up winter work along with an over-all annual promotional campaign to increase winter employment will, I am sure, make a substantial impact on the employment problem this winter.
I should point out that in addition to this announcement the Minister of Labour has another announcement to make at this time, and that further projects and plans to meet the unemployment situation will be announced in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our usages, of course, the Prime Minister has advised the house of the fact that the government is going to continue the winter works program, established some two years ago following a precedent that had previously existed.
The announcement made by the Prime Minister today, he says, has been encouraged by the fact that the federal government will meet with the provinces on Monday. We believe, too, that it was in answer to requests made from this side of the house during the course of this session in questions addressed to the Minister of Labour asking him to make an announcement of the government's intention with regard to anticipated unemployment in the coming autumn and winter.
The fact that the Prime Minister proposes to discuss this matter with the provinces suggests, of course, that the provinces have given an indication of their concern about the situation in the coming autumn and winter, and that the government believes the problem of unemployment is one that should be discussed.
The Prime Minister has not given us the full agenda of the conference but it may now be assumed, of course, that at the conference not only will fiscal matters be discussed but also 79951-0-4304
Labour Conditions
the question already referred to as well as possibly other matters. This is to be considered in the light of the statement of the Minister of Finance in answer to questions put, I think, by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which indicated that there would be no proposals made by the federal government at all at this conference. Indeed, the Minister of Finance indicated that it was not to be a conference of that kind.
With regard to the program, the Prime Minister has announced certain extensions which will apply to certain municipal projects hitherto not included. There will be an opportunity to provide 50 per cent of the labour costs of renovation of municipal buildings, excluding hospitals, up to an amount of $50,000. The principle of the 50 per cent contribution is maintained, yet the Prime Minister will know that during this very session of parliament we have urged in speeches dealing with unemployment that there should be a modification of this program; that it should cover not only renovations, street lighting and municipal projects of that kind but others as well. We suggested that the program should be extended to a much wider area, to include, for instance, the cost of materials. However, in the announcement the Prime Minister has made the government is retaining the principle of a 50 per cent contribution, notwithstanding the fact that in many sections of our country where unemployment is greatest it is not open to the municipalities to provide this contribution, along with the provinces, because of the financial situation of so many of them.
Certainly the announcement made by the Prime Minister does not meet the request made to the government by the organization of mayors and municipalities in Canada. Having in mind the submissions made through Mr. Mooney, the secretary of that body, and the deliberations that were conducted in Chicago by the mayors of Canadian municipalities, the municipalities will not find in today's announcement a satisfactory confrontation of their requests.
The minister, in assessing the value of the program to date, has said that some 600 municipalities have participated and that some 2 million man-hours of work were created. One, of course, would ask the Prime Minister to indicate clearly whether or not the municipalities would have undertaken many of these projects in any event. This indicates the limited effectiveness of the winter works program as a means of taking care of unemployment in our country at a time when the numbers of unemployed are so great. Some 40,000 men have been put to work under this program at a time when,
68X8

Labour Conditions
on the basis ot the lowest figures, over
555,000	people were out of work.
The minister referred to the housing announcement made by the Minister of Public Works the other day. That too was in answer to the demands that were made by the hon. member for Nipissing and others calling upon the government to embark on projects to meet the dissatisfaction that exists in Canada over the government's lack of policy on unemployment.
The Prime Minister has made an announcement that will be welcomed, as far as it goes, but the Prime Minister must not think for a moment that through this announcement he has established a policy that is going to cope with the very serious problem of unemployment existing in our country. This is a mere bagatelle. It is not a confrontation of the problem. This is not a recognition of the requests made by the municipalities or the provinces in keeping with the assurances given by the government.
The particular program that is to be presented to the provinces on Monday will be outlined in the absence of municipal representatives. The Prime Minister promised the municipalities that they would be given an opportunity to sit down and consult with the two senior levels of government. That assurance has not been met. The municipalities are not being given the opportunity to discuss this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member continues, I should like to caution him not to go beyond the subject matter of the announcement and deal with meetings between the government and the municipalities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not gone beyond-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that this matter concerns the municipalities as well as the provinces. Under this program the municipalities are called upon to make contributions, and what I am saying is that the Prime Minister has not met the requests of the municipalities when he discusses this matter without their being present. In any event, the Prime Minister should recognize that in the announcement he has made today he has not met the demands of people all over the country who are dissatisfied with the way in which the government has sought to resolve, in accordance with its assurances, the problem of unemployment in Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to abide by the rules of the house and make a brief comment in reply to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not know whether I will get the same applause when I have finished. I wish to say on behalf of this group that we look upon the Prime Minister's announcement of this program as another poultice on the ulcer of unemployment, which we on these benches have claimed over and over again is purely the result of our unplanned, profit-seeking system which has little regard for human values. Anyway, from the announcement made by the Prime Minister it is evident that he recognizes the problem and that he is going to deal with it. While this program will without doubt be of some further assistance to the municipalities which are able to take advantage of it, and will employ an additional number of people, that total help in terms of employment is little in relation to the total number of unemployed.
In conclusion I want to say this and, as I said, I am not going to deal with the matter at length. We in this group believe there must be much more profound changes in our society and in our planning before we are going to be able to provide Canadians with their right, namely the right to full employment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is perhaps anticipating. I am not sure for what purpose the Prime Minister is rising.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to answer certain statements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am now rising on my point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member will wait-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before there is any unnecessary argument on this matter, may I remind all hon. members of the house that when an announcement has been made to the house, the practice is for one comment from each party and not for reply. May I say to the Prime Minister, if he had a reply in mind, that in my view it would be proper to comment only if there had been some misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what had been said, and that opportunity is open at any time when something has been said which is a misinterpretation. However, it is of course not proper to debate this matter. I

appreciate the fact that the statement of the hon. member for Essex East verged on debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: When I interrupted him, I felt that his comment had gone beyond the scope of the statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what you have stated is entirely correct. But the hon. member for Essex East went far beyond-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did you not raise a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently I am to be
denied the right to reply to his statement. I am accepting your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which denies me the right to reply because it is realized over there on the other side of the house that there is a complete reply to everything that was raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Just in order to make sure that our practice is understood may I suggest that if an hon. member, in commenting on a statement, goes beyond what other hon. members consider is fair comment in accordance with our practice, I would appreciate the point being taken at the time. Then I can restrain or control or try to limit any comment which would provoke answer. I appreciate the fact that at this time in the proceedings there are made statements to which lion, members naturally wish to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I again accept what you have stated as proper and fitting, but if any objection is raised to matters that should not be dealt with by the opposition, immediately there is a loud attack on the government that we are trying to deny them the right to speak in parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, may I say that is exactly what happened when I rose.


John George Diefenbaker: No, not when you rose.



ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING TRAINING OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS

Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wish to make an announcement on the training of unemployed workers.
Training for unemployed workers has received greater attention over the past year in the house and throughout the country. I have welcomed this increased interest, as have other members of the house. Changes taking place in many of our industries demand more highly skilled workers, and it is
Labour Conditions
essential that many of those unemployed today receive additional training in order to fit into job opportunities on a continuing basis.
Over the past year or more the provinces were asked to provide additional training for unemployed persons, either by way of preemployed training or upgrading training, to improve qualifications in the occupation in which the person has been employed. In response to this request, stepped-up efforts to provide additional training facilities and programs for unemployed workers have been undertaken over recent months by a number of provinces. This has been done under our federal-provincial training agreements. The unemployment insurance commission last fall introduced changes covering the training of workers while in receipt of unemployment insurance.
As a means of stimulating still further training of unemployed workers throughout the country, the government has decided to increase its contribution in this field from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the total cost. In order to encourage the provinces that have operated substantial training programs over the past years, as well as to stimulate such training in other provinces, it is proposed that the increased federal contribution will take effect when the volume of training given to unemployed workers by a province is above a minimum.
This minimum will be based upon the average annual number of days of training provided over the past four years as a percentage of the total adult population in those provinces which have had active training programs for such workers. When this minimum amount of training is given by a province, the higher rate of federal contribution will come into effect and will apply retroactively for all costs incurred in the training of unemployed workers during the fiscal year involved.
The details of this proposal are being communicated to the provinces.
In reaching its decision to increase the federal contribution to the provincial training programs of unemployed workers, the government has been strongly influenced by a recommendation of the vocational training advisory council. In this recommendation the council urged that the federal share of the training costs of unemployed workers be increased to encourage and enable an expansion in the scope of the training programs carried out by provincial governments.
The vocational training advisory council, I might add, is composed of representatives of provincial departments of education and

Labour Conditions
labour, and of national employer, union, veterans, women's and agricultural organizations. I might add that a review suggested by this council is now being made of the adequacy of existing facilities for training across the country.
It is my sincere hope that with this increased contribution to the training costs, those provinces which have been carrying on programs of training for unemployed workers will increase the volume of these programs substantially, and that those provinces which have not had programs in the past will now join with the other provinces and the federal government in actively developing and expanding this important and useful program of training.
It has been demonstrated many times in Canada and elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, that training is an avenue to steadier employment and to increased working and living standards. We must do all we can in the interests of individual workers, their families and the country as a whole to raise the level of our manpower skills. I am confident that the provincial governments and all members of the house share this conviction.
I fully expect there will be higher expenditures incurred for the training of unemployed workers, and provision for this purpose will have to be made in further supplementary estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the minister will, I am sure, find wide support throughout this house and in the country. One would hope that we could have a conference with the provinces more frequently, because apparently that particular event has succeeded in bringing to the attention of the government the serious problem of unemployment that exists in Canada.
It will be recalled that the hon. member for Trinity a year and a half ago in this house outlined in a rather memorable speech the desirability of an acceleration in our vocational training program. It will also be recalled that last February the Leader of the Opposition, when speaking on unemployment, referred to a recommendation which had been made by the vocational training advisory council last December complaining about the lack of progress made in vocational training in Canada.
The minister has now apparently decided to accept the recommendations made by this council, to some extent at any rate. He undoubtedly was also persuaded in the decision which has been announced this morning to take into account the observations of the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission, who said that only one in ten

of the unemployed workers in Canada was trained or skilled for jobs which were available.
This announcement by the government is very welcome indeed. It is a belated announcement and one which should have been made two years ago. It does not, however, fully meet the recommendations of the vocational training advisory council. It does not meet the recommendations made by the provincial governments who have asked for an increase in the federal contribution not from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, but have asked the federal government to bear the full cost in the light of its acknowledged constitutional responsibility in the matter of unemployment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I can only say it is heartening that at long last, at the end of the session, the government is recognizing some of the recommendations which have been made by those of us in this party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the announcement of the Minister of Labour with interest, and we appreciate very much the purpose of the announcement. I cannot resist congratulating the government for giving effect to a principle which has been advocated by members of this group for many years.
I must remind the hon. member for Essex East, when he tries to take all the glory for the hon. member for Trinity on account of a speech he made last year that while the hon. member for Trinity was making that speech there were frequent comments from this group that he must have been reading the speeches made by Mr. Gillis for this group throughout the years. I hear some whispering behind me. Before I conclude I should say we trust that this will be a spur to Ontario.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA FOR JULY MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, since there are no nuclear weapons at all in Canada the allegation has no foundation whatsoever.']
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the dominion-provincial conference opens on Monday, and presumably therefore the agenda has now been agreed on, and in view of the fact that we have had at least one item of that agenda given the house this morning, is the Prime Minister now in a position to give us information about other items on the agenda?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, let me at once say that this gives me an opportunity to answer the misapprehension of the hon. member for

Essex East. So far as this subject is concerned, it is not on the agenda but it is a subject which naturally, in the course of the conference, will be raised.
The reason for making announcements today which would otherwise have been made in the house during the course of the labour estimates is the fact that if on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday questions along this line had been asked of me and I had replied, hon. gentlemen opposite would have immediately said that announcements had been made outside of the house which should have been made in the house. Knowing that fact we felt the announcements should be made now.
So far as the agenda is concerned, the answer to that question has been given on a number of occasions. We do not force upon conferences their agendas, as was once the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister make public here, before they are made public in the conference, the suggestions of the federal government for an agenda?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is one of those self-appointed constitutional authorities in the house, and in that connection he would be the first to raise strenuous objection unless the provinces had agreed to the publication of the information or the suggestions which they passed on to us. That has been the rule all through the years, that no presentation shall be made in the house of communications with the provinces without their individual consents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has chosen to refer to me, that in fact has not been the practice; and on many occasions for which I could give the Prime Minister precedents communications were made to this house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -simultaneous with federal-provincial conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot hear the hon. member who has the floor. The hon. member has not stated his question of privilege, and if he wishes to do so he must come to it before other extraneous matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is that the Prime Minister chose to put words
Inquiries of the Ministry into my mouth which I would not utter and with which I do not agree. The Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is making a question of privilege out of a disagreement which really does not involve any matter of privilege. If there was anything involved it might have been a point of order.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the C.B.C. report yesterday evening to the effect that the Soviet representative at the United Nations cited Canada as one of the nations from which H-bombers take off in the direction of the U.S.S.R., would the Prime Minister state whether nuclear or thermonuclear devices are held in Canada at any time, or if planes are permitted to fly over this country with such devices.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since there are no nuclear weapons at all in Canada the allegation has no foundation whatsoever.



SUGAR ISLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: rise to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with regard to a somewhat intriguing report which is, I believe, of interest to a number of people outside this house.
In view of press reports indicating that the 300 residents of Sugar island, which lies in the St. Mary's river, have expressed a strong desire to exchange the Stars and Stripes for the Union Jack because of the economic advantages which would accrue to them if they did so, could the minister inform the house whether any representations have yet been made to the Canadian government to this effect, and whether any negotiations are taking place?
In view of the reported statement of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, to the effect that Canada would be interested in buying Sugar island from the United States, would the minister say what the attitude of the Canadian government would be toward such a proposal?
6822	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): There have been no such representations made to the Canadian government, and no negotiations are taking place.



NATO-SUGGESTION BY FRANCE FOR SETTING UP OF DIRECTORATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister advise the house whether Canada has been informed of a suggestion by General de Gaulle that there be set up a directorate of NATO to be made up of the United Kingdom, the United States and France?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have received no official word of any such renewed request by General de Gaulle. In any event, the government's determination to preserve the fundamental character of NATO as an association of equals has been consistently made known both in this house and to our partners in NATO. There has been no change in the Canadian position.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister in a position to report further on the fate of the two female employees of his department reported missing since July 20 and believed drowned in Great Bear lake?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to confirm the fact that Mackenzie Air Services, engaged to ferry supplies to the two employees, did not report the incident until a number of days had elapsed after its July 4 flight to Great Bear lake, when no sign of life was noticed in the area where the two employees were supposed to be working?


Paul Comtois: This was mentioned in the report from the R.C.M.P., Mr. Speaker, and if there is any negligence it is on the part of the company.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a further supplementary question which in this case should be addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of persistent rumours to the effect that there was evidence of negligence on the [Mr. Herrldge.l

part of the air service employed to ferry supplies to the two employees of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys now believed drowned at Great Bear lake, would the minister order an immediate investigation of this unfortunate incident?


George Harris Hees: If information which would indicate that negligence has been in evidence in any situation like this is drawn to the attention of the department, the matter is investigated, and if negligence is proved appropriate steps are taken.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Would the Minister of Transport not agree that the statement of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, to the effect that the report of the R.C.M.P. indicated that the aircraft company went in on July 4 and did not find any evidence of human life or activity where they were supposed to find these two persons, is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation?


George Harris Hees: I simply say that if evidence is brought to our attention which would indicate negligence, the proper steps are taken.


George James McIlraith: May I put a further supplementary question to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would seem from the replies which have been given by the minister that this subject has now been exhausted.


Lionel Chevrier: In the light of what has transpired on two occasions in connection with this situation, will the Minister of Transport order an investigation into this matter?


George Harris Hees: We are always glad to look into any matter where there may appear to be signs of negligence.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Oulremont-Sf. Jean):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister announced a few minutes ago that the government would pay 50 per cent of the labour cost of all municipal works programs in the winter, I was wondering whether the Prime Minister was aware that in an average contract 75 per cent of the cost is for materials-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Romuald Bourque: -and the other 25 per cent is for labour. Is the right hon. gentleman aware that this only means about 12J per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is giving facts or arguments rather than asking for information, and he must know that that is not in accordance with the practice of the house.


Michael Starr: In order that the hon. member may have the correct facts, the average labour content of all the municipal winter works is 34.5 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Minister of Labour aware that this statement of his is not in accordance with the representations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising, it appears, to contradict the minister and not to ask a question. That is out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was asking the minister whether he was aware that the statement he made is contrary to the representations which have been made by the organization of mayors of Canadian municipalities.


Michael Starr: In answer to that, the statement I made as to the average labour content of all the jobs that were approved and put into effect is correct.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada is represented at a meeting of officials reported as being held in London to consider questions of commonwealth constitutional development? If so, can the Prime Minister give any indication of what these questions are that are being discussed?


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me notice of this question. The answer is that such a meeting is taking place. The government is represented at this meeting, which opened on July 17 at Chequers, by Mr. Bryce, the clerk of the privy council.
The purpose of the meeting is to prepare a preliminary report for the consideration of commonwealth governments. Without going into the matters that are being discussed, I would refer the hon. gentleman to a discussion which took place in the House of Commons on May 16 last in which I pointed out that the present membership of the commonwealth will within the early or immediate future-and by that I mean a period of five or six years -conceivably be extended to 16 or 18. That
Inquiries of the Ministry would bring about tremendous questions; the question as to whether or not there will be equality of representation for all parts of the commonwealth; whether a country with a population of 300,000 or 400,000 will have equal rights at a commonwealth prime ministers' conference with a country such as India with a population of 450 million. What basis is there for commonwealth membership? Shall it be fixed on a basis of one million or two million people as a minimum population? Then there is the question of whether there should be such things as rotation of membership, as there is today in the security council, or regional groupings within the commonwealth, and the representation of such groups.
The reason for this committee of experts on the problems of the commonwealth being set up is to canvass all the possibilities and review the potentialities of the future, to the end that the commonwealth may not find itself stifled by anything in the nature of rules or regulations; so there may be preserved that informality which, as the hon. gentleman knows from his experience at these conferences, is so necessary if we are to maintain the commonwealth as we know it today. Without pacts, without agreements, without rules, we yet manage to bring about a general adherence to the maintenance of freedom everywhere in the world. To this end the committee now meeting near London has been set up.
I do not think any of the nations represented there have made formal suggestions or recommendations. This whole field is being canvassed, and out of the general discussions of these officials representing various parts of the commonwealth will come, we hope, something in the nature of particular suggestions which may form a basis for the determination of the future of the commonwealth.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement O'Leary (Aniigonish-Guysbo-rough):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and I would ask him to take it as notice. Approximately three months ago the subsidized motor vessel C. and E. Burke ex Halifax, serving ports in Guysborough county, was damaged beyond repair and taken out of service. I now understand that negotiations have been successfully concluded by the Canadian maritime commission for another contract or to take
6824	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry over this service. My question is, at what date may we expect this service to be resumed?


George Harris Hees: I will look into the matter and give the hon. member a report later.



GREAT LAKES-REPORTED REQUEST TO RESTRICT BRITISH COMPETITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport based on wire reports that competition of ships under British registry in the great lakes has forced Canadian shipping to ask the government to restrict British shipping or else Canadian shipping interests will be driven to British registry and crews. Would the minister comment on this somewhat serious suggestion?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I spoke to the chairman of the maritime commission about the matter, and he told me he has no information to indicate that the owners of these Canadian companies plan such a move.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as leader of the house. In view of the fact that consideration of the combines bill is indicated as the business of the house for Monday, and in view of the fact that some of the evidence given before the banking and commerce committee concerning that bill is not yet available from the printer, would the minister look into the matter to see if anything can be done to expedite the making of this evidence available to the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I shall do so, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, who seems to have been called out


of the house. Perhaps the question could be taken as notice or another minister could reply. It may be that the associate minister could answer my question.
The question is, will the minister or the associate minister comment on the report that the proposed arrangement has fallen through by which the purchase by the United States of the Canadian long range CL-44 freighter plane was to be offset by the Canadian purchase of a new United States interceptor?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and report accordingly.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. Is the minister aware that in many parts of Canada counterfeit $10 bills are now freely circulating? If so, what steps are being taken to protect the public?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall see that the matter is investigated and will report back to the house.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
265. Departmental administration, $986,595.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of saying something in general about the work of the department. Along with other hon. members on this side we will have many questions to address to the minister when we come to discuss the separate items.
I should like to begin by associating myself with the tributes that have been paid to the members of the minister's department for their efficiency and devotion and the way they have carried on and are carrying on their duties. I do this with the greater pleasure because as the minister will know, some of the most valuable members of his department are graduates of the department over which I once had the honour to preside.
Perhaps the minister will allow me to say that in his own conduct as minister of the department he has certainly shown both energy and zeal. These are very desirable

attributes, especially in the conduct of this particular department. If we on this side feel as we have felt and perhaps still feel that at times the minister's enthusiasm and zeal have overrun his wisdom and judgment, that does not alter the fact that the minister has brought qualities of great energy and enthusiasm to the work of this important branch of the government.
This is, of course, a department of national development. If you like, it is the department of the vision. I would agree with what the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador said last night when he was speaking, that it is a great mistake on anybody's part, especially in a young country like Canada, to depreciate in any way the importance of vision in national development. It is especially foolish to depreciate the importance of development itself. Development must proceed in our country, of course in full co-operation with the provinces.
Our history has shown over the years that Canada cannot stand still, that she must develop. In this century we have already had three great periods of development, with inevitable pauses between. I think of the period from 1900 to 1914, the period from 1921 to 1930 and the period from 1945 to 1958. History, which is objective in these matters even though historians are not always so, will record the progress that has been made in these periods, and indeed in earlier periods in the nineteenth century when men of imagination and determination had the responsibility of implementing the vision of Canada's development. I am thinking of the opening of the west and the driving of the transcontinental railway over the prairies and through the mountains, a development that has always been associated, and quite rightly, with the name of Sir John A. Macdonald. Tributes have often been paid to him for what he did during those years to initiate and drive through this western surge of national expansion.
Perhaps some hon. members had an opportunity of reading in the last year the history of another great man of that period, George Brown, by the head of the history department of the University of Toronto, Professor Careless, in which he emphasized the interest energy and imagination shown by George Brown, the leader of the other party at that time, who at least in the early days of confederation worked with Sir John. Well, we pay our tribute both to zeal and to vision. Nevertheless, we have criticized in the past and we shall in the future, if the occasion for criticism arises, the exploitation and the exclusive appropriation of that vision by any group or any party. In these matters we also
Supply-Northern Affairs draw a contrast between vision and mirage, between development and declamation, between action and words.
It is quite clear from even a cursory examination of these estimates that exaggerated expressions of the vision are giving way or are being modified-which is probably a better way of putting it than "giving way"-by the harsh realities of budgetary considerations. Just look at the figures of expenditures in these estimates. As has been pointed out already, Mr. Chairman, there is a decrease of $10 million, and if my calculations are correct-and I am sure the minister will correct me if I am wrong-there is a decrease in expenditures in the north of something under $5 million. But more significant than this decrease itself is the reason for it as given by the minister, and the nature of the decrease. Administration costs are up; capital expenditures, employment-producing expenditures, development expenditures, if you like, are down. This is due, the minister told us last night, to the completion of several projects in northern Canada which were initiated by the previous government, certainly in most cases; and it is due to the postponement of other projects.
The reduction of expenditures, said the minister last night, "lies entirely in the construction field." He added, and I am quoting from his statement last night, this reduction is also "accounted for partially by budgetary reasons as well." I am not going to draw the inevitable inference that one could draw from this, that the other reductions are not due to budgetary consideration. If they are not due to budgetary consideration, perhaps the minister will tell us to what they are due.
Much attention has been directed to the development in the last three years of the work of this department, as was done in brief last night by the hon. member for Nickel Belt or the hon. member for Gloucester, or both comparing present appropriations with previous expenditures. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, at this point I might interpolate to express what has already been said by other speakers, including the minister, my regret that our own member from Mackenzie River who is particularly concerned with the estimates of this department collapsed the other night with a heart attack and is not with us this morning. I know hon. members of the committee will be glad to learn that the report we received from him this morning is encouraging. I know hon. members will also agree that if he could only be persuaded not to come back to work in the House of Commons for a while he would be
6826	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs all right; but it is his indomitable determination to take his part in our work that has made it so difficult for him to recover from a previous serious illness.
The figures of expenditures by this department over the last five years, and I think the minister mentioned them in a very brief comparison are illuminating. During the last two years of the Liberal administration, from 1956 to 1958, two years during which we were responsible for expenditures, there was an increase in the northern affairs estimates of $24,863,554. In the first year of the Conservative administration, the year of the full effulgence of the vision, 1958-59, there was an increase in that one year of $24,527,180, almost equal to the increased expenditures of the previous two years. But the next year things began to fall off a bit, and the increase was $9,795,563. This year, as I have already pointed out, there is a decrease of $10,677,408.
That means, Mr. Chairman, that the dollar increase in expenditure on the work of development and in the work of this department in the northern areas in the three years of Conservative administration has been $23,645,335. The increase in expenditures of this kind in the last two years of the Liberal administration which preceded this administration was $24,863,544, or more than in the last three years. That should, I think, pretty effectively dispose of any suggestion that something new began in this field in 1958, and that nothing had been done in the years immediately preceding.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, the estimate show both in their reduction, in the nature of that reduction and the reason for it, that this vision is, if not dimming, at least less spasmodic and less oracular. The minister's statement confirmed that last night. The government and the minister are learning from one thing that development has to be related to the prior requirements of the depressed areas in this country which need redevelopment.
Every time I have talked about development, Mr. Chairman, I have emphasized that there are old, settled, well established areas in this country where development is even more important, important as may be the development of the new areas in the north. This development has to take the form of redevelopment. It certainly should not be overlooked in the excitement, in the significance and importance of extending our northern frontiers.
Then the government is also learning that development has to be related to needs and to markets, because so much of the product which results from new development has to


be sold abroad and there have to be markets for it abroad. Mr. H. D. Boyle of the Whitehorse Star, writing in the northern affairs bulletin some time ago on the slogan of vision, had this to say;
The only magic word in the north is "need". When the north's resources are needed badly enough, they will be removed, no matter how great the odds, just as was the first pitchblende from Great Bear lake and just as now the minerals from Ungava.
While we have to exploit needs and, if possible, create needs, I agree, of course, that we have also to develop resources which will make it possible for us to satisfy those needs. But very often, as I am sure the minister will agree, the needs that are developed-I am thinking of the need of foreign markets for those products which we cannot consume at home-can often be satisfied from our existing resources during the time we are looking for new resources which may be required in the future.
There is no better example of this than the oil and gas industry, which was mentioned last night by the hon. member for Calgary South. Great international corporations controlled outside of Canada move into our country, move into the Arctic, as they move all over the world looking for resources. They will explore, and then they will either leave or lease areas that they wish to leave or lease. If they do lease, and a good deal of this is going on in the north, in many cases they will relate the development of the area they lease, because of the nature of their operations and the nature of the product, not primarily to the needs of Canada or the Canadian market but to their own producing and marketing arrangements all over the world. That certainly constitutes a problem. It is the problem of ensuring that Canadian development will be based on Canadian interests for Canadian purposes under the maximum Canadian control.
Not very long ago the members of the present government thought this problem would not be too difficult to solve, but they are learning, it is obvious, the difficulty of reconciling the necessity of national control with the need of international investment. They are learning about the difficulty of reconciling the proper pace of development with the proper pattern of development. They are learning that it is not always easy to encourage Canadian investment in a way which will not discourage legitimate foreign investment. They are also learning that it is not always easy to determine exactly what is Canadian investment or Canadian development. The hon. member for Nickel Belt gave a very good example of that difficulty last night.

It was not many days ago in the house that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said there was no intention of intervening on behalf of a company whose property had been taken over in Cuba, a corporation which was registered, if only as a holding company, in Canada. But it was registered in Canada, and in that technical sense it certainly was a Canadian corporation. If it is not proper to intervene on behalf of a corporation of that kind which gets into that sort of difficulty with a foreign government, then it is going to be a little difficult to take credit for investments made by that company in Canada as Canadian investments.
Oil development in the Arctic islands area is a very good example of the possibilities and the difficulties of the kind of reconciliation which I have suggested is essential in terms of a healthy national development. Last April the minister issued oil and gas regulations. This was done after more than a year's study; after, so we are told, more than 20 cabinet meetings and after, so we are told, considering more than 27 proposals made to the cabinet by the department regarding Canadian participation.
The immediate result of the issue of these regulations was, of course, confusion. The minister himself admitted that these regulations were open to various interpretations. As he said at that time, "Any lawyer could tear holes in them", and he added, "We don't want to kill the golden goose". Perhaps he meant the oil goose, but he wanted to ensure that it would be a Canadian goose, and a very desirable preoccupation that is. He may not have killed this particular goose, but I wonder whether these regulations have not discouraged to some extent its desire to produce. The minister will probably deal with this matter when he replies. He will also probably deal with the criticism that he has not yet made this particular goose, Canadian.
What are the clauses in these regulations which were presumably designed to Cana-dianize the Arctic oil and gas industry without discouraging the necessary foreign capital, without which any vision of early development in that area could not be realized and would be merely another mirage? The important paragraphs of the regulations for this purpose were mentioned last night, but I should like to put them on the record now. One reads as follows:
No lease will be granted to an individual unless the minister of northern affairs is satisfied the lessee is a Canadian citizen and will be the beneficial owner of the interest that will be granted.
Another clause reads as follows:
As far as companies are concerned, the regulations require that oil companies to obtain a lease
Supply-Northern Affairs must be incorporated in Canada and must make their shares available to Canadians-[DOT]
"Make their shares available to Canadians".
-by listing on recognized Canadian stock exchanges or
Not "and" but "or".
-show that Canadian citizens are the beneficial owners of at least half the issued equity stock.
When it became clear that these paragraphs and other parts of the regulations were causing uncertainty and confusion the minister met the press and answered some questions, or he may have done it in writing. I am not sure how it was done; anyway, he accepted questions and gave answers designed to clear up some of the confusion. He dealt with the two points I have mentioned about Canadian ownership and beneficial ownership in this way. The question was asked:
What is the meaning of the words "that Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing and ownership of the corporation" in section 32(3), and "participating in the beneficial ownership of the corporation" in section 42(5)
The answer given by the minister in an effort to clear up any difficulty or confusion with regard to this matter was as follows:
The department accepts the natural and nominal meaning of the phrases as applied to the particular circumstances of each company. It is impossible to say in advance precisely what would be required in any particular case.
I doubt very much whether the confusion has been cleared up by that kind of answer. It was interesting at that time to study the reaction of the industry to the regulations and to the minister's statements concerning them. There were those who said that the confusion and ambiguity in the regulations left them quite happy, in that it would make possible outside participation without too many difficulties being created because the regulations themselves were so ambiguous that this could be done. There were some Canadian companies, however, which expressed very great disappointment over the regulations. The Canadian petroleum association, which has a primary interest in this matter, of course, said they were consulted before the regulations were issued but that their views were largely ignored.
They strongly objected to some of the new regulations on the ground that they will discourage investment in oil and gas properties in the Northwest Territories. So, as the minister will recall, they asked for a meeting with the government at which they could formally present their views. It was as a result of that meeting that the minister sent them a clarifying statement and gave answers to certain questions.

Supply-Northern Affairs
There are many other questions to be asked on these regulations. We will do that when the individual items are before us.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word about one or two other phases of the work of the department. First I should like to deal with the questions of communication and transportation in the areas under the jurisdiction of the minister's department. I would mention first the Pine Point railway, which has already been referred to by hon. members on this side who have spoken previously. On February 12, 1958 the minister gave an assurance that this railway would be finished by 1961. In the speech from the throne on May 12, 1958 there was included this sentence, that parliament would be asked to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. This was in May, 1958. At that time parliament was to have been asked to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. We know what happened. A royal commission was appointed to examine the most practicable and best route. That royal commission reported in July of this year, 1960, without making any recommendation at all. The only person who apparently is confident as to what is going to happen is the hon. member for Peace River, who has stated-and this was put on the record last June 16-in the Edmonton Journal as follows:
There is every reason to believe the federal government will authorize construction of the Pine Point railway soon after the Manning commission report has been considered.
Against that optimistic prediction, which may be difficult to carry out in view of the report of the royal commission which makes no recommendation, there is a report in this morning's Globe and Mail by an Edmonton correspondent, and I wish the minister would comment on this when he replies:
It has been rumoured for some time that the federal government wants to shelve the project, once a sturdy timber in the Conservative roads to resources platform. A story from the capital last December quoted a key government source as saying giant new mineral discoveries in northern Quebec are likely to swing the emphasis on mining development to that area. "I wouldn't bet on Pine Point now or for some time to come," he said.
That is what is said of the railroad as to which in the speech from the throne in May, 1958 there was an assurance that money would be asked from parliament in order to begin its construction.
Then there is the question of highways in the north. Oh, Mr. Chairman, we heard a great deal about them in 1957 and 1958. We were given the vision of swiftly built Arctic roads opening up areas for development. However, the vision has now been dimmed by reality and by financial consideration. On


December 3, 1959, according to the Canadian Press, the Minister of Transport is reported as saying:
Mr. Hees found it necessary to explain many times that capital investment by the government for communications and transportation must go hand in hand with development.
That observation is, of course, a very sensible one. But it is quite a contrast to what the minister was saying at that time and earlier about the necessity of communications and transportation coming ahead of development. It is quite a contrast to the statements he used to make about the great program of works and roads in the Arctic as a contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem. When the minister speaks he might inform the committee how much employment has been given during the last year by work in the northern areas on communication and transportation. We recall that, with regard to employment, in the previous year about 2,300 jobs were created by this kind of activity, which in the elections of 1957 and 1958 was asserted to be a major feature in the government's attack on unemployment.
The estimates which are before us paint a gloomy picture about progress in communications and transportation. As to the Northwest Territories, the item for construction of roads and bridges is down by $2,800,000. As to the Yukon, the item for the construction of roads and bridges is down by $700,000. The item for national parks branch trunk highways is down by $2J million. All this means is that the Minister of Finance has put blinkers on this particular phase of the vision. Indeed, we predicted a couple of years ago that he would do so. The minister might be pardoned if, because of the activities of his colleague the Minister of Finance, he felt he was suffering at the present time from double vision.
Then the minister referred to the conservation conference called by the Prime Minister in February of 1958, and which we are told is now to meet in October, 1961 as a conference on "Resources for Tomorrow". We wish that conference well. It will certainly deal with fundamental questions connected with our national development. Like the hon. member for Port Arthur, who was speaking last night, I recall the conference on resources in 1920 which perhaps made a larger contribution to the parliamentary library, having regard to the number of reports that came out of it, than it made to any more concrete objectives.
I should not like to sit down without saying a word about tourism. We are all agreed now in this house and, indeed, I think in the country as a whole, on the importance of

tourism to the development, to our economy and to our income. I think we are all agreed on the effectiveness of the work being carried on, as it has been carried on for many years, by those Canadian officials who are responsible for encouraging tourists to come to Canada. No doubt when we reach this item we shall have some specific suggestions to make that might bear on that work. The figures on tourism given by the minister last night were depressing in the sense that they emphasize the imbalance between what we spend outside as tourists and what we receive in Canada from tourists, an imbalance which I think the minister said is not as great this year as it was previously but which is still substantial.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: The total is greater.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a serious situation. Perhaps "serious" is too strong a word, but it gives us food for thought to realize that those of the 175 million people of the United States -if that is her population now, or whatever the figure is-who came to Canada, left $351 million in this country. That is a large figure. I suggest it is just about as large as the figure we would get from our sales of wheat.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: About half as much.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I beg the minister's pardon?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We sell about 300 million bushels of wheat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In any event it is a large figure, that $351 million which was received.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is our third biggest export.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is our third biggest export, the minister says. But those of the 17 million Canadians who travel left $445 million in the United States. I suppose that figure can be accounted for in part by the difference between a week end motor trip in Canada and a two-month stay at a Miami hotel in Florida in the winter time. In any event, the over-all deficit in our tourist account last year, including our tourist account with the United States and with Europe, is now estimated at $200 million. That does not minimize the importance of tourism, but it emphasizes the necessity of doing everything we can to close the gap, just as it is necessary to close other gaps in our balance of payments.
I have dealt in a general way with a few of the items in the estimates, and when the time comes for detailed consideration of these special items I will have other questions to ask the minister.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank hon. members on both sides of the house for the very kind way they have treated the affairs of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources on the occasion of its estimates being before the committee. I think, too, that the one thing on which there is complete unanimity is that there is realization today of the importance of the tourist industry to Canada. It is not only important in the sense of the number of dollars which we bring into the country from this very valuable industry; it is also important to the mental and physical health of our own people.
I think, too, it is well that so many of the members of the committee appreciate the part the national parks play in this over-all recreational industry of Canada, as well as providing a place where people can go in this and future generations to find nature as it always has been.
I was very pleased to hear the number of constructive suggestions which were made in connection with historic sites. We are at a stage in our history where it behooves us to take every possible step to try to preserve these sites before they are lost. At the present time there are some 550 historic sites and monuments under the control of the department. Offhand I estimate there are probably twice that number of reasonably legitimate sites of national interest which could be added to this group. I hope hon. members will continue to make suggestions to the department, and we on our part will try to make the original investigations to establish the facts and put those facts before the historic sites and monuments board in the expectation that if a site is of national interest we can take steps to preserve it. I cannot promise, nor can any minister promise, that all the financial commitments necessary to preserve these sites will be made at once, but at least they will be put on a list with proper priority.
Having said that, there are two or three salient points which come out of the remarks of the various members of the committee concerning my department. One I would like to deal with in conjunction with the broader question of what has now become familiar, the term "vision". It has been pointed out, first by myself and then by various members of the official opposition, that the amounts of money included in the estimates this year for projects of a capital nature have declined, but that on the other hand the number of personnel in the department has increased.
The first argument which is put forward is, how is this possible? When you decrease your capital expenditures, normally you would

Supply-Northern Affairs expect, they say, a decrease in the personnel required to look after the affairs of the department. Another argument adduced from this decline in capital expenditures and this increase in administrative expenditures is that the vision has been lost, that it is fading, and various other phrases were used.
I want to thank the opposition for putting their opinions forward, I am sure in a very sincere fashion. This was proper criticism for them to make. However, I think it does bear out more than I can say the great loss we have suffered in that both the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Mackenzie River are absent from the house at this time, because those two hon. members were familiar with what is going on in the area north of 60. They would have taken an altogether different approach, I am sure, and I want to put this forward in very candid fashion to the Leader of the Opposition.
If any person knows the history of expenditures under northern administration, which are the chief subject of criticism here, he would have known that the big capital expenditures which this government faced in connection with northern administration were for building a new town in the north called Inuvik. It was decided by the previous administration that the old town of Aklavik was unsuitable as an administrative town in the north to administer this vast territory. The expenditures for this new town, using very round figures, will amount to from $34 million to $35 million. These expenditures are just about completed. The hospital will be finished this year, and we have there in the north a new modern town the equal of any town of that size I would say, in any part of Canada, in fact far superior in many ways.
Like many other people coming into the department I had serious doubts as to the wisdom of making such tremendous expenditures for a single community in the north. Among many people from western Canada and around Edmonton in particular, who have made the odd trip down the Mackenzie river and have seen this development, there was wide talk of great waste and extravagance on the part of the previous administration. I kept my mind open and went up there last year, and part of my time I spent in the company of the hon. member for Mackenzie River. I went carefully and in detail over that series of buildings and the plans for operating that town, accompanied by engineers on the one hand and members of the treasury board on the other. After I made that trip I came outside and stated that, after careful consideration, this was good expenditure.


I make that point to the Leader of the Opposition to point out that since the government changed this department has carried the main load of these expenditures for this community. It was not a decision of this government; but speaking for my department and this government, I looked at the matter objectively and I made that statement, and there was reason for it.
When you see a group of empty buildings in an area almost a thousand miles from any other settlement it is a considerable shock. But I was there the day little Eskimo boys and girls came into the school, and I walked through the hostels and saw the way they were being housed and fed and looked after. I saw opportunity being given to 500 people from the trap lines and the fishing villages of our Arctic coast for education they would never get otherwise, because their families move around the Arctic area.
It is true that there are buildings and schools in each village, but much of the population still wanders and I think the greatest credit should go not to our department but to those Eskimo mothers and fathers who are asked if they wish their sons and daughters five years old and up to leave their homes and their families and go away for a period of nearly ten months to attend school and obtain an education. The parents of some 700 children were asked this question and the parents of over 400 children agreed. Theirs was a sacrifice because they knew that the only future for their children, since there is no chance of schooling for them on the trap lines or in the fishing boats, was to send them away and put them into the care of their fellow Canadians of a different colour.
I walked along the beach, along the river bank which some day will be beautiful, and saw the shack tents in which Eskimo families were living in Inuvik. The hon. member for Mackenzie River and I went into those shacks and spoke to the Eskimo mothers and some of the men. I wish the hon. member for Mackenzie River were here today, because if he were he would have asked me "How did you make out in giving these people proper homes?" I can now report to the committee that out of the 30 or more families who were on the beach last September, 23 families are now living in houses almost the same as many of the houses in which we live in Ottawa. They are buying their own houses out of wages they get through working at jobs in this community. Five more houses are needed to meet the waiting list, and I hope these can be provided before winter sets in.
This vindication of the building of Inuvik does not relieve the previous administration

of charges of waste and inefficiency. Because I have been fair about this matter of Inuvik 1 expect the opposition to be equally fair with me when I say there are examples of overplanning and waste in the north, and I know whereof I speak. I do not make much political capital out of this, because I can understand how in a new area mistakes can be made, and in our working out of the Frobisher Bay settlement, which presents a problem of a similar type, we have learned a lot from the mistakes made in the northern territories in the last few years, and I hope we shall not make the same mistakes again.
I should like now to go on to make a point which I believe to be paramount. I have explained how this peak of expenditure came about largely because of the project at Inuvik. The committee appears to have forgotten that it is the Department of Public Works which builds these communities, which builds these hostels to house 500 Eskimo people and children at Inuvik. But who has to put in the administrative officials, the teachers, the janitors, to run these communities? It is this department, and this is the year when these increases hit us, because it is the year when we are taking over.
I warned the committee last year that because of the ability of these Indian and Eskimo boys and girls to rise through the elementary grades we shall be faced with even greater expenditures in the future in order to provide them with high school education and the opportunities they need. The department will guarantee to these Eskimo and Indian boys and girls education to the highest level, up to the universities if they are capable of absorbing it.
As to this question of staffing, in the opinion of our department we have been looked on in the past as a type of Cinderella; understaffed, a junior department not worthy of the great dignity of the senior departments which have been here for many years. There has been a constant fight to get staff to carry out our task. Not long ago questions were asked of me in this chamber about starving Eskimos. We made expenditures on aircraft and so on, and to our knowledge there has been no case of starvation since the winter of 1958-59 when these terrible tragedies occurred. Therefore, when any hon. member raises in this committee the question of overstaffing of my department I get somewhat vehement, because I know the struggle there is in the department to try to staff these various projects that we have to carry out both in the general field and with regard to education, welfare and so on.
I have in my hand a series of simple figures which make this very clear. The expenditures of this department from 1954 up
Supply-Northern Affairs to the present time have increased by 245 per cent. During that time the staff has increased by 20 per cent. We have a large number of people on our staff whose overtime amounts to one third of their income, and that is not a healthy situation in any smooth-working department. If one considers the northern administration branch in particular, expenditures in the last four or five years have climbed by 539 per cent while the staff has increased by 195 per cent. This numerical increase of administrative personnel in the north has been long overdue and I would hope, now that I have put these facts before the committee, that the official opposition, which has used the figures in the estimates as a club to beat me with, will give friendly consideration to the problems we have to face in the north. I am very sorry indeed that the hon. member for Mackenzie River is not here to back me up in this fight.
Another point which has been raised has to do with what hon. members opposite have called the vision. The reduction in capital projects has been quoted as evidence that this is declining. Particular emphasis was placed on the subject of roads. I would like to put forward in this committee as emphatically, yet as quietly and objectively as I can, just what the situation is. This government believes in a system of private enterprise. This government believes it is not the responsibility of government to go into projects and replace private enterprise. We believe in what we call dynamic government as opposed to passive government. Dynamic government, to us, is simply doing those things which will encourage private enterprise to go in and develop our resources.
Let us look at the record. If hon. members will look at the departmental reports for the past three years they will find that revenue, just a few years ago, was dragging along at a level of between $1 million and $2 million a year. Every hon. member now has a copy of our last annual report, for 1958-59 and that report contains a statement of the revenue for that year. I shall not bother the committee with all the details; it is sufficient to say that the total is not $1 million or $2 million, but more than $12 million.
Where did this come from? There was an increase of half a million dollars from the parks, and I do admit trying to get the extra nickel here and there from the parks; we only get back 10 per cent of our costs from the parks each year. But the main bulk of

Supply-Northern Affairs the revenue comes from northern administration. Here is the break-down:
Branch administration in the north .. $ .3 million
Yukon Territory	 $1.8 million
Northwest Territories	 $7.5 million
Total	 $9.6 million
The total revenue from mining in the whole of the north was $252,000. From oil and gas it was $8.3 million and from lands, timber and grazing, $200,000.
Where did this extra $12 million come from? It did not come from the government. The government did not pay it into the revenues of the department. It came from private individuals who were going in and making deposits and paying certain fees to the government. When pieces of land were put up for sale they bid on those pieces of land. I am going to remind the opposition that this is just the beginning. There has been much said about the fact that in the Arctic islands individuals and corporations put their names down for 146 million acres of oil and gas land for exploration. When they had to put their money down only some 44 million to 45 million acres were taken up. The point is this; before 1958 whoever thought this area was worth a nickel? Not the oil companies. Not Canadians as a whole, and certainly not the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to this whole program of opening up the north as a program of building roads from igloo to igloo.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister, who is being fair, would not want to misquote me. When I referred to that program as one of building roads from igloo to igloo I was speaking in terms of the employment that would be created.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not mind the correction, Mr. Chairman, because one of the fallacies under which the Leader of the Opposition labours is that he measures the amount of employment by the amount of money spent in the north, and that is not the way it works at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the way you measured it at the beginning.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is a point I cannot accept, but I do not wish to go into that argument at this time. I simply point out the fact that two years ago no one across Canada thought these Arctic islands were worth a nickel. Today there are 44 million to 45 million acres of land out under permit for exploration on which deposits have been paid. They will have to spend $3 an acre to hold it for exploration; they will have to spend $3 an acre for exploration on the Arctic islands which two years ago in the opinion

of many were not worth a nickel. This will mean an expenditure of over $120 million that private industry will have to make in this country. That will be $120 million not spent by the Minister of Finance or any Canadian government agency but by private enterprise going in there to open up our resources.
To the hon. members for Nickel Belt and Gloucester who used a similar argument, and to the Leader of the Opposition, I recommend a magazine called Oil Week which published a special edition, reprinting from its previous issues in the period September 25, 1959 to March 12, 1960 significant articles dealing with this subject. I am just leafing through the magazine selecting portions at random to give an idea of the type of comment that has been made by the oil industry. Here is one article bearing the title:
25 to 100 Billion Bbls.
Oil in Arctic Islands-
Five giant structures could yield lour billion barrels claims Dome's exploration manager
The article follows. I might remind hon. gentlemen that these articles were written by people actively engaged in the oil industry. A subsequent article carries this caption:
Industry Looks North for Tomorrow's Oil-
The last oil frontier of North America covers more than 200 million acres in the Canadian far north-the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territories and the Arctic islands.
A few years ago considered too remote to warrant active exploration, this vast area has now gripped the attention of the entire industry. Within the next decade oil men expect the far north country to be a major source of world oil production and reserves.
The article continues at greater length. Another extract from the same article reads:
Record prices for oil and gas rights in the Northwest Territories at federal government sales. At three Northwest Territories sales in 1959 a total of 3,764,221 acres were disposed of for $7,958,978, or an average price of $2.11 per acre, with a top bid of $8.26 per acre. Two years ago, Northwest Territories acreage was considered worth not much more than a nickel an acre.
As I thumb through these articles I find the same type of remark throughout. I could mention the transportation and scientific problems and how they are being met, but I believe I have made my case. This year and last-last year particularly-are important years in our history. Let me read the words of the president of one oil company:
A decade hence, 1959 may be recalled as an important year in the history of Canadian oil exploration. It was early in that 12-month period that private enterprise began its concerted drive to uncover the petroleum riches locked in the nation's northland. Though scientific findings are only now beginning to filter through, geologists are excited about the prospects. Much of the Arctic islands land mass is underlain by formations similar to those which produce oil in other

parts of the world. Modern transportation experts are finding themselves taxed to the utmost in an attempt to keep up with demands for faster, tougher, more reliable transportation across the rugged terrain.
I do not want to hold up the committee on my own estimates by quoting articles that substantiate what I think is a selfevident fact. Where the opposition has missed the point of what the government is trying to do is in trying to relate the expenditures of administration to expenditures for the development of this country. The first thing hon. members should appreciate is that private enterprise has gone in a way that would not have been thought possible until the Prime Minister made them aware of what was possible in this country.
I have not told the full story. These 44 million to 45 million acres are just on the Arctic islands. There are still another 70 million to 80 million acres under permit on the mainland. The total acreage can be held over the period of these permits if they do $3 worth of work, work that the government does not have to pay for because it is paid for by the oil industry. To hold the present acreage will require them to spend in the next 9 to 12 years the sum of $360 million or better. That is money the government does not have to spend in opening up the north. In addition to this sum the companies will have to make plans to spend from $30 million to $50 million each to prove up any pools they find.
When the opposition talk this way I wonder if they remember that last August there was an oil and gas find at Eagle Plain in the Yukon, almost at the Arctic circle. Do they remember that last February there was a new gas strike in Liard basin at Celibeta and that probably in the next year or so there will be a new gas line from that field leading down to Vancouver? Do they know that plans are almost complete for tungsten mining operations on the border of the Yukon and Northwest Territories? It is the hope of this company that in a year or two they will supply half the United States market and over half the United Kingdom market for tungsten.
Is the opposition aware that at this very moment the men who are up in the Arctic islands looking for gas and oil are busy, through another company, staking out claims on a very substantial new mineral deposit that they did not even know was there until they had walked around those islands looking for gas? This is how our country is going to develop. Sure enough, we as a government must do more to provide better maps, and the general type of exploration work that is carried on by the Department of Mines and
Supply-Northern Affairs Technical Surveys must continue and increase, but here we have the vindication of the faith of the Prime Minister and many other Canadians who believed that this great country had a great potential. The Prime Minister awakened this latent faith of Canadians in their country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, what has Canada being doing for the last 50 years?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the Leader of the Opposition were to get me started on an answer to that one he would regret it. In his own remarks today the hon. gentleman did something which was long overdue; he finally praised one of the few Liberals in Canada's history who have made a contribution in this area. The hon. gentleman praised George Brown for his part in the theory of the development of this country. If you go back and search the records of last year you will find a speech of mine in which I said that George Brown's contribution to the theory of development ranked with the greatest of any leader of this country. When I made that speech-I have the record right here-one of my hon. friends across the way made an interjection. I am sure he will remember the interjection he made and I do not want to press the point further, but to me George Brown had this philosophy. The other person I gave credit to in that speech was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who picked up the Sifton approach to development and carried it forward.
But generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, I could make a fairly substantial case for the statement that in the last 50 years, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, Canada has been busy consolidating the development rush westward that was made in the previous century, and no one holds anyone particularly to blame for this because it was the normal procedure. But what we did was to relight the fires of development, in the rush to take advantage of what this country offered, in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people, and I do hope the Leader of the Opposition will give us credit for having done that. I do hope that after he has listened to what I have to say on how we brought this development on, he will realize it is not the dream of idealists; that these are the tangible facts we are producing to show that this development is going much faster than any group of people would have the right to expect.
My colleagues in the cabinet understood that this program of northern development would have a waiting period of seven to ten years before any activity would really come in, and we would have to be busy building roads, communications and airfields and doing

Supply-Northern Affairs all these things leading to scientific work to set the field tor private enterprise to come in behind us. But private enterprise did not wait; it just leaped right over top of us and now we are busy trying to improve the things they have at the present time.
This brings me to the point that I wanted to make when I started to speak. Something has been omitted, I think, in the explanation the government has offered when you find the Leader of the Opposition coming forward today and suggesting that development is needed in the settled areas of Canada, and not in the north.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I made no such statement. I said redevelopment of the depressed areas of this country is quite as important as development in the north, important as may be the development of the new areas in the north.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Expressed in that way I am 100 per cent in agreement with it. The inference I drew from what the hon. member said was just as I described it.
I should like to point out that with respect to the development plan of the present government, 90 per cent of the money under the development plan goes into the settled areas of Canada at the present time, and I do not have to mention them to the committee. The roads to resources, for instance, are tied up with the settled areas as well as the resource areas of the north. This is a program that is costing the federal government-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure we want the hon. gentleman to continue.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has
the minister unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will wind up very quickly. The roads to resources program is on schedule. It will cost a total of $150 million, of which our share will be $75 million if Quebec comes in. I shall give the total rather than the details. The program objective for the roads to resources program as laid down by the provinces was that in 1958-59 they expected to spend $16,580,000; in 1959-60, $22,320,000; in 1960-61, this fiscal year, $20,550,000, for a total objective in the first three years of $59,450,000. Now, remember that these objectives are set out in the form of agreements, and when we sign

a contract after tender the contract sometimes runs for one, two or three years. Therefore it is very hard to relate these figures to the figures that appear in the estimates, because they are altogether different things.
Let us look at the actual expenditures. Here you have an objective for the first three years of $59,450,000. The total spent to date is $28,686,741. The total authorized to June 1, 1960, a little over a month ago, which includes the bulk of the provinces for 1960-61, is $40,778,009, or a total of all money spent and authorized to date of $69,284,750. Here you have a program with a schedule set by the provinces, estimated and aimed at $59 million in three years. Actually their program now calls for $69 million in the three years. Payment for these things may drag over three years, but my point is that the program is right on schedule, in fact a little bit ahead.
We have the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act in the maritimes. At the present time it is being used only in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Because they connected up the interprovincial grid system last year it was estimated that they saved over $20 million in capital expenditure. This has had the direct result of enabling those provinces to reduce the cost of power to industry in the two provinces. This is not an unsettled part of Canada. The program is also available to Newfoundland. We have offered to give the province of Newfoundland and the same thing for the Bay d'Espoir line to St. John's and another proposal has been put before me, namely the building of a line down the peninsula south of St. John's. This demonstrates that our development program is helping areas which need help.
Now about grid roads in the territories. I may say, to make it clear, that when I spoke of those grid roads in the territories our purpose was to carry out a program of delineation of resources, and this is where we were asking the provinces to join with us in building a series of roads from settled areas leading up to the north and into the territories north of the western provinces of Canada. We did our part. Besides paying 50 per cent of the cost of the roads in the provinces, we would pay 100 per cent of the cost of grid roads leading up through the promising mineral and oil areas of the northern territories.
The first push was through the Yukon, heading toward the Mackenzie river delta. That road last year was the first area we got moving into. It did not reach its objective. For the first time in living memory

it rained continuously in the Yukon. That is a desert area; they get only six or seven inches of rain a year, but last year it rained all the time. We did not meet our objective. This year the program is ahead of schedule and I think by the end of this year we shall not be too far away from catching up to where we hoped to be.
Now, these are bold adventures for our department, because it means building roads in areas that have never been considered before. I think we are carrying out this program in the Northwest Territories within the limits of common sense. We are building a road this year to Yellowknife. The people in Yellowknife do not think there is any slackening in the rush, because they are going to be able to drive their cars all around the lake and take them down to Edmonton and if necessary to Ottawa to complain to their members. This is evidence of progress. It is true-and the hon. member for Mackenzie River would have borne me out in this-that we were planning this year to construct the big loop around Great Slave lake to the great mining areas but on the advice of the officials of the department and myself we have changed to a more promising area.
I had a conversation with the hon. member for Mackenzie River, and he pointed out in an estimates speech last year that the money would be better spent at this time in putting it into airfields and communications for those mining companies. Those who were here will remember him having made that suggestion. I am sorry he is not here today to hear me give a report on the airfields we are building or planning to build for the mining companies. This program did not originate with the hon. member for Mackenzie River, and we did not take it ahead of time, but it made me conscious of the fact that we should advertise the program more. More companies have come in and will be coming in. For the first number of years the new tungsten operation will likely operate completely by air transport from the area at Flat creek down to Watson Lake. The concentrates will then be hauled from Watson Lake to Whitehorse, from there by rail to Skagway and thence by sea to Vancouver. Further processing will be done at Vancouver, and from that point the product will be distributed to world markets.
I mentioned that fact that in order to get more money for airfields and other purposes I held back on road construction this year and instead put more emphasis on surveys. The second reason for holding back this year was the gas strike in the Liard basin area. New wells were being drilled, and I had an idea that if the formation was good we might be called upon to build a road from
Supply-Northern Affairs Fort Simpson south to the British Columbia border. Therefore we had to spend more of our money on surveys. Surveying does not cost as much as construction.
I ask hon. members opposite who have had experience on the treasury benches to consider the position as I saw it. Here was a plan of grid roads for the north. It was our idea to build these roads and spend these millions over a period of ten years. But private enterprise does not wait for us to build these roads before it moves into these places and begins to press for roads in these areas. On the other hand, if it had not been for the rebuilding we did on the Canol road there would not have been the molybdenum discovery last summer which caused such interest, and which was found right beside the road. There would not have been the discovery of gas in the Liard basin if it had not been for the survey that was made there.
Perhaps I have made my points at too great length, but I have tried to put across as well as I could the arguments against the essential position taken by the opposition speakers. I would have liked to speak about Garibaldi park and seed grain advances.


Mr. Winch:: Go ahead.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I see the hon. member is here. I should also like to speak about the oil and gas regulations, but perhaps I might defer these matters until we reach the details of the estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before this item carries I have a few questions I wish to put to the minister. I should like to put them now for one reason, so that I can go out and have some lunch and, second, so that his officials will have time to look up the points so the minister will be ready when we come to the details. The minister asked me last night if I was going to make a speech and I told him no. However, I said that was no firm commitment. Of course that was before the minister made this hour-long oration he has just made, which was very interesting and, I must say, much less partisan than the minister has been in previous sessions. On the whole I think perhaps that was a very good thing. I am going to try to emulate the minister.
I must say that if the minister will go back over the basic criticism of the vision that has been made by members of the Liberal party he will find that he seemed to imply that history had stopped at about 1900 and had only resumed when he was elected to parliament in 1957. There were some of us who realized that this represented a gap in his education, and it was therefore somewhat refreshing to have him admit candidly and
6836	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs very fairly today that the visionary decision made by the previous government, the execution of which was started by Mr. Lesage, to build this new town at the mouth of the Mackenzie which the minister described so feelingly this morning and which he agreed was thoroughly justified, was not a vision after 1957 but a vision of the previous government.
The minister said it was the Prime Minister of Canada who awakened the country to the importance of the north. I quite agree with him when he puts it that way, but I should like to recall to his mind that the prime minister to whom that reference should properly be made is Mr. St. Laurent. It was Mr. St. Laurent who, when I was secretary of the cabinet in 1952 and 1953, established the special cabinet committee on northern development which was the beginning of the concentration of all the federal services in the north. Incidentally, it was Mr. St. Laurent who, at the suggestion of Mr. Lesage after he became minister of resources and development, changed the name of the department to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Practically every project that the minister has been carrying out for the last three years, except the roads to resources which, after all, are not in the north or part of the road system in the north, is a project that was started in the past on the initiative and because of the vision of Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Jean Lesage and Mr. Winters, with the support of their Liberal colleagues.
I say this merely because the minister for the first time since he became minister has recognized some of the things that were done before he came into the department and that he has been able to complete since. I know a good deal about the excellent foundation laid by the previous government. I will not embarrass anyone in the house or within its precincts by referring further to that, but without the excellent foundation and the splendid department which the minister inherited so much could not have been achieved by him. The minister referred to the department as the Cinderella department, but it has been no Cinderella and was no Cinderella when he took charge of it. Many of our colleagues thought it was the most favoured of all departments, but part of the reason it was so favoured was that it had a young dynamic minister, a minister whose dynamism is carried forward today in many other fields.
I refer, of course, to the present premier of Quebec, and I do so with particular gratitude because the present premier of Quebec was the essential person in realizing the vision that many of us connected with Newfoundland had, the vision that there must


be a national park in Newfoundland. If Mr. Lesage had not cut red tape at every turn and got that park established before the election of 1957 I must confess, non-partisan though I am trying to be, that I have some doubt whether it would have been established yet.
I just want to explain to hon. members what the establishment of Terra Nova park has meant to the province of Newfoundland.


Mr. McGrath:: To Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What it has meant to the hon. member for St. John's East. Without Terra Nova park the hon. member for St. John's East would not be able to drive his motor car, except for the crossing of the Cabot strait, from his own city of St. John's to Ottawa today. Terra Nova national park filled the gap in the road. Before the park was established three years ago it was not possible to drive from St. John's to Gander. That is possible today because of the vision of the previous administration and the cooperation of the government of Newfoundland, which has meant that a basic link in the road across Newfoundland which was missing, a basic link in the trans-Canada highway up to that time, has now been provided.


James Aloysius McGrath: How many miles out of the total?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member knows very well how many miles it is. It is approximately 26 miles out of the total. If the hon. member has not yet inspected that road he should, because when he does so he will see that it was a very difficult piece of road to build and that it went through a largely uninhabited area. Of course that was the reason it had not been built earlier.
I simply want to say that this is just one of many examples of the way in which, in the years before the present minister became minister of the department, there was vision, there was planning and there was development to which the minister has in one or two respects today paid tribute, which tribute I hope will continue from now on.
I must say that I also agree with what the minister said about the great reforms that have been made in the field of education in the north. I recall the day that Mr. Lesage came to me and suggested that my department, namely the department of Indian affairs, make an agreement with his department so there could be integrated schools for all kinds of children in the Northwest Territories. That was a vision, and it was not a vision after 1957, either. I am extremely happy that the minister has carried on that program and has established these good schools where Indians,

Eskimos and white children go to school together. However, it was started before the present government came into office.
When the minister talks about dynamic rather than a passive department and a dynamic government rather than a passive government, I think he is really overlooking history. As a matter of fact, notwithstanding the rather able defence the minister made of his administration, I think we cannot escape the conclusion that the minister's vision has been cut down sadly by the Minister of Finance's division.
I said, Mr. Chairman, that I was not going to make a speech, and I do not intend to do so. However, I want now to refer to the specific questions that I wish to ask, and I shall refer to them briefly. The minister has been good enough-and I want to give him great credit for this action-to further development of one of the roads in Terra Nova national park which connects the settlement of Terra Nova with the rest of Newfoundland. The minister is already aware of the fact that part of the road between Glover-town and Happy Adventure and Salvage passes through the park. It was surveyed last year with a view to its improvement this year. I may say that as a result of the building of other roads and particularly the main road in the park, the traffic over that Happy Adventure road has greatly increased. It is more than three times what it was three years ago. The road is narrow. It has many sharp turns, and it is extremely dangerous. It is also perhaps as beautiful a road as there is anywhere in the whole of Newfoundland.
I hope the minister will do everything he can to see that the work of improving this road is carried on as quickly as possible, and that in doing so the greatest possible care is taken to see that the wonderful views from that road are not lost in the reconstruction that is necessary here and there for the safety of the travelling public. It is not a long stretch of road. It is about a mile distant from the settlement of Traytown that the road enters the park and of course it comes out of the park before the settlement of Sandringham. My recollection is that it is perhaps five or six miles. Of course the basic road is there already. However, it is something that, from the tourist point of view and from the point of view of communications in the province, is part of the responsibilities connected with the park.
There is just one other thing that I am sure would interest the minister in this connection, and it is this. As a result of the establishment of the park and as a result of having a trans-island road, there has been an increase in the number of motor cars from
Supply-Northern Affairs outside the province. One day I just idly made a count of the motor cars that were going along the road, and every third car on that particular day was from outside Newfoundland. I remember that a few years ago one hardly saw any cars from outside Newfoundland. The minister need have no doubt that anything he does in the park to make it more attractive will be repaid, as it is in the other parks, by an increase in the tourist traffic, something which I know he has very much at heart and which he is trying so hard to promote.
I wanted also to ask the minister if, when he comes to the appropriate item, he will elaborate a little on a statement that was made by his colleague the Minister of National Revenue. The statement appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of May 10, 1960. The minister will, of course, appreciate the significance of the date. The Minister of National Revenue is reported to have said as follows:
National revenue minister George Nowlan said here-
This was at Annapolis Royal.
-Monday night that the federal government planned to spend a large amount this year on the development of power between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Mr. Nowlan was one of the guest speakers at the Annapolis West Progressive Conservative nominating convention which chose Charles T. LeBrun, Q.C., to run in the June 7 election.
I am not going to read the rest of it. However, I think the committee would be interested in knowing just what the plans are for these expenditures.
Then I wonder whether the minister can tell us about the road in northern Saskatchewan that the Prince Albert bridge was supposed to be a part of, as I understand it. I wonder whether the minister, when he comes to that item, could give us an explanation. I have here a clipping from the Leader-Post of April 1, 1960. The heading is '"Go Slow' Urged on North Road". Again, I do not intend to read the article, but I think the minister should tell us what really is developing there and what is the state of the road now of which the bridge was supposed to be an integral part.
The minister will recall that earlier in the session I took a great deal of interest in the Red river flood control development in Manitoba. I think we would all be interested-and I am sure the premier of Manitoba, who will be here on Monday, would also be greatly interested-if the minister could bring us up to date on the development of this project which, as the minister will recall, was so prominent in the affairs of Manitoba in a certain context only
6838	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs a short time ago. Can the minister at the same time tell us whether those parts of that project which had to do with the maintenance of the level of lake Manitoba and the possible diversion of part of the Assiniboine river into lake Manitoba, which was part of this whole Red river scheme, has now been turned over to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture to be dealt with under the prarie farm rehabilitation program?
I should also be personally rather interested, as I am sure would everyone from Manitoba, to know what progress is being made on the road north from Gypsumville to Grand Rapids, and whether it is anticipated that this road will eventually go right on to connect with the Hudson Bay railway.
Those are questions that I might not be in the committee to ask on the appropriate items when they are reached, and I should be grateful if the minister would answer them at that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry to be obliged to intervene again at this stage, Mr. Chairman, but the minister's statement requires some comment from me. I am not complaining in any sense about his approach to the problem or about what he said, but he definitely gave the impression that before his own advent to this department there had been what he called a passive approach or a passive government. Indeed, he specifically stated that there had been no indication from that side of the house when we were in power of the importance of developing northern resources, especially those of the Arctic islands.
I want to deal with these two points. I thought the minister was on the whole very fair and objective in his comments. He did ask us to bear in mind the fact that the reduction in expenditure this year is due largely to the fact that the work at Inuvik is almost completed, and that a great deal of money has been spent on that project. That is quite true, Mr. Chairman; but if you take that expenditure out of the estimates, and if you take that expenditure out of the estimates for the two year period before the minister came into office, I think the disparity between expenditure on other projects in the two years under the previous administration and in the three years since would be even greater than that which I mentioned a few minutes ago.
However, my main preoccupation is to convince the minister-but as the hon. member who has just spoken said, it is hard to convince him-that the work of northern development and the appreciation of the vision of northern development did not begin in 1957. Incidentally, the minister said that if


the hon. member for Mackenzie River had been in his seat he would have been glad to back him up. I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie River and every other member of the house would back up the minister in every effort he is making to develop the northern areas. But I point out to the minister that the hon. member for Mackenzie River has had a good deal of discussion with the rest of us on this side as to what should be said on these estimates; and what was actually said, I can assure the minister, might well have been said by the hon. member himself had he been in his place.
So far as the importance of the development of the north and the Arctic is concerned, it is quite unfounded and wrong to suggest that this was not appreciated many years ago. Perhaps the minister will forgive me if I read some words of mine in 1953 which dealt with our vision at that time, the vision of those who were then in office. Incidentally, the figures do show that after these words of mine there was a steady implementation of that vision, as indeed there is an implementation going on at the present time. I said at that time, in 1953:
Within very recent years, however, the Canadian Arctic is being transformed from a vacuum to a frontier, and although it would be a bold man who would forecast the nature of its future development, of one thing we can be sure: if Horace Greeley were alive today, and if he were a Canadian, he would say, "Go north, young man!"
It takes more than a map, however, to give a picture of Canada's size. It takes the story of men with imagination, vision and devotion who have gone far, far "down north" to explore the mysteries of another world which, curiously enough, shares many problems with our own. Some of the men are explorers, who painstakingly map, not just the coast lines and mountain ranges which the aerial camera has already registered, but the nature of the rocks, the glaciers, the structure of the ice, the salinity of the sea, the minerals under the earth. Some are policemen, young constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who alone or in pairs have responsibility for the administration of law and order in areas far broader than many European countries. Some are prospectors, traders, missionaries and doctors. Some are air strip mechanics who, 2,000 miles back of beyond, have built airfields out of the gravel left by glaciers. Some are meteorological observers and radio operators who explore the weather from ground to upper atmosphere and send reports which will be recorded on every weather map in North America. Some are botanists, zoologists, seismologists; some cooks. They work in bitter cold under skies darkened half a year and on top of permafrost whose thickness man has just begun to measure. And some are members of our armed forces, learning to operate in this far northland. They have made camps to live and work in, aerial masts, roads and landing strips. Together they are opening a new land. In size, in problems, in ultimate rewards, it is one of the most challenging frontiers men have faced. It is important for Americans, as well as Canadians, to know more about it.

I talked at the same time, in 1953, about the development of the resources of this north land, and the variety of the resources and the importance they might have in the future, and I went on to say :
Overshadowing all developments In public interest is the search for oil.
And I talked about that search for oil in terms of the far north. I finished up by saying:
We know that there Is much to be gained from the Arctic. It may come in the form of power, oil, gas, minerals and general economic development providing the basis of new and growing communities. It may also come in the form of greater protection against aggression, for the north is a watching place for what may come from beyond the pole. Canadians have every reason to look to the north. We are now aware of its possibilities. Whatever the direction and emphasis of our activity, the Arctic is coming into its own; and, with it, new opportunities and new responsibilities for Canada.
Mr. Chairman, that was in 1953. In the recommendation made to the Gordon commission of 1955 by the department over which the minister now presides there was also reference to oil and petroleum products in the Arctic islands and to what had been done at that time to begin the process of exploration and ultimate development. Therefore all this was going on before the minister took office, and to say that development up to that time had been passive and that it all began in 1957 just simply is not an accurate statement of the facts. We all know what happened in those years. Development began in the earlier years and was continued steadily as financial considerations made it possible, and the minister is now beginning to understand what that means.
He has explained today how he has had to face budgetary considerations. So did we in earlier years. Development did begin then, and the department over which he now presides was created. There was a great deal of preliminary activity and the minister has carried it on, and so far as he has done that he deserves the support of all members of this committee from any party.
He talked, however, a few years ago about the vital importance of communications. And so they are important. But when we poured scorn on that electoral program of communications as the solution to the unemployment problem at that time, he interpreted that to mean that we had no awareness or understanding of the importance of communications at all. I ask the minister again, relating to this particular point, to let us know when he comes to this item how much employment has been given by the communications programs. The minister said that they have been reduced this year for budgetary reasons. That is understandable, but it 79951-0-431
Supply-Northern Affairs is also understandable that all this work began long before the minister took office and it will be continued long after the minister ceases to hold office.
There is one thing which the minister forgets. He talked about these two great areas of exploration for oil which are being opened up in an exciting way in the Arctic islands and in the north land. I think we appreciate the potential significance of that, and we will ask a lot of questions about it when we come to the item. But let me remind the minister of one thing. Most of this exploration is being carried on, in one form or another, under one guise or another, by great international oil corporations, and as I pointed out earlier they will conduct this development with their own international interests in mind.
We have surely learned in the last year the unwisdom, indeed the danger, of having our natural resources developed in a form which will make us dependent, when the development is completed, on international companies or on another government. We have learned about that in connection with the uranium industry, and we may learn more about it in connection with the oil and gas industry. While it is a fine and exciting thing and stirs our imagination to have this Arctic oil development taking place in the way the minister has indicated, let us not forget that it will be dust and ashes if we do not have the markets for the products of this development. And this is a time when we are having great difficulty in finding markets for the producing oil and gas wells we have in operation at the present time. If anything can be done by this government to ensure that this kind of development will not face that kind of danger in the future, then I am sure it will be supported by every member of the committee. But it is not going to be easy to reconcile these two things, national control and international investment.
That is all I want to say at this time. I do wish to try to convince the minister that while the work he has been doing during the last two or three years has aroused general interest, and while it has aroused our interest, and while I pay tribute, as I did before, to his zeal and energy, that work did not begin only in June, 1957.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
268. 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, $8,000,000.
Mr. Dumas:: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many miles of roads were built under this program during the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61?

Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: While we are getting the answer to that question I wonder it I might take this opportunity to complete the answers to several questions which have been asked by hon. members. The hon. member for Timmins asked last night for a road from Foleyet to Chapleau and, I think he said, on to Sault Ste Marie. Present plans call for this road to be built over a distance of 90 miles at a total cost of $2 million. The work done before March 31, 1960 was 23 miles of clearing at a cost of $519,566, and the work scheduled by the province for 1960 is the clearing of 26 more miles at a cost of $160,000.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate asked about a road in Manitoba from Gypsumville to Grand Rapids. He also asked whether this road would eventually go right on to connect with the Hudson Bay railway. The answer is yes, and the information as to the details is that in 1959-60 Manitoba spent $233,325 on clearing and grading. Contracts have been approved for the following work in 1960: clearing 112 miles, $344,000; grading 123 miles, $2,772,000.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate also asked about the road in Saskatchewan with which the Prince Albert bridge is associated under the roads to resources plan. This Uranium City road runs for 560 miles. The work done to date is preliminary engineering, clearing, grading and some gravelling. The sum of $550,831 has been spent to March 31, 1960. Second, in Saskatchewan the provincial government has concentrated on the Hanson lake road, and I understand this will be finished if they have good luck next year. The Otosquen road, I understand, is now nearly completed. I could give the amounts of money if the committee so desires.
Did the hon. member for Villeneuve ask about the trans-Canada picnic grounds?


Armand Dumas: No, I just asked the minister if he would tell us how many miles of road were built under this program of roads to resources during the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. We would appreciate it if the minister could give this information by provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether the hon. member would be satisfied with the amounts spent, because it is almost impossible to get the actual mileage. Would the amounts of money serve?


Armand Dumas: The amounts would do.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That would be a big help to us. The total amount spent up to the end of 1959-60, with the claims in, comes to $28,506,741. That is up to the end


of last March. Would the hon. member be interested in what is authorized to the end of 1961?


Armand Dumas: I understand that it may be difficult to give the details right away, but could the minister not supply the committee with the mileage completed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This information could be provided to the hon. member, but I cannot provide it at this stage. Perhaps I could obtain it and give it to the hon. member after the estimates have been considered.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to thank the minister for the information he gave the committee about the road between Foleyet and Chapleau, but it puzzles me a bit. Two years ago the road was completed from Thessalon to Chapleau on the main C.P. line and also from Timmins to Foleyet on the main C.N.R. line, and a gap was left of 60 miles between Chapleau and Foleyet. Last year a 10-mile stretch of road was built on each end. I have not had the opportunity to inspect the 10 miles of road from Chapleau toward Foleyet but I have driven over the 10 miles from Foleyet toward Chapleau, and it is a good base road. This is easy country to build roads through; it is all sand hills, and it is just a matter of bulldozing a way through. Then all that is necessary is a good top finish.
The minister mentioned that 90 miles of road was involved in this agreement, and that would mean there would be 30 miles over and above the distance between Chapleau and Foleyet. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether the extra 30 miles would be from Chapleau going toward Thessalon or whether it would be from Foleyet going toward Timmins. There seems to be an overrun here somewhere, because the distance, as I say, is only just over 60 miles, and 10 miles has already been constructed at either end.


Mr. Nixon:: On that same question did I understand the minister to say the road was being built from Timmins to Chapleau and then to Sault Ste Marie? Surely that cannot be correct.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, I was
paraphrasing the words of the hon. member for Timmins when he said in his question the road was being built from Chapleau to Foleyet. I gave the figure of 90 miles. I have just checked the record and find it should have been 60 which removes the difficulty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister about a road from Elliot Lake to Chapleau which has been discussed in connection with the effort that is being made to assist this community. Not long ago it was mentioned, I

think by the representative of the provincial government at Elliot Lake, that agreement had been reached to permit construction of this road. Can the minister say anything about that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have received no application yet from the province of Ontario to build this road under the program even though there is opportunity now under the total amount of $15 million for a road if it meets our criteria.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister saying no request has been made by the government of the province of Ontario for an agreement to make possible the construction of this road under the program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As far as we
know here the answer I gave is correct. We have received no application but we may find something in the files. We could make a check on that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would just like to call the minister's attention to statements that have come out of Queen's Park that the road has been agreed on and the work is to begin shortly. This has caused a good deal of interest in the community concerned.


Armand Dumas: Does the figure of $28 million cited a few moments ago by the minister represent the share of the federal government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman, that would be impossible because the total amount that can be spent in any one given year is limited. It varies every year. If the program were acted on at full speed, in five years it would be half or $15 million a year. Therefore, the figure we have given of $28 million for the amount actually spent to date covers part of 1958-59 and all of 1959-60 and part of this year.


Armand Dumas: So the federal government's share would be $14 million?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Armand Dumas: If our share is $14 million for the work which has been approved now I do not know why the minister cannot say that this represents so many miles of road completed, so many miles of road cleared and so many miles gravelled. He must have that information. Surely we are not approving $14 million without knowing what has been done.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will be glad to get that information for the hon. member. It requires looking at all the contracts for engineering, clearing, grading and so on. It requires a review of the whole series of operations involving many hours of work. However, we will be glad to get that information for 79951-0-431J
Supply-Northern Affairs the hon. member. If there is a particular road or province he wants us to concentrate on, we could, or does he want the full picture?


Armand Dumas: : Yes. We are asked to approve a $14 million vote which was only $9 million last year and we do not have all the information we should have. The government should know what has been done to date with respect to the $14 million which represents quite a number of miles of road.


Mr, Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, last evening I made reference to a request made by the province of New Brunswick under this program for the approval of the construction of a bridge to link Shippegan island to Miscou island. The request was turned down by the department. I believe the reason as I mentioned last night was that there was not enough industry to be developed on Miscou island. In view of the new approach I made in my remarks would the minister feel that new representations might be given favourable consideration? There is one of the largest peat moss beds in eastern Canada located on Miscou island. If new representations were made by the province to his department stressing the importance of the development of the peat moss beds on Miscou island would the representations receive more favourable consideration?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The previous administration in the province of New Brunswick, as the hon. member pointed out, made extremely strong representations to us about this bridge. They were turned down on the ground that it did not meet in full the criteria we set up. However, I am sending my assistant deputy minister on a visit next week to the new government of New Brunswick to discuss the whole roads to resources program with them and I am sure this matter will be discussed.


Mr. Cardin:: Could the minister say whether in his discussions with the province of Quebec there was any discussion of any particular road which might have priority should Quebec come into the scheme? Is there one road which would have priority should Quebec come in?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the representatives of the previous administration in Quebec came to us and discussed a road from Amos up to Mattagami lake. We said we could not accept that as the first road under the agreement because they let a contract on that road without calling tenders. You will recall that Mr. Lesage who was then a member of this house took strong exception to doing anything with the province unless it was put out to tender. When

Supply-Northern Affairs the next administration came in the same question was raised with us and we were asked to reconsider our position. As I mentioned to the previous speaker my deputy is leaving this Wednesday to consult with the governments of the two new administrations to see what can be done to meet our conditions and criteria on this roads to resources program. We are anxious that the good feeling established with all governments across Canada be maintained with respect to this program.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And the first road would be from Amos to where?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand it, it starts at the southerly extremity of a town called Amos and moves northward to lake Mattagami where there is a base metal deposit of lead and zinc which is being brought into production. I will not say anything further about our discussions with the provincial administration but the request was turned down because they let a contract on that road without calling tenders.


Armand Dumas: Can the minister tell us the amount submitted by each province with respect to the $28 million?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Armand Dumas: Out of the $5,638,449 submitted by the province of Nova Scotia, as submitted by the minister, how many roads or projects are covered?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the case of the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia where it was not possible to get roads to resources within the ambit of what we had originally announced, namely to open up new mining, forest and recreational areas, we allowed those two provinces to substitute tourist roads. In the case of Nova Scotia there are many such projects, some 16 in number, and the road pattern is already well established. It is simply a matter of bringing them up to tourist levels. I think

the same answer applies to the extensive program on Prince Edward Island; there are 31 in Prince Edward Island.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I want to return to a road under the roads to resources program, the proposed road out of Elliot Lake to Chapleau, and read to the minister what was said, I think it was two weeks ago last Sunday, by the minister of mines of the government of Ontario in Elliot Lake when he was speaking there. I quote from the text of his speech because it has a bearing on this program. He said:
We-
That is the government of Ontario.
-have closely studied the building of a road connecting Elliot Lake to the Chapleau highway and will press the federal government to give its approval to this project. We must have this approval before we can proceed, since the road would come under the federal-provincial roads to resources program.
What I want to ask the minister is whether the pressure which the provincial minister refers to has been brought to bear on the federal government, and what is the attitude of the federal government toward sharing in this particular program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only thing I can say is that I know of a good many things that the committee on helping out Elliot Lake and Uranium City have been discussing, and this is one. If it comes under the plans of my department, on which there has been no official approach made to the government to my knowledge, then I will be glad to consider it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have quite a number of questions on this particular item. There was an announcement in the Globe and Mail of December 23 that the pact was signed for these major projects, making a total of 335 mil pc of road, and that the termination date of all these agreements for these six roads is March 31, 1967. Does that mean, for example, that the Spruce river road, about 70 miles, starting at highway No. 17 at Port Arthur and running north to Cheeseman lake, has got a completion target date of 1967? I am especially interested in this particular road because, as the minister may know, there is a controversy in the areas about it. Part of the road has been under the control of one of the pulp and paper companies and free access to the area opened up by the road has not been allowed. I want to know particularly what is the position of the federal government in so far as these roads are concerned, or roads to which it contributes in so far as there being free access to the general public is concerned.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We are a little uncertain as to which road is being discussed. The hon. member mentioned Spruce lake.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Spruce river road.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have a road in our program north of Port Arthur, about 70 miles long, which runs from the trans-Canada highway immediately east of Port Arthur, extending in a northerly direction to the vicinity of Cheeseman lake west.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The estimated cost of that road is $3 million, and we will find out what has been done. I did not recognize it under the designation of Spruce lake. Up to the end of last year 28 miles had been cleared at a cost of $560,572.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is this one of the roads toward which the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company and other private companies are making contribution?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that this is the road, yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister any say or control over the road, or can he tell me whether there is anything in the agreement that will provide for free access to the general public at all times for the full length of that road?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Any road that we participate in will be, as far as we are concerned, free to the public, free access, and if the hon. member is correct in his information I think the point should be inquired into. This one will be free to public use.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just want to make sure it was part of the agreement because I can give an example of the type of problem that is coming up. We have this road of 50 miles planned to Nakina, to Cavell and to Durer lake, to tap the big iron ore project run by Anaconda. Anaconda, I gather-I do not want to malign the company-has certain views on union participation and union organization. It has already blocked entrance to its property by land to union organizers. The union organizers who have gone in have had to go in by plane to approach the rim of the property. If we have a situation where Anaconda is putting up part of the funds for this road and by so doing is able to control access into its property, in a situation such as this I think the minister can see that we have a potential controversy of large scale on our hands. I should like to know that the agreements contain an assurance that the total road program provides for free access and that that is part of the agreement, part of the understanding or undertaking given by the
Supply-Northern Affairs federal government. This may seem like a small point but I think it is potential dynamite. The minister may remember the bad feeling we have had in northwestern Ontario over access to pulp and paper company roads. I know pulp and paper companies have to be careful about the protection of their workers from hunters and of their limits from the possibilities of fire, but surely if the federal government is putting money into roads there should be no question at all about public access. I should like to have that assurance from the minister.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can give the hon. member that assurance with every enthusiasm.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I have from the minister just how much Abitibi is contributing to that particular Spruce river road to Cheese-man lake north?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The proportion is always one third if there is a private enterprise company mixed up in the building of a road.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let me turn to what this story says:
The major project under the agreement is yet to come. It will consist of a road or roads into the northwestern part of the province with a southern terminus on or north of the C.N.H. main line and somewhere in the area between Nakina and the Manitoba boundary. The exact locations will be determined by the results of an aeromagnetic survey and the subsequent necessary geological ground reconnaissance.
I should like to know more about this. As the minister knows, Nakina is one of those threefold divisional points of the C.N.R. In other words, there are about 400 miles between the Manitoba boundary and Nakina and to say that the southern terminus is going to be somewhere between Nakina and the Manitoba boundary is about as indefinite as one can get. I should like to know more about the project and whether anything further has developed with regard to it. This is supposed to be a major project and I think we are entitled to have more indication of what is involved. Is it planned to hook up with the Pickle lake area and the road which is already contemplated between Goldpines and Uchi lake and to have a road run over to Red Lake or from the Red Lake road over to Pickle lake or down to Goldpines and Uchi lake and then up to Pickle lake? There is a great deal of interest in this matter and I hope the minister can give us more details.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The explanation of this is that during our negotiations with the province of Ontario they put forward a program they have been carrying

Supply-Northern Affairs on for a number of years involving the connecting of areas on one railway line with areas on the other railway line and at the same time opening up resources of various types. We on our part put forward the point of view that this would be satisfactory to us but we hoped that the province of Ontario would take a look at the mineral possibilities and the pulp and paper possibilities of a great area of northwestern Ontario that at the present time is not opened up either by rail or by road.
The Ontario government took the attitude, I think rightly and soundly, that before they embarked on a venture of opening up such a vast area they would have to know a great deal more about it. Therefore a joint program involving the federal government and the provincial government was undertaken through another department to do an aerial magnetometer survey of the whole area west from Nakina to the Manitoba border. This big venture is still going on. In addition to the aerial magnetometer survey there would also be a ground survey involving geological teams going in to look at some of the more interesting anomalies.
I understand that at the present time a series of maps has been prepared and published covering this area. When the aerial and ground work is finished the two governments will then sit down and on the basis of what we know about resources, more than we now know, will try to plot a road that will give closer access to the most promising portions of this area. As a sidelight to my reply, if you like, I happened to be on a C.N.R. train the day after the first map was published and found myself in the middle of a rush of prospectors who had got the map in Toronto and were heading out to Armstrong the next day. I know how quickly there is a reaction in the prospecting and mining industry when information of this type is published. It is the making of information of this type available that will lead to the opening up of our country much more quickly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The unsatisfactory part of the minister's explanation is this. From the minister's experience in living in Kenora and knowing the situation north of there, north of Sioux Lookout and north of the C.N.R. line generally, he will probably know that there has been certain disgruntlement on the part of the forestry people, especially the pulp and paper companies, over the alacrity with which the provincial government moves to provide roads for mining properties and its failure to provide the same kind of incentive for the forestry interests. There are arguments both ways, but I can give the minister an example.

In the northern limits of O. and M. off the Red Lake road where there are no roads at the present time, there are great stands of overmature timber, especially balsam, which has been attacked by the spruce budworm. There are also very many overmature spruce stands north and northeast of Sioux Lookout and all the way along the C.N.R. line. Although some of the area has been leased tentatively by pulp and paper companies, at the present time no great development is taking place.
What I am coming to is this. Is there any way in which the minister's department can take the incentive in getting Ontario to put in what are properly forest roads rather than roads to resources, which seem to hinge so much upon mineral possibilities? I can give the minister an example from a copy of a letter I have that the Hornepayne chamber of commerce sent to Mr. Leslie Frost, the premier of Ontario. They asked for a road between highway 11 and highway 17 and they make this point in their letter as to what the road would do:
Access to a new mining area of incalculable potential value as it is common knowledge of prospectors here that there is a high percentage of ore-bearing rock in this area.
They go on to say:
We have a commitment from Ontario Pulp and Paper Company that, as soon as this road is open, they will commence operations on a large scale in this new territory which at present is closed to them because there is no road in or out. This would mean about 100 new families on company payroll in Hornepayne to bolster the rapidly and disastrously declining economy of this town due to the drastic layoffs and cuts in employment on the C.N.R. division of Hornepayne.
The letter goes on to say that this particular road would open up about 50,000 square miles of country unexcelled anywhere in Canada for hunting and fishing.
The three things that follow from roads in any part of the country are mineral developments, forestry developments and the hunting and fishing and tourist aspect. I know the minister knows just as well as anyone who lives there that the forestry aspect is the most important of all, not only in terms of getting at overmature stands but also because it is the basis of our whole economy. For this reason I should like to know whether there are not more imaginative steps that the minister's department can take in order to get more forest access roads into that huge part of the country.
The timber line generally follows the curve of Hudson bay but about 150 or 200 miles to the south. That means that north of Red Lake and curving around in a circle to about 120 or 125 miles north of Nakina you have a huge belt of forested country, mostly spruce,

that is still largely untapped by roads. This is the area that this major project concerns, and I wonder whether the planning of roads after an aeromagnetic survey would be as useful as planning roads on the basis of opening up the forestry potential. I should like to have the minister's opinion on that point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister is always available for any imaginative ideas. I should like to point out that in the winters of 1957-58 and 1958-59 we offered to the provinces on a 50-50 basis the building of forest access roads that would open the forests for any reason where management was assisted. I might point out that for all provinces the total amount expended was roughly $9 million and of that $9 million nearly $4 million was spent in Ontario. The next province was British Columbia with about $2J million.
I think this indicates that the province of Ontario, with its vast forested areas, took full advantage of the federal offer. However, the offer was not made available last winter on the ground that only limited use could be made of an offer to build roads from November to the end of June. In the forested areas of British Columbia particularly and also in Newfoundland and parts of Ontario nothing could be done about such roads until the snow had gone and in many areas this does not happen until near the end of May.
So that the useful part of every distance required was only about one month of construction. So the province has pressed us to see if we could not come to some agreement on a year long program of forest access roads. That is one of the matters that is now before the government. I hope the new department of forestry will take this matter in hand and see whether they cannot work out a formula with the provinces in order to achieve some of the things that we want, namely to make the maximum possible use of available manpower for winter work and still not put the province in the position of trying to get some work done during the warm summer months.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister knows that as a result of the switch in the pulp and paper industry there is more unemployment in winter than there used to be just as there is more employment or work in the summertime. The minister's explanation brings me to another criticism I have of both the forest access road program and the roads to resources program. I understand that in any area where crown lands are to be under long term lease to a pulp and paper company, the federal government will not make a contribution, or in other words that it has to be on crown lands free from licence. This
Supply-Northern Affairs is something like biting off your nose to spite your face. The pulp and paper companies have these huge limits, many of which they are not going to exploit for some years.
While we can be critical perhaps of the agreements that gave them these huge areas, the fact remains that roads are not going to be built there unless it is under the encouragement of an outside agency such as the provincial government or the federal government. I should like to know why it is not possible to develop a forest access road program which would go through company limits, especially in those parts of company limits where the companies do not envisage any work in the near future.
As the minister knows, the pulp and paper companies in Ontario must provide the provincial government with a 50-year plan. This marks off departments of their area and sets up a tentative long term program. This is fine in so far as that particular company developing resources on its limits in order to produce pulp is concerned, but it does not do much for the long term aspect of forest protection, forest management and access to these forests by the general public. I should like to ask the minister whether it would not be possible to see that contributions go to forest access roads that are on company limits.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I remember correctly we have had this discussion with the hon. member for Port Arthur in previous sessions. I made it clear then and I make it equally clear now that no limitations were imposed by the federal government on the tenure of land at all. Forest administration is purely the prerogative of the provincial government. All we offer to do is to pay 50 per cent of the cost of any of these roads under certain conditions in places the provinces want to put them, provided they are in forest areas. If you go back and look up the previous estimates when this matter was discussed you will find that I gave that information about two years ago.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, I know the minister did so, but the fact remains that the roads are not being put through the limits. Neither is this an indication that it is the province's policy to see that these roads go through crown limits that are not held by licence.


Mr. Simpson:: I wonder whether the minister can give me some information with regard to the expected completion date of a road in northern Manitoba. I am speaking particularly of a road leading from No. 10 highway at Simonhouse and going into the Snow lake area. I understand that approximately four contracts have been called for this road and some have been completed. On

Supply-Northern Affairs some however apparently there has not been too much work done. The people in the Snow lake area are certainly interested in knowing when this road may be completed. I should also like to have a progress report with regard to the extension of this road into the new townsite of Thompson.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The information which the hon. member is after is described here as the Osborne lake road which is from a point on the Wekusko-Snow lake road to the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company property at Osborne lake, the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company to pay one third of the cost. The mileage of this part of the road is 12. The estimated cost is $500,000 and of course the resource is mining. In addition, the work that has been done to date is the clearing of this 12.2 miles at the cost of $17,119. The only new contract of which we have information is one for the grading of this 12.2 miles for $26,767 and this is additional work to the original contract.


Robert Simpson: To follow up that question may I say that this Osborne lake road mentioned by the minister is not the one in particular about which I was inquiring. I understand that the road from Simonhouse and going to a point near Wekusko and leading into the Snow lake area is being constructed under the roads to resources program. That is the one in which I was interested.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a much bigger road than the one I described here. It is shown in our records as the Thompson road on No. 10 highway near Simonhouse and thence to a point on the Wekusko-Snow lake road to the townsite of Thompson. As to mileage, this road is 185 miles. The estimated cost is $5,200,000. Our records show that work completed on that road is clearing and grading of 50 miles at a cost of $2,566,000. The other contracts on this road that are now proposed are grading, 22.4 miles at a cost of $1.3 million; clearing, 21.1 miles for $87,000 and crushing and stockpiling gravel for 22.7 miles, $146,000.


Robert Simpson: I have one more question. Is there any idea at the present time as to the completion date of that portion of the road from Simonhouse into the Snow lake area?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have not been informed by the province of the completion date. All we have here is the contracts that have been made.


Mr. Henderson:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a road running out

of McBride. If I read this letter the minister will have an idea of where this road is. It reads as follows:


Hon.   Sir@: We wish to bring to your attention, that the survey of the B.C. provincial highway No. 5- known as the Yellowhead Route-has been completed between Kamloops and Tete Jaune, and that there is a survey crew working, between Tete Jaune and Yellowhead, this survey should be complete this fall, and also the survey between Jasper and Yellowhead is about complete.
As you have made the promise that you would advocate and support, that the federal government contribute 50 per cent of the cost of the construction of this Yellowhead highway between Yellowhead and Kamloops.
And as Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, B.C. Minister of Highways, on June 25 at the annual meeting of the Yellowhead highway association, at Kamloops B.C. stated that if the federal government would put up the 50 per cent of the cost, his government was prepared to start work at once, on any highway in the province, the federal government to name the project.
Under this circumstance we ask, that you take immediate action, to carry out your promise; our reason: it will give us an outlet by highway to other parts of the province, and as most of the work is in rock formation, it would one way to relieve the unemployment situation this winter. We will look forward to receiving an early and favourable reply.
Your very truly,
McBride Farmers' Institute
P.O. Box 176,
McBride, B.C.
W. C. Shovar, Secretary.
This is the farmers institute at McBride and I have been on this road. There are five or six miles finished. It is a beautiful road but there it stops, and I want the minister to look into it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the hon. member a question. He refers to a promise. Is this a promise he made?


Walter Clarence Henderson: No. This letter was written to the Minister of Justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I was out of the chamber did the minister answer my question about the road to Grand Rapids?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand this question will be answered on the parks item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was my question about the road to Grand Rapids.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Oh yes, I did answer that in your absence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks branch-
269. Branch administration, $218,203.
Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the estimates with reference to parks, because it is the first time I have had the

opportunity since being elected to represent the constituency of Bow River to speak on these particular estimates.
I think I should say at the outset that if I do appear somewhat critical it is because the parks people are controlled and somewhat governed by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and they are unique in this regard. They are not a municipal body so that their criticisms, if they have any to express, must be expressed through their member of parliament.
I have three matters to air as grievances today, but before doing so I would like to say that the development of the parks or the development of roads in the last two or three years is such that the roads today in the national park of Banff are better than they have been for a number of years. We might start off with the main street in Banff which was criticized not only by the local people in the national park itself but by tourists. It is expected that some $310,000 will be spent to complete the main street of Banff and also the road between Jasper and Banff on which it is intended some $4,473,900 will be spent on grading between mile 68 and mile 105. Then the trans-Canada highway section is now completed through the national park at Banff and it joins with the Windermere highway, and the roads leading to Banff national park are better than they have been during the life of the park itself.
I want to discuss three matters in connection with parks, and in doing so I am making no reflection on the minister, his deputy or his officials, because I personally as member of parliament for the area have received the utmost co-operation. But because of the uniqueness of the park itself, it having no municipal council or local body except the local council which passes on their views to the department, it is necessary that some of these criticisms come through their member of parliament, and it so happens that I am the member of parliament and also a supporter of the government.
My first criticism is with reference to the expropriation of lands within the park itself. Hon. members will recall that on the orders of the day two or three days ago I asked a question with reference to this expropriation, when I mentioned there were certain parcels of land which had been expropriated from individuals who had owned land in the parks in 1955 and no settlement had yet been made. I also asked a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice and he thought that one of the cases was before the court. I might say that I have followed the matter through and I have discovered these cases as yet are not before the court.
79951-0-432
Supply-Northern Affairs
Let us look at the procedure of expropriation, and I am sure that when I am through with these remarks hon. members of the committee will appreciate why a bill of rights in some form is necessary when parks decide to expropriate land either for a purpose or without a purpose. I might say that after discussions with officials and without breaking confidence they are of opinion that they can expropriate land today for any particular purpose or just to enlarge the park area itself.
Now what is the procedure? First of all an order in council is passed and forwarded to the registrar of the proper land title office, and the order in council generally reads along these lines:
His Excellency, the Governor General in council, on recommendation of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, is pleased hereby pursuant to subsection (3) of section 6 of the National Parks Act to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to expropriate the lands described in the schedule hereto for the purpose of a national park.
Then they merely attach to that order in council the description of the land.
In all these cases there is no notice given to -the owner at all, and there is no chance of a hearing. In that regard I say that one of the most important civil rights of the people who live within the park is usurped because he has no chance, no notice and no hearing. "Well, there is a hearing if he wants one, but at his own expense, and this is the type of hearing you get. If you wish to take the matter before the exchequer court you can do so under the Expropriation Act and issue a petition of right, get before the exchequer court and have yourself heard. But by that time if the parks department are right in their interpretation of the law and the legal officers attached to the parks department and the justice department are right, they seem to be of the opinion that once the order in council is passed and placed before the registrar of the land title office, in this case in Calgary because I am dealing with the province of Alberta, and the office in Calgary is the appropriate land title office with regard to the national park, the lands themselves by that time have been expropriated and then the citizen has to sit back and wait. The land is already expropriated before such a hearing is possible.
I am sorry that I have not the names of the parties who own the parcels of land in question, but I have talked to lawyers in Calgary where their clients have consulted them with regard to their rights, and this matter has been dragging on since 1955 without settlement. In some cases the land has not been valuable, worth only about $400 or $500.

Supply-Northern Affairs
There is one case with which I will deal where the land was very valuable, worth more than $1,000,000, but the value should not enter into it. It is a civil right and if we believe in freedom of enterprise and property rights, people who own lands in fee simple in our parks should not be treated differently from people and the farmers who own land on the prairies.
There is certainly a need-and I am sure I can express myself in this regard, knowing the Prime Minister personally-for some protection, and the Prime Minister must have had some of these things in his mind when he presented his bill of rights to this parliament, because I say that the rights of people living in parks who own land which is expropriated are usurped by this type of procedure, if the procedure I have described is the law.
There should be a test case in that regard to find out if that is the procedure, because the most important point here is that once the order in council is passed then your right to own that land ceases. It seems to me that the citizen then has to go to the parks department or the Department of Justice to endeavour to get a settlement, and it drags on for five or six years before any settlement is made. That is far too long. In many cases the people need the money. In any case, under our system of jurisprudence in this country everyone should have the right to be heard when he is losing such a thing as a piece of property. He has a right to be heard and a right to be given notice.
There is another piece of land-and I cannot go into this very far because this case is before the court at this time-which concerns 60 acres of land near lake Louise. This is land a part of which was used for the trans-Canada highway. Fifty five acres or less was taken by the parks department in 1956, and when they were questioned they said that it was not taken for any particular purpose but merely to enlarge the area of the park. I suggest today that if it was right to take Mr. A's land at lake Louise-I will name the person, it was a Mr. Red Cooper, the main shareholder of a small company; I might as well mention the name-if it was right to take Mr. Cooper's land then it was right to take all the land that was owned under fee simple in the parks of this country.
I ask the minister and the officials of the department of northern affairs, to look seriously into this matter because one of the most important rights of our free enterprise system is being usurped.
There is one other ingredient which is very important: who should determine, who should decide, to take over land? I do not for a


moment suggest in this committee that there has been corruption but the danger is always present that some political party may get to know that people of another political party own certain property on crown land, and a move could then be made to expropriate that property without notice and, in many cases, without a proper settlement. I take it upon myself, as did the hon. member for Algoma, which has one of the largest parks within its borders, to bring this question to the attention of the committee, as has been done by other hon. members and by their constituents in letters and also by lawyers in the city of Calgary and lawyers in Banff and elsewhere.
Now a word on the subject of bears. Quite a bit of humour has been raised about painting bears red and so on, but I do not think our efforts up to the present time have been sufficient. I was discussing recently in Calgary the question of bears and other animals with the same propensities with a man by the name of Bill Fisher who is one of the members of the fish and game society in the province and who is known for his interest in sport throughout his years. He is a man of about 70 years of age who has hunted every type of game and fowl in Canada and who has even hunted lions in Africa, and he takes this position that when you have an animal like a bear with its propensities, it is a dangerous animal, but when nothing is being done to scare it it loses its fear of man and as a result you have these various incidents. Last year we had a girl killed in Jasper by bears. Two or three weeks ago three men were out fishing at Spray lake out of Banff. The men left their boats to unload their cars when the were attacked by the bear. These men were seriously injured. This had nothing to do with feeding. Recently a bear attacked three people on a hike in Glacier national park. I should like to read a report in the Toronto Telegram. It reads:
The Parrat boy, who lives in Clairemont, California, is recovering slowly from his injuries- a punctured lung, broken right arm and multiple gashes on his face and chest.
Alan G. Nelson, 27, a seasonal ranger-naturalist from Bismarck, N.D. has severe wounds to both thighs.
The third victim, Brita Noring, 38, of Sweden, has a mangled right foot.
From his hospital bed, ranger Nelson told of his ordeal and the youngster's pluck.
"It happened while three of us were on a fishing and hiking trip-little Smith, myself, and my roommate, Ed Mazzer, who is also a seasonal ranger naturalist.
We went about five miles and met the Swedish couple (Miss Noring and Gote Hyhlen), and about three o'clock all five us started back together.
We went about a mile when Ed Mazzer, who was in the lead, shouted 'bear, bear. Scatter!' Ed ran to the left, and the boy and I to the right. Smith and I had to run 70 yards before we found

a tree big enough to climb, and I could see the bear with two cubs over my shoulder as I ran. I looked back again and she was on top of the boy, biting, clawing and tossing him about. The bear weighed about 500 lbs and stood more than six feet tall when she reared up.
I shouted to draw her attention to me, and started climbing a tree when she made a dash for me."
For about three hours the three of them had to lie quiet and they were badly injured.
I suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, to the officials of the department that some new regulation or some new idea should be brought in to handle this situation. It does seem to me there are reliable people who go hunting and fishing. It is not a question of feeding the bears. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the regulations, and that those who do feed bears are taking a chance; they bring that trouble on themselves. But this is something different. Here the bears attack fishermen at Spray lake and attack people on a hike and last year a child was killed in Jasper.
I suggest that people who are reliable and used to hunting should be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves. This man Bill Fisher told me he would not fish today in the parks because he would not take that chance without a gun. I say this is a serious matter and I think the whole matter should be reviewed. It is not a question of feeding the bears. It is not a question of marking them with red paint. It is a question of whether it is safe to go into the various areas in the parks where nature still exists to enjoy the fishing. I do not agree with the member from Calgary South that to thin out the bear population is sufficient.
Now, I wish to make a few observations concerning Banff itself. I was interested to note the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in which he dealt with the amount of money spent by Canadian visitors in the United States in comparison with the amount spent by United States visitors to Canada. However, we must come to the conclusion that the tourist trade is running third as an earner of foreign exchange after wheat and newsprint. Marcus Van Steen in an article which appeared in Saturday Night on June 11, 1960 under the heading "What's Wrong with Our Tourist Industry?" reminded us:
In 1939 we had a favourable balance of $68,000,000 in the tourist exchange. By 1953 this had turned into a deficit of $63,000,000.
That deficit is continuing, and it will continue until facilities for tourists coming to Canada from the United States and other countries match those which exist in other countries. We appreciate the fact that there is only so much money that can be spent in each department, and that Rome was not 79951-0-432i
Supply-Northern Affairs built in a day, but because I am the member for Banff I must take a critical look on behalf of the people whom I represent and who have expressed criticism with regard to the facilities which exist at the present time at Banff.
Banff has been advertised by a whispering campaign as a great place at which to spend a holiday. Last year a million people came through the east gate, and that is not counting the number of people, probably half as many, who came through the west gate. The swimming pools are crowded and the other facilities are crowded, and if we are to continue to attract tourists to Canada from the United States and elsewhere it is necessary to take a serious look at the facilities, because in some cases the swimming pools we have in Banff are over-crowded to a point when in the opinion of some people the health of persons using them is endangered.
I think we should encourage freedom of enterprise, and I was interested in what the minister had to say on this subject a while ago. It is through the development of freedom of enterprise that individuals put capital into a project so that it may grow and develop. It may be that the flow of capital could be encouraged further if we took a more critical look at our economy in reference to the question of taxation.
As Governor Rockefeller said the other day, probably if our taxation was not so high today people would have more capital to invest in free enterprise industries so there would be a greater development and fuller employment in the country. As a free enterpriser I believe in that system. If we can encourage capital from private industry to go into these areas under proper supervision -and I think it has been and is available from the government-we will have a fuller and greater development than would be possible if the department were to do it itself.
I have dealt with three points today and although there are many others I could raise in summary let me say that I urge the minister from the bottom of my heart to take a serious and stern look at the question of expropriation because the rights of the people who own property in the parks are being usurped. This and similar factors may well have been in the mind of the Prime Minister in introducing his bill of rights.
I would also ask the department that it allow certain reliable people who go into the parks to fish to carry firearms for their protection, probably by licence or by permission issued through the superintendent of the park. I would also ask that the matter of facilities in the national parks be reviewed

Supply-Northern Affairs and that the government continue to encourage the third ranking industry in Canada, the tourist industry, to grow and expand.
I feel that I would be remiss in my duty if before resuming my seat I were not to express this sentiment. I know Mr. Harry Dempster, general superintendent for all western parks, Mr. Combs, superintendent of Banff national park and Mr. Cooper, superintendent of Yoho national park, all of whom are leaders in the affairs of the parks. I and all the people of Banff have always received full co-operation from them and from all the employees of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I want my acknowledgement of their courtesy and co-operation placed on the record. Any time that I or my constituents required information or assistance we have received it from these good people and other members of the department.
One final word. I wish to express the appreciation of the people of Banff to the department for assisting in the promotion of the civic centre. This has been a dream of the people there for approximately 20 years and it is now becoming a living reality. Plans have been approved by the department and it appears that within this year the civic centre will be a tangible reality and we will see the first curling rock go down the ice in Banff. This will be a source of pride and pleasure to the people of Banff and to all the tourists who visit that national park.


George Ewart Nixon: Mr. Chairman, once again I bring to the attention of the minister the importance of some action being taken by his department in preserving the old stone house at Sault Ste Marie I understand the city council are considering removing the old building to another site. I urge the minister to give consideration to providing some money for the restoration of this building once this is done. The details of the building are all on file in the minister's office so I need not deal with that aspect of it.
I understand that some consideration may be given to maintaining the building by your department once it has been officially declared an historic site. I know the minister has already given some thought to this problem but I would appreciate it if he would have another look at it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have had this matter under close consideration and as the hon. member knows I must work along with the historic sites and monuments board. I shall keep the hon. member informed as to developments in this connection.

While I am on my feet perhaps I could keep my promise to the hon. member for Vancouver East and answer his question about the Garibaldi park situation which has intrigued hon. members from British Columbia and others across Canada over the last several years. My records indicate that I was first required to deal with this matter when I was approached by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and I believe one or two other hon. gentlemen from that part of British Columbia to see if I would not consider putting in a national park within two or three hours drive of Vancouver. They suggested this beautiful area called Garibaldi which is a provincial park.
On May 2, 1958 I wrote to Mr. Westwood the provincial minister and proposed that if British Columbia would turn this area over to the federal government free of encumbrances I would bring it before the federal government for consideration and if it was viewed favourably by the government we could take it over and proceed with a program of development. That letter was dated May 2, 1958 and to this date I have received no answer.
The next development was that Mr. Westwood wrote to me under date of March 9, 1960 to suggest that as a part of the centennial celebrations in 1967 the federal government and the government of British Columbia should co-operate together on a 50-50 basis to develop Garibaldi in preparation for the staging of the 1968 Olympics. In my reply I said that we would be very interested in any definite proposal that might be worked out. I mentioned in the letter that we had no policy of developing parks on a 50-50 basis with any province but that we would be interested in any definite proposal. I also said that if it were to become definite that the Olympics would be held in Garibaldi, on the basis of firm proposals and detailed plans by the province, the city and all groups interested, the question would certainly receive the most careful study. My letter was dated March 23, some four months ago.
The next item on my list of documents is the news story that emanated from Vancouver on June 24. I believe the hon. gentleman referred to this. It stated that Garibaldi was offered to the federal government and suggested that the province wanted the federal government to pay for the development of the site. This was the Squamish proposal.
Hon. members will recall that when I was asked questions in this chamber on the subject I said I had heard about the news story and would be interested in receiving a letter with some definite offer from the government of British Columbia. I also said

that if they were serious I was sure they would write and make an offer. No such offer has come forward.
The final comment I wish to make is this. The hon. member described this thing as fantastic. I think that is probably a good word to use in this connection.


Mr, McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly on this item but before doing so I am sure Your Honour will bear with me if I refer to the fact that we have a distinguished visitor in the gallery this afternoon, the premier of Newfoundland.
Signal Hill which is one of the most historic sites in Newfoundland and indeed in Canada was established in 1955 as a national park. Since that time the road leading to the plateau where Cabot Tower and some of the other historic sites connected with the park are located has been paved. One of the oldest buildings there, the powder magazine, has been restored. Regrettably, that is all that has been done to date. I realize, of course, that the restoration work of the tower itself could not be got under way primarily because of the fact that the tower was occupied by telecommunications people of the Department of Transport. I am advised that the telecommunications people have now vacated the tower and the tower is in effect locked up. It is rapidly falling into a state of disrepair; windows have been broken. It is regrettable that work has not commenced on the restoration of this most historic spot.
I am sure hon. members are aware that in addition to the historical significance of Signal Hill in connection with the various conflicts that took place for possession of North America between the two mother races, the English and the French, Signal Hill has also been the site of events of very great importance in the history and development of telecommunications. It is well known that at this spot in 1901 Marconi was successful in receiving his first wireless message from Cornwall, England. In addition to that, 19 years later, the Marconi people carried on successful experiments in radio telephone. The first radio telephone reception was completed on this very site in 1920. Bearing these things in mind, and bearing in mind the fact that in my opinion at any rate the department has been just a little bit lax in the restoration of historic sites in Newfoundland I should like to see work stepped up on the complete restoration of the hill area that now comprises Signal Hill park, and more particularly the restoration of the tower itself.
I can see the tower used as a museum, Mr. Chairman, but not only as a museum of historical nature in connection with the early
Supply-Northern Affairs attempts at colonization but in connection with telecommunications; for most important advances were made on this very spot. In addition to these things, the tower could also be a museum of the early days of navigation and trans-Atlantic aviation. In addition, it could be developed into a most attractive historical museum.
We are pleased to note that in connection with the new building the Newfoundland government has carried on studies into the restoration of some of the old forts of Newfoundland. During my visit to the Confederation building I was pleased to note that some of those old forts have been rebuilt to a scale model. In order for this to take place I am sure that much painstaking research had to be undertaken into the details contained in some of the vague historical references to the early fortifications in that part of Canada.
At Signal Hill park there is a custodian who has been there since 1957. As I see it there is very little need for a custodian because nothing has been done apart from the paving. I urge the minister to reply when I resume my seat and inform us what steps his department proposes to take next year toward the restoration and preservation of this site, one of the most historic sites in Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a brief answer, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I join with the hon. member for St. John's East in regretting that we were not able to do this year what we were hoping to do at Signal Hill. This is one of Canada's more historic landmarks. All I can say is that last week one of my assistant deputy ministers was down looking at Signal Hill to make further recommendations that I hope to put before the treasury board this fall to maintain this wonderful landmark in our history, and also to make the fullest possible use of it in the knowledge of what it meant so many years ago and to see that it will be maintained forever for Canada.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like the committee to know that I am very serious in my remarks today, and also I am very sincere in bringing this to the attention of the committee. I quite realize there are members of the parks committee branch listening this afternoon to the proceedings of this committee, but I should like them to know that I am bringing the problems that we have at the present time in connection with our parks to the attention of the committee. In the beginning, I should like to read part of the National Parks Act:
The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I should like to leave it at that for the present, Mr. Chairman, and to go on and for a few minutes this afternoon I should like to talk about our national parks and of the fact that in the constituency of Kootenay East which I represent we have a portion of three parks and I should like to offer some constructive criticism. Just recently-I should say this was a few months ago-I was approached by a member of the Shell Oil Company of Canada relative to making some scientific investigation in the Yoho park. Their letter to me reads something like this:
I would like to use the road alongside the Beaver-foot river, and camp with assistance in the area for about a week at the end of July.
This was last year:
As is well known the area is an unusual geological formation and little geological work has been done on its various problems. My aim on this occasion is to collect specimens for (1) petrographic studies on the complex (2) exhibition in the Calgary zoo- geological museum. Also to photograph and map interesting features in the area.
Every feasible or unfeasible obstacle was placed by the parks branch to discourage this request. We should encourage scientific research in all areas of Canada and especially in our national parks. We have mountains of rock in these areas and I am sure that the small samples taken from this area of unique rock formation would never be missed.
I brought a sample with me this afternoon of what was asked for in this request, and which they wished to take out of the park. This is the largest size sample that they wished to take. As I said before, there are many millions of tons of rock in the area and I am sure that this small sample which I just showed you, Mr. Chairman, if you could possibly see it from your chair, would never be missed. On my request for this concession I was informed that this could not be granted because that was the way it was handled in 1930.
Are we never going to keep up with the times, Mr. Chairman? Has the thinking of our parks branch not changed in the past 30 years? I suggest that if this is the policy, which I find it hard to believe, now is the time to revise our present regulations. After all, Mr. Chairman, it was a part of our election promises that "now is the time for a change". After 25 years under the previous administration I think that now is the time for a change in these regulations. I should like to read another part of the reply of the department which I received to this request.
Since I wrote you on October 2, 1959, enclosing a permit authorizing the collection of specimens and the use of the fire road to the Ice river area, the broad question of permitting in future the collection of botanical, mineral, fossil and other specimens from the national parks has been under review.


The removal of these small items of rock from our national parks has to go through the head office of the parks branch. The letter continues:
As a matter of fact, the officers of the branch who have undertaken this study have not yet completed their research-
Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman? There has to be research with respect to the removal of small pieces of rock for the Calgary museum, which is also a public institution.
-and, consequently, I am most reluctant to issue further permits at this time. I am sure you realize that the removal from the national parks of any form of specimens is actually a breach of the dedication clause of the National Parks Act which provides that the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for future generations. While it may be argued that the impairment in this case is very small, nevertheless it is a fact that applications for permits of various kinds have increased greatly over the past few years.
It is hoped to have the matter reviewed and a decision reached before the coming spring-[DOT]
About seven months later.
-is well advanced and I will be only too glad to inform you of the decision which has been reached at that time. In the meantime, I am sure you will appreciate why it is not possible for me to grant the necessary permission immediately.
The parks were set aside for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada. I read that from the act, but so far I cannot see that we are getting a great deal of enjoyment out of them. After all when we buy a new suit I do not think we are inclined to take the new suit, hang it in a cellophane bag, put it away in a closet and save it for our grandchildren. Nor do we build ourselves a new home and say that we are going to have it for the generation that is going to follow some time after the year 2060 which would be 100 years from now.
What we are missing is the fact that we want to get pleasure out of these parks today. The regulations of the National Parks Act passed in 1930 are so out of date and outmoded that now is the time that the act should be amended to bring it into line with present day conditions. Our parks today, due to their location, are hampering industry and the expansion of the rest of the province. I refer specifically to the province of British Columbia. In several instances our lumbering industry has been forced to make long detours around our parks because of the fact that no provision for trucking through the park areas has been made and, further, it is apparent that the parks branch is making no effort to adjust this situation.
While I am talking about the park areas I should like to point out to the committee that it has been brought home very forcibly to me by the parks branch that park areas

will not be developed until such time as they are turned over to the department tor further work. I believe consideration should be given with respect to leases on motels and hotels situated on park land. Here are a few of the troubles now plaguing their owners in our parks. I should like to refer to a matter which was determined by the courts in the province of British Columbia in the year 1958 and I should like to include in Hansard part of the findings and also part of the brief submitted at that time. The brief reads in part as follows:
In the spring of 1958 I was consulted by five hotel and motel owners whose properties were situate in Kootenay national park in the vicinity of Radium Hot Springs. They had been assessed by the provincial taxation department on the land on which the motels and hotels were situate and were also assessed on the improvements, i.e., the buildings which they had built or furnished. These owners held leases or licences from the parks commission or, in other words, from the dominion government, which were renewable more or less indefinitely although the parks commission had the right to refuse renewal at any termination if it so desired. There was also a provision stating that in the event of cancellation all buildings had to be removed or demolished within a given period. You can easily see that it would be impossible to move even a small house through the canyon-
The reference is to Sinclair canyon.

and neither of the hotels could be moved in any event, so that this provision simply meant that the lessee would lose all the improvements which he had built or purchased on the terms of the lease or licence.
At this time all five of the hotel and motel owners were advised that the provincial government under the provincial taxation act had a perfect right to tax them for the occupancy of the crown land but had no right to tax them on improvements, and in consequence they were instructed to appeal the assessments. All five assessments were appealed to the court of revision and the court upheld the hotel and motel owners, stating that the improvements were not taxable. Here is what happened to these people in a national park. The brief continues:
The provincial government appealed and the case came before the board of revision. The board came from Victoria to Cranbrook and heard all five appeals and again upheld the decision of the court of revision that the improvements were not taxable. This year (1959) the five owners who had appealed successfully last year received assessment notices taxing the land only but other owners inside the park who had not appealed got notices taxing both land and improvements although the court of revision had already held last year that such improvements were not taxable.
Four owners who had been assessed on both land and improvements instructed the lawyer to appeal to the court of revision to be held at Golden in the spring of 1959. The matter was appealed and again the court
Supply-Northern Affairs of revision held that the improvements were not taxable, but the government assessor who was present then produced a copy of a bill- this is hard to believe-which was at that time before the provincial house, amending the taxation act so that the improvements were taxable and making this amendment retroactive to 1957.
That is what has happened in the case of motels and hotels constructed in one of our national parks for the benefit of the touring public. They are being taxed out of business. The brief continues:
The retroactive feature had the effects of nullifying the decision of the court of revision and the board of revision held in 1958, and instead of gaining anything by last year's appeals the clients are out their costs of both appeals and have to pay taxes on the improvements for 1958 which had been held to be invalid. In other words, they were fined the costs of their appeal for daring to appeal against the provincial government.
It is pointed out that the retroactive feature of this tax smells to the high heavens and that if the practice continues no one knows where it will end and what effect it will have on the improving of accommodation in our national parks. I could go on to refer to a considerable number of other items at this time but I should like to bring to the attention of the committee some of the problems that the motel and hotel owners in our national parks are having. The motel owners are only allowed to be open for business during the summer months. They are prohibited from remaining open in the winter months. Only a caretaker is permitted to remain on the premises. Yet at the same time owners just outside the park area are in many cases able to rent their cabins all winter to old age pensioners or people in reduced circumstances.
The owners not only have to pay full taxation to the provincial government on both land and improvements, to which matter I have just referred, but they also have to pay their licence fees to the federal government. The park owners of hotels and motels have to pay a business licence fee to the federal government and in addition have to pay separate federal licence fees for the following, tobacco counter, souvenir counter and dining room licence.
With regard to licensed premises in the park, the licensee has to pay to the provincial liquor control board 2 per cent on draft beer with an annual minimum of $75, no tax on bottled beer, and a minimum licence of $150 a year on spirits and wines, and in addition has to pay to the federal government 2 per cent on draft beer, 2 per cent on bottled beer and 4 per cent on wines and spirits, while the outside owners holding

Supply-Northern Affairs licences only have to pay the provincial liquor licences. The park owners also have to pay in addition to their annual licence or rental charges, water charges, sewage charges and garbage charges that have been assessed to them while in the parks property.
There is one other item on this particular problem that I should like to bring to your attention. It is certainly a very heavy charge on the hotel and motel owners in the area and I am sure that many of them would like it considered.
In reviewing the northern affairs report I have come across some very interesting figures. I find that in the national parks branch we have a revenue of $2,190,890 and expenditures of $22,095,425. The visitors to the national parks of Canada totalled 3,940,711 in 1957-58. The cost to the taxpayers of Canada was approximately $7 for every visitor that entered our parks. Let us face the issue. It is not the cost of the whole northern affairs branch; it is the cost of the national parks branch. That is just an item about which I am greatly interested.
The taxpayers of Canada are subsidizing all these affairs and at the same time we are not getting value back, even though as my hon. friend said there were some millions of dollars spent in Canada, but I do not think you can attribute that to the deficit in our parks area. Another item is that of camp sites. We spent $1,123,436 in addition on camp ground sites. Three parks in my area, Glacier national park, Yoho national park and Kootenay national park are so situated along the border of Alberta and British Columbia that it has hampered industry, especially in my area. We have a great development there in mining and lumber. In order to reach the prairie markets on the eastern side of the Rockies we either have to travel 100 miles north or 100 miles south, both coming and going, in order to get our products into the markets of the prairies.
As I mentioned in my talk a few moments ago, we in Kootenay East are dependent on industry for the economy of the area. I think that some provision should be made, if the parks branch are not going to allow trucks which are accepted on all of the main highways of the country, for another road to be constructed. We have only three passes in that area by means of which we can get into the prairie markets.
As to access roads to parks, this has been a problem over a great number of years. I feel that going back 20 years our access roads have been important to our parks. I believe we should develop them. We want our own people to go into our parks that is what we want now. We want them to go there and
[Mr. McFarlane.l

we want them to enjoy themselves. But in many cases our access roads have not reached the state where they are attracting the tourist population into the country. Back in 1936 Hon. H. H. Stevens spoke to this House of Commons and pleaded with the government of the day to build access roads into the parks, namely Glacier national park, Yoho national park and Kootenay national park and he was successful to a certain extent. But in the last 25 years the travelling public are demanding more and more. They are demanding good accommodation and good roads. They are travelling in trailers and cars and they are doing so at greater speeds, I think we should consider these access roads not only in the province of Alberta but in the province of British Columbia.
The three park areas that I have mentioned cover approximately 1,571 square miles. It is a great deal of territory. If we are going to develop it I think the people should be allowed to come into all the areas of these parks and visit them without a great deal of red tape. If a man wants to go in or a tourist wishes to go into the park he should be able to contact the superintendent or the assistant superintendent and receive permission to go into the park without having to be obliged to go through all the departments of government because many of them get so fed up that by the time the application is accepted they do not want to go in anyway.
As far as I can see, unless we are going to develop these parks, what we need is a highway through the parks and about 100 yards on each side. I believe if I went around and asked each one who had been there if he had left the main highway in any one of our national parks I think without exception I would find that not one had left the main highway to our parks. That is what is happening to all of this 1,571 square miles we have put into our park areas.
I was also quite interested in a brief which I saw just a short time ago in the U.S. National Parks Magazine entitled "A National Policy". I was quite interested in item No. 2 on page 2 which reads as follows:
National parks and national nature monuments are set aside for the enjoyment,-
That is my request at the moment.
-scientific study and permanent preservation, in a natural state, of the native plant and animal life-
And so on. I quite agree with that. But at the same time I believe we could make our parks so that people are going to get enjoyment out of them today, not tomorrow or next year. I believe that in the economic changes that are coming into our country and the expansion that we are going to have we

are not too sure that the people of Canada want all this preservation and all this parks preservation in their natural state.
I was quite pleased with the remarks of some of the members about bears. I could not possibly let this opportunity go by without a certain comment about the matter. I was pleased to receive a circular about bears put out by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. There is just one thing I find wrong with it. It is not printed on red paper. It is quite consistent with the health of animals and that type of approach. There is also an item here that says a deodorizer is very effective. If I see a bear of any kind I am not going to look for a deodorizer.


An hon. Member:: Nor is anybody else.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: In closing may I say this.
I cannot help bringing to the minister's attention the matter of the Olympic games. We in British Columbia are all interested in the Olympic games situation. At the present time we have a situation wherein first I think we want the winter Olympic games to be in Canada. I think we should process it along that way first, that we want them absolutely in Canada. British Columbia and part of Alberta are the only places in which it would be suitable to hold the winter Olympic games in view of the fact that we have the Rocky mountains at our back door. Several places have been suggested, but what have been suggested are certain undeveloped areas. In view of the many millions of dollars that have been spent on our national parks I believe it would be excellent if we could take the Olympic games out of the national parks. I think they should be placed in an undeveloped area so that we are going to spread our development all over British Columbia because I feel that it is to British Columbia that they are going to come. I should also like to ask the minister's consideration of Cedar valley near the city of Fernie. In this particular place you have winter and summer all at the same time. You have skiing on the upper slopes and also have plenty of room for any other development that you wish to put in. I believe that is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Chairman. I hope the minister will reply to some of my questions.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: I
hope that the minister will take some satisfaction in knowing that there has been considerable gratification in Okanagan-Revel-stoke riding over the substantial increase in the monetary allotment for the development of both Mount Revelstoke and Glacier parks in the last two years and for accelerating the pace of development. I should explain I
Supply-Northern Affairs think that the hon. member for Kootenay East and I share Glacier national park and both of us have a common problem that when people hear Glacier national park mentioned they think of the one in the United States, whereas there is a very fine park by the same name somewhat older between Golden and Revelstoke which is about to become more readily available to the public now than was the case when it was first created.
It is because of this situation that I trespass on the time of the committee to make reference to the development program of these two parks. When the Minister of Public Works was dealing with his estimates earlier this week he referred to the fact that the trans-Canada highway through Mount Revelstoke national park should be completed by the end of the present construction season and that the trans-Canada highway link through Glacier national park should be or could be completed by the end of next year's construction season. This will mean to both parks, but to Glacier park in particular which has not until now been accessible by highway, a tremendous influx of travel, both of Canadian and foreign tourists.
Glacier park is and has been almost from its beginning a wilderness with very limited facilities for the accommodation of visitors. Since the dismantling of Glacier house at Glacier station there have been no facilities in any way in keeping with the standards of the tourist accommodation to be expected as a matter of course today. As the minister knows, at the camp site in Glacier there are two pipes for water, a couple of kitchen shelters and some rather unsophisticated sanitary arrangements. I think in view of this fact and that within one or two years there will be a tremendous flood of tourist traffic over the newly completed trans-Canada highway, it is essential that all development be directed toward coinciding the completion of at least the beginning of modern facilities with the opening of the highway.
I realize it is not possible to do everything which has been visualized at once and I also realize that the splendid attractions in the park very much depend on planning and development. The increase in votes of money allotted to these two parks in the last two years is evidence that this requirement is governing the thinking of the parks planners and the branch. But I wonder if even now the park is going ahead rapidly enough. Time is running out. It is a short construction season in the mountains and there is much to be done. I hope the minister can make a report to the committee on how progress is developing, particularly in Glacier but also in Mount Revelstoke park.
6856	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
So far as Mount Revelstoke is concerned, the largest item of concern there, as the minister knows, is the road to the summit of the park. The summit is the justification for Mount Revelstoke park. The trails, the lakes, the opportunities for hiking and the wildlife are in those highland plateaux on the summit of Mount Revelstoke. The road there now was built 40 to 50 years ago. So far as the width is concerned it has not been improved to a very great extent. The surface certainly is good. It is a safe road but a narrow one. It is 18 miles to the summit. Already restrictions are placed on cars pulling trailers; in fact, trailers are not permitted to go to the summit.
I realize that last year a study was made of the possibility of a second road, a down road on the southeastern slopes of the mountain, to take some of the pressure off the mountain road to the summit. Apparently that has been abandoned and now a survey is going on this year on the possibility of reconstructing the present road. I would emphasize to the minister that in view of the nature of the terrain and the difficulties of construction of the road, unless the greatest acceleration is given to this survey and to the commencement of reconstruction of that road, the work will coincide with the arrival of the very greatly increased flow of tourist traffic along the trans-Canada highway, part of which passes through the boundaries of Mount Revelstoke park. I would suspect that a very large number of travellers coming through will want to drive to the summit of Mount Revelstoke, and it would be very regrettable if the construction work on that road coincided with this great influx of new travel.
I also feel I should extend the appreciation of the city of Revelstoke to the department for the close attention which has been given to the development of the ski slopes; the Nels Nelson jump hill, the slalom hill and so on. I hope that the plans undertaken there are also taking into account the possibility of opening the summit of the mountain to skiing during the winter months. There is approximately 10 feet of powdered snow there during the winter and a six-month season, and I understand it would take as little as $15,000 to keep the road to the top open and make that facility accessible.
I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the citizens of the city of Revelstoke are most anxious to cooperate in any way with the parks branch in making the facilities of Mount Revelstoke more attractive to visitors. The city of Revelstoke is in a rather unique position in relation to the park in that almost the 

whole of the eastern boundary of Revelstoke borders on the park. It is not like Banff or Jasper, which are located in the park itself, but the park looms large in the life of the community. The citizens there have a great desire to co-operate with the branch. I know they are sincere and I hope a means can be found to provide very close liaison between the citizens and the parks branch.
Lastly, I think it would be only fitting to pay tribute to the work of a very dedicated and admired man in Revelstoke, the superintendent of the two parks, Mr. B. R. Styles, whose work and public relations are most highly esteemed in the community and who is doing a magnificent piece of work on behalf of the branch.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, so far I have been able to resist the temptation to intervene in the controversy as to what particular locality in the far west should be the site of the winter Olympic games in 1968. But I would point out to the minister that unless a decision is made on this point pretty soon there will be no possibility of holding the winter Olympic games in Canada at all.
The hon. member for Kootenay East said that the first thing to do was to decide whether the games would be held in Canada at all and to get a decision on that from the international Olympics committee, then we could decide in what part of Canada the games should be held. With respect, that is the wrong way to proceed, because the international Olympics committee will not choose any particular country as the site of either the winter Olympics or the summer Olympics unless that country goes to the committee with a plan drafted and prepared in detail, and that applies particularly to the winter Olympics.
Therefore the first thing is to decide where we will have the games in Canada. Then we should prepare a detailed plan, include all the facilities which would be available, and satisfy the committee that we can hold the games in Canada. Not until that is done is there any possibility of getting a decision as to whether they will be held in Canada at all.
Therefore, it is a matter of immediate urgency from the point of view of the department concerned making a decision, which will not be an easy one as far as one can gather from this discussion, as to what part of Canada is most suitable for the holding of these games in case the international committee decides Canada will be the country. I leave that on the minister's doorstep.
I understand that the provincial government of Ontario has decided to establish a provincial park in the Elliot Lake area

and I would ask whether any request for cooperation has been received from the federal department. I hope that if such a request is made everything will be done to help bring this about at the earliest date.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Perhaps I may deal with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition first. I should like to start with the last point he raised with regard to a provincial park at Elliot Lake. I have kept in contact with the uranium committee on these plans, along with the hon. member for Essex West who is one of the strong boosters for getting a provincial park at Elliot Lake. So far there has been no official request to our department for help. We would be willing to give it if we were asked, but I should like to point out that Ontario has one of the finest parks departments in all Canada. Last year they had 50 parks, and now they have 60; they are adding about 10 a year, and they realize this is of great importance to the people of Ontario. They are very skilled. There have even been suggestions that the smaller parks such as Georgian bay and the St. Lawrence parks should be turned over to the provincial governments who could do a better job in regard to them than we could. As I say, we are willing to help, though we are not expecting that we shall be asked to do so.
This gives me an opportunity to clear away this ghost from my attic-this matter of the Olympic games. In the first place, I have nothing to do with the Olympic games. If that comes under any department of government, it comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare. It does seem unfair that I have had to carry the burden in this respect because one of the groups desiring to have the games in this area was seeking the use of a national park and, second, because another group putting forward the claims of a particular area for the games were hoping to have the site made into a national or provincial park so that somebody would take over the responsibility for providing the facilities.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is wrong on another point. The Olympic games committee says it is their decision which place Canada should recommend, but once the Olympic committee makes that decision there has to be an agreement between them and a body known as the F.I.S. which has to set the standards and then there has to be an agreement between the provinces, the federal government and the municipality as to how much money they can put up. There have been meetings about this, because most
Supply-Northern Affairs Canadians are interested in seeing that Canada should take its proper part in this great event, but I should like to disclaim any responsibility for making this decision as to where the games are held in Canada. Second, my responsibility as minister in charge of parks only comes in if they happen to be held in an area over which I have jurisdiction.
Several hon. members, including the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Bow River dealt with the question of national parks. This gives me an opportunity to say something in this committee that I have said outside the house, something which I said off the cuff some months ago. It is my feeling, as minister in charge of parks, that it is about time all those millions of people in Canada who use the parks and love them should band together and form themselves into a national parks association. This should not be an association composed of civil servants or politicians; it should be an association of people who use the parks and are friends of the parks. They should have an information service which would spread all through their membership, and far beyond it, explaining what the purposes of the parks are. How can a minister stand up against the pressures of commercial interests who want to use the parks for mining, forestry, for every kind of honky-tonk recreational device known to man, unless the people who love these parks are prepared to band together and support the minister by getting the facts out across the country?
As I listened to this discussion this afternoon I could not help but feel the necessity of a national parks association doing educational work among the members of the house. Hon. members should be aware of the fundamental purpose of the parks, which is to preserve, as they were in the beginning, those beautiful scenic areas of our country in order that our children and our children's children for generations to come may go there and find certain areas where the country is the same as its original discoverers found it. That is the primary purpose of the national parks.
At the same time there is a second function of those responsible for the administration of these parks, and that is how to make these beautiful places as accessible to the Canadian pepole as possible. There is a clash between these two purposes. The parks department has had to stand up in favour of these basic purposes against those forces which would like to exploit the parks and use up all their resources quickly in their lifetime and leave nothing for the generations
6858	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs that will follow. I, as minister, want to make it abundantly clear that I stand for the primary purpose of these parks. At the same time I will do everything possible to make these beautiful parks available to the people of Canada if they have a full conception of what they are there for.
Let me inform the committee of another salient fact. No one could have more knowledge than myself about the real value of these parks and their place in the national life, because I have spent during many summers periods of six or eight weeks at a time in these places, not living up in one of those ritzy cottages that are reserved for specially favoured visitors. I have camped out in the little camp sites. I have lived in tents. I have stayed in the shack tents and I have visited occasionally in the portable cabins used by better-off visitors. My sympathies are With the man who has not too much money; my sympathies are with the thousands who want these parks and who want them for their quietness and beauty and relief from the pressures of this civilization; the people who do not go there for the purpose of doing something which they could do just as well in any place outside. If people want to shoot off bullets at a rifle range, or take out electric cars thumping around a circular iron track, or attend open air theatre shows, then I say there are many areas outside the parks which could perfectly well provide such diversion.
I hope we can make friendly arrangements with the provinces with regard to this. I know that hon. members who represent park constituencies are constantly under pressure from the people of the area to try to get certain changes made in park operations, but I should like those members to be allies of mine-men who stand at my right and left, as minister, to tell the people boldly and clearly what these parks are for-so they will be given what they want, if possible, provided it is in harmony with the purposes of the parks. If hon. members do that, I think they will find that 90 per cent of the people in their areas will be behind them.
It is only the 5 per cent or the 10 per cent who put on these pressures and who seem to bother hon. members because they can write letters to the press and get editorials published in newspapers. The rest of the people, the great majority, heartily approve the purposes for which these parks are now kept, and these are the people who should be standing up and supporting these objectives when we discuss this matter of their administration. I want to make my position clear, without misunderstanding as to where I stand on this issue.


Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Chairman, as one who has not a national park in his constituency I feel safely out of this part of the discussion. I listened attentively to the minister's explanation about Garibaldi and the boondoggling tactics that provincial government officials in British Columbia have been carrying on and in the light of this I should like to offer a solution to the problem. I think the minister and his department recognize the need for a national park in the populous central Pacific coast. I should like to recommend an area on Vancouver island which has been well known for many years as a splendid recreational area for skiing, summer camping and other activities. It is a beautiful alpine area known as the forbidden plateau.
Most of the area belongs to the Canadian Pacific railway or the E. & N. and was acquired as part of a land grant. It is not commercially timbered. I think the minister might be able to make a very favourable arrangement with the C.P.R. for a few square miles of this area which would be sufficient for the purpose. It is very easy of access and it would cost very little to extend road services into it. It would not remove resources from development in the area.
I just throw this out as a suggestion because apparently we are not going to get anywhere with the Garibaldi park issue and I do not think the people of British Columbia should have to be denied the pleasure of having a national park because of certain provincial politics. The area is within a few hours of Vancouver-as a matter of fact possibly three and a half to four hours-and within about three hours of Victoria and within a few more hours of Seattle and Tacoma. I think it comes very close to fulfilling all the requirements of a park in that area.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to erupt on a later item but as a socialist I cannot resist rising and expressing my complete support for the minister's explanation of his philosophy in connection with the development of national parks. It is the right philosophy and is well received by this group. Those who want to go to night clubs and circuses can find them in larger cities. I am all for the preservation of natural beauty and features in our parks and their development along the lines suggested by the minister.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay passage of the minister's estimates. I have just one point I should like him to consider. This year marks the 350th anniversary of the founding of Cupids by John Guy. I suggest that the minister

give consideration to the marking of the site where John Guy erected the standard of King James I in 1610.
A few years ago the historic sites committee and a group of public minded citizens erected a monument at Cupids. In my opinion my request at this time is worthy of consideration. I should be grateful if the minister and the historic sites and monuments board would take steps to see that the founding of this colony receives recognition as soon as possible.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In view of the support the minister received from the hon. member for Kootenay West I have a suggestion to make. All who know the hon. gentleman are aware that he possesses certain properties in one of the most magnificent parts of Canada. Judging from his descriptions and photographs this is true. The hon. gentleman is in favour of the preservation of wilderness areas for ordinary people. I have a feeling that if he were approached in the proper spirit by the minister he might be open to persuasion to co-operate in creating a situation through which a national park could come into being in this magnificent area, perhaps called Her-ridge national park.


An hon. Member:: How much does he want for it?


Douglas Mason Fisher: This would be true socialism. The hon. member and the minister as two good socialists should get together. It might be of great advantage to the national parks branch.


Mr. Speakman:: Is the hon. member going to donate this?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. gentleman asks if it will be donated. I am just suggesting that we should get these two socialists together. Who knows what the country will get?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member not think that the name Arrow would be appropriate for this national park?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes. We are going to hear more about the Arrow lake district. The word "Arrow" raises all kinds of connotations including defence, Indian affairs and so on.


Mr. Bigg:: Outrageous fortune.


Douglas Mason Fisher: During the last two years I have received approximately six letters from Mr. Douglas H. Mahon in Halifax. Such industry deserves attention and I feel obliged to place this man's argument before the minister. In a recent letter he states:
Supply-Northern Affairs
Just today I read a special dispatch to the Telegram ol Toronto describing a speech the Hon. Alvin Hamilton is reported to have made in Port Arthur in that a switch in federal policy toward parks and recreation areas will be announced soon following a national conference on conservation in Ottawa next month. A goal of a billion dollars' worth of travel business In Canada in 1960 through the co-operation of provincial municipal Mr. Hamilton is reported to have said.
This quotation is interesting: "The federal government can no longer indulge only in provision of recreation for the leisured classes but rather it must provide recreation for the leisured masses as well."
This man is a skiing enthusiast and has asked me to ask the minister on his estimates to give consideration to developing ski trails and promoting skiing in the parks in the maritime regions. He suggests that this would be a valuable assistance to the park in Nova Scotia.
I have another point. When one enters a national park one is aware through signs that it is a project of the federal government. Has the minister considered putting signs or symbols on all projects to which the federal government contributes. Many ordinary people who do not take an interest in government wonder what the federal government does. Of course it is involved in the trans-Canada highway and various road programs yet there is no symbolic evidence of any permanent kind to make the public aware of what it does.
In most of the states south of the border there are signs indicating that the federal government has made a contribution to various projects. Could the minister not work out a symbol that would be recognized as a federal standard indicating that the federal government has contributed to the project? These could be liberally distributed. I do not suggest he go as far as some provincial cabinet ministers and have his own name splattered all over the place because one assumes he may move on to another portfolio or that the government may change. There should be a symbol such as the maple leaf or beaver or something to indicate that the federal government has contributed to the project. This would help make known to the ordinary people the role the federal government plays in many fields where recognition is not now accorded to it.


Mr. Biunsden:: When did the hon. gentleman become a supporter of the government?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I support the government here and there. All sorts of members in opposition vote for government measures. Certainly, I think the government has done very well in its roads to resources program, in its forest access program and in accelerating the travelling of tourists. I can even approve of the kind of socialism that my hon. friend
6860	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs from Kootenay West is so proud to see in the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mr. Valade:: I have another question. Would the hon. member recommend to the government that those signs be bilingual?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I certainly think they should be bilingual where we have a bilingual population.


Georges-J. Valade: How about the hon. member's riding?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
274. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
Mr. Dinsdale:: I have just a brief word on this item, which is more or less in the form of a report to the minister and also a renewal of the annual invitation to have the minister and his officials visit the international peace garden on the Manitoba-North Dakota boundary. I also wish to express appreciation of the continuing support of this very worthwhile project. I think more than any of the parks developing in Canada, the park in connection with the international peace garden corresponds to the definition which has been laid down by the minister for the preservation of large areas of land in their natural form.
There is much more I could say on this subject. The past support indicated in this vote has been used to expand and develop a park which is becoming increasingly the centre of interest of visitors not only from both sides of the border but also from all parts of the world. I trust that not too far hence, Mr. Chairman, the minister and his officials will be able to inspect this work to their own satisfaction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
276. Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $714,680.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on this item. First of all, I am pleased to see that there is an increase of close to $28,000 in this vote. I have always been keenly interested in Canadian wildlife and in this branch because it is one branch of government that has a certain reverence for life. This branch has made a valuable contribution toward the preservation of wildlife, in co-operation with the provincial governments and various sportsmen's and other organizations and also the administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. As a matter of fact, in my opinion the service is a defence against the very often apparent thoughtless power-hungry dam builders who


very often are not concerned with the effects of their activities on human beings or wildlife.
I happen to represent a constituency that is very interested in both of these questions. In our district we have an organization that takes a very active part in giving consideration to the preservation of wildlife, game and fish, and also to the effect of possible hydro development on the wildlife of the district, namely the west Kootenay rod and gun club association, which has a considerable membership in our district because hunting and fishing are enjoyed by a large number of people. Both hunting and fishing are excellent in the Kootenay area, as a matter of fact, the best in Canada. Because of that they want to preserve this good hunting and fishing.
At a recent meeting held by the association they gave consideration to the possible developments in the Columbia basin and adopted a resolution which I intend to read. I might say before doing so that this resolution is endorsed by the British Columbia rod and gun clubs association and by a number of other associations interested in the conservation and development of our wildlife resources. They have asked me to bring this to the attention of the committee on this estimate and to urge the consideration of their proposal. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the impact on wildlife of Kootenay river and Columbia river development of power and storage dams will be tremendous and the adequate correction of the problems created will be much beyond the financial ability of the fish and game branch of the department of recreation and conservation of the government of British Columbia.
Therefore be it resolved (1) that a complete and detailed biological survey be carried out jointly by the Canadian wildlife service and the fish and game branch, British Columbia department of recreation and conservation to determine the ecological effect on wildlife of each and all proposed power and storage dams, the report of such survey to be publicly available.
(2)	That anticipated problems in wildlife management as indicated in the survey be planned for. rectified, and financed as part of said developments.
(3)	That a definite proportion of the value of the power produced be set aside and other benefits such as navigation, irrigation, etc. (including downstream benefits) produced from said developments for wildlife management and recreational facilities in the Kootenay and Columbia river basins in Canada.
I have read the resolution at the request of the west Kootenay rod and gun club association and the British Columbia association of rod and gun clubs. I do urge the minister to give serious consideration to these proposals which are the result of a study made by a committee as to the likely effect of these developments on the wildlife in the area.

Before concluding, may I say I have been asked particularly to express the appreciation of the west Kootenay rod and gun club association for the services rendered to our district by the officials of this branch which I think should be known not as the wildlife service but as the reverence for wildlife service, a bit of a contrast to some other organizations. There are always people who are interested in conserving wildlife and natural resources. They are a little different in background and outlook from some of the brash representatives of modern industry. However, they do appreciate the good work being done in the district, and particularly the advice, investigation and co-operation they have received in respect of the preservation of that life known as the wildlife at Duck lake. That is all I wish to say at this time.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister on this item. As indicated by its name, Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, my constituency has in the centre of it a very fine body of water, Last Mountain lake, which is over 50 miles in length. This lake is a great summer attraction for boating and fishing. It is also a favourite spot for geese and ducks in the fall. It is a real sportsman's paradise. Unfortunately, however, much of the farm and pasture land around the lake, particularly near the towns of Nokomis, Govan, Simpson and Imperial, is also a favourite resting and feeding place for some other large birds that are not so welcome. I refer to the sandhill crane.
Under this item, 276, concerning administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, I should like to mention a problem I have had brought to my attention many times by farmers in the area mentioned. It concerns the damage to crops and pastures by these sandhill cranes during their flight southward each fall. Great loss is caused by these large and hungry birds, both in what they eat and by the dirt they leave in pastures where much of the grass is made unfit for grazing. I believe that sandhill cranes are protected by federal laws under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I realize that this protection is a safeguard for the preservation of the nearly extinct whooping crane, which to a certain extent resembles the sandhill crane. With regard to this necessary protection for whooping cranes and also in consideration of the damage done by the sandhill cranes I have here a resolution passed unanimously at the last annual meeting of the rural municipality of Wreford, No. 280, in Nokomis. Part of the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas sandhill cranes are protected by the federal government, be it resolved that the federal
Supply-Northern Affairs
government take immediate steps to protect and compensate farmers for the losses of grain crops as well as pastures.
I wonder whether the minister would comment on this problem in the Last Mountain lake area. I understand there is some suggestion of an automatic exploder system to frighten the birds from the crops. I also believe that payment for crop damage is probably a provincial responsibility. With regard to compensation for loss, can the minister state, although I know it does not come under his department, whether such loss would be recovered by crop insurance if the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government sees fit to accept the federal government's offer to help pay for such a crop insurance plan in Saskatchewan?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot answer the last part of the hon. member's question. As to the first part, may I say to him that I am quite aware of the serious problem that exists along the flyway of the sandhill cranes. They are increasing rapidly in numbers and the great harm they do to pastures and to the areas along their flyway is well known. The wildlife service is faced with a very serious difficulty in that the flyway of the sandhill crane overlaps in part the flyway of the whooping crane, which we are trying very hard to preserve. I think there are just 39 of them left.
The Saskatchewan government, on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, has been negotiating with the federal government as to what we can do to help. It is quite true that this fall, an experiment is going to be tried of using exploding devices, aircraft and so on, to see if we cannot move the birds along the flyway a little faster in order to get them out of the grain areas where farmers are suffering serious losses. If we are forced into giving permission to shoot sandhill cranes we run the danger that because of their similarity to the whooping crane one or two whoopers may be knocked off. The matter is being given very active consideration and serious efforts are being made to see if we cannot get around the difficulty caused by the sandhill cranes on the one hand and at the same time preserve the whooping crane.


Edwin William Brunsden: Has the minister any relative statistics over the last few years with respect to whooping cranes? He mentioned a figure of 39. How does that compare with five years ago?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that in the mid-forties the figure was down to 15. Five years ago it had climbed to 22 and now it is up to 39.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Mr. Broome:: Will the minister tell us how these explosive devices will differentiate between sandhill cranes and whooping cranes? It seems to me that we can afford to lose a little excess grain in order to preserve our wildlife. As a city dweller I am quite sure that my people would not like to see anything done by the department which would have any effect upon wildlife, particularly such species as whooping cranes, which were almost extinct.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The exploding device does not kill. All it does is to frighten the birds, and I do not think there is any serious harm to the birds that are frightened.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister how many permits are now in effect under regulation 38 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The regulation provides that the minister or a person authorized by him may issue a permit to a person who owns or leases an eider duck breeding area to collect process, sell and transport eiderdown.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The exact figure is not available but it is somewhere around 10 or 12, according to the recollection of the official.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think the minister or some of his officials will remember that there was a gentleman by the name of Fernand Boucher, a resident of Montreal, who founded an enterprise to collect eiderdown. The company was called-I hope the committee will forgive my pronunciation-L'Edredon de l'Est Limitee. He had some difficulties over the permit. I understand the federal government issues the permit but the actual leasing of the grounds is under the province. He had some difficulty with the lease, and I should like to know whether at the present time that particular company holds a permit from the government. I should like to know in whose name it is held and whether or not it is in the name of Mr. Boucher.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand it is not in Mr. Boucher's name. He was one of a group and there was some trouble among them. I think that is the source of the fuss.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister undertake to let me know by correspondence later who holds this permit at the present time which was formerly in the name of Mr. Boucher? I should also like to have some report on the amount of eiderdown processed by this particular company in the last year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will have the information sent to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Water resources branch-
277. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the provinces of Manitoba of the cost of regulating the levels of lake of the Woods and lac Seul, $1,508,354.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister will remember that under this vote there was a board set up in his department in connection with water levels. This board had to do with the handling of water levels and the regulation of the discharge of water from lake Ontario and the flow of water in the international rapids section. The board, in conjunction with the international joint commission and also after consultation with the United States members, I believe, recommended and approved a method of regulation concerning the flow of water out of lake Ontario and the discharge of water into the international rapids section.
Arising out of that method of regulation, which has been amended from time to time, there is a dispute between the power entities and the governments of Canada and the United States as to the responsibility for damages which may result from the inauguration of the method of control. I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. First, is the board which comes under this vote and under the minister's jurisdiction, still in existence? Second, has it been disbanded as was the intention originally? Third, has the dispute between the relative bodies been settled?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member will recall that he raised this matter once before with me. There is a long and involved historv to this whole matter. I think the facts are that the plan to which he referred is called 1958A to distinguish it from the prior plan. It was one that was recommended should be followed by the international joint commission. I think technically this matter is one that comes under the international joint commission as far as the study of this order is concerned but because the chairman of this board is under my department under this vote and so it is quite correct for me to answer on this vote. The answer to the first question is yes. The board is still in existence. They are carrying out the regulations on the basis of the conditions set out in plan 1958A. There were some differences of opinion about responsibility in connection with downstream people on the shore line. This is a subject of discussion now between the federal government and the government of Ontario. But in the meantime, while the responsibility is decided upon, the regulation is being carried out under 1958A.


Lionel Chevrier: The third question which the minister has not answered was this. There was a dispute between the four groups, namely the two power entities of Ontario and New York and the Canadian and the United States governments as to damages which might arise out of the plan of regulation of these water levels which the minister now says is 1958A. My question is this. Has that dispute been settled?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am speaking from memory now as I have no documents before me pertaining to this particular aspect.
I do not think the United States public entity is in this because under their set-up they get directions from their international section of the international joint commission and apparently carry them out. In our country apparently we have to get this regulation through the international joint commission and then under the terms of this carry out the St. Lawrence river development. As I understand it the provincial government made an agreement on certain things and what they are saying, as I understand it, is that when they get directions from the federal government they carry them out in a certain way. The federal government has taken the position that if they own this property they are legally responsible for downstream damage. They point out that this is a joint division of power and navigation.


Lionel Chevrier: That is it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They point out that the matter of downstream protection against flooding is a matter that should be assessed against navigation and against power in some proportion. 1 think I have expressed reasonably accurately the situation as it now is. I know that the two governments in Canada have agreed to operate under the direction of the I.J.C. order. But in the meantime they will be working to see what kind of arrangement they can make for responsibility for those people along the banks.


Lionel Chevrier: What happens if there is flooding and damage to interests on the Canadian side because of the operation of plan 1958A?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the question is close to a legal one and a constitutional one, but particularly a legal one and I am not in a position to give an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue the matter unduly. Will the minister be good enough to get me the information which I have not been successful in getting? Perhaps he could do so by writing me a letter and outlining what the position is and particularly if an agreement has been reached or is likely
Supply-Northern Affairs to be reached in cases of damages arising because of work which took place?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. I think I can give the hon. gentleman assurance that I will provide the information for him. I think he understands that two or three departments are involved, namely the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Transport and my own department. All we provide in our department is the technical information. So I will have to get it from the other departments. However, I think I can get the information for my hon. friend.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish he could get as much as he can. It is because of the fact that it falls under several departments that I have not been able to get an accurate answer. Perhaps he might do it for me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
279. Studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $98,745.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to say a few words on this item which provides $98,745 for studies and surveys on the Columbia river watershed in Canada. 1 note that the item has been reduced by nearly $72,000 since last year. I therefore assume that the expenditures on these surveys are drawing to a close. I have a few remarks to make and I want to ask the minister a few questions as to who is responsible for these surveys, and who will be doing the work and where during the coming season.
In rising to speak on these estimates I am representing the views of many people in my constituency and elsewhere in British Columbia who are concerned about the proposals put forward by Premier Bennett of British Columbia to build a dam known as the high Arrow on the Arrow lakes. I might say that I am supported by large numbers of persons who are either members or supporters of all political parties. As a matter of fact, it is a bit cheering for a socialist to get a letter from a delightful lady who is a supporter of the Conservative party and in which she says this: We can depend on you because we know you have never been the pawn of any corporation or company; or from a Liberal who says: We are pleased that you are giving a lead in this matter and have stated clearly where you stand; or from a Social Crediter who says that while he supports the government of British Columbia in most respects, he cannot support Premier Bennett's proposal for the building of a high Arrow dam. Therefore, with every assurance that I represent a large number of people in my constituency and in other places in the interior and in British Columbia I can say that we who oppose high Arrow are united with one purpose
G864	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs in mind, namely to preserve the Arrow lakes and to support a development of the Columbia river that will not bring unnecessary destruction of our natural resources. In spirit, regardless of party, we all belong to the Columbia conservation fraternity.
In that connection, in order to indicate to some of the hon. members who do not realize the ghastly tragedy that might happen if some people have their way, I want to quote briefly from a book on the Columbia river written by Professor Lyman. He is writing about the Columbia river between Revelstoke and the Arrow lakes down as far as Robson and he states as follows:
The journey down the Arrow lakes from Arrowhead to Robson Is one to dream of, one to recall in waking hours, and even, we almost suspect, in another life. The two lakes together constitute 130 miles of steamboating, and every mile has its special charm.
In dealing with the type of mind that produces or supports this type of proposal, before going on to my more definite statement, I wish to quote from a book entitled "More in Anger" by Marya Mannes. She writes some interesting articles at times. At page 41 of her book she says this:
Who is so rich as that? Slowly the wasters and despoilers are impoverishing our land, our nature, and our beauty, so that there will not be one beach, one hill, one lane, one meadow, one forest free from the debris of man and the stigma of his improvidence.
Who is so rich that he can squander forever the wealth of earth and water for the trivial needs of vanity or the compulsive demands of greed; or so prosperous in land that he can sacrifice nature for unnatural desires? The earth we abuse and the living things we kill will, in the end, take their revenge; for in exploiting their presence we are diminishing our future.
I think that puts the case very well against those who support hydro developments which bring about the unnecessary destruction of natural resources.
1 should now like to give hon. members a little history on this question because I have been very close to it for many years. Certain interests in the United States who apparently mesmerized some of our British Columbia officials some years ago have been urging the building of the high Arrow dam since 1945, particularly former Senator Dill in the first instance, Senator Magnasser in the second instance, and other senators. In this connection I wish to quote very briefly from a report in the Trail Times of January 24, 1949, where the idea was very well crystallized, and at the same time I must say in another newspaper report we find former President Truman had given his blessing to Senator Dill's idea. This article reads, in part:
The plan. Dill said, could be put into effect without legislation but would have to be approved by British Columbia and the international joint


commission. The commission has jurisdiction over all such Canada-United States arrangements.
Then Dill goes on to deal with certain proposals to increase the power output of the Grand Coulee dam by 500,000 to 700,000 kilowatts a year without cost to the United States government. The building of the high Arrow dam would store from 5 million to 6 million acre-feet of water which could be let down the Columbia river as needed by the generators of Grand Coulee dam in the United States.
Since that time it appears certain people have been able to get the support of officials representing governments in Canada. I have had correspondence from various people in the United States, and engineers representing private companies, to the effect that it is to our mutual advantage to see that this high Arrow dam is built. Anyway that was the genesis of the proposal first of all mentioned by former Senator Dill.
The next proposal was that of the government of British Columbia for the building of the Kaiser dam which was at a lower level and would not have created nearly as much damage. However, this was put out of court by the passage by the government of the international rivers bill, and rightly so because it would have jeopardized the whole development of the Columbia river if a private United States company had been permitted to build this dam some four miles north of Castlegar.
The latest proposal which is pressed strongly by the provincial government and which I suspect is also strongly supported by other persons unknown is for the building of the high Arrow dam four miles north of Castlegar, which if built will flood some
40,000	acres of agricultural and forest land along the Arrow lakes between Castlegar and Revelstoke and cause the inundation of some 18 communities and the loss of over 60 years work and development.
For the information of the committee and to bring this question into focus I am going to quote from various persons' remarks throughout the years to indicate their attitude to this problem. In the first instance I should like to quote Mr. Bonner of the external affairs committee of 1955, and that very famous engineer from British Columbia, Mr. Paget. During the examination of Mr. Bonner, in response to a question I asked affairs committee the question arose as to the amount of flooding which would occur in connection with the Kaiser dam. Mr. Paget, in replying to a question, said this:
There also has been a discussion of even a higher dam which would contain a great deal more water in the Arrow lakes which, if constructed, would carry a high water condition into Revelstoke, and

destroy practically the whole of the Arrow lakes economy including to the bottom lands around Arrowhead.
As hon. Mr. Bonner has mentioned, agriculture is a very important thing; and in our water resources planning we give great significance to the protection and development of agriculture-[DOT]
The extent of flooding is indicated on this map in pink; that indicates the extent of arable and available land which would be taken out of use in the proposed impounding of water which has been proposed by the national government.
The point of drawing this matter to your attention graphically in this way is to illustrate two things; First, the limited nature of the terrain which we have in British Columbia suitable and available for settlement and development is limited by our mountainous topography; and second, the care which the provincial government must exercise in examining the value of impounding waters, that is, against the areas which would otherwise be available for settlement, industry, agriculture and that sort of thing.
They of course would have been inundated if this dam went into effect. Later on Mr. Bonner, in response to a question I asked him during the committee hearings with regard to the possibility of flooding, said:
When you have narrow valleys, as we have, and where our settlements are confined to them, it becomes a matter of great moment to all of us in British Columbia when you decide to flood out a valley, because you know that thereafter, regardless of the fact that you are producing electricity you are at the same time denying available territory for future settlement, and for the dispersion of population in the province. That, in my view, is an inescapable factor for consideration by the provincial government.
Then I want to quote a telegram sent by the minister of lands, forests and mines to General McNaughton on September 18, 1954, in which the minister says:
This government cannot agree to any greater storage Arrow lakes which would flood agricultural and existing economies values hence low head dam only consideration.
That was the attitude of the British Columbia government at that time; it appears to have changed. Then I go on to quote a sentence or two from Mr. Paget when he was questioned as to flooding. He said:
Therefore we came to the proposal of a moderate storage on Arrow lakes with a view to keeping the economy of Arrow lakes still in place. When this is further analysed we find that the Murphy site can be developed with a low head, which in a critical year will justify an installation as high as 196,400 kilowatts-
Then later on he says:
To keep the record straight, because I may have misunderstood you. what I was suggesting was three million acre-feet of storage on Arrow with a low head Murphy dam with generation at the Murphy dam site. The Kaiser dam with the storage back of that dam, if constructed by Kaiser, plus storage at Mica creek, will have to be brought into being before Murphy creek is practicable.
I think those quotations indicate that at the time these gentlemen were opposed to anything more than three million acre-feet storage in the Arrow lakes because of the
Supply-Northern Affairs damage to the economy between Castlegar and Revelstoke. Then what did the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company have to say about this matter? Mr. Perry, the general manager, in a speech he was reported to have given to the chamber of commerce, said that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company had no policy and were not concerned whether it was high or low Arrow or any Arrow at all; and the president of the West Kootenay power and Light Company said somewhat the same.
Here is an interesting aspect of the situation. You find the senior officials of West Kootenay Power and Light Company doing all they can to promote support for the high Arrow dam and giving reasons to various groups why it should be built. They do this in their private capacity as members of chambers of commerce or as members of committees appointed for that purpose. However, I think that is a very interesting state of affairs. I repeat once more the very interesting statement made by Mr. McMynn, assistant general manager of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company who is reported as follows in the Trail Times:
Mr. McMynn declared that a lot of Arrow Lakes property was "continually bothered" with flooding now, without any development on the Arrow Lakes at all.
He completely ignores all the efforts of the pioneers of the last 60 years, and all the sweat and toil that went into clearing those thousands of acres and the expenditures by the federal government on wharves and the expenditures by the provincial government on hospitals, buildings and other facilities.
"It occurred to us" he said, "that if the owners of that property could be relocated satisfactorily above high water-
What a joke on these pioneers? There is nothing above high water to cultivate.
-and the cost of relocation were paid by the authority making the development, then a great number of people inhabiting the Arrow lakes would be pleased to see that happen."
He is completely misinformed as to the attitude of a great number of people on the Arrow lakes. One finds such contradictions in statements made by officials of these large corporations. Governments are often criticized for changing their views, and the same applies to the officials of corporations. Here is an interesting one I checked at the time it was made. This is from the Nelson News. The heading reads: "No Power Lack says former district man". It reads:
British Columbia has a surplus of power and there is no need to rush to develop new sources one of the new members of the B.C. power commission said Thursday.

Supply-Northern Affairs
Frederick Arthur Lee, who began his new job on the five-man commission Thursday after 32 years with the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, said in an interview-
I may say he was the superintendent of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company.
British Columbia has to grow before it goes out and puts in new power plants.
Then he goes on to express some other ideas.
West Kootenay has a surplus of power now and there was still 750,000 horsepower which could be developed on the Pend-d'Oreille river whenever required. Kitimat also had a surplus and under a grid system this surplus could be transferred wherever needed.
Long transmission lines were no longer a problem said the former general superintendent of the West Kootenay company.
He believed development of the Columbia river was still a long way off because there had as yet been no agreement on downstream benefits.
At the present time officials of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and officials of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company are informing the public of a coming shortage of power as they expect a shortage when the new Consolidated Mining steel industry goes into operation in the Kimberley area. I judge that statement is according to the facts. However, I mention it as an expression by officials of different points of view within a few months with regard to the power situation in the interior.
First of all, I want to ask, what does General McNaughton say? There is a great deal of respect for General McNaughton in our district and I wish briefly to place on the record some highlights of his career. When you are quoting from General McNaughton you are quoting from an authority that one should pay heed to, including governments.
General the Honourable Andrew George Latta McNaughton, P.C., C.H., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.Sc., D.C.L., LL.D., P.S.C., I.D.C. soldier and engineer. Rose to high rank in the forces to be commander of the first Canadian army in the second world war after a lengthy experience in the first world war. Between the wars he served as chairman or president of several important bodies such as the atomic energy control board of Canada. He was permanent delegate from Canada to the United Nations in 1948. In 1935 he became president of the national research council, and was appointed commissioner, Canadian section international joint commission, on January 1, 1950. He is a life member of the engineering institute of Canada, 1949; honorary member Canadian institute of forestry, 1938; awarded the Sir John Kennedy medal of the engineering institute of Canada, 1940; honorary member, institution of electrical engineers,
[Mr. Herridge.l
London, 1942; honorary member, American institute of electrical engineers, New York, 1942. I have taken time to mention only a few of the highlights of General McNaugh-ton's career. Throughout the years he served as a member, adviser or chairman of many important government committees and represented Canada at the United Nations.
His qualifications are recognized from one end of Canada to the other, and they are acknowledged even in editorials in United States publications. I briefly mention this one from the Vancouver Sun of December 18, 1959 which reads, in part as follows-the heading is "All Honour to Andy":
General Andrew McNaughton has the stuff that makes great Canadians. He deserves official recognition for his outstanding victory in getting Canada a fair share of Columbia river downstream benefits.
This feat will stand as a great achievement in the history of Canadian international bargaining and as a landmark in Canadian economic development. It sets a precedent for future Canada-United States water control issues.
General McNaughton endured much uninformed and unfair political criticism on both sides of the border. But he knew his objective. He ignored all the irrelevancies.
He developed a long-headed strategy. He stuck to it-to Canada's lasting benefit.
It is true he started from a position of strength. But he suceeded in making the other side recognize reasonably quickly that it had lost the battle.
That avoided needless economic bloodshed by averting prolonged delay in coming to terms. "
McNaughton was privately determined Canada would get 50 per cent of all the U.S. power gain. And get it in value-holding electricity, not inflation-vulnerable dollars.
His masterstroke was to refuse to truckle in any way to U.S. arrogance.
He proposed diverting extra Columbia waters into the all-Canadian Fraser, thus depriving the U.S. of all benefits from Canadian control.
He had international precedent. But the Americans thought he was bluffing. Then he ordered engineering studies of this gargantuan scheme.
That might have been a big bluff. But the U.S. either overlooked it or couldn't nerve itself to call it.
Forces which preserve the Fraser for salmon could have blocked McNaughton's hydro scheme lust as they've blocked all other hydro prospects there.
As a result of the settlement, not only does Canada get 50 per cent of extra U.S. power, but the percentage is calculated on the gross increase, not the smaller net.
And in 35 to 50 years Canada can still divert Columbia waters into the Fraser if that still makes hydroelectric sense.
I commend the government for speeding up these developments and for placing the negotiations back into the hands of the Canadian section of the international joint commission to the advantage of Canada.
I now intend to quote briefly from some statements made by General McNaughton before the external affairs committee as reported in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee dated Thursday, April

23, 1959. We were discussing proposals for the high Arrow and asking questions of General McNaughton. He had this to say:
It becomes evident, I think, that from the point of view of power production Canada would obtain no advantage whatever from flooding out of the territories along the Arrow lakes to give the increased storage represented by the high Arrow project. The advantage powerwise in that project goes entirely to the United States. The only advantage which could come to Canada would be in recompense for power produced in the United States.
Then he goes on to say, as reported on page 216:
I know that our friends from British Columbia, who worked with our engineering boards, who have been working on the committees and who in Chicago gave us an explanation of these projects have been very careful to point out the great problem involved and the economic disadvantages which would accrue to Canada from this high Arrow project.
Then from the sixth report of the proceedings dated May 18, 1960 one or two very brief quotations.
The inclusion of high Arrow in any of the plans provides no net increase in the 20-year output in Canada, but increases the critical-period average output by about 27 megawatts. In the United States, however, high Arrow adds about 164 megawatts to the critical-period average output and 196 megawatts to the 20-year average output. The net result of including high Arrow is that unit costs of the incremental power outputs are increased in Canada and decreased in the United States.
When questioned again in this respect on March 25, 1960, he said:
I would mention in reply that the introduction of the high Arrow, low down here, would put the water into storage at this point, and it would have a rather serious effect on the benefits that we would get which could be attributed to Mica.
Overnight we looked up the engineering board reports to find out just how much that benefit is.
Mr. Fleming also asked what effect that might have on the two plants below Mica on Downie creek and the Revelstoke canyon plants. I am prepared to give those figures.
With the high Arrow in place and used, the production at Mica-the attributed production with which it would be credited-is 1,322.7 million megawatts; whereas if high Arrow is left out and Mica does the regulation, then the attributed power is 1,475.2 million megawatts.
In response to the following asked by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke he said:


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Then the only advantage of high Arrow is storage for downstream installations in the United States and, apart from that, there is no other return to British Columbia or to Canada other than the power generation in Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph and so on. Is that basis the only possibility of a return to Canada?
General McNaughton: And flood control. The very fact that there is no real possibility for an at-site installation at high Arrow is one of the greatest advantage to the United States, because in the operation of that reservoir in perpetuity it would mean they would not have to take Canadian power requirements into account. They could have
Supply-Northern Affairs
that as a satellite to the Grand Coulee reservoir- and, indeed, a valuable one for them.
He went on to say:
Now. this project at high Arrow can be built quickly. You must see both sides of this. It can be built very quickly, and in this period where we have no other source of revenue for four or five years, except our downstream benefits, it could be paying in power to the British Columbia system, and satisfying the need early on at this infinitely low cost. Some people say that with these advantages to finance we must build it in any event.
And again:
One of the things that must be taken into account at that time is the fact that these downstream benefits are evanescent; they are going to evaporate some day or other. This was a proposal initiated by the Canadian section in order to get some immediate returns during these long construction periods of these immense projects, and we were invited by the United States to investigate and report on this.
He also mentioned that the building of the dam would mean the practical extinction of civilization on the Arrow lakes. I have read what General McNaughton said. What do the people say? I have received many resolutions on this subject from chambers of commerce in the district and other organizations representing a large percentage of the population.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is an important matter to my constituents. I will not be bluffed into sitting down by someone saying, "Carried". I have sat here quietly since yesterday afternoon with a few exceptions and I intend to have my say. I promised to speak about this and I will.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A meeting of protest concerning construction of the high Arrow dam was held at Revelstoke on April 26, 1960 with representatives present from municipalities, chambers of commerce from southeastern British Columbia. The following resolution was passed:
Resolution passed by meeting of representatives from southern interior municipalities and chambers of commerce, Tuesday, April 26th, 1960.
Whereas it is the responsibility of the governments of Canada and British Columbia to provide for the present and future energy requirements of our country through the development of the Columbia river for power production in Canada, and
Whereas the construction of the high Arrow dam does not contribute to this vital requirement, and
Whereas this meeting is opposed to the construction of high Arrow dam for the following reasons:
(a)	The unnecessary destruction of 40,000 acres of our very limited agricultural resources.
(b)	The downstream benefits from high Arrow dam would progressively decrease.
(c)	The high Arrow dam practically eliminates civilization on the Arrow lakes and destroys 20
6868	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs communities including the city of Revelstoke, involving a population of more than 7,000 people.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank hon. members. I will be only a couple of minutes. I continue:
(d)	The net balance of revenue over costs on the high Arrow dam would show an annual deficit of approximately $3 million when all losses chargeable to high Arrow are computed.
Therefore be it resolved that this meeting go on record as urging our governments to proceed with the construction and early completion of Mica dam, as the first step followed by the construction of Downie creek, Revelstoke canyon and Murphy creek dams, all producing power within Canada.
This resolution was carried unanimously with the support of the municipalities of Kamloops, Vernon and Kelowna. I have read the resolution in full because it represents the views of many organizations, groups and individuals in southeastern British Columbia. Regardless of political affiliation they are united in their opposition to high Arrow. I urge the government to take note of this widespread opposition and to conclude an agreement with the United States for the first building of the Mica creek dam and then other dams on the Columbia as the governments see fit without flooding the Arrow lakes. In the meantime continue negotiations with respect to unresolved problems. Mica creek is a sound investment. On behalf of the people I represent I make this plea to the government and the committee and am grateful for the courtesy extended in allowing me to exceed my time.


Stuart A. Fleming: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Was the hon. member notified in the reports that emanated from the meeting in Revelstoke to which he referred that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke was the only member of parliament present at the meeting?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I give full credit to the hon. member for Revelstoke who was present at the meeting that passed the resolution that I read; I give him full credit for being there and taking direct interest in a meeting called within his constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration branch-
282. Branch administration, $1,089,198.
Armand Dumas: With regard to the new regulations for the administration of Canadian oil


and gas resources within the jurisdiction of the federal government, I wonder whether the minister would answer a few short simple questions. There has been some comment as to the position of some of the United States companies and what are called foreign companies. Can the minister give us a definition of a foreign company? What about a Canadian subsidiary of a United States company whose shares are owned by the parent company? Then, a final question on this subject, what happens if the company is a Canadian company and then United States citizens buy in? How can this company remain a Canadian company? Can the minister answer these questions?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the questions asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve bring up the whole question of oil and gas regulations in the north, and because these are so similar to the new mining regulations in the north I should like to discuss them as a group so that the philosophy of what the government is trying to do today will be very clear to every hon. member and I hope to every Canadian all across the country.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that when I became the minister of this department, since I came from the west, naturally I looked very quickly to see what the oil and gas regulations were covering the very valuable oil and gas lands of the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon including the islands to the north. I was shocked and dismayed to find out within two weeks after I became minister of this department that we had oil regulations which had been based on the philosophy that the oil and gas in the north was not worth very much, and if any person wanted to go and get it he could go and take it and pay the normal amount of 12J per cent royalty.
I immediately went to my colleagues in the government and asked permission to put through an order in council that put an end to those regulations. The date was September 23, 1957, if I remember correctly. We announced to the oil and gas industry that new terms would be put into the old regulations and that once that action was taken any new oil well would have to come under the new regulations whenever they were formulated. The reason why I did that was that we found that in spite of the experience we had out in western Canada since 1948, those regulations allowed the exploration company, on going from the permit stage to the lease, to take a block in the exploration grid of 35 per cent of the acreage in one block, following any line that they wished. Any person knowing the rudiments

of oil and gas pools not only in western Canada but all over the world will recognize that having an acreage of 80 sections in a grid for exploration and being able to take 35 per cent of this in a solid block was tantamount to giving the whole of the oil and gas pool to the discoverer, and for all that the government would get out only 12J- per cent.
I do not blame anyone particularly for this in the sense that they were criminally liable, or anything like that, but I do hold the administration of that day responsible for not having someone in the department, or someone examining the work of the department, who knew the first part of his A.B.C.'s about oil and gas regulations. So, naturally, my colleagues in the government agreed to let me put this order in council through, so that I could say to the oil industry that there was going to be an examination of these regulations and new ones brought in.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, these regulations gave no legal machinery for the government to issue permits for land outside of the mainland of Canada, and some of our most promising reserves in oil and gas as well as minerals lie underneath the sea off our northern coasts, on our islands in the Artie and in the continental shelf beyond those islands and between them. So here you had a situation in a very sensitive area in world affairs to the north of Canada with the government having no legal machinery to issue to Canadians or to anybody else the right to explore or develop those areas.
Naturally, one of the first things I did as minister was to take those moves which would make this legal, and I did not succeed because the opposition came from the man who is now the premier of Quebec on the ground that this was an interference in the constitutional rights of a province, even though that bill clearly dealt only with those lands under the jurisdiction of the federal government and not belonging to any province.
We have brought those regulations in, using the Public Lands Grants Act and the Territorial Lands Act, and for the first time in Canada's history we have the legal machinery to give to Canadians or to anybody else the right to explore in our Arctic islands or in those islands off our coast. I hold the previous administration responsible through the error of omission for not looking after those very valuable resources north of our country.
The second thing that I found out about those permits was that they were based on the idea that exploration in the north would be done as conveniently as it would be done in the prairie areas of the west and permits
Supply-Northern Affairs for exploration were for a space of time of six years. I found out about the loose application, as I have said. I found out, too, that in spite of the lessons laid bare for all Canadians to see in the Gordon commission report, that due to the way of handling our oil and gas lands in the province of Alberta and in western Canada in general over the period of several years from 80 per cent to 87 per cent of the oil and gas reserves of the west have come under the control of foreign-owned and foreign-dominated companies. This was clearly, I believe, one of the reasons why the present administration was successful at the polls in 1957 and 1958. We expressed for the people of Canada that deep anxiety that they have about ownership of their resources in their own country. I think, above all things, the present Prime Minister has served his country well in awakening the country to the possibility of their own resources slipping away from them.
Naturally when we began to work out these new regulations we began to think in terms of how can we stop, how can we prevent what has happened in Alberta and in the western provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba to a smaller degree; how can we give Canadians this opportunity?
The first thing, of course, that was in our minds was to open up this northern area to exploration. We knew that the ordinary economics of the demand for oil over the period of the decades ahead would lead to the gradual exploration and the development of the oil and gas lands of the provinces in the settled areas. The real task was to make certain that the oil, gas and mineral wealth of our northern areas, particularly those in the Arctic islands, would be preserved for Canadians now and in the future.
It is no accident, that the Canadian resolution on the law of the sea conference in Geneva suggested that all the lands that lie beneath the sea, the continental shelf, as far out as you can develop them, should belong to the littoral state for exploration purposes. A littoral state is a state adjoining the land underneath the sea. That was one of the conventions adopted unanimously at Geneva.
It is no accident that one of the first things the government did after 1958 was to set up the polar continental shelf scientific expedition to try to make known not only the general basic conditions of the area but also to do some geophysical work that would attract oil and gas companies and mining companies to the area. Of course, with these regulations coming into effect we discussed with the oil and gas industry how we could

Supply-Northern Affairs set up new regulations that would take advantage of the experience of over 100 years in the oil and gas business and which would encourage people to come in and develop these very remote areas of Canada which, as I said earlier this afternoon, most people considered not worth a great deal or, as the oil magazine said, not worth five cents an acre.
We have learned a lot in looking into the experience of United States oil development. We have seen practices grow up in their country which are very good practices but we have also seen practices grow up involving development, exploitation and lack of conservation which are very bad. What we did in our regulations was to try to set up a series of regulations that would encourage exploration. The fundamental lure and incentive which we provided to bring exploration to these remote areas, which would not ordinarily be developed by the slow economics of proceeding toward the north from the south as world demand for oil developed, and to give us effective occupation of these islands, was to provide longer terms for exploration. We also provided larger areas. We indicated to the oil industry that there would be a unitized operation and none of the waste that exists in oil operations at the present time in North America. We promised wells drilled on a sound engineering basis and that instead of 64 wells to a section or two sections of land there would be one well if that were possible from an engineering point of view. We promised low rentals during the non-productive period when there were no markets. In other words, we gave a cheap land proposition to the oil industry of the world and to our own Canadian entrepreneurs.
In return for all these lures and inducements to go into the north I told the oil industry in public and in private that we, the people of Canada, expected to get more out of that oil and gas than what they gave in other places. First of all, thdre is no question of just 12J per cent. I talked in terms of half this land coming back to the crown, and the oil industry accepts that. I talked in terms of having the right to dispose of the half that came back to the crown in any way we saw fit. If we wanted to give special privileges to Canadian companies to enable them to get that land, it would be done. If we wanted to put it up for tender to the highest bidder, it would be done. If we wanted to offer it to a company on the basis of gross and net royalty, it would be done. If we wanted to give special concessions to the one who made the original discovery, it would be done. This was our land coming back to us


and it was our land to start with, which gave us a tremendous opportunity to fulfil this concept we have that Canadians want and demand the right of ownership to their resources.
This has been the background. There has been considerable discussion in the press about the Canadian participation clauses. It has been said that there are loopholes in the regulations. This started from a story in two or three newspapers. I was at that press conference because I was the one who was being interviewed. One of the newsmen asked me whether it would be possible for a smart lawyer to take advantage of these regulations and I gave an honest answer. I said that I understood any good lawyer could get around any regulations and these were no exception. I went on to point out, however, that the questioner did not understand the oil and gas industry because one of the characteristics of the industry is that regardless of how ruthless and efficient they are, regardless of their tremendous competitive desire, they have a record of dealing honourably in their agreements. They fight among each other for advantage at all times. They compete against each other at all times, but the record of the legitimate operators in the oil and gas industry has been good.
I have been looking over the oil and gas regulations of the provinces, of other countries and our own, and I know that from the legal point of view these regulations are not the most precise thing in the world, but generally speaking the oil and gas industry has never quarrelled with the intention of any government that has put such regulations into effect.
That is one thing to remember. The second thing to remember is the actual terms of the regulations themselves. This is in answer to the question of the hon. member for Villeneuve as to what is the definition of a corporation. This is our effort to try to be more precise and yet not to tie ourselves by any legal definition which would get us into serious trouble and could not be enforced. Section 32 (3) reads as follows:
A lease shall not be granted under this section ...
(b) to a corporation incorporated outside of Canada.
I am not a lawyer but to me that means very clearly that the corporation has to be incorporated in Canada to get a lease. Section 32 (3) (c) reads as follows:
A lease shall not be granted under this section ...
(e)	to a corporation, unless the minister Is satisfied
(i) that at least 50 per cent of the Issued shares of the corporation is beneficially owned by persons who are Canadian citizens.

That is obviously a private company and in a private company at least 50 per cent of the shares must be held beneficially by Canadian citizens. That is the one I wanted to refer to. The provision continues:
(ii) that the shares of the corporation are listed on a recognized Canadian stock exchange and that Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing and owning of the corporation.
As I understood the Leader of the Opposition this morning, he asked what that meant. I ask him to go back to the operative words at the beginning of paragraph (c), "to a corporation unless the minister is satisfied". This does give considerable discretion to the minister. I use this also as an example of how I do not think any lawyer, even if he is as smart as he can be, can find any technicality to get around the regulations because I have to be satisfied. Therefore I do not think there is going to be any serious effort on the part of legitimate oil and gas operators to try to evade these regulations.
Since complaints have been made that these regulations are not precise enough I took the opportunity of securing a copy of the United States regulations because sometimes we forget that other countries have the same problems of national control and international investment, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this morning. I am not going to tell the house what Brazil has done, what Mexico has done or what is done in some of the Middle East countries. Those facts are well known. Let us look at what the United States has to say in its regulations with respect to aliens coming in and taking over the resources of the nation. When hon. members hear of these complaints from the oil companies I want every member to know precisely what the Americans do with respect to aliens in their country, and when these complaints are made I would ask hon. members to ask the persons making them if they know about these regulations. These regulations deal with minerals leasing of public lands by aliens and read as follows:
General provisions. Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C., section 181, citizens of another country may not acquire or hold any direct or indirect interest in mineral permits or leases pertaining to public lands, except that they may own or control stock in domestic corporations holding permits or leases if the laws of their country do not deny similar or like privileges to citizens of the United States. If any appreciable percentage of the stock of a corporation is held by aliens whose country does deny similar or like privileges to citizens of the United States, its application for a mineral permit or lease will be denied.
That is the general provision in the United States. The provisions with respect to acquired land are the same, and then this is the provision with respect to the outer continental shelf:
79951-0-433
Supply-Northern Affairs
Under the provisions of the act of August 7, 1953 (67 Stat. 462), mineral leases for shelf lands may be held only by citizens of the United States over 21 years of age, associations of such citizens, states, political subdivisions of a state, or private, public, or municipal corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of a state.
I have spoken as forcefully as I can on this subject because I wanted to make it clear that the philosophy of a people trying to get control of their own resources is present not only among Canadians. It is found in all countries. The United States spent 100 years trying to free itself from the yoke of foreign capital. We are just beginning that struggle in Canada and we are determined to give Canadians an increasing share of the ownership in their own resources. If my statement at the beginning of the estimates had been carefully followed it would have been noticed that I said that this was just the start of a program to give Canadians such ownership.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the committee in order to go on and discuss many of the small factors that I could discuss in this regard. I am simply pointing out that our new Canadian mining regulations will be given out this fall. The industries have notice of the new mining regulations. We will be discussing them with them this summer and fall. From the ones which have talked to me already I am sure there will be universal commendation for these new mining regulations. I noticed a story in the Northern Miner saying that a great mistake has been made again. However, by the time the Northern Miner editor gets the reaction of the mining companies across Canada I think he will realize that the mistake was made by the man who wrote the editorial. This government was elected to give Canada some chance not only to develop but to own the resources that this development produces.
I am not going into the details of the mining regulations. It is sufficient to point out that they have not been changed for generations and it is possible for a person to go up and to stake a claim in the north and do a certain amount of work on it and then to sit back for 300 years and do no more work. This situation will be changed. There will not be any retroactive provisions against those who have already made commitments or against those who have made expenditures of money. We do not hold with those who dishonour their obligation. But any person who takes out new permits and any person who goes to lease will have to meet these Canadian participation clauses. I know there are going to be one or two cases and maybe five or six where injustice may be done and

Supply-Northern Affairs I think this government can be relied upon to deal with these individual cases with justice and reasonable equity.


Armand Dumas: The minister took the long way around to answer my question, but I am satisfied. He gives some very interesting information. I understand these regulations as to foreign companies cover leases or exploration. It is not quite the same thing. Exploration can be done by a foreign company but when they ask for a lease, they have to incorporate a Canadian company.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The hon. member is quite right. We have put no discrimination against foreign companies at the exploration stage. Any person any place in the world can come in and explore. But before he explores he must know that before he goes to the ownership stage the Canadian participation clauses must be met.
I do not think there is any serious complaint about this matter. Most of the United States concerns have been very frank with me in saying that they intend to shift to a Canadian subsidiary and put the shares on the Canadian stock exchange. They have seen what has happened in connection with other Canadian companies that were set up independently at the beginning. They have grown strong and healthy. I put before them the challenge that in setting up a Canadian subsidiary of an oil or gas company in Canada that they should look forward to the time when this Canadian subsidiary owned the shares or a good deal of the shares held in Canada and that subsidiary would be stronger and bigger than the parent company. We have here in Canada the tremendous resources which, if properly explored and developed, will give us the basis for tremendously large and successful mining, oil and gas companies.


Armand Dumas: When you come to the stage of granting leases it is understood that they will be granted to a Canadian company, in the sense that the major portion of the shares should be held by Canadians. But this may be a difficult thing to control because at one point we may have a 60-50 distribution or over 50 per cent of the shares belonging to Canadians. Then there could be transfer of those shares and there would be a time when this Canadian equity is down to 30 per cent or maybe 35 per cent. However, this is something for the minister to worry about.
I have another question to ask the minister. On July 5, in answer to questions put by the hon. member for Mackenzie River, the minister gave a list of organizations or companies or private owners who had applied for or who were granted priority applications.
IMr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).]
This comprised 146 million acres or close to 147 million acres. Later on these applications were converted into permits; that is to say, these priority applications were converted into permits for exploration and 39 million acres were granted under these permits to 26 different groups, persons, syndicates or companies. Was it necessary for these people asking for permits for exploration to state whether they had partners or did they just make application and then they could take partners in without telling the department of the composition of their syndicate? What I mean is this. A company could have been granted a permit for, let us say, 5 million acres and then they could take in partners with them without the department knowing about it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. I think the situation described by the hon. member could be true. What we do is that we examine carefully when they come into the permit stage and purely exploratory stage in order to see that they are financially responsible and have plans to carry out development in the area. Under that plan they must spend $3 per acre during the life of a permit. We do not bother them about Canadian participation during the exploratory period. It is only when they go to lease that we begin to insist on Canadians being given the right to participate.


Armand Dumas: The minister mentioned that there were 44 million to 45 million acres under permit now. But in his answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie River the total acreage given was 39 million acres. Is that right? That refers to people who had exploration priority applications. Is that right, that they had until June 24 to apply for permits? If so, how is it that there should be 44 million to 45 million acres instead of 39 million acres?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The difficulty here is, first of all, that these figures change from day to day and from hour to hour. The answer that I gave to the hon. member for Mackenzie River is quite correct, namely that on June 24, at the end of a day there were approximately 39 million acres in the Arctic islands which were out under priority permits and which were granted full permit status. But in addition there were several people who had waited for many months holding priorities on lands underneath the continental shelf and that totalled about 4.4 million acres. If you add the two figures together you get this figure of 44 million, approximately, that were granted that day. These two, the Arctic islands and the continental shelf are divided up into these two divisions of roughly 40

million acres and this other group of approximately 4 million acres and the total comes to over 44 million.


Armand Dumas: The last question I have for the minister is this. Can the minister tell the committee whether any permits were granted either for oil and gas explorations or for mineral exploration on the continental shelf close to or adjoining either the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: None has been granted adjoining Ontario and Quebec.


Armand Dumas: The minister mentioned something about the continental shelf, and many people are interested in this, especially in Quebec and the maritime provinces. Is it the intention of the government to transfer to the provinces the rights with regard to the continental shelf near their boundaries?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, this has not been considered. At present, under the boundary acts of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec it is clearly defined that their boundaries go to the lower water mark of Hudson and James bays and around the coast to Ungava. Those areas of land off shore from that point belong clearly to the federal government and we have not given any consideration to handing those back to the provinces.


Armand Dumas: That is perfectly clear, but at one time part of the province of Quebec was the property of the federal government and that land was transferred to the province of Quebec. We expect that perhaps in the future the Northwest Territories will be organized as a province and that land will be transferred to the province. The same will happen in the Yukon and perhaps later on in the far north. So I would suggest the government give serious consideration to granting the provinces the rights to those natural resources on the continental shelf adjoining their own boundaries.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a matter of government policy and will be declared in due course.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Has the minister had any request from the provinces for the transfer of rights on the continental shelf?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on this item, I do not want to hold up the estimates in any way, but in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had something to say this morning regarding the question of foreign investment in general and international investment in particular, I think I should add something to the words spoken by the minister.
79951-0-433i
Supply-Northern Affairs
There has been some criticism of the stand taken by this government in connection with foreign investment in Canada. For a few moments I intend to underline some of the stands which we have taken in this regard.
Mention was made of the fact that foreign investment is of the essence of development. Foreign investment is beneficial. Foreign investment has done much to improve the economical situation in Canada. Mention has been made of the fact that in the United States, as the minister a moment ago stated, they were dependent for a long period of time on foreign investment. But it is well to remember this fact, that foreign investment in the United States was never at any time more than 15 per cent of the national income.
In Canada, although there has been an improvement in the last three years in this regard, the corresponding proportion even as late as 1957 was almost 75 per cent. On the other hand, European investment in the United States was chiefly in the form of portfolio holdings of bonds that were duly paid off. Actual ownership of enterprise was usually not in foreign hands in the United States at any time during our history, and still less was the enterprise's export policy affected by the capital contribution.
During the period from about 1945 to 1947 to an ever increasing degree our resources were in the control and under the ownership of a nation other than Canada. While we welcome foreign investment, at the same time we do ask that this investment be for the benefit of Canadians, with Canada's destiny constantly before those who control its industry.
Foreign ownership of some of our principal industries in recent years has been largely American; namely direct investment in subsidiaries or in wholly owned or controllable companies. What has given Canadians concern, as I said when speaking some months ago in the city of Detroit, is that Canadians are four times as dependent on export industry than are Americans, and that therefore the degree of control exercised from abroad in these industries with respect to export policies and capacity has denied Canadian industry and the subsidiary industry in Canada its fair and reasonable share of the export business.
I have dealt with this at very considerable length on more than one occasion in the United States, and I will say that in the past three years there has been some change and some very considerable improvement in this connection. In order to give some idea of what our position is, I asked the Americans to whom I have spoken to reflect on what they would think if about one half of their

Supply-Northern Affairs manufacturing industry, four fifths of their petroleum industry and two thirds of their mining and smelting industries were owned and controlled outside of their country. I have only to ask that question to know the answer which would be given.
We say that foreign investment in Canada must fully regard Canadian industry, Canadian interests and Canada's economic destiny. That has been the aim and the purpose of the changes which have been brought about, as outlined by the minister this afternoon. In other words, we ask that in so far as investment in Canada is concerned, while external capital has played a very important role in our development we have the right to ask that full account be taken of the interests of Canadians in the policies which are followed in the direction and use of that capital.
Mr. Chairman, a word on these vast potential resources. Somebody spoke of a mirage. Until the vision of the north turns out to be a mirage let me say that the millions and millions of acres which have been taken up in the north, the developments which have taken place there, the opening up of the country and the rendering available to private enterprise of an opportunity and a climate for development has meant much to Canada during the past three years.
I remember speaking in 1957 and in 1958 about the highways in the north and the opening of the north igloo to igloo. That was the viewpoint of the opposition. Our viewpoint was the opening up of the north, the last great frontier containing resources which are needed all over the free world. Indeed, today we find ourselves in Canada with these vast potential resources in the northern areas to which the minister has referred, in the Arctic archipelago and in those areas of the north which are under Canadian control and ownership. We find there a potential contribution to the maintenance of freedom that only the years will properly reveal.
While the United States is becoming a have-not nation in those things which are necessary to maintain the sinews of defence, to build as well the backbone of industrial development, these resources as yet undeveloped remain in Canada as one of the major reserves for the forces of freedom not only in North America but in other parts of the world.
As far as those resources are concerned that consist of mines, petroleum and the like, we have passed regulations in respect of the oil to guarantee that Canada shall be developed in those areas by corporations incorporated in Canada that assure to Canadians a fair share of the equity capital, in other words a fair opportunity for investment.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

Again I underline this fact. The question has been asked many times: what can be done to encourage the opening up of these resources while at the same time maintaining a control in Canada as to their use and as to the developments that take place. In other words, to maintain Canada's sovereignty in an economic sense has required action to be taken along lines indicated so forcibly by the minister this afternoon.
The question has been asked on more than one occasion-I think it was asked in the Gordon report-can a country having meaningful independence in a situation where interests outside that country own an important part of the country's basic resources and are therefore in a position to make important decisions on matters affecting that country's economy. We have asked in the field of insurance companies that they shall not be taken from Canada and be placed under foreign ownership, and we have passed legislation to ensure that that cannot be done. This is not anti-Americanism; it is pro-Canadianism. It is a policy which believes in Canada maintaining her sovereign rights and maintaining her sovereignty over the resources that providence has given to this nation. We ask, in general, that companies investing in Canada-United States companies -should not regard Canada as an extension of the United States market; that these companies should be incorporated as Canadian companies making available equity stock to Canadians.
I must say that what has been done in connection with oil has been a major step forward in the past few years. It is a step that will be subject, as the minister has said, to all the capacity and acumen of able lawyers whose purpose it will be, within the law, to find wherein they can evade the terms of the particular clauses in the regulations to which reference is being made. That will always be so. No one has ever been able, in a matter such as this, to establish a regulation or make a law that is complete proof against evasion. But what the minister has done in connection with oil has been to take one of the major steps ever taken in Canada to provide that this vast but exhaustible resource shall provide not only for economic expansion in our country, and ensure an exploitation of them which we can only consider in imagination, but at the same time maintain for Canadians their sovereignty over their country, because no nation worthy of the name can maintain its political sovereignty unless it has every regard for the maintenance of its economic sovereignty.
That, in short, is the purpose. The vision that we placed before the Canadian people

was one that Canadians were going to assert that right. Then when there is any stretch forward toward implementation, those that opposed any action in this regard during the years-or if they did not oppose it they did nothing to channel it or deny it-now point out that what this government has done may not go sufficiently far-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: -to obtain all the objectives which we have in mind.


Mr. Caron:: It is six o'clock. I want to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


The Chairman:: It being six o'clock, I shall rise and report progress.


An hon. Member:: Smart aleck.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He stopped St. Laurent once.


An hon. Member:: It hurts.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: You've had it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Listen to that.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house if he will announce the business for next week?
23, 1960	6875
Business of the House


Jay Waldo Monteith: Six o'clock. Don't answer.


Lionel Chevrier: Are we to be interrupted by the Minister of Health and Welfare who has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I certainly had every reason to make the remark I did.


Lionel Chevrier: Well I rise on a question of privilege, and the question of privilege is this-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that time has been called and we do not enter upon new business. Let us consider the business of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for next week will be legislative items on Monday and Tuesday as announced and, if necessary, on Wednesday depending on what progress is made. The estimates for next week will be taken in the following order: completion of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources followed by estimates of the Secretary of State, as announced, followed by defence production and legislation. The next department to be called will be the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
265.	Departmental administration, $986,595.
266.	Northern co-ordination and research 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 approval by the treasury board, $119,170.
267.	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, $800,000.
268.	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, $8,000,000.
National parks branch-
269.	Branch administration, $218,203.
National parks and historic sites services-
270.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,464,011.
271.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,424,012.
272.	National aviation museum-administration, operation and maintenance, $130,610.
273.	Grant to Jack Miner migratory bird foundation, $5,000.
274.	Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
275.	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), $178,099.
276.	Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $714,680.
Water resources branch-
277.	Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Manitoba of the cost of regulating the levels of lake of the Woods and lac Seul, $1,508,354.
278.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $211,000.
279.	Studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $98,745.
280.	Saint John river-federal expenditures in connection with investigation to be carried out by the Saint John river board, $15,000.
281.	Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Fraser river board, $250,000.
536.	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-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Water resources branch-
537.	Saint John river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Saint John river board-further amount required, $10,000.﻿HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, July 25, 1960