1961-09-18

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to which I think no one will object. It is in order to wish the Prime Minister, on the anniversary of the day on which it all began, many happy returns. When I use the word "returns" I do so in the birthday and not the political sense. There are many things the Prime Minister says and does to which we on this side of the chamber object or have our reservations. However, we have no reservations in wishing him many years of health, happiness and continued service to Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to join with the leader of the official opposition in wishing the Prime Minister many happy returns of this day. Mr. Speaker, we most sincerely wish the Prime Minister an early, happy and lengthy rest from his political responsibilities and labours.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very kind words, which are much appreciated. I also thank the hon. member for Kootenay West, and would point out to him that prognostications and prophecies such as he has just indulged in have often been made during my life, but at 66 I am looking forward to continued service in the years to come.



ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT

Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the encouragement of physical fitness through amateur sport in Canada; to provide for the making of grants to agencies, organizations or institutions; to provide for entering into an agreement with any province for the payment by Canada to the province of certain contributions in respect
of the costs of programs relating to physical fitness and amateur sport; to provide for the establishment of a council to be called the national advisory council on physical fitness and amateur sport; to provide for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of the travelling and other expenses of the members of the council; and to provide further that the Minister of Finance shall pay out of the consolidated revenue fund each fiscal year such amounts not exceeding in the aggregate five million dollars as may be required for the purposes set forth in the measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Roberge:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions, and all other documents, since January 1, 1959, concerning the acquisition by the government of Canada of sites for the erection of a public building, namely a post office, in St. Ferdinand d'Halifax, county of Megantic, province of Quebec.
Motion agreed' to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 161-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the communication addressed to the Minister of Fisheries by the general secretary treasurer of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen on August 24, 1961, together with the reply thereto of the minister.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement attributed to the premier of British Columbia yesterday, to the effect that he is convinced the federal government will give in to British Columbia and permit the export of power from the Columbia river scheme. My question is, is there any ground for the conviction of the premier of British Columbia in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the stand taken by this government has been a consistent one, and the use of the words "give in" are scarcely in keeping with the relationship which one would expect to exist between the federal government and the provinces. In so

Death of Secretary General far as the Columbia river scheme is concerned, the policy of the government has been announced on a number of occasions, and there has been no change.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would he care to comment on Mr. Bennett's further remarks in this widely read speech, to the effect that the Columbia river agreement, while it is not the best, can be made to work?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on observations made by the premier of British Columbia.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with regard to the tidings that have just been given to me to the effect that the secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, is dead.
This is a tragic day in the history of the efforts that are being made for the maintenance of world peace. Mr. Hammarskjold gave of his selfless best to the preservation of peace through the instrumentality of the United Nations. Throughout the ages men, and women too, have given their lives on behalf of the highest things of life. Mr. Ham-marskj old's death will take its place among the deaths of others throughout history who gave their all in order to achieve an ideal for which men have searched ever since the earliest days of history. I am sure I express the thoughts of all hon. members when I say that our hearts go out to those of his family who survive him, coupled with the hope that his death at this time of momentous importance in the history of the United Nations will not constitute an irreparable loss to the cause of freedom.
I should mention, too, that I am informed that a young woman employed by the United Nations, a young Canadian woman from the city of Montreal, was aboard the same aircraft. I shall refrain from mentioning her name because I am not certain that her next of kin have been advised. To her family must go, too, the sympathy of the Canadian people in her tragic death in the service of all that is right and good.
Lester Bowles Pearson: These are heavy and sad tidings which the Prime Minister has announced to us. I should like to join with him in extending our sympathy to the families of Mr. Hammarskjold and of our Canadian colleague
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
who worked in the Secretary General's office -the young lady from Montreal.
Dag Hammarskjold died tragically and prematurely but, as I believe he would have wished, in the service of peace and the United Nations. I had the privilege of knowing him well for many years and the equal privilege of working with him closely at the United Nations during some difficult years in the development of the organization, so I think I am in a good position to appreciate the high character of the man and the great qualities of the statesman. He was indefatigable; he was wise; and he was entirely selfless in his devotion to his work. He was as sure and as resolute in carrying out instructions from the United Nations for international action in the cause of peace as he was skilful and objective in seeking to establish a basis for that action in the charter. As well as being an extremely dedicated servant of peace and the international community he was a most brilliant and cultivated gentleman and a good and loyal friend.
The world can ill afford to lose such a great man, especially at this time. His life was a triumph of service and achievement, and his passing at the very height of his powers is a tragic loss. His death should inspire all of us to do what we can to secure the triumph of the cause for which he died, peace and security in the world through the United Nations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to say that our reaction to this shocking and tragic news is one of sadness and of having suffered a great loss. Regardless of party, throughout the years all have recognized Mr. Hammarskjold's services to mankind through his office in the United Nations. We pay tribute to those services. His death is mankind's loss. We extend our sympathy to his loved ones, and also to the loved ones of the young lady mentioned by the Prime Minister.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the vacancies on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways which occurred almost a year ago, on September 30, 1960, are going to be filled in the near future and when the new appointments which were to be made as soon as the legislation was passed which was some months ago may be expected.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Minister of Transport announced that the appointments would be made known "very soon" when his estimates are before the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I trust he does not think it is Machiavellian. In view of a report in the Toronto Telegram, on Saturday, September 16, to the effect that the government has already decided that Mr. Gordon will be removed as chairman of the C.N.R. board of directors and also that he may not be reappointed as president, and in view of the public interest in this very important question, has the Prime Minister any information he can give the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Laurier rather forestalled the question of the hon. gentleman, and the same answer applies.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. As the Quebec government, on October 5 in Paris, France, will open a building to promote the natural resources and products of Quebec and other parts of Canada as well, can the minister inform the house what provision the government has made to give television coverage to this historic Canadian event?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter and report to the house.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that today we will be discussing second reading of the Pine Point railway bill, and I am sure it is the hope of the house to get on with it as quickly as possible, will the Minister of Transport table the agreement which was finalized, and I take it signed, by the four parties, so that we may have a proper appreciation of the bill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains the condition that an agreement must be signed containing various undertakings on the part of the C.N.R., the company, other interested companies and the government. This draft agreement has been approved in principle by all parties. All have agreed to this draft, which will be made available before the bill is sent to the committee. I think that is the proper place to study the agreement, which will be signed as soon as the bill is passed by both houses of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it the agreement has not yet been executed by the four parties?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, but the four parties have indicated their readiness to sign as soon as the legislation is passed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister make at least one copy of this document available to the opposition for study so that we may debate the bill more intelligently and perhaps make greater progress?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains certain conditions. This draft will be available to the committee, where it can be studied in detail. I believe that is the proper place to discuss the matter, when experts and representatives of the various parties are available to answer questions. I do not see any advantage in bringing forward this unsigned draft at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, we are going to be asked to give approval in principle to a bill which is based entirely upon an agreement, and the minister has told us that that agreement, which I assume is not a secret document, has been agreed to by all the parties. Surely it is only reasonable that it should be made available in advance of the debate so that we will not be debating blindly. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are anxious, as I think we have shown, to get on with the business of the house, and we are merely seeking to expedite the business in this way.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think this proves that generosity does not always pay. This is the first time any agreement of this kind has been supplied to a committee for study. These agreements have always been kept confidential and have never been produced at this time. We are going to table this agreement for the committee so that it will have a document it never had in the past. Therefore I doubt very much that there is any question of privilege for my hon. friend.

Inquiries of the Ministry HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS



STONEY CREEK, ONT.-PRESERVATION OF BATTLEFIELD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the minister's assurance last May 31 of the federal government's interest in preserving the Stoney Creek battle-site from despoliation by the erection of a housing subdivision, can the minister now inform the house whether any specific proposals have been made to the historic sites division of his department by the local committee formed to discuss the matter? What action has been taken by his department in response to those proposals and to proposals of hon. members to protect the site from this encroachment?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that during the long hot days of the summer we were busy trying to devise some formula which would preserve this important historic site from encroachment. In this connection I wish to thank my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and also the hon. member for Wentworth for their valuable assistance in these matters.
As a result of the negotiations, the government of Canada has offered to make a contribution of $25,000, which is provided for in the current year's appropriations of my department, to be used in the acquisition of adjacent lands, which include a portion of the historic battlefield which was in danger of being subdivided for residential purposes.
We have had fruitful discussions with the municipalities of Stoney Creek and Hamilton and also with the very active local committee, and with the government of Ontario. I have just recently received the assurance of the latter government that steps are being taken by the Niagara parks commission to acquire the entire battlefield area including the present park, which has been maintained by the Wentworth women's historical society for many years, which will also include the historic Gage house and the impressive monument, as well as the adjacent land in question.
I think very shortly, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able to announce that a very happy conclusion has been arrived at for the preservation of this historic site.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question of the hon. member for Skeena of September 13, when he requested that I table correspondence with the Canadian Marconi Company which was under current discussion at the time of his earlier inquiry of June 26.
I am happy to table a letter from Mr. S. M. Finlayson, president of the Canadian Marconi Company, dated June 7, and my reply to him of June 21. In my reply you will note, Mr. Speaker, that I suggested that the Marconi company review its conditions of employment with regard to relations between its employees and Eskimo women. I assured Mr. Finlayson that my department stands ready to serve him if our advice and experience on inter-ethnic relations can be of assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the correspondence referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a result of the announcement by the minister, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour-and I can appreciate that without notice it will perhaps take some time to get this information- whether the request by Mr. Whitfield for permission to prosecute under the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act has been granted?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I shall have to take the question as notice and report back.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has sent or will send a protest to the Cuban government against the suppression of religious rights and freedom, indicated by the dismissal of a number of the clergy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, according to press reports it would appear that five Canadians were among a number of Roman Catholic priests expelled from Cuba yesterday. There are at this time 25 Canadian priests and 21

Canadian nuns in Cuba. Although the reports are disturbing, we hope that arbitrary action of the kind suggested is not being taken against them.
As to the operative part of the hon. member's question, I might say that the Canadian embassy is investigating the accuracy of these news reports to which I have made reference and which have not yet been confirmed. If they are confirmed, then such action will be taken as is deemed proper and appropriate under the circumstances.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada and in relation thereto,-
1.	To provide for the constitution of a corporation called the national centennial administration;
2.	To provide for the establishment of a national conference on Canada's centennial;
3.	To provide for the objects, purposes and powers of the administration and of the conference; and
4.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only proper that I should make a rather complete statement respecting this matter at this time. The resolution is a prelude to a bill to establish the machinery for undertaking the dominion government's part in the observance of Canada's centennial. Although the centennial itself is nearly six years away, much preliminary work has already been done.
I think it will be agreed that the centennial is more than a holiday or an occasion for festive celebrations. I was reading yesterday some of the debates at the time of confederation and immediately thereafter. In reference to the celebrations, Sir John Macdonald said that a great opportunity was lost in 1867 when the dominion was formed out of the several provinces. This remarkable event in the history of the British empire passed almost without notice.
All during the years there have been references made to the fact that, for some reason or other, there were no celebrations other than desultory ones restricted to a few areas within the confederating provinces of that day. On this occasion, however, we will be celebrating the hundredth anniversary of our country. It should be a time of national stocktaking and of rededication to the future.
90205-6-534
Canadian Centennial
It will represent a dramatic year in Canadian history and an opportunity for Canadians to develop a fuller understanding of what it means and can mean to be a Canadian. One of the aims of the centennial observance should be to make Canadians aware of their unique heritage and their birth right, and of the contributions to our development that have been made by the peoples of the founding races as well as the many other nationalities who have come to our country.
I think it is not generally known that Canada played a very large part in the history of religious freedom. Indeed, the United Kingdom parliament in 1775 granted religious freedom to what is now Canada long in advance of it being granted in the United Kingdom. Further in that connection, I might mention that it was in Canada, some 25 years in advance of the same rights being attained in the United Kingdom, that those of the Jewish race received equality and the privilege of electing members of that faith to the House of Commons.
It is of interest to think of the beginnings of confederation, the arguments that were advanced by Sir John Macdonald and those associated with him, and the stand taken by those opposed to confederation. Following this there were meetings in Quebec and in Charlottetown. I was in the archives the other day and I found there a most interesting document. This is a report of the resolutions adopted at the conference of delegates from the provinces of Canada. I have a photographic summary of it, and it sets fortl; the basis of the proposed confederation of the provinces and colonies at a conference held in the city of Quebec in October, 1864. It sets out in detail the changes that were made. This is Macdonald's copy and it is covered with doodling, apparently drawings by Sir John of the various representatives at that conference, indicating a higher degree of art than has been displayed by any of his successors. I cannot place it on Hansard but I can say this, that there were few persons who were not honoured by having their features drawn.
The document sets out the views of that meeting and the various changes which were made, and which brought about a federation that few believed would have been possible. As may be seen through a reading of the document and also through a reading of the debates between 1860 and 1867, as was stated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time of Sir John A. Macdonald's death, the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald and his associates was underlined and emphasized. Indeed, it was the work of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier that made possible the

Canadian Centennial
transformation of colonial North America into the self governing country into which it has grown. Had it not been for their work there would never have been possible the development of the commonwealth concept of today.
There were few in the United Kingdom who believed that it would be possible to bring about confederation. It was Lafon-taine who would not accept the views of Lord John Russell and other imperial leaders that self government being granted to the colonies would mean the breaking up of the ties with the United Kingdom. It was Lafon-taine who foresaw that if representative self government was granted, the relations between the United Kingdom and the self governing possessions beyond the seas would be strengthened, not weakened. Macdonald and Cartier refused to accept the view of John Stuart Mill that parliamentary institutions could not live in a country that had two or more ethnic stocks.
Of all the countries of the commonwealth today-and this is something we sometimes forget-Canada was the first to attain responsible, representative and parliamentary government and the first, as I said a moment ago, to develop the federal system which in its essence made possible the uniting of areas representing various races, geographic separations and the like. It is a system that is being followed more and more in various parts of the developing commonwealth, and has been the contribution which has made possible the West Indies Federation and which within the next couple of years will make possible the Malayan confederation provided agreement is arrived at among Malaya, Singapore, Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. These are some of the matters which are of the past which recall some things that are often forgotten.
It was on February 19, 1865 that the "Attorney General West," Sir John A. Macdonald, introduced the resolution which read as follows:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the imperial parliament for the purpose of uniting the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island into one government with provisions based on certain resolutions, which were adopted at a conference of delegates from the said colonies held at the city of Quebec, on the 10th October 1864.
Speaking to the measure on February 6, 1865, Sir John said this:
When this union takes place, we will be at the outset no inconsiderable people. We find ourselves with a population approaching four millions of souls. Such a population in Europe would make a second, or at least, a third rate power. And with a rapidly increasing population-for X am satisfied that under this union our population will increase in a still greater ratio than ever before-with

increased credit-with a higher position in the eyes of Europe-with the increased security we can offer to immigrants, who would naturally prefer to seek a new home in what is known to them as a great country, than in any one little colony or another-with all this I am satisfied that, great as has been our increase in the last twenty five years since the union between Upper and Lower Canada, our future progress, during the next quarter of a century, will be vastly greater. And when, by means of this rapid increase, we become a nation of eight or nine millions of inhabitants, our alliance will be worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth.
He pictured the day ahead when there would be greatness on the part of Canada that would assure its recognition by the great countries of the world. So it was with Cartier, McGee and many others who spoke at that time. So we will celebrate an event great in its past and, I believe, greater in its future.
The systematic preparation of plans for the centennial, as I said, is already under way. It began two years ago. In February, 1960 the national committee on the centennial was inaugurated. This committee provides a means of consultation between the federal government and the governments of the provinces in matters relating to the centennial. The federal government is represented on the committee by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, who are joint chairmen, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Agriculture. Each of the provinces is represented by a minister and one other representative. The national committee has shown a high degree of unanimity on the significance of the centennial and on the general objectives to be sought. At its inaugural meeting the national committee set up four working committees to study the historical, cultural, ceremonial and administrative aspects of the planning.
Canadians everywhere were invited some 16 months ago to send in their suggestions as to how Canada's centennial might best be observed. This invitation provoked a healthy response. Indeed, if the projects that were suggested were adopted it would involve the expenditure of several billions of dollars. I have a list of the suggestions that were made. I think it might be well for me to table it, if the committee will agree, as they are indicative of the comprehensive nature of the representations and may be provocative of other suggestions from those who have given and are giving thought to this matter.
The suggestions range from proposals for pageants of different kinds to the building of a special centennial city; from postage stamp and coin issues to festivals of the arts; and from the eradication of particular diseases to the publication of biographies. It has also been suggested that special recognition should be given to the need for the

commemoration of the 1864 conferences in Charlottetown and Quebec which were the precursors of confederation.
I think I should pause for a moment to refer to the work being done by the committee or organization set up for the building of a confederation commemorative building in the city of Charlottetown. The committee is representative of all parts of the country and already has done much toward bringing about the building in question and also festivities to celebrate the conference that took place in that city.
The planning problem is, therefore, not to devise suitable projects but to select the most suitable ones. The federal-provincial working committees have been studying and assessing the various suggestions. The next meeting will take place in Ottawa on October 11.
The federal government has given consideration to the kinds of projects it should undertake. It is particularly impressed by the fact that the centennial will provide the opportunity for the execution of projects of a lasting nature. Last month the Minister of Public Works announced the first major centennial project, when he made it known that the government had decided to authorize the national capital commission to purchase land and buildings on Sussex drive, Ottawa. The project will be a rare opportunity for the preservation of those things that go back to confederation, and will make possible what has been described as "a mile of living history".
A number of non-government organizations have also begun preparations. In May, 1960 the Canadian centenary council was formed by these organizations. Its membership now comprises 125 national organizations and its purposes are to stimulate public interest in the centennial observances and to provide information and planning service to national organizations in this regard.
I realize that I cannot refer in any particular to the bill that will be introduced following the acceptance by the committee of this resolution. However, I would point out that it will have two principal divisions. The first will be the establishment of a national centennial administration which will assume responsibility for the planning and execution of programs of the federal government relating to the centennial. The national centennial administration will consist of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner and not more than eight directors, and to avoid duplication of functions it will work wherever possible through existing departments and agencies of the federal government.
Then, too, a second major provision will be the establishment of a national conference on
90205-6-5341
Canadian Centennial
the centennial. This will not be an administrative body but will be a forum where the centennial can be viewed and discussed as a whole by governmental and non-governmental representatives. Centennial activities will inevitably involve many elements and have various sponsors. Therefore special efforts will be required to give these activities some measure of unity and to guard against a formless jumble of individual projects. This conference will consist of a chairman who will be either the Prime Minister or such other minister as will be designated by the governor in council, and not more than 60 members appointed by the governor in council. Of these, two members will represent each of the provinces and will be appointed on the recommendation of the government of each of the provinces. The other representatives will be chosen from every major segment of Canadian life.
I feel the committee will agree that the observance of the centennial should reflect the whole range of Canada's history and not merely confederation itself. The program should not be designed merely to commemorate a past event, but to stir the imagination of the Canadian people and give to the people as a whole a sense of national progress and national unity. The centennial should be one in which every citizen will have an opportunity to play his or her part. I think the two bodies to be established will help to ensure that the aims and purposes of this one hundredth anniversary can be fully realized thereby. Although Ottawa will be the administrative and focal point, every region of Canada should avail itself of this great occasion.
It will be the role of the federal government, not to erect a giant superstructure but merely to assist and co-ordinate. The true expression of pride and fulfilment will, I hope, come largely from local levels. In each and every community in this country there is a wealth of local flavour and difference which should be emphasized in the national interest. Wherever possible or feasible the bigger national attractions should, I feel, be made portable so that all the provinces of Canada can share in the nation's birthday. I believe that nothing would be more beneficial than for a national train to be set up and travel fi om one end of Canada to the other, carrying thereon the documents of Canada's historical background, the constitutional documents, as well as those charters of freedom that are ours by reason of our heritage.
As Canada is a country on the threshold of an exciting tomorrow, the centennial should serve as a launching pad for new triumphs in her second century. We should

Canadian Centennial
honour history. At the same time a true birthday party should span the three dimensions of time, a national salute in retrospect, an appraisal of the present and a toast to the century to come.
Our history has been inextricably woven into the struggle against geography and climate. Courage in the face of formidable odds is the theme which I believe should run through the celebration that will take place, for this country is a land in which the odysseys of the explorers, the missionaries and the leaders of the past should be made available to all Canadians. As I read yesterday something of the events at the time of confederation and prior thereto it gave me a pride that can only come from a knowledge of what has been wrought by the hand of history. During the year to come I believe we should try to renew our past so that it becomes part of the possession of all Canadians, and at the same time lay the foundations for a greater future.
We are a creditor nation with historic ties to Great Britain and France. We are a creditor nation to most of the nations of men. We should emphasize the international aspect of being Canadian. If we do that, I feel our centennial celebrations will be a magnet to draw visitors from all around the earth. This will be Canada's year to appraise, admire and adjust. It will require a great deal of work and preparation. It will require not imitation but inspiration and imagination to properly reveal the Canada that is ours. I recall the words of Daniel Burnham who, when commenting on the plans for building the capital city of Washington in the United States, said this:
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood, and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble and logical diagram once recorded will never die but long alter we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.
I hope that all governments, federal, provincial and local, will be inspired by this one hundredth anniversary of our country to build for tomorrow, to fuse the functional with the beautiful, the concordant with the useful. The shaping of national destiny is no different from individual destiny, because we are the moulders of the future of our country. Fate itself plays a part, but more so does the work of those who contribute to the building of the kind of country that all of us hope will be wrought.
On January 18, 1904, Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied to the toast to Canada, and in that speech he stated what the hope of the future would be; that the twentieth century would
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
be Canada's. That is what this festival will emphasize, a stirring occasion so that Canadians may hold the nation's sights high upon the horizon.
I trust the committee will give unanimous support to this resolution and that in a spirit of unity all of us, whether in the federal parliament, in provincial legislatures or in the municipalities will join together and bring about an imaginative program so that we may relive our past and rededicate this land to its future, the hopes for which were spoken of so eloquently by those who were present at the birth of its institutions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think all members of this committee wherever they may sit would wish to give wholehearted support to this resolution. It is perhaps a happy coincidence that the Prime Minister on his sixty sixth birthday anniversary should be reminding us that our nation will soon be celebrating its one hundredth birthday anniversary. It is appropriate that we should prepare for that celebration.
A centenary is, of course, a momentous occasion in the history of a state. During the years since 1867 we have seen the completion of the geographical boundaries of confederation with the happy and fortunate union only a few years ago of Newfoundland with the rest of our homeland. We have, then, completed our boundaries nationally in that sense. But Canada is a new and developing country, and there is still much to be done. There are new horizons to be enlarged; there are frontiers to be pushed back and there are regions to be developed. In that sense we Canadians still have the excitements and the incentives which are usually attached to a new and developing society. While this is true, the fact that we shall soon be celebrating our hundredth birthday makes us one of the older states in the world.
As the Prime Minister has said, this celebration should encompass the whole range of Canada's history, not merely the achievement of confederation itself. The right hon. gentleman indicated how this could be done. It should certainly be celebrated in a way which is worthy of the occasion, not merely by ceremonies and memorials, which may be exciting but which will be ephemeral, but also in a more permanent way.
It is interesting in this regard to examine the various proposals which have been made for this purpose, and there are a great many of them. The Prime Minister made reference to this. I have before me the first report of the Canadian centennial council. If all these suggestions-and they are very interesting ones indeed-were carried out we should

need the whole centennial year in which to implement them. One of the subcommittees of the committee has suggested-and I think it is a wise suggestion and one we should be thinking about even now-that no celebration of our centenary would be complete unless by 1967 we had taken all the necessary legislative actions-and these things, I know, are not easy to do-which would complete, in the words of the recommendation, "our full autonomy as a nation".
The centenary council has also made suggestions which as I have indicated should be of value in establishing a permanent recognition of our centenary, by action which will not be temporary but which will redound over the years ahead to the benefit of all Canadians. In this regard they have put forward some very imaginative proposals. One suggestion is a program to remove from our country underdeveloped or depressed communities; also to ensure that in the future no Canadian in this country will be denied access to higher education because of a lack of funds. Perhaps along these lines we will be able to recognize in an enduring and valuable way some of the benefits we as Canadians have been fortunate enough to receive during our first hundred years. This recognition should be deepened and extended. We should take action in this centenary celebration to emphasize our national dignity and national destiny, to make life better for all of our people.
Also, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it would be appropriate to re-examine the values of our national society, and to resolve that we will do perhaps more than we have been able to do in the past to strengthen those values, based as they are on the enduring concept of freedom, and based as they are also in a political sense on the foundation of the two cultures, two languages and two traditions of the two founding peoples. Some years before confederation, when Lord Durham came to Canada, hon. members will recall that he said he found in Canada-and I think I am quoting his words correctly-two nations warring in the bosom of a single state. In the years that have passed since that statement was made there has been a change from conflict to co-operation. While in the cultural sense, in the racial sense, in the linguistic sense and indeed in the sense of separate traditions while we have-in that sense-two nations, nevertheless we now have two nations, co-operating in the bosom of a single state.
These two races, two cultures, and two nations in that sense, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, have been enriched in the
Canadian Centennial
years that have followed by people of practically every strain, race and culture from all parts of the world. To use the Prime Minister's own phrase we are indeed a creditor nation in that way, as well as a creditor nation in the sense that we have a dual foundation of the two basic races.
As has been pointed out, not very much attention was given to Canada's future, her destiny and potential greatness at the time of confederation. But the men in those days built better than perhaps even they knew. People in the mother countries did not realize then that in North America a strong new state had arisen dedicated to freedom, to human welfare and to the things that make life worth living for man when he bands himself together in a political society. As we approach our centennial year I think we can be proud of our growth, our progress and our achievements, but we can be proud without being smug. We can demonstrate that pride in the way we celebrate our centenary. One means which occurs to me, and there are many, to show our pride in our nation is by making our capital worthy in every way of its position as the heart and core of that nation.
The Prime Minister has outlined some of the organizations which will be set up, and it is appropriate that they should be set up at this time to make this occasion worthy of its historic import. He indicated that there will be a combination of public and private planning in that regard and that, of course, is the way it should be done. We on this side will be glad to support the steps which the government is proposing to this end.
Our nation has a great destiny ahead of it if we wish to make it so, and if man's inhumanity to man makes it possible for any nation to have a good destiny. It is appropriate, then, that as we discuss this resolution we should remind ourselves of our past and look forward with confidence to the future of what Charles Dickens so many years ago called this happy, hopeful land.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this group I rise to express our wholehearted and complete support for the spirit and purpose of this resolution, which reflects the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians at this time. Throughout the years there have been numerous references to the centennial celebration. I think it is correct to say that the first time it was brought to the attention of any large group was at the Ontario provincial convention of the C.C.F. in 1950. It was raised on that occasion and discussed.
Later on the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre placed on the order paper

Canadian Centennial
a resolution dealing with this subject. It was first introduced, I believe, in 1954 and was reintroduced in 1955, 1956 and 1957. In that latter year there occurred the first debate on that resolution, which I shall now place on the record because it was considered very comprehensive:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of the establishment of a 100th anniversary committee, with provision for federal and provincial representation, for the purpose of planning the economic and social development of this country on a vast scale, including inter alia housing and slum clearance, conservation, irrigation and power projects, improvements in transportation, highway construction, the elimination of grade crossings, the building of hospitals, assistance to municipal projects and other public works, and also for the purpose of planning ways and means to strengthen the economy of every section of this country; and that consideration should be given to the advisability of such a program being launched immediately and being pursued vigorously year by year so that on July 1, 1967, the people of Canada will be in a position to celebrate this nation's 100th birthday not only with fireworks and speeches but by the achievement of a land of health and abundance for all our people.
During the debate the hon. gentleman received support in principle from all hon. members who participated in the discussion. There was some criticism of the rather comprehensive nature of this resolution. I had the opportunity of participating in the debate. As we saw it at that time this was a resolution to focus attention upon desirable objectives to strive toward and accomplish by 1967. The hon. gentleman moved this resolution and spoke to it at some length, believing it would focus attention on this subject so that our celebration in 1967 would not only be a celebration in the ordinary sense of the word, a happy time, but in the deeper sense of having reality and meaning.
In listening to the Prime Minister I was very interested in his historical review of past developments and in certain statements he made respecting the approach and attitude of prominent people in Canadian history. I am one who always enjoys reading history. I find that history of the past is an antidote to the irritations of the present. I was interested also in his explanation of the proposed procedures which provide for federal and provincial co-operation and also cooperation with local communities. I am one who believes, as I am sure all members of this group firmly believe, that for an event of this type to be a success you must have co-operation among all communities in Canada; that success is dependent upon co-operation from the local level up no matter how small the community.

I cannot help but recall that I spent the fiftieth anniversary of confederation in a military hospital. You know, Mr. Chairman, some people have suggested that I might celebrate the one hundredth anniversary as a member of the government, but I might explain they have been very few in number to date. However, with a common pride in our history, in our achievements, in our hopes and in our aspirations, we can all look forward to this centennial as an opportunity to recognize the work of the pioneers and people of the past, to express our thanks for what they have done to provide the circumstances under which we live.
I often think there is insufficient understanding of the labours of people of the past in all groups of society who have given us so many of the things we enjoy today, the freedoms, the privileges and the material things of life. We can give thanks and celebrate in the knowledge that all Canadians are proud of the fact that by that time we shall have evolved national and provincial policies that will make certain that we are going to conserve and develop our natural resources, having in mind the welfare of the generations to come; because regardless of legislation, parties and theories, unless we conserve our natural resources we shall have nothing to build on in the future and no wealth to distribute.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I trust that by 1967 we shall be able to celebrate the fact that every child in Canada will have the opportunity to obtain all the education he is capable of taking advantage of; that every person in Canada willing and able to work will have employment; that all Canadians will be provided with satisfactory health services; that all the disabled and those ill in Canada, suffering from disabilities of various kinds, from whatever source they may arise, will be provided with a measure of comfort and security at the expense of us all, and that our senior citizens will continue to live in security with a measure of comfort. We believe these are objectives that we should work toward so that we can celebrate in 1967 with the knowledge that these are accomplishments.
The members of this group are glad to cooperate with all who are working to that end. We believe that with purpose, with determination, with energy and imagination we can succeed in reaching those objectives by 1967. To those objectives we must all march if we are going to succeed, and those objectives must be reached, in our opinion, if we are to celebrate our one hundredth anniversary in every sense of the word as an event that Canadians are proud of.

(Translation):


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my French speaking fellow citizens, I should like to express, in my mother tongue, what we feel at the announcement of the celebrations which will, in a few years from now, mark the centenary of the Canadian constitution.
These celebrations will take on a distinctive character for all Canadians, more particularly because we realize that it is thanks to the pact of confederation that we developed as a nation and that we succeeded in burying the quarrels which, unfortunately, in 1867 threatened to plunge this nation into civil war.
When we consider the great country Canada is today, we cannot but think of the tremendous sacrifices made by our forefathers to found this country which now holds such an important place in the world.
When we consider the tremendous efforts which those pioneers from European countries had to make and the severity of the weather they had to endure in clearing this foreign land to set up their homes, we are filled with wonder and admiration. Indeed, those men deserve the tribute we want to pay them in the coming celebrations. And we want to pay a particular tribute to those men of genius who established this confederation pact which is the very basis, the strength of the nation.
We salute those men of character, Lafon-taine and Baldwin, who were able to establish the rule of justice in the houses of parliament.
We salute the genius of Macdonald and Cartier to whom we owe this confederation which is the cornerstone of the greatness of Canada.
It is actually due to confederation that peace has existed in this country since 1867. It is because of this pact that the respective rights and privileges of both great races which form our nation have been respected.
It is also through the confederative pact that the bi-ethnic and bi-cultural character of the nation has been preserved.
Finally, thanks to this agreement this country has achieved a national unity which is strengthening and enables us to live today not in a divided Canada but in a united Canada, a large and a strong Canada, where the future can be faced with confidence.
Since 1867, long strides have been made in every field of endeavour.
Canadian industry has reached gigantic proportions, trade is in the process of considerably expanding and increasing from day to day, and in the intellectual field we
Canadian Centennial
now have distinctive Canadian culture and art and a definite Canadian way of thinking. So it can be stated that since confederation gigantic steps have been accomplished towards the achievement and development of national life and thought. This is only a beginning.
Today the whole world's attention is focused on our country; other nations realize that we have in Canada, a tremendous potential and that there is a future for all who wish to settle here and associate themselves with those who have done so much already so that Canada could become what it is today. Canadians have achieved all these things because the highest principles of human ideals were guiding them. Canadians believe in freedom and every time the freedom of humankind was threatened, Canadians were among the first who wanted to protect that ideal against the barbarian onslaught threatening civilization.
During those two great wars, our soldiers fought with unrivalled courage. They fought on the battlefields of Europe and other continents not only to protect themselves but also in order that the ideals of kindness and justice they believed in could survive in this world. Those soldiers were the defenders of right, justice and truth.
We bow to those who have laid down their lives for those principles, to those who suffered on the battlefields and who, still bear today the scars of their glorious wounds. Moreover, we bow to the courage of all these men who, without exception, were the ambassadors of Canadian feeling, by defending in foreign lands the most beautiful and greatest thing of all: human freedom.
Our country, Mr. Chairman, is in full bloom, and the eyes of all men are turned in this direction. One only has to go abroad to realize that other countries sometimes view with envy what is being done in Canada. However, it is very easy to notice admiration everywhere for our accomplishments.
I believe it is our duty to thank Providence for having given so much to us Canadians. In fact, poverty is the lot of many countries which have been torn by terrible strife and which, even today, are threatened by revolutions.
I believe that it is necessary to repeat, whenever possible, Mr. Chairman, that there exists, here, in Canada, beauty, greatness, order, wealth, and belief in those principles of life: freedom and respect for human rights.

Canadian Centennial
I believe that it is absolutely essential to prepare with care the celebration of our centennial, to prepare it in such a way that it will attract millions of tourists who will be able to see for themselves the excellence of our democratic way of life. Those tourists may return home with a strong desire to imitate what is being done in our country, and they may even know the happiness which is ours.
If there is one reproach that could be made to the Canadian people, it is that they do not fully realize how lucky they are, and that they fail to appreciate their blessings in their own country. We too often hear politicians and others criticize everything that happens here, exaggerate certain social or economic problems that are serious, I agree, but that are, after all, not as serious as some events happening in other countries where the danger of revolution and communism is always present. Instead of readily criticizing what is happening in our country, instead of taking pleasure in blaming our leaders constantly, regardless of their political affiliation and of the field of their activities, it seems to me it would be better for every Canadian citizen to help with his advice those who are called upon to administer the country. In my opinion, they will always be glad to accept advice from right-minded people who have public interest at heart.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is essential to act in that way because prophets of doom and gloom will be pleased to sow doubt and anxiety in the minds of men, thus making it possible for communism, that horrible ideology which dominates so many countries, to get a foothold in Canada.
I hope that all French Canadian organizations, without exception, will join in the preparations for the centennial. Whether on the cultural, intellectual and social levels or in the industrial field, all Canadians who love their country must take an interest in this historic event.
Our country is in full progress and development. By taking an active part in the preparations for the centennial celebrations, the citizens will, in the years to come, work efficiently for Canada. I know that all French Canadians love Canada like I do. Perhaps some people love our country as much as I do, but certainly no one loves it more. I invite them to join with us who are entrusted with public affairs and who are anxious to

make of the centennial celebrations of our confederation, the greatest event in our history.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) and say that we agree that the statesmen of 1867 and previous years had to make great sacrifices in order to implement confederation. All the politicians put aside party feelings to bring forth the fullest national unity possible and thus bring into being an institution that neither the years nor difficulties could overcome.
Since then, as the Associate Minister of National Defence has said, we have been enjoying domestic peace, and we wonder whether such a thing would have been possible without confederation, because at that moment there was no friendship to spare between the Quebec Catholic group and the Ontario Anglo-Protestant group, and it was feared that one or the other would try to gain domination of the country by force.
But when the fathers of confederation paved the way to a federation of the existing provinces and of other provinces which could be formed later on, they found the right formula for two different races to live together and to co-operate for the good of Canada.
The rights and privileges of both races have been respected and I can say that almost every leader of the country has since recognized the necessity of maintaining that duality which is beneficial and profitable to the country. I hope that it will be maintained.
I readily recognize that here and there people have been found who did not understand the objectives of the fathers of confederation; that was to be expected because there will always be groups not sufficiently mature to realize what a great achievement it was and how essential has been the participation of two races and two ethnic groups.
It is agreed that since confederation, Canada has made gigantic progress. The small colony of that time has grown into an independent country and a member of the British commonwealth, as well as a nation in control of its own destiny. Canada has made tremendous progress in the fields of trade and industry and is well known the world over for her contribution to the welfare of the peoples of the world. In the field of diplomacy, we have had Canadians who have acquired wide recognition and who will continue to stand out.

In the fields of arts and culture, there has been remarkable improvement. True, we have not yet reached the quality of the masterpieces found in European countries because we lack the atmosphere conducive to the production of truly Canadian works. As far as literature is concerned, we have finally gone ahead in recent years and developed a truly Canadian literature. And with the help of the Canada Council and the continuing assistance of the various governments in office, we shall soon see the arts and literature flourish in Canada, as they should.
As the Associate Minister of National Defence said, Canada, twice at least, came to the rescue of European nations that needed support to preserve their freedoms and welfare. It did so with pleasure, and the sacrifices made have been recognized.
However, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that the time has come perhaps, since we are to celebrate the centenary of confederation, when Canada might give its armies, spread out across the world, a really distinctive, personal and specific flag, showing no sign whatever of interdependence, in order to prove that Canada has reached its maturity. I think such a project would be accepted by the great majority of the Canadian people, and even if some did object to that, they would be in a small minority that would eventually bow before the majority, as it has always happened since 1867.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Very well.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I should now like to close my remarks with these few words taken from a Canadian song:
Foreigners see with an envious eye the majestic flow of the St. Lawrence.
Well, foreigners not only see the St. Lawrence with an envious eye, they also see our way of life, our working methods and our democratic spirit. In fact I do not think there is a country in the world where democracy is better understood than in Canada.
I hope we shall be able to celebrate in a grand and glorious way the centenary of confederation, and that our successors will be able to say that Canada is constantly making gigantic steps forward.
(Text):


Mr. Piiman:: This measure is obviously one that will receive the support of all parties in this house. It therefore needs little debate. No matter where we sit, I think we are all aware of and appreciate the sense 90205-6-535
Canadian Centennial
of history of our Prime Minister. We hope this measure will receive his constant personal interest. In our attempts to crystallize our thinking about our nation in its centennial, I hope we shall make some attempt to indicate just how Canada has added to the history of the world.
I can remember one professor who often said that Canada gave a pattern by which more people have received freedom than by any other pattern that has been established in this world. He, of course, meant the pattern of the commonwealth; for Canada led all other nations in finding a method by which a colony could become a nation. It perhaps seems strange that when we heard the announcement of the death of the Secretary General of the United Nations this morning, he should have been dealing with this very problem, namely the attempt to find a method by which undeveloped people who have lived in a colonial state may find freedom within a nation state. I think it brings home to us the extent to which Canada can show the pattern by means of which this may be done. I hope this will be one of the things emphasized in our centenary year. I hope we shall not look inward as much as we shall look outward and show others what we have learned.
I think the second great contribution we have made in our history as a nation is to show the world that two different cultures or, as some would have it, two different nations can live within the bosom of a single nation, can co-operate and can find a single consciousness and a single sense of identity within a nation state. Here again, in a world of bloodshed and trouble, I think this is the means by which we can present to the people of the world another area in which Canada has made such great strides. For indeed as we look at other nations, such as South Africa and others too numerous to mention, where the whole problem of national identity is going through a valiant decision, I think Canadian experience can have some real relevance.
In the year of the centennial of confederation I hope we shall do something to dramatize and even to romanticize the great figures in our past history. Perhaps it has been the lot of the prime ministers of our nation to bring forward the contributions of certain men in our past. I am thinking, of course, of men like William Lyon Mackenzie King, who I think gave us a greater realization of the contribution of his famous forebearer, William Lyon Mackenzie. I also think of the efforts of our present Prime Minister to bring about a recognition of the great work of Sir John A. Macdonald. But there are others, such as Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin and

Canadian Centennial
D'Arcy McGee, who virtually gave his life for this nation, who have not been sufficiently dramatized and who are not sufficiently known by the young people of our nation. I think it is to the young people that our efforts should be directed in connection with this centennial, because as yet they have not a sufficient sense of history in spite of what has been done by various branches of government at the federal and provincial levels.
We are heartened by this advance information in connection with the celebration. Perhaps some people may think it strange that it took but three years to create this nation while it has taken seven years to prepare for the celebration of its centenary. However, we live in an age when people are interested in history, and the various facets of Canadian life must be expressed. I can assure the Prime Minister and this government that they can expect the support of all parties in preparing this opportunity to show the world the contributions which Canada has made to the history of mankind.


Miss   Ailken@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a very few words on this resolution of the right hon. Prime Minister because I am in such wholehearted support of it. The Prime Minister has said that we must plan for much more than just a holiday. He has told us that our founding day as a confederation passed almost without notice, and that John A. Macdonald always regretted this. It may be that if there had been some women in the House of Commons in those days it would not have passed unnoticed, because I think we are much more conscious of anniversaries and celebrations than our male colleagues.
I believe the key word in our centennial celebration should be participation; participation by service clubs, by business organizations, by labour unions, by individuals and by women's clubs. I think one form could be the granting of scholarships, because what an honour it would be for any Canadian to win a centennial scholarship. It certainly would be a once in a lifetime event. There could also be essay contests in Canadian history and in local histories. In Saskatchewan for their jubilee they held an essay contest in local histories. I understand there are now about
3,000	local histories in the Saskatchewan archives. Labour unions might build centennial trade schools, perhaps one in each province. There could be slum clearance contributions by construction companies; literary prizes for books and poems about Canada, perhaps given by press clubs and authors' associations. There are also unlimited opportunities for business organizations.
The Prime Minister has said that the centenary committee has received many suggestions which might cost billions of dollars. Governments alone should not take on these projects or these celebration plans; every Canadian should participate in order to meet the objective voiced by the Prime Minister, which was to stir the imagination of the Canadian people toward national purpose and national unity. I know there will be much pomp and ceremony, parades and gaiety, but let us also celebrate with permanent monuments that will benefit future generations, just as we have benefited from our pioneering forefathers in the spirit and building of Canada.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister very correctly asked for unanimous consent when he presented the motion for this resolution. As far as my limited power is concerned, I am happy to grant him such unanimous approval for the resolution. I think that is generally the wish of the committee of the whole and of the country.
The Prime Minister took advantage of the occasion, very properly again, to make some remarks as to the history of our confederation and the propriety and objectives in celebrating its one hundredth anniversary. I have very few remarks to make. I will have one or two questions later arising out of the resolution itself, but they are purely of a practical nature and arise out of the wording of the resolution itself. This occasion however also provides the opportunity for expressing ideas, and indeed ideals, concerning the celebration of our centennial of confederation. At the same time it is couched in very practical language and in its main provision sets up the corporation that will have administrative responsibility for making the practical arrangements for the occasion and co-ordinating the efforts of others throughout the whole of the country. Therefore at one and the same time we have in this resolution the opportunity to debate the very large, somewhat idealistic question, and also to discuss some of the practical plans for the occasion.
The Associate Minister of National Defence made some remarks which unfortunately I had to listen to after translation. I regret that I was not able to follow them with that precision of understanding that I believe some of them deserve, particularly the latter part of his remarks. I refer to the ideals he was very properly seeking to express, and expressing well.
I wish the associate minister were here, because the earlier part of his remarks was translated in a way that seemed to indicate that a couple of persons only were responsible

for confederation. That idea was quite inconsistent with the main part of the speech and I think may probably be due to the loss of meaning in translation. I merely mention this because it is my understanding of history that confederation was brought about by a great many men of that period who had a wide vision of the future of this country. It was the collective effort of all of them that brought about this great event in our history.
I think we should be very careful not to say or do anything that would in any way detract from that concept of these men, because my whole understanding of history is that had it not been for the co-ordination of effort and the co-operation of all of them, confederation itself would not have been brought about.
I have some further remarks, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps I could call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George James McIlraith: When the committee rose for the luncheon adjournment I had not completed my remarks, but since this resolution will, I hope, be unanimously approved I think perhaps it would be as well not to extend my observations unduly or expand them at any great length for fear they might detract somewhat from the unanimity which is certainly desirable.
The development of the proper type of celebration for this occasion will require the participation of great numbers of Canadians, a point which was well taken by the hon. member for York-Humber. It will require the co-ordination of the work of a great many groups and committees throughout the country. Indeed, the more one thinks about it the more one is convinced that it will require a genius to head this organization and guide it in the way it should go, because of necessity there will have to be very close co-operation among provincial groups, provincial committees, local groups and municipal committees. The different points of view which will be put forward will also require co-ordination. The wholly artistic and creative approach will need to be reconciled with a more practical viewpoint in the light of what it is possible to do in a practical way.
I must say that today I extend to the Prime Minister not only good wishes on his birthday, but the hope that he may be blessed with the great skill and wisdom necessary for the wise selection of the personnel he will 90205-6-535J
Canadian Centennial
be appointing in connection with this celebration. This is a task which will require the greatest skill and wisdom. The occasion must be commemorative of the past. That is, of course, elementary. But we must be careful throughout to see that it is inspirational for the future, and that the whole of the celebration throughout the land is ordered in such a way that it will serve as a source of inspiration to those who come long after. This is why it is going to require such wisdom in the appointment of persons able to reconcile the two viewpoints I have mentioned and arrange the functions in a way that is both imaginative and practical.
Some reference has been made by previous speakers to the need for making Canadians aware of Canada; I think this was one of the phrases used. I am in complete accord. As a matter of fact there has been a good deal of discussion of history during the hour or so in which this resolution has been under consideration, and it occurs to me that at this point in our national progress, after making allowance for the economic condition of Canadians as individuals compared with a hundred years ago and after making allowance for the increased travel facilities available, it is probably true to say that we individual Canadians move about our country much less than we should, and know and understand less about other Canadians than we should. I hope that as the work of preparing for this centennial celebration proceeds, a new impetus may be given to the desirability of Canadians moving about Canada a great deal more. Increased importance should be attached to Canadians studying the history and geography of Canada a great deal more so that all of us will have an appreciation of the problems and aspirations of those in other parts of Canada. All Canadians should have a better understanding of the culture, aspirations, habits of life and methods of approaching the problem of living in a civilized society of Canadians in all areas of Canada.
As Canadians we seem in general to be given to travelling to other countries when family units take trips. While that is an excellent thing in itself, I am sometimes appalled at how little Canadians in one part of the country know about the culture, problems and aspirations of those in other parts of the country. I would hope that in the intervening six years as we prepare for the centenary a great deal of added impetus will be given to the study of Canadian history by Canadians, not only in an academic sense through textbooks and cultural programs but in a very real sense through personal contact by moving about the country.

Canadian Centennial
Much has been said about the ethnic groups that form this country, and I am in hearty accord with those remarks. When one analyses it, it seems to me we are really a race of minorities; of great numbers of ethnic groups each with distinctive characteristics and diversified and outstanding cultural attributes. When these centennial programs are initiated across the country, with all Canadians participating, I hope that background will be acknowledged and the programs arranged accordingly. I also hope, however, that running through them we will have the theme that we are now Canadians, and that while we are cherishing and keeping alive the various rich traditions and cultures that have contributed to this nation, we are doing so because they have contributed to our Canadianism, that we are now Canadians one and all, that it is Canada's centenary we are celebrating.
To accomplish this will require infinite tact, discretion and judgement. One adds to the other, as I view the question. In other words the richness of these cultural backgrounds enhances our Canadianism. It is only if these diverse backgrounds are mispresented at public functions that they become separate and detract from our Canadianism. I hope the kind of good judgment required to derive the maximum value from our rich assortment of backgrounds will be used, as I am sure it will be.
As our planning proceeds there will be need to focus the theme of this centennial occasion, and to keep it in focus. I have been reading with a great deal of interest the report of the first annual meeting of the Canadian centenary council in Ottawa on May 12, 1961. I do not know how to adequately describe the material contained in this publication, but perhaps I should draw attention to the reports of program research it contains. They contain an abundance of ideas, most of them excellent. What we must watch in the six years ahead in preparing for the centennial is that these excellent ideas are focused on one great theme.
I hope that in the legislation to be presented some provision will be made to bring this subject matter forward in the House of Commons each year so that hon. members may have an opportunity to express themselves on the direction of the organization, making sure it is focusing on a theme that is worthy of the occasion and is not allowed to become diffused and spread into preparations for a gigantic party celebration for the sake of having a party.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will have something to say on that point, and I hope something can be done in that respect. There are various ways by which this could be

accomplished, including an annual vote by parliament to provide funds, but it is not necessary to elaborate on the means at this time.
I shall now conclude this portion of my remarks. I have one or two questions I wish to direct to the Prime Minister, but I shall reserve them until those who wish to make general remarks on the subject have had an opportunity to do so.
(Translation):


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, as a member for Manitoba and especially fo rthe city of St. Boniface, which is the cultural centre of French speaking Canada west of the Ottawa river, it is my duty to say a few words on this resolution. I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for having taken this step six years before the hundredth anniversary of confederation.
Since we will soon be celebrating that centennial, I feel that we should do the same thing as a person who would have lived in the same house for a long time. We should call in architects and engineers to look over the building and see whether chinks have not formed in the structure over the years.
We know that the constitution of 1867 provided for the harmonious coexistence of two great cultures on a basis of unity. I regret to say that since then, especially since 1890, more than one chink has made its appearance in the province I represent.
We will need a lot of concrete to repair the damage caused since then.
The province of Manitoba was the first one to join confederation in 1870; at that time it had a population which was mostly Catholic and French speaking and which felt that the constitution was supposed to protect minority rights for the future. Yet, a few years afterwards, all guarantees were swept aside.
In the city I represent, we have schools which we must build at our own expense and teachers whom we must also pay ourselves. Why do we do that? It is because we wish to keep our French culture. What do we learn in those schools? We follow the curriculum of the province of Manitoba to acquire also the English culture. I am proud to have had the privilege of acquiring the two greatest cultures of the world, the French and English cultures. However, it is unfortunate that we should have to bleed ourselves white, in Manitoba, to have teachers who help us preserve our culture, and that we should also have-

(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his remarks are not related to the resolution before the committee. I would ask him to relate his comments to the subject of the Canadian centennial before the committee. The subject he is dealing with now is not within the jurisdictional authority of the federal government. Therefore I would ask him to come back to the resolution, if he will, please.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that some work should be done by the committee. I am implying that after living for 94 years in one house, this house needs inspection. We should get an architect and engineer to look at the state of the foundation of our building. I say there are cracks in this building. I say that in the province that I come from there is a huge crack that has been existing for more than three quarters of a century. I say that the committee should direct its attention to all the governments of the English speaking provinces and give justice and fair play to all.
We are talking now of repatriating the British North America Act from London. Most of the things that we have received in this country have come from London. We received the Quebec Act. We had a governor in 1846 who said that in Canada the French and English languages were on the same footing. Unless all the provinces, including my own, are prepared to live up to the British North America Act and to the Manitoba Act of 1870, it might be a good idea to leave the British North America Act where it is today.
I read in the press recently that the province of Manitoba is paying for three school teachers to go to Asia to teach. This is happening at the same time I have to pay so much every Sunday to try to maintain my own culture and my own schools in the city of St. Boniface. What do we teach in those schools? We teach the curriculum of Manitoba-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member again to advise him that the matter being discussed by him is a provincial issue which I cannot relate in any way to the resolution before the committee. I suggest to the hon. member that there will be other occasions and opportunities for him to discuss this matter. As I read the resolution, it does not embrace the matters the hon. member is now discussing, therefore I would ask him to relate his remarks strictly to the resolution, or he will have to resume his seat.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: With great deference, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order to speak about what the committee that we are about
Canadian Centennial
to appoint should do when we celebrate the centennial of our constitution. We should work toward the greatest aim in our nation, namely Canadian unity.
I respect my English fellow Canadians. I know that most of them are quite broadminded and tolerant. They acknowledge the fact that this nation is composed of more than one ethnic group. I know the fault is not with the people; sometimes it is with governments. If we wish to celebrate another anniversary in 200 years from 1867 we shall have to learn how to get along. The greatest monument that could be erected in 1967 would be to have the greatest concord that is possible in this country. We should endeavour to promote such a program by having study groups, by having those who are going to take part in the celebration prepare briefs and make recommendations so that all the people of the country will see that what is best for Canada is best for every citizen of Canada, along with our neighbours.
I do not want my English speaking fellow Canadians to learn French or to adopt the French culture. All we want is that those who desire to become acquainted with the French culture be given full freedom and opportunity to do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Although I have spoken previously on this resolution I should like to say a word before the Prime Minister closes the debate. I should like to make a comment and ask a question which I should like him to deal with when he replies. I am quite sure we all realize that to assure the success of our Canadian centennial celebrations we must have co-operation-that is essential-among all levels of governments and all interested groups. In my opinion, to a great extent that success will depend on the information given to those various groups and the continuous contact among various groups, from national organizations down to village societies and small community groups.
When the Prime Minister replies will he inform the committee what are the proposals for continuous information being given to interested groups, particularly the voluntary organizations, and the arrangements for continuous contact in order to focus public attention on the work of the committee and the program and continually to develop and promote interest in this proposal.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have an opportunity to say a word about this important and very happy matter which has come to us on this day which is marked by unhappiness and indeed by tragedy. Perhaps it would be inappropriate for this resolution to pass without a word from a member from the maritimes where, after all, confederation began.

Canadian Centennial
We Canadians are not an historically minded people. It is altogether fortunate for us that we have a Prime Minister who is historically minded. I was much impressed with the thoughts he gave us today and with the plans he outlined. I have also been very much impressed with the suggestions made from various parts of the chamber with respect to the celebration of our great centennial. I think it altogether fitting that the Prime Minister laid the emphasis he did on the great questions of tolerance, mutual understanding and the great freedoms.
Our country began with the union of more than one ethnic group. It has now broadened and developed and contains many strands. I am one who has little support or sympathy for those who would think we have any other way but the united way. We in Canada find it difficult at times to reach back in history and discover that great blinding moment of truth. It is said that when the republic of Argentina turned over to Canada a square in the capital city of Buenos Aires they expected that on that square this country would erect a statue to our liberator, because in Latin America the equestrian liberator is the great figure of history. I would hate to be called upon to state what mounted figure should represent Canada in any square in any part of the world. We do not have a great revolution to which we can refer. As the Prime Minister says, the 1867 episode occurred without a great deal of fanfare, without a great deal of fuss, and with not too many of these excited utterances that appeal to public opinion and to which other countries point when they look down the historic passages of time.
We have not had much bloodshed although, as the Associate Minister of National Defence said, when it came to shedding blood for great issues Canadians were in the forefront. Indeed we can say, Mr. Chairman, that our anthem of nationalism has been played in a minor key. In fact sometimes we have not even been aware of the great things which were accomplished. The achievement of 1867 is as remarkable an achievement as ever occurred anywhere in the world, requiring continuing statesmanship to hold together a collection of communities when great factors were there which would contribute to their disunity and perhaps even their disintegration.
I often think it is typical of our lack of appreciation of these things when I go to that beautiful village of Grand Pre in Nova Scotia, where for many years everyone knew about Evangeline national park and the monument there to a mythical figure created by a United States poet, while a stone's throw away was the birthplace of one of our
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
great Canadian statesmen, Sir Robert Borden, unmarked and unknown except to a very few people. I believe our Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is correcting this situation. We have missed the jingoism, and I think it is well that we have; but as hon. members have said, it is time for a greater awareness of what Canada is and what Canadians have done.
I like the emphasis put by the hon. member for York-Humber on the fact that this must be an opportunity for the young people of our land to inform themselves, to interest themselves, and indeed to be inspired by what this great country is all about. As we go forward with the centennial plans, Mr. Chairman, hon. members will have an opportunity to see a preview of the great celebrations to come in the celebrations for the Charlottetown conference of 1864. As the hon. member for Peterborough said, it took three years to effect confederation. We look upon the opening event as the one which took place in 1864.
Here the historians and publicists have done us a great disservice. You will read that the islanders were busy at a circus when the delegates came and did not properly greet the visitors. This is not altogether true. The delegates stayed there for eight or nine days and were well entertained at Government House, that historic and beautiful building which still stands. How could visitors be treated more kindly than by the maritime delegates agreeing to set aside their own subjects of discussion in order to hear the distinguished representatives of the old provinces of Canada? This surely was hospitality.
Perhaps that unsung feeling of mutual understanding was expressed by a little incident which took place in Charlottetown in September of 1864. The orator, the great speaker of the visiting group undoubtedly was Thomas D'Arcy McGee, the ancestor of my colleague the hon. member for York-Sear -borough. On the night they held the ball at Government House in Charlottetown where was McGee? He was in the city lecturing, and on what? He was lecturing on Robert Burns, and delivered one of the finest talks ever given on that finest of poets.
In 1964 there will be events which will celebrate this preliminary and essential step in the confederation development. The province of Prince Edward Island has invited the area conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to meet in Charlottetown. This will be a direct repetition of the event of 1864, namely a gathering of the political leaders of all parties from all over Canada, (now a much enlarged Canada, a much greater Canada), in the birthplace of confederation. I think the inscription on the

wall of the confederation chamber is one, and I say this unashamedly, which we should not forget in these difficult times. These men went there from what might be said by some to be primitive legislatures; and small communities and sat down to build a great nation. The inscription which is on the memorial erected to them states simply, "Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew." Perhaps never before have we had a greater need for the guidance of Providence.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am filled with great pride and pleasure at the steps which are being taken to celebrate our nation's birthday. It is appropriate that these steps are being taken on the birthday of the Prime Minister. I tender him my good wishes on this happy day for him. I know that we will all, irrespective of our place in Canada, our place in society or our place in this chamber, unite in a great effort to make this centennial worthy of our great country.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has the hon. member for Ottawa West some questions which he wishes to ask?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The questions arise out of the resolution itself and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I wonder if at this stage the Prime Minister would mind elaborating a bit more as to just how he proposes the relationship between the national conference and the centennial administration will work out. I would ask him to develop that a bit further. Then, I have no criticism whatever of this, but the Prime Minister did not make any remarks about the financial side of the resolution, and how the money would be provided for this purpose. Presumably the resolution is being brought before the committee in order for the committee to pass on whether or not money should be provided for this purpose.
Is it the government's intention that the funds required should be provided directly through votes of other departments, or is it intended that the money will be provided directly to the corporation to be set up? I have in mind such things as the national capital commission, possible grants to provinces, and so on. Will the financing be done through this corporation or directly by the government? If the Prime Minister is in the position to do so, although I would not expect he would be at the moment, could he give us any idea as to what the cost will be, whether this involves a large expenditure of money or whether the resolution envisages something in the nature of planning and organization rather than the expenditure of money?
Canadian Centennial
Then there was one other matter upon which the Prime Minister may wish to express himself, but I do not propose to press it. Would he describe the set-up of the national conference and the work of this organization? As I understand, he set out in part the composition of that very large conference, which will include representatives of the federal government and representatives of the provincial governments. Since 11 governments are involved, and as governments change, was it his intention that this should be made an all party type of conference in all the 11 jurisdictions, or does he envisage it being a government conference as such? I am drawing the distinction between governments as such and all the parties. I hope it will be an all party set-up as I think that is the way in which this subject must be approached if for no other reason than the practicality of the situation. It is inevitable that governments will change within the six years. I refer to some of the 11 governments. In order to get the kind of continuity that is desirable, thought should be given to the wisdom of making the representation on that conference, whose duties as I understand it will be largely advisory, on a larger basis than merely that of the government in office in any given jurisdiction at any given moment. If the Prime Minister could clarify those points it would perhaps be helpful to the committee. I certainly should be grateful if he would do so.


John George Diefenbaker: First, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank hon. members in all parts of the chamber for the contribution each has made in placing before the committee ideas and suggestions, all of which will receive full and complete consideration.
Possibly I should begin by answering the questions asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West. While I am not at liberty to refer particularly to the bill, may I say this. The national centennial administration tc which I made reference will have the righi to expend any moneys appropriated by parliament for the work of the administration or received by the administration through the conduct of its operations or by gift, donation, bequest or otherwise.
As to the second question asked by him, maj I say this. It is the purpose and object of this legislation when brought before the house to assure that the celebration to take place in 1967 shall be a national celebration representative, as I said earlier, of all the people of Canada, and naturally representative of all the political thinking of Canada. To that end provision will be made in the legislation so that each province will appoint

Canadian Centennial
two members to the organization to be set up in that connection known as the national conference on Canada's centennial.
I think that covers the two questions the hon. member brought before the committee, although earlier he made reference to an opportunity being given to the House of Commons each year during the next six years to express its views with regard to matters which, in the opinion of members, it might be necessary to discuss in order to improve and to expand the work of the conference or of the administration. While there is no definite plan in that connection I should think it would be considered the course of reason to give the house from time to time the opportunity to place its collective views before the government and, through the government, before the conference and the committee.
It has been a worth-while occasion as we forget for a moment those things that ordinarily separate us and as we deal with a matter of national importance, see the degree of unanimity that has been apparent here during the course of the discussion. There have been many plans. Someone has asked what the total expenditure will be. That, of course, is a matter of conjecture. It will depend upon the nature and extent of the celebration to take place. It will depend as well on the extent to which the provinces co-operate and make their contributions. I would also hope there would be many private organizations which would feel the urge to make a contribution to the objective we all have in mind, namely a declaration to all the world of Canada's attainment of its centennial and also of our plans for the future.
Indeed, I should not be surprised that the time is not too far removed when the Canada of today will have additional provinces. Confederation was greatly strengthened when Newfoundland became a member of it. That was a step which it had been hoped would be achieved in 1867 or shortly thereafter but which, by reason of circumstances, was postponed for some 80 years. There are other northern areas that are developing. As Canada spreads northward and as national development carries on still further in the direction of the pole-I refer to the developing population of those areas-we may yet see one province and possibly two added to the existing 10 within the lifetime of numbers of hon. members sitting in this chamber.
As I listened to the hon. member for St. Boniface I recalled the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier in 1867, at the time the nation had its beginning. His words were these:

The time has arrived to form a great nation, and X maintain that, as far as we are concerned, confederation has become necessary to our commerce, our prosperity, and our protection ...
The government is of the opinion that confederation is necessary, but it is ready to hear the honourable members on the other side who apparently intend to oppose it. I am aware that members of this House and a number of people in Upper Canada and the maritime provinces believe that a legislative union would be more advantageous than a confederation. As far as I am concerned, I believe that a single government could not deal properly with the private and local interests of the various sections or the various provinces. No other system is practicable but a federal system. It is pretended that it will be impossible to carry out confederation on account of differences of race and of religion. Those who hold that opinion are in error. It is precisely on account of the difference in races and local interests that the federal system should be established and that it will work well. We have often read in the newspapers-and there are public men who hold likewise-that it is a great evil to have such different races, such distinctions between French Canadians and English Canadians. I desire in this connection to vindicate the rights and merits of the French race in Canada. It will suffice to recall the efforts which the French Canadians made to uphold British power on this continent, and to show their attachment for the British crown in a time of trial...
Objection is made to our project, because of the words "a new nationality". But if we unite, we will form a political nationality independent of the national origin and religion of individuals. Some have regretted that we have a distinction of races, and have expressed the hope that, in time, this diversity will disappear. The idea of a fusion of all races is utopian; it is an impossibility. Distinctions of this character will always exist; diversity is the order of the physical, moral and political world. As to the objection that we cannot form a great nation because lower Canada is French and Catholic, upper Canada English and Protestant, and the maritime provinces mixed, it is futile. Take, for example, the United Kingdom, inhabited as it is by three great races. Has the diversity of races been an obstacle to the progress and welfare of Great Britain? Have not the three races united by their combined qualities, their energy and their courage, contributed to the glory of the empire, to its laws so wise, to its success on land, on sea and in commerce? In our confederation there will be catholics and protestants, English, French, Irish, Scotch, and each by its efforts and success will add to the prosperity of the dominion, to the glory of the new confederation. We are of different races, not to quarrel, but to work together for the common welfare. We cannot by law make the differences of race disappear, but I am convinced that the Anglo Canadians and the French Canadians will appreciate the advantages of their position. Set side by side, like a great family, their contact will produce a happy spirit of emulation. The diversity of races will in fact, believe me, contribute to the common prosperity.
That was the spirit of 1867, and that is the spirit of today. Indeed, when people tell me there are no developments taking place within our country toward the formation of a national purpose, I speak as one who on this day naturally looks back on his own lifetime. Who would have thought it possible that the day would come when a person of other than entirely British or French origin would be prime minister of this country? That would

have been a utopian dream; that would have been a figment of the imagination, but that is what has been brought about within this land. The divergencies of race and religion, while maintained constitutionally, none the less do not deny anyone within this land, whatever his origin, making his contribution to the country and having the support of all the people in endeavouring to do so.
That is the kind of Canada we are building. We are maintaining the rights under the constitution which must be inviolate and unchangeable, while at the same time bringing to this nation those of every race and religion, building a Canadianism. As I look back over my lifetime I see the tremendous change that has taken place. There is a new spirit of tolerance. There are some who say "Oh, we are divided east and west on the basis of race, origin and religion". I have not found that. I have found in my lifetime, and in particular since holding the responsible office that I hold today, that every part of this country, whatever its divergencies and differences may be, is united in a Canadianism and in a desire to build a strong, virile, vibrant and vital Canada.
I return now to the question of some of the things that might be done. While there will have to be diversification in the preparations -I am thinking of the capital city of Ottawa -we must keep other factors in mind. What are some of the things that have been suggested? In mentioning these I do not of course indicate that each and all of them will be accepted, but here are some of the suggestions that have been made.
One is the acceleration of the national capital plan. The next is the preservation of our historical monuments. I have dealt with this matter on previous occasions. One of our aims and purposes should be to preserve those places that are indeed the citadels of our freedom, that too often are removed or destroyed in order to meet the exigencies of modern life. One of those places is Earnscliffe, today the home of the British high commissioner in Canada. There indeed is one of those monuments that I hope in the years ahead will become part of the Canadian tradition and the property of the dominion. As one walks about in that place and sees the history of our country, one cannot help but have that feeling. One who has given strong support to that suggestion is the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. I refer to the necessity for the preservation of these things that, after all, show the greatness of a nation.
Then there has been suggested the establishment of a museum of Canadian history. Mention has been made of the greatness of our historical background. I await the day
Canadian Centennial
when a history will be written which is acceptable to all Canadians, representative of the greatness of our past, compiled by representatives of the two basic races and the other races to the end that no portion of the majesty of our past will be lost to the present and to the future. There has been the suggestion of a concert hall to make the nation's capital the artistic centre of Canada, to be taken in conjunction with the art gallery and those other institutions of art that we have within our city. The national library and the development of Sussex drive, along the lines that have been sketched and outlined by the Minister of Public Works, is a step in this direction. These are some of the things that will give substance to our national centennial and will also provide for Canadians yet unborn worthy and helpful institutions for the future. I return to one thing I have advocated throughout the years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit me to ask him one question before he goes on to this other point. I notice the Prime Minister did not mention a national auditorium. It seems to me-and recent events in Ottawa have made this very clear-that nothing is more needed than proper surroundings in which a national assembly could be held. This has been demonstrated by their lack in the last two or three years here in Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to know that idea has just developed within the last two or three years. It is one of those things the need for which has become very apparent. It was not one of the matters that were brought to our direct attention as a result of the suggestions made, although there was a reference to a national convention headquarters. Certainly it would be possible I should think, for one of the institutions already mentioned to be used for the purposes the hon. member has in mind. I was about to mention once more the portable institution of the Canadian freedom train. The United States tried out this plan, I think some 15 years ago, and to every part of the union went a freedom train in which were kept the various charters of American freedom. The youth of the United States was thus privileged to see something of the greatness of its past and some of the foundations of American liberty. I hope that we in Canada may be able to secure from the United Kingdom some of the great charters of freedom that are ours, and that from France we may secure those declarations of the latter part of the eighteenth century-the declaration of the rights of man-and then the various other statutes of our own country which are part and parcel of our constitutional development,

National Housing Act
beginning with the Quebec Act which, as I said earlier today, provided for the first time in the history of what is today the commonwealth, for freedom of religion, in addition to the Constitutional Act, the Act of Union, the British North America Act, the Statute of Westminster and any other statutes and constitutional documents, including the bill of rights, habeas corpus and magna carta which are part of our heritage. Hon. members may realize that there is no copy of the British North America Act in an official form-that it was just a statute in the normal manner of the passage of statutes through the United Kingdom parliament. Our foundation instrument is not an attractive one in the sense of its decorative or artistic qualities but it does represent something and there is a copy available which would be of great interest to the people of our country.
I do not think there is anything further I wish to say at this time except once again to bespeak the co-operation of hon. members and of the people of Canada as a whole so that when the organization is set up it may be said of us, in the words quoted by the hon. member for Queens which appear in the room in which the fathers of confederation met in Charlottetown, as it was said of them: "They builded better than they knew".
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Diefenbaker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-127 respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that in committee the Prime Minister offered for tabling suggestions received from various sources concerning possible projects for Canada's centennial celebrations. Does the house agree to the tabling of this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954:
1.	To increase from one billion five hundred million dollars to two billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loaning by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation;
2.	To increase from five million dollars to ten million dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for housing research and community planning;

3.	To increase from fifty million dollars to one hundred million dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for loans for university housing projects;
4.	To increase from one hundred million dollars to two hundred million dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for loans for municipal sewage treatment projects.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


David James Walker: Because of the sincere and continuing interest of all hon. members in the question of housing, I propose at this time to make what might otherwise be considered as a somewhat comprehensive statement to the best of my ability so that I may anticipate some of the questions which must be in the minds of many of us after the summer recess.
Housing is a subject which has in a great measure been above party politics during the time I have been minister. All members of the house, in accordance with their own points of view, have made efforts to contribute toward the provision of better housing for our people and I know that everyone, regardless of where he sits, will be happy to know that since June, 1957, a new dwelling unit-a house or apartment-has been completed virtually every minute of every working day during the four year period.
The provision of new housing at this spectacular and unprecedented rate is, I respectfully suggest, an accomplishment in which each of us can take just pride. It is an accomplishment which we can better appreciate when we measure it in terms of human beings-hundreds of thousands of Canadian families obtaining new homes, many for the first time, or at least moving to a new and better environment in which to live and nurture their children. It is an accomplishment, too, which clearly indicates the forthright, considered and, if I may say so, successful approach by this government to a vital social and economic problem of national proportions. It is also interesting to know that there are today two million Canadians living in new homes-homes which were not built when this government took office four years ago.
Of the housing accommodation built since 1957, 42.6 per cent, or very close to one-half, was financed under the National Housing Act and, in turn, approximately one-half of the N.H.A. total was constructed with direct federal government assistance. To put it in another way, more than 595,000 new dwelling units have been built during the past four and a half years, of which some 252,000 were financed under the National Housing Act; and of the N.H.A. content, more than 132,000

units were made possible through the medium of public mortgage funds aggregating $1,264.9 million.
This, of course, is only a part of the story and I shall, if I may, deal with some of the other aspects a little later in my remarks. I shall be very happy to answer any questions asked by hon. members and to receive their suggestions as to how we can better go forward to build what we hope will be a magnificent program in housing. Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be permitted to review very briefly the situation that faced us in 1960, the positive actions taken by the government and the reflection of these actions in the results attained.
Hon. members may recall that on November 22, 1960-it seems so long ago when this session began; on that occasion I believe I had the privilege of introducing the first measure of the session-in introducing another measure to amend the National Housing Act, I said:
For the first time since the war demand for housing has become a limiting factor.
There were good reasons for the pause. The pressures of population and income growth had abated and the sustained rate of building in the post-war years had greatly improved general housing conditions. But it was a pause and I believe I was careful to stress that we considered it to be nothing more than that, a rest for revaluation, a time to take stock ourselves.
Our assessment, which events are already showing to be a valid one, was based on general acceptance of the fact that a very real need for good housing still exists, especially for the lower income groups, and will continue to exist for many years to come. But as 1960 advanced, it became increasingly apparent that we were undergoing a transition, a transition from 15 years of active, unbroken demand to an anticipated period of marked improvement throughout most of this decade when the children born in the years following the war will reach maturity and enter the housing market.
There were of course many problems accompanying the transition, problems that required a hard day to day scrutiny of our housing policies. As a result new measures geared to meet changing conditions were enacted from time to time by parliament and our administrative arrangements which are designed for a maximum of flexibility were also revised as required.
During last fall several other measures were introduced to stimulate winter construction and to encourage the highest possible level of employment in the building trades. These included a reduced rate of interest
National Housing Act
on loans to limited dividend companies providing rental accommodation for lower income families and for elderly persons; and extension of home improvement loans to rental properties including apartment houses. I need hardly say that these measures have had a tremendous influence on the house building industry in this past year.
The importance of housing to the economy was given further emphasis in December,
1960,	when a major rejuvenation of the National Housing Act was effected. Parliament passed a number of amendments which gave the act new purpose and which today are having far reaching consequences for the nation as well as for the housing industry. As a matter of fact we are very pleased to have noted that as Canada worked its way out of the recession it was the housing industry directed by the government which led the way.
Hon. members will recall, for instance, that the ratio of loan to lending value was increased to provide higher loans and lower down payments; the maximum National Housing Act loan by regulation was raised; the permissive repayment period was extended to 35 years; funds available by statute for redevelopment of the blighted areas of our cities were doubled to $50 million; the federal-provincial partnership arrangements were widened to permit the acquisition and renovation of existing lands for public housing.
In addition, of course, two completely new concepts were introduced into the National Housing Act, federal assistance to municipalities to finance the construction of sewage treatment projects and to universities to provide living accommodation for resident students.
What have been the results of these perceptive, imaginative actions? What has happened as a result of the government's determination to stand by every bona fide home owner applicant and any builder who has a purchaser?
I can tell the committee that while the value of contract awards in the business, industrial and engineering fields declined by about 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 25 per cent respectively during the first seven months of
1961,	residential contract awards jumped by some 30 per cent. These are remarkable figures to contemplate, but it is patent that new house construction and, in turn, new employment opportunities would also have suffered materially had activity not been spearheaded by an effective, up to date National Housing Act in the passing of which measure all hon. members of this committee shared.

National Housing Act
systems are being provided where they did not exist before. Furthermore, construction of sewage systems in the smaller localities has, in many instances, encouraged the installation of public water systems to replace individual wells.
Now, federal sewage loans have also enabled many major centres to extend their trunk sewage systems and either enlarge or, where none existed, establish sewage treatment plants. Sewage disposal and treatment have as one of their objectives the prevention of damage to receiving waters. The damage that may be done includes contamination or pollution of water supplies, bathing places and fishing grounds. This all-out effort by municipalities, in conjunction with the other levels of government, will do much to free our rivers, streams, lakes and coastal waters of the pollution problem. I should like, at this point, to commend the city of Ottawa for its foresight and for the promptness with which it acted to avail itself of the opportunities under the National Housing Act to go ahead immediately with its tremendous sewage disposal plant. The mayor of Ottawa deserves a great deal of credit for her leadership in this regard.
Since the legislation received royal assent on December 2, I960, we have already approved 106 loans to municipalities in every province in Canada. In addition, 14 other formal applications are being processed which will mean more than $44 million of the $100 million provided by statute for this purpose will have been allocated. There are also 203 preliminary inquiries, representing a loan potential of $70 million, on hand so that by early next year the entire $100 million should be committed.
The amendment the committee is being asked to consider would have the effect of increasing the statutory vote for funds for municipal sewage treatment project loans to $200 million from $100 million.
I now come to loans to universities to assist in the construction of accommodation for full-time students in the form of either new residences or the conversion of existing buildings into dormitories. This is the subject of another amendment to the National Housing Act now being recommended. To qualify under the N.H.A., as hon. members are aware, this type of accommodation must consist primarily of bedrooms and sanitary facilities, although dining halls and lounges will be considered in the over-all picture. Other facilities necessary to operate the project, such as self contained family housing units for the senior supervisor of resident students and a caretaker, may also be provided. Loan amounts are based on 90 per cent of the cost of the project, subject to a maximum of $7,000 for each student accommo-

dated. Loans may be for a term of up to 50 years and their interest at a rate prescribed by the governor in council, as low a rate as is possible.
The provision of dormitories for universities was a problem of national concern. The increasing number of scholarships, bursaries and grants has lowered many of the economic barriers to a university education and has contributed to an unprecedented rise in enrolment. All hon. members are interested in seeing that children, if they are properly qualified, have an opportunity for university education. Let us look at these figures: 63,500 enrolled in universities in 1952, 114,000 are enrolled at the present time and the estimate for our centenary year, 1967, is 185,000. This enrolment is increasing at a tremendous rate. The national conference of Canadian universities reported in 1958 that 60 per cent of all full-time students were domiciled 15 or more miles away from the university. Resident accommodation was limited to 25 per cent of the student body. Those of you who have attended university and have been unable to gain admittance to one of the university residences can appreciate the problems students are having at the present time.
Construction of adequate dormitories on university campuses will accomplish two purposes: First, those who travel many miles each day to obtain an education will be able to move to the university grounds, with its attendant benefits; and those living in small towns who heretofore have been denied an education because of lack of accommodation will now be able to attend university.
Response by the universities to these long term, low interest loans has been most gratifying and the program is achieving unqualified success. To date, applications for loans have been received from 30 universities and colleges and an additional 23 have made preliminary inquiries. Sixteen loans in the amount of $18 million have already been approved. Approvals and applications on hand will result in loans totalling more than $35 million. These would provide accommodation for in excess of 7,800 resident students.
Now, to avoid the possibility of running out of commitment authority-you will recall that when I became minister in the summer of 1959 we were either running out or had run out of commitment authority as the hon. member for Nipissing will recall-it is recommended that this statutory vote be increased to $100 million from $50 million.
The fourth and final proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, relates to part V of the National Housing Act. Under part V, a responsibility is imposed upon Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide leadership in the search for a house of more beauty,

a house of greater utility for Canadians at a lower cost; in other words, a better home for less money. This is what we all want, a better home for less money. Sections 32 and 33 of the National Housing Act enumerate 15 items of a general nature to which the corporation is to give its attention. It is under this part of the act, for example, that provision is made for scholarships, bursaries and urban renewal studies. As minister, I have been amazed at the great interest manifested in better housing as the result of the encouragement of these scholarships and bursaries and the urban renewal studies provided by the government.
Section 35 of the National Housing Act contains a statutory vote of $5 million for these purposes. This amount has been almost fully committed. It is now recommended that the statutory vote of $5 million should be increased to $10 million. This will restore the commitment authority to the amount originally provided by the act.
That briefly is the scope of the new housing legislation we are seeking at this time and the reasons additional commitment authority is required on these four counts. May I just summarize:	First, an increase of
$500 million in the statutory appropriation provided by section 22 of the National Housing Act to $2 billion; second, an increase of $100 million in the statutory vote under section 36H(3) to $200 million; third, an increase of $50 million in the statutory vote under section 36GC2) to $100 million; and fourth, an increase of $5 million in the statutory vote under section 35 to $10 million.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the indulgence of hon. members for a few minutes more in order to review one or two other considerations which the committee may want me to touch upon at this time.
My remarks have indicated that house building has not been impeded in 1961 by any over-all shortage of mortgage funds for National Housing Act lending. It must be remembered, however, that this year 40 per cent of all National Housing Act loans have been made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and I know the hon. member for Nipissing particularly will want to know this-with funds provided by the government and that private funds for National Housing Act lending have been quite inadequate to meet the total demand for National Housing Act loans. Hon. members of the House of Commons have heard me say over and over again how anxious we are to have more and more private funds finance this great program of national building in order to relieve the government of the necessity of doing so in as great an amount as we
National Housing Ace
are doing at the present time. But this year, in order to meet the commitments the government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has made contributions up to 40 per cent of all the National Housing Act loans made this year so that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its role as residual lender will likely make loans up to $300 million.
This does not mean that the National Housing Act interest rate cannot be reduced as long as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is engaged in the lending business. This question about the interest rate is asked very often. No one is more interested in it than am I. On the other hand, there would be little point in lowering the National Housing Act interest rate-and I ask all hon. members to note this point-if the principal effect of such a change were to replace private funds with government funds in the National Housing Act market, particularly since the government already is committed to 40 per cent of National Housing Act lending this year.
It has always been the policy of this government to maintain the lowest possible National Housing Act interest rate that would attract a substantial flow of mortgage funds for housing. Hon. members will recall that the National Housing Act provides for a ceiling N.H.A. interest rate 2J per cent higher than the interest rate on long term federal government bonds. This government has been able to encourage a substantial flow of mortgage funds from the private lenders at a rate significantly lower than the maximum provided in the National Housing Act. If a new National Housing Act interest rate were prescribed today, the formula contained in the National Housing Act would permit-and I ask the hon. member for Nipissing to note this point-a maximum rate of 7J per cent but, notwithstanding the attractiveness of alternative investments, such as corporate bonds and provincial and municipal bonds, the government has been able to hold the National Housing Act rate at 6j per cent. The government will continue its efforts to maintain the National Housing Act interest rate at the lowest possible level. This matter is subject to continuous review, and the National Housing Act rate will be reduced as soon as the relative attractiveness of this rate as compared with other investment yields will permit the action to be taken, without impeding the flow of mortgage funds for housing purposes. Even with a rate of 6J per cent we are only able to get this year from private lenders a 60 per cent participation in National Housing Act lending.
I therefore ask hon. members not to worry about my attention to the interest rate. I

National Housing Act
think about it every month and indeed every week. We have had our review. We have many reviews. I am always saying, "When can we reduce the interest rate?" However, until long term government bond-and my hon. friends know what I mean-yields are reduced, this cannot be done. As hon. members can appreciate, if the bonds go up in price, the interest rate gets correspondingly less. As soon as we reduce those bonds, just so soon will we be able to reduce the N.H.A. interest rate on loans for houses.
May I now say a word about assistance to lower income families. This is a matter close to my heart because, as all hon. members know, I am interested in this subject inasmuch as in my riding of Rosedale we have the first huge federal-provincial development located in Regent park. I am therefore vitally interested in lower income families. In the first place, the more generous N.H.A. terms afforded by statute in December last have a direct bearing on the amount of mortgage loan available, the amount of down payments required and the length of time over which the loan may be repaid. The easier terms are there, of course, for any prospective borrower who is eligible, but it must be obvious that the greatest advantage is to families of modest means and it was this group we had very much in mind when we sought from parliament last year authority to make these important statutory revisions.
I would point out also, that this year so far 36.3 per cent of National Housing Act borrowers have had annual incomes of $5,000 or less.
Second, I must point to the very heavy volume of lending under the limited dividend provisions of the act to assist in financing rental accommodation for families who come from the lower third income group in their community and also limited dividend projects built for elderly persons. Again, as I do every time I make a speech to these wonderful charitable and service clubs across Canada, I commend the taking of cognizance of the opportunity for service in their communities by building in their communities under their aegis, direction and control, limited dividend projects. They will not lose any money in the long run. The government will put up 90 per cent of the funds; they put up 10 per cent of them. The cost is amortized over a period of 40 years at a low interest rate. They can be of great benefit to the people in the lower income bracket and to the elderly people in their community by doing a service of this kind.
To September 8 of this year loans have been approved for nearly 3,000 units of this kind, a figure that compares with 510 units for the same period of 1960. Just think about that. It is almost six times as many and it is

almost double the total for all of that year. The value of limited dividend loans approved this year to date is $22.9 million, against $3 million a year ago.
Third, since this government took office in 1957 more than 3,000 units of federal-provincial housing have been approved under section 36 of the National Housing Act to a value of $34 million. This is equivalent to one half of all federal-provincial housing approved by the previous government since the measure was introduced in 1949. Again, federal-provincial housing is intended for lower income families. Indeed, in September, 1960 the average tenant had an income of $3,288 per year.
Finally, grants in an estimated amount of $13.5 million have been made by the federal government for slum clearance purposes since 1957, a little more than double the amount made available by the previous government, and there can be no doubt that this assistance ultimately is of the greatest possible help to families of lesser means.
All these beneficial provisions of the National Housing Act, together with the many helpful services afforded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the public and to prospective home owners, suggest on the part of the government, I think hon. members will agree, a very high degree of interest in and of assistance to the lower income family. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that no assistance which we can render can be great enough.
I wish to say something about the 35-year repayment period. Hon. members will recall that we extended the period, but we only do this where it is a case of necessity and where we ascertain that the person who receives such an extension is readily qualified and otherwise would not be able to obtain a loan.
I now wish to refer to the mortgage insurance fund. I expect to hear some remarks from the hon. member for Nipissing about this. It is one of his favourite subjects and I am always glad to hear from him on it.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: regret to advise the minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David James Walker: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and through you hon. members of the committee. I have almost completed my remarks. As of July 31, 1961 the assets of the mortgage insurance fund totalled $79.1

million against mortgage loans outstanding of more than $3,428 million. The assets included $793,760 in mortgages, $4,062,625 in real estate, close to $1 million in accrued interest and the balance in cash or government securities. From March, 1954, when mortgage insurance was introduced, to September 13, 1961, 835 claims were made against the fund and the value of claims paid was in excess of $7.8 million.
Thus, although our loss experience to date has not been unduly severe, he would be a very rash man indeed who would seriously counsel against maintaining, and continuing to increase, our insurance against losses of public funds that are outstanding in such large amounts.
I wish to say just a word about the secondary mortgage market. Again, I stress that we are not talking about second mortgages, but about the secondary mortgage market. As hon. members know, a second successful offering of National Housing Act insured loans was made in August. The auction resulted in a wider list of successful bidders, together with first use of the 60-day option arrangement.
As announced on August 30, total bids and requests for options in the amount of $21 million were received for the $17.5 million offering, of which not more than $15 million was to be sold. The value of accepted tenders was $9.75 million, bringing to $22.25 million aggregate sales for the June and August auctions. In addition, there were accepted requests for options in August for $3.75 million.
The average accepted tender price was 101.35, compared with 101.17 for the initial offering made in June. Bids were again received from chartered banks, life insurance and trust companies and investment dealers.
We are very much encouraged by results of the offerings for two reasons. First, their success indicates a growing interest on the part of those whom we would expect to develop a secondary market in mortgages, and we now know that a number of loans purchased in June have since been resold to Canadian pension funds, some of which had not previously invested in mortgages. On the basis of our experience to date we expect a third offering will be made during the next few months. We are criticized at times for not offering a larger amount at these auctions. After all, we want to test the market and we want to develop this secondary mortgage market in an orderly and sensible way.
Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks on this resolution. I should be very happy to hear not only advice from hon. members of the committee, but also any constructive criticism.
National Housing Act
There is no one more anxious than I, as the minister in charge of the department and responsible for reporting to parliament in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to find ways and means of developing our concept of having every Canadian properly housed.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Chairman, before dealing directly with the resolution I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that national home week began last Saturday. I know that builders and the many others engaged in the house building industry will be putting forth extra efforts during this national home week. New models and new ideas for better living will be on display, in many cases for the first time, in an effort to reach today's home buyer, who is becoming more and more selective. The prospective buyer today is doing more shopping than ever before in his search for better value for his money.
I should like to pay tribute to those many Canadians engaged in the house building industry, to the people concerned in construction and selling, and in fact to all who are connected with this industry. I believe the great majority of the people engaged in this important industry are continually searching for ways and means of improving their particular field and in so doing are making a worthwhile contribution to the never ending job of providing better housing for Canadians.
I should like first of all to thank the minister for his very comprehensive and, if I may say so-I do not want him to misunderstand me-lengthy statement. He has covered the field very thoroughly. In fact, he has covered the actions of his government for the past four years since they took office. My remarks today, on the contrary, will be rather brief as we on this side of the chamber await the bill itself and the examination of it which will be made later.
I believe the outstanding aspect of the legislation which will follow today's resolution will be found in the timing of the legislation and the tremendous sums involved, especially in the light of the statements of the Prime Minister, that the next election will be fought on the basis of free enterprise v. socialism.
This legislation-at least that portion of it that increases the amount of $1,500 million to $2,000 million for direct lending-shows the degree to which this government has become involved in financing home construction. Despite their many statements that they intend to resume a residual role in this field, this legislation, necessary though it may be at this time, points up the degree to which

National Housing Act this government has taken over from the private sector. I intend to say more on this subject a little later on.
The other outstanding feature of the proposed legislation is the fact that it ignores completely the real problem that faces the prospective home buyer today. I refer to the high cost of housing resulting from the high interest rates which have been made necessary and which are being maintained, apparently, under this government despite their protests to the contrary. We, as members of this committee, must satisfy ourselves that the amount envisaged in the first section of this proposed legislation is justified at this time. We must ask ourselves: does this government really intend to lend this money in the near future or are they simply seeking to provide election insurance? I was hoping the minister would have been more specific-that he would have taken this house and the country into his confidence to a greater extent concerning the government's intentions for the next year or more. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the minister to do that later on.
The legislation envisaged in this resolution, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, falls into four distinct categories. While we are in basic agreement with the principle of the resolution just as we were in December when somewhat similar legislation was before us, and while we do not intend to offer any obstacle to its passage, we do believe that the first item

the increase from $1.5 billion to $2 billion-is worthy of some examination. However, before dealing with the first section may I say we warmly support sections 2, 3 and 4. That more research and community planning is required there will be no argument in this house. With respect to the third and fourth items dealing with loans for university housing projects and municipal sewage treatment projects, I may say that we are in full accord, as we were last December. However, as we said then, and especially in the case of the sewage treatment section, we did not feel the government's proposals went far enough. We believe there is a great need by our hard pressed municipalities for a much larger degree of assistance such as could be provided by a municipal loan fund along the lines we have been recommending since 1958.
We hope the increase in the ceiling from $1.5 billion to $2 billion will assure that in the future the government will not make the same mistake as it did between October 1959 and April 1960-the mistake of not making needed funds available, with the consequent disastrous impact on housing staffs during the first half of 1960 and the resulting substantial loss of employment opportunities at a time when they were needed most. The low level of starts last year-108,858, the lowest


since 1953-provides the statistical basis for government claims of an increase in 1961 as compared with last year's starts. I would also point out that the low carry-over of houses under construction has resulted in completions between January and July, 1961, being 18.4 per cent less than in the same period of 1960. In these circumstances over-all activity in residential construction has shown, really, only marginal improvement. We are perhaps justified in pointing out in passing that in respect to the legislation approved only last December the fact that the government is now asking for further increases raises some doubt as to the ability of this administration to plan ahead.
The first increase-the increase from $1.5 billion to $2 billion-is interesting in view of the government's oft-professed role as the only champions of free enterprise. It is of interest to note that during the last three full years of Liberal administration-1954, 1955 and 1956-approximately 380,000 homes were started as opposed to the 415,000 during the three full years of Tory administration, 1958, 1959 and 1960. The Liberal administration of those days found it necessary to lend only $65 million, while direct loans from 1958 to 1960 amounted to $924 million. In other words, in order to build less than 10 per cent more houses this government had to increase its lending by approximately 1,400 per cent; to start 35,000 more houses in three full years they had to supply $860 million more from the public sector. This is some example of free enterprise.
I should like to say just a few words with respect to the outlook of the future. Despite the fact that in July housing starts were below those of July last year-8,682 as against 8,966-and that on a seasonally adjusted basis starts have been tending downward since March, I believe there is every indication that during the next 12 months housing starts could recover substantially from last year's low level. Demand for housing, in the sense that there are still many Canadians who are ill housed, continues to be very great. However, there must always be the fear that as general economic conditions improve, as the recovery from recession broadens and, in particular, if a mild expansion should take place during the next 12 months that the government may once again lose interest in the housing industry or, conversely, in an election year, overstimulate that industry. Wise policy and planning is required. Often in the past over-emphasis of the anti-cyclical aspect of house building or over-stimulation of the industry has resulted in feast or famine situations, with an obvious upward pressure on the cost of housing. On previous occasions we have

dealt in some detail with the increase in costs and the fact that in consequence builders are unable to carry out any long term planning. It is not my intention to review those points today.
I should like, now, to say a few words about demand. Interest rates are one of the major factors because, as hon. members know, home owners are the largest users of long term credit. High interest rates have added and are adding substantially to the resistance of prospective buyers. Yet, as has been shown during the past few years, governments do have a tremendous influence on interest rates through both fiscal and monetary policies. We all recognize the control that any federal government has over interest rates by its power to adjust National Housing Act interest rates. It is my view, expressed at every opportunity and perhaps, in the minds of some, too often, that the main deterrent to the development of a more vigorous housing industry during these past many months have been this government's stubborn insistence on maintaining high interest rates. The rate of 6| per cent represents the highest ever during the life of the National Housing Act. I should like to cite one example, that of chartered banks. They have played a very important role during most of the time since they were introduced into the housing business in the time of the previous administration. It should be recalled that as recently as 1958 the chartered banks lent over $300 million. Well, this government maintained a high interest rate of 6| per cent, keeping the banks out of lending for housing during these past two years. I can think of few investments more attractive to the bank than these gilt-edged government backed mortgages at 6 per cent, yet this government keeps the banks out of approved lending by maintaining an N.H.A. rate of 6j per cent.
Finally, I should like to make a brief comment on the secondary mortgage market, which has been recommended from this side of the house for the past three years. We believe the government should be giving some consideration to the establishment of a federal agency which would purchase N.H.A. guaranteed mortgages and use them as collateral against the issuance of certificates in small denominations which would be made available to small investors.
During the last decade innumerable innovations have been perfected by those competing for the nation's savings. One has but to recall the gimmicks incorporated in the conversion loan to show to what lengths efforts have gone to create new instruments to attract funds. Such developments have not taken place in the housing field.
National Housing Act
From the point of view of the home owner a mortgage is a very convenient credit instrument but from that of the investor it is cumbersome. Anything that can be done to improve its liquidity, to knock it down into smaller units will undoubtedly attract public funds to housing and allow the government to revert to a more residual role in the field of mortgage loans.
It is true that the government, and I might add after some years of urging from this side, did take its first timorous step in the direction of assisting in the establishment of a secondary mortgage market, but it was timorous indeed as witness these two small token offerings, one in June and the second when the house was recessed, in relation to the over-all picture. An effective secondary mortgage market of the kind we envisage could have channelled hundreds of millions of dollars into housing and could have reduced the present dependence on government funds for new lending as outlined in the resolution before us.
Naturally we wish to analyse the legislation when it is available to us in bill form. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks we are in basic agreement with the principle of the resolution. We stand ready, of course, to support any legislation that will have the effect of providing a better housing for our people especially those in the medium and low income groups.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, on March 11, 1960 the minister first had occasion in his present capacity to make his first presentation to the house. On that occasion I recall that many hon. members on the government side of the chamber rose in succession and complemented the minister on the job he had done. At that time I stated, as will be found at page 2002 of Hansard of that date that I wished to defer my compliments for a year in order to see what the minister might accomplish. Whether or not that had anything to do with it, I feel better able to compliment the minister today than I felt at that time. As I recall it the figures at that time had indicated a drop of 75 per cent from the peak achieved under the minister's predecessor in that department. While no comparison was made with the previous high achieved under the former minister I was pleased that the minister today was able to report a marked increase in the 18 months that have elapsed since he last presented figures to us.
Perhaps one reason for the improvement is this. The minister has always been known as a firm believer in the good old free enterprise system. He was always willing to depend on that system to solve problems without, to

National Housing Act
use the popular phrase, too much interference from the government. Once the minister rid himself of that idea and undertook constructive action, despite its being considered as government interference in some quarters, he was able to accomplish significant results and present a brighter picture to us today. If the minister in the next 18 months continues to show an improvement such as he has shown in the last 18 months I shall possibly be able to compliment him completely without reservations, although I usually attach slight reservations to my compliments.
The minister may have overwhelmed us today in presenting his case in that he tended to drown us in a sea of statistics. At this stage after listening to the minister it is difficult to have a clear, comprehensive picture of the situation. He took the best possible view of the situation, but he looked at it from the top, the bottom, lengthwise, corner-wise and from all points of the compass. The minister is well known as an optimist and perhaps he has given us an optimistic view of an optimistic situation. One is led to wonder, if the situation is as good as it has been painted, why we should be faced with more amendments in this field. Surely, if the situation is as good as the minister suggests we would have reached the ultimate and not require additional amendments.
Despite references to surpluses in the housing field, we are still faced with a desperate shortage of housing for the people who really need it, those in the medium and lower income groups. I know the minister must realize that slums continue to grow in our major cities. Aggressive action will be required to hold our own in this field, let alone to enable us to solve the problem.
I trust the minister has learned that beyond a shadow of doubt free enterprise cannot solve the problems of his department despite the great pronouncement made by the Prime Minister about private enterprise versus socialism. Private enterprise has had 94 years in which to come to grips with our problems and increasingly over the years its inability to cope has been demonstrated. I hope the minister will continue to apply good socialist principles and as a result will be in a position to continue to present an improving picture in the department for which he is responsible.
It is not my intention to prolong the debate. We will be able to deal with the measure in greater detail when we have the amendments before us. In the meantime I urge the minister to cast his eye among his colleagues and suggest that in their respective fields they should begin to apply some of the fine socialist principles he has been so

successful in applying. We await the legislation with interest and in the interim wish the minister well in his department.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a most encouraging and comprehensive report this afternoon from the Minister of Public Works for which we are all grateful. We heard some most unusual comments from the opposition. The hon. member for Nipissing came down squarely on both sides of the argument as is perhaps typical of the attitude of hon. members of the Liberal party in these matters. To my great astonishment the hon. member for Timmins handed across a bouquet and, lo and behold, it did not contain the brick which is customarily contained in complimentary tributes which emanate from hon. gentlemen in that corner of the chamber.
Another interesting surprise derives from the fact that the hon. member for Timmins did not resort to use of the stock phrase that invariably graces the speeches of hon. members of that group: "This is a good idea but it does not go far enough and in any event we thought of it 20 years ago." We heard that tiresome phrase from that corner of the chamber this morning when the spokesman of that group was discussing the Prime Minister's resolution concerning the setting up of a Canadian centennial organization.
As I said, the hon. member for Nipissing was on both sides of the question at the same time. He cast his suspicious eye at the timing and the tremendous amount of money involved in the proposed resolution before us. He argued on the one hand that the previous government had encouraged a high level of participation on the part of the private sector of the economy and on the other hand argued that this particular legislation is very necessary.
He criticized the government for the lack of planning and the fact that they were short of funds at one particular time in the past few years. On the other hand, he criticized the government for having the foresight and the intelligence to plan ahead against the day when those funds may not be available in the future. Again he suggested that election insurance rather than intelligent planning was clearly involved in this legislation.


John Richard Garland: Will the hon. member tell us how many times his government has run out of funds since it assumed office?


Frank Charles McGee: I would not be prepared to do that offhand. I have not the figures nor the documents to reply to that question specifically. I would simply state that if this is part of his criticism, how does he square it with the other remarks criticizing the government for asking at this time for what he

describes as a tremendous amount of money? In the first place I suggest that the hon. member cannot have it both ways. He has to be on one side of this free enterprise versus socialism argument or the other; he cannot be on both sides at the same time.
However, when he concluded his remarks I was happy to hear him say that he was clearly in favour of and would support better housing for lower income groups. Perhaps that was the most impressive part of the minister's statement, along with his description of the statistics which he gave, indicating that the lower income groups have been helped in an unprecedented way. That is something that we can all be proud of.
The figure that particularly impressed me was the figure of $13.5 million expended in the slum clearance programs. In the few years since I have been in the House of Commons and working closely with the present Minister of Public Works and his predecessor, I have seen various projects go through the planning stage and the building stage and increasing numbers of them being occupied. It was my privilege and pleasure recently in my own constituency to attend the opening of a senior citizens dwelling unit, one of the finest in the country, if not on the continent. The minister's attendance there and the fact that he again underlined the program and the increased activity in this sphere served to emphasize a most auspicious event.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is putting you on the spot, by reason of your recent appointment as deputy chairman of this committee, but I am sure your interest will continue in this field regardless of that impediment. Some mention should be made of the contribution in this field of the person whom I shall describe as the hon. member from Winnipeg South.
The increase from $5 million to $10 million for housing research and community planning is one which is of particular interest and significance. This government's participation in research and intelligent planning in this field, exemplified by the grant which the government made to the royal architectural institute of Canada to survey and report on the urban environment in Canada was one of its more significant acts. That report has been studied since its presentation last year. Within the institute a committee has been established to explore ways and means of implementing the recommendations of that report. I am happy to see that according to the minister's statement today the amount of bursaries and scholarships, both from that organization and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been increased.
National Housing Act
It is very easy to deplore the mistakes in planning made in various municipalities during the hectic post-war housing period, but I think that one should pay tribute to the fact that this government has instigated an aggressive program to make sure that the mistakes of the past do not occur again. There is the fact that in the immediate post-war years and before any really intelligent work was done what I like to describe as the cookie cutter design was established. As I say, before any intelligent work was done on that design it was duplicated a hundred thousand times across the country. Part of the survey which I mentioned a moment ago was an attempt to determine the degree of dissatisfaction that exists in this country with housing design.
There is one particular scholarship and one particular bursary, either from C.M.H.C. or R.A.I.C., that I should like to see established, with a substantial award attached to it. It would have to do with a successful design of a three-bedroom unit which could be converted reasonably cheaply to a four-bedroom house at some future time. Some consideration would have to be given to the necessity arising for that fourth bedroom. This has become something of a fetish with me.
During election time I have had occasion to visit many thousands of suburban dwellings, and in almost every case the design is such that if a fourth living area is desired on the ground floor it requires in effect turning an existing bedroom into a hallway to reach it. This is one of the fundamental challenges to the architectural profession and leads, of course, to planning the lot, the design and other factors. I think this would be high on the list and I put forward the suggestion that scholarships and bursaries be focused on trying to find a solution to that problem.
There are other obvious requirements, particularly concerning senior citizen housing which I mentioned before. In my view the ideal would be the erection of smaller units sprinkled among the suburban population rather than the large and in most cases more efficient units in institutions which have a tendency sometimes to identify the area and preclude the kind of social intercourse that is desired between the senior citizen and the younger people with younger families in those growing communities. Co-operative effort is clearly required here among Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and provincial and municipal planning boards. It is necessary that they be consulted on the necessity and requirement of this type of establishment.

National Housing Act
The increase in the aid to the universities is another important matter. I was particularly impressed with the minister's description and the emphasis which had not occurred to me in the earlier discussions of this matter, that this indirectly is going to have a profound effect on making a university education available to more young men and women of modest means.
The question of the extension of the loans for sewer projects in Canada is so patently obvious and has been for so many years that it requires almost no comment at all except to register my own reaction to the response which has been forthcoming. It was certainly beyond my expectation at the time of the original legislation. I am sure that opinion was shared by many hon. members.
I was interested also, Mr. Chairman, recently to read remarks attributed to Mr. David Mansur and Mr. Fred Gardiner chairman of metro Toronto. In both instances the statements which I saw indicated that a greater degree of success is being encountered in clearing away some of the problems of red tape and delay in approving at various stages public housing projects in that city. These problems have been created in part, I suppose, as a result of the nature of the structure of metro. The most encouraging thing I have heard in recent times, however, is the fact that these difficulties are being surmounted and we can look forward to faster development of the many needed projects which are in the planning stage in metropolitan Toronto.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to go back to the sort of criticism we heard from both the hon. member for Timmins and the hon. member for Nipissing concerning the government's actions in the public and private sector, free enterprise, socialism and so on. It seems to me that this a quibbling sort of argument. Clearly, this government has demonstrated it stands ready to face its responsibilities in the housing field. The most encouraging factor is that the government has indicated again, by its actions, it is not prepared to stand idly by and watch slums fester and spread, as well as the other unfortunate aspects of housing, private and public, that have plagued this country for many years. This government has indicated by its actions that it is willing to step in and do the job that needs to be done.


Mr.   Carier@: I should like to take a minute to make an observation on the housing program with particular reference to the low rental housing. I understand that low rental housing is made available to people within a certain range of income and that in computing the family income the family allowance

payments are included. This was brought to my attention this summer when a number of veterans exceeded the income bracket for two reasons. In one case the pension plus the earnings had put him over the ceiling and, in the other case, the ceiling had been exceeded by reason of the inclusion of the family allowance payment.
It seems to me that there is a principle here at which we would do well to take another look. It does not seem right to me that family allowance payments should be counted as income for the purposes of this act. Family allowance payments, as I understand them, are paid to the parents to insure the well being of the children; they are not meant to be used for housing or for general expenditures and should not be counted as part of the general family income. There is another side to this question because such action penalizes the large family. In other words, if there are two or three children in the family, the family can probably stay within the prescribed income bracket, but if the family consists of a large number of children then receipt of family allowance payments puts that family beyond the ceiling and they have to look for another home. Making eligibility dependent upon the number of children is a principle, I think, that deserves to be reconsidered and I would ask the minister to reconsider this policy of including family allowance payments in computing income under the National Housing Act.


Mr. Pugh:: My only reason for rising this afternoon is the question asked by the hon. member for Nipissing of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. The question was, how many times has this government run out of national housing funds. In my opinion, that is a rather laughable question, in view of the whole history of National Housing Act operations. The hon. member for Nipissing has a very good background and a very good knowledge of housing. I am rather surprised that he should ask this question. Certainly, last year this government ran out of funds but only after having put forward $300 million for housing last year. Then, the government brought forward further funds and made it $500 million.
All I am asking hon. members to do is to compare this amount with the rather puny start made by the Liberal government in 1954 under this act. They made available a total of $150 million. As I say, last year we put forward $300 million, then added $500 million and now we are putting forward another $500 million. In my opinion, the laughable part of the whole situation is the fact that although the Liberals put forward $150 million in 1954, by 1957 only $100 million of these funds had been put into housing. The

ridiculous part of this whole argument is that in 1957 the building of homes in Canada was at a standstill. What was the reason for this situation? The Liberal government brought in a true tight money policy. In other words, they upped the reserve from 8 per cent to 15 per cent and they stopped loans under the National Housing Act. This is the truth.
Look at your own constituency. In my constituency there were only one or two houses being built under the National Housing Act at that time. Ever since this party came into power we have been building more and more houses throughout the constituency. Under the present Conservative government policy, money has been made available, and that is all there is to it. Let us look at those figures again. Under the Liberals, $150 million were made available and only $100 million were allocated. Compare those figures with the figures for the present day. I believe about $2 billion-I may be wrong and it may be more-have been made available for housing.
The implication in my friend's question about running out is that this government could not look far enough ahead. We have looked ahead and we have provided funds at a time when they have been required for housing in Canada. We started the ball rolling in 1957 when we made money available, yet my friend would quibble with that. He says, why not leave it to private enterprise? Private enterprise was not willing to put up the money at the interest rate at which money was available under the National Housing Act. He said, where else could we have obtained the funds-


John Richard Garland: I wonder if I might rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman? I know the hon. member does not want to attribute to me something I did not say. I never said at any time, leave it to the private sector.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am only taking the inference which is so obvious from the words that have been spoken by my hon. friend so many times. It is not a question of leaving it to private interests. He says, "Why not let private interests do it?" However, in actual fact, as we all know, private interests were not willing to put up money at this rate. Even so, suppose they were willing to put it up at 6 per cent, 5J per cent, 5 per cent, or even 6J per cent, would not that money then have been used rather than recourse being had to C.M.H.C.? The answer to that question is that of course it would. But money from private interests was not available and now it is available.
One other remark made by my friend the hon. member for Nipissing was to the effect that we had no secondary mortgage funds available and that the government was not
National Housing Act
willing to step in. He says that this is a belated but good step. Of course it is. However, I might point out to my hon. friend that this is a Conservative government step. At the time after 1954 when things became a little bit rough in national housing, why in the world did not he and his government do what we have been doing, namely make funds available.
I do not want to prolong my speech by going into the many benefits that were provided since last year in the drawing up and the broadening of the act, making it available for so many other things such as sewerage. I wish to reiterate one thing which the hon. member for York-Scarborough mentioned, namely that under this act we are making funds available for university students. We are broadening the whole field there. Under this building program more university students will be able to attend university, as has been pointed out, at a lower rate. That is all to the good.
May I close with one small point. In Okanagan and elsewhere in my riding we have had a great many requests for loans to be made for the boarding house type of senior citizens housing. To my mind this is one form of loan which the C.M.H.C. could go into readily. I have in mind the fact that in the town of Oliver and in the municipality of Summerland two very successful projects were started and that with respect to them the federal government had not put up any funds, simply because they are of the boarding house type of senior citizens housing. I have had today from the city of Kelowna a request that the matter be taken up again- I would ask the minister, perhaps when the bill is before the house, to comment on this matter-and asking that the act be opened up so that funds will be available for this type of housing. As I said, in my own riding I have seen well built, well run and certainly satisfactory houses of the boarding house type. I suggest to the minister that this type is perhaps better in Canada in many instances than is the single dwelling type or double dwelling type for which funds are available. I ask myself why funds are not available for senior citizens housing of the boarding house type. The answer, of course, is perfectly obvious. When funds are being put up on mortgage, those who put up the funds wish to be sure that in the event payments of principal and interest are not kept up, the housing will be available for another purpose or, to put it more bluntly, will be readily saleable. In other words you do not want to take over a dud. But in the case of senior citizens housing which, to all intents and purposes, is backed by local and provincial governments-where it is supported

National Housing Act
by the municipality and the funds are put up by these other two bodies-I would suggest that the federal government could go along with this type of housing and that a great deal of benefit could flow therefrom.


Mr. Maiheson:: As the most junior member of the opposition may I join in the cordial felicitations to the Prime Minister on this happy occasion of his birthday. I sincerely wish him a long and happy life crowded with pleasure and leisure.
I will not congratulate the minister on any particular phase of his program because such congratulations would tend to be repetitive of what he himself has said so enthusiastically. The hon. member for York-Scarborough has repeated almost each word of praise. However, I would say this to the minister. Even in the short time I have been in the house, I have become cognizant of the fact that he has been' willing to redress little matters of grievance. I should therefore like to mention briefly, if I may, with respect it this legislation some matters to which I think it would he helpful for him to address himself.
Both the minister and the hon. member for York-Scarborough, as I understand it, live in Toronto. The type of riding I represent is very different from those which they represent. This summer I took some time to fly over my riding of Leeds and study it from the air. I could not fail to be impressed by the comparative congestion of the town of Brock-ville and the town of Gananoque with the relatively uncrowded villages. A village like Elgin, for example, which has an extremely fine school, could grow and develop with some sort of assistance. Lansdowne and Athens are two other places that could easily develop with adequate assistance. The town of Smiths Falls which spills into the riding of Leeds to the south must grow in that direction. These places are in my opinion, of the type that could be given some interested scrutiny by the minister.
A riding such as Leeds, which is half urban and half rural, compels certain comparisons. I have been made aware of the fact that our farm population has been declining for approximately 20 years. Not only is that the fact, but these very attractive villages which were to a certain extent the centre of culture some years ago and which were happy places in which to live, have declined in importance rather than grown. I would ask the minister to consider the extent to which this legislation could be made applicable to some of these areas on the fringe of our towns or even in the smaller areas.
My constituents have made me cognizant of the fact that federal housing assistance appears to be available to the town dweller but

not to the country dweller and of the fact that in this regard there is marked disparity. It would be improper within the confines of this debate to spill over into the responsibilities, for example, of the Minister of Agriculture under the Farm Credit Act. However, I think it would be fair to say this. So much red tape is attendant upon getting farm loans that we must perhaps look to our Minister of Public Works for as liberal, broad and generous interpretation as is possible of the provisions of this act.
By people interested in housing and in construction, particularly in the Brockville area, it has been brought to my attention that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was at first brought into being to promote home building in areas that were unserviced and therefore not acceptable to insurance companies. It was for the purpose of issuing loans to individuals who perhaps could not qualify for insurance company loans. If I am in error in understanding the origins of this act, I am sure I will be corrected. However, in 1961 in the Kingston area we have seen a sharp change with respect to this approach. Now we find rulings which provide that no lot, unless it has services or is in a C.M.H.C. approved subdivision, is acceptable for a C.M.H.C. loan. This, to the thinking of some people very much interested in construction today, would appear to place C.M.H.C. in direct competition with the insurance companies, leaving the former field in which we understand C.M.H.C. was originally particularly interested with no one to look after it.
It seems almost as though in the C.M.H.C. Kingston area a circle has been drawn around a certain point in each town and at various distances out from the limits anyone beyond the perimeter is able to build on his land-for example, with septic systems, septic tanks and tank installations-but beyond that point this is not possible. I of course understand how the minister, whose program involves so many millions of dollars, is urgently concerned about orderly urban development. I can quite appreciate that lack of discipline and lack of orderly growth in this regard could be harmful and damaging. On the other hand I suggest to the minister that there are, particularly in a riding such as mine-which is on the river and extends to the north-many areas which have not been developed at all.
There are places such as Lyndhurst, Elgin, Morton, Delta, and so on, where the persons who live in those villages are for the most part employed in the towns. Many people work in Smiths Falls, Kingston or Brockville and there is not much difference between our countryfolk and our townsfolk. These

are not farmers; they are people enjoying a sort of suburban life. Before the minister simply rejects this suggestion I ask him to consider the possibility of liberalizing to some extent the conditions and requirements of these loans. Every area of ground is different, as we know. There is the problem of sewerage. They are working toward improvement in Gananoque at the present time. I must speak appreciatively of this aspect of assistance to our urban areas.
The Minister of Finance has visited our area. On one occasion in Athens he spoke on behalf of the late Hayden Stanton regarding the requirement of municipalities for greater assistance. This extremely well attended meeting was held in 1957 and his promise of municipal assistance was well received by people who knew something about the burden of municipal financing in our county. I think our municipalities are in a somewhat worse condition today than they were when the Minister of Finance made those suggestions in respect of the assistance to be provided.
The matter of assistance with respect to sewage disposal is of vital importance to an area such as Gananoque. We have there a community of 5,000 people who at the present moment are embarking upon a sewerage plan which will probably cost them in the order of $605,000. Without assistance it will be quite impossible for them to carry out this project. It will mean an expense of $121 for every man, woman and child in that small town, which has suffered its share of unemployment in the past two years. I think federal assistance for sewerage development is vitally important.
I also put forward this other point which I hope the minister will appreciate. There are areas beyond and outside these congested areas of, say 5,000-areas with populations of 1,000 or 1,500-where it is quite possible that independent septic systems with sufficient acreage could be installed which would meet the support and approval of the minister with respect to development.
I know many people have bought lots hoping to build under N.H.A. plans. One may now find that his lot is one that is circumscribed by the mystical line that has been drawn by the representative in Kingston, and that he will be unable to receive the assistance for which he applies.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I feel it would only be fair to make one comment with respect to the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I am sure he would not ask this committee to believe, after the recent careful scrutiny that 90205-6-536
National Housing Act
was made of the Bank of Canada, and particularly the annual reports thereof for the years 1956 and 1957 that the liquid reserve ratio was raised from 8 per cent to 15 per cent by the former administration. I know this matter is irrelevant to the subject we are discussing, but I earnestly ask that the record be put right in this respect. There was no such policy on the part of the previous government, nor indeed was there at any time any enforced direction from the Bank of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to commend this government and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) for the resolution he just now introduced in the house. I was pleased to hear his explanations and, when the official critic of the opposition rose, I noticed that he was not as fiery and vigorous as in the past. He mentioned the fact that the further $500 million we wanted to put at the disposal of the Canadian people were added in view of an election. At that rate, Mr. Chairman, we have been on the eve of an election since 1957, because at that time, we set up a consolidated fund of about $250 million, which was later raised to $1,200,000,000; and today the minister asks us to increase it to $2 billion to promote housing projects in this country.
It is true that we rarely assess ourselves accurately, but, in the past, the former administration introduced some favourable legislation on the eve of an election, and you may be assured, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the case as far as we are concerned and that we shall continue this good policy to help the Canadian people and more particularly promote the building of homes.
Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in the building field, but mere common sense makes me say that legislation introduced by the Conservative government for the welfare of the Canadian people certainly did have beneficial results in my riding. That is why I now want to compare a few figures, more particularly since 1958, to those of 1954-57.
I could tell you for instance, Mr. Chairman, that from January to September of this year, 95 housing units went up at Alma, which has a population of 14,000, this means over $1,400,000 for housing, thanks to the beneficial policy of this government. This has, of course, some impact on the employment situation.
Last year, I heard some politicians claim that they would settle the unemployment

National Housing Act
problem by all sorts of means. But we, of the Conservative government, have each year taken steps to help the population and create increased employment opportunities.
Therefore, from 1957 to 1961, in the town of Alma alone, 346 dwelling units have been built through funds put at the disposal of the workers of my area. Considering the fact that the municipalities of Naudville and Isle Maligne have built more than 168 houses, I notice that for a population of about 22,000, more than 500 houses have been built with funds put at the disposal of the Canadian people.
And yet, from 1954 to 1957, merely 50 houses had been built under N.H.A. in my area.
Mr. Chairman, housing in my area has been increasing at a remarkable rate and I am proud to say that in Alma, 58 per cent of the citizens own their own homes today. I am of the opinion that this is an efficient means of fighting socialism, because when a man owns a house, he wants to protect what he has and is not likely to be taken in by all kinds of promises that he will be given this and that if he votes for such and such a party.
However, I bring to the minister's attention the fact that we need, in lake St. John, a branch of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or, if it is impossible to obtain a branch, we should at least get an inspector for the period from May to October, because, as I said a moment ago, housing construction increases each year in the municipalities of Naudville, Isle Maligne, Alma and all around lake St. John. The absence of an inspector delays construction considerably, and the contractors are not always very happy about it.
I therefore, call the minister's attention to the fact that it is necessary to name an inspector or establish a subsidiary of the corporation at lake St. John for the period from May to October, so as to give satisfaction to our contractors and the new owners.
Mr. Chairman, I heartily support this resolution which seeks to increase the maximum set apart for direct loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I also support the additional funds for housing research and community planning.
Each one of us wishes to improve his lot, and I am satisfied that with these monies, plans will be worked out for prettier and more comfortable houses in which our Canadian people will be happy to live, especially under a good government which promotes private enterprise and housing construction, thus creating employment.

As for the additional $100 million in loans for municipal sewage treatment projects, I am satisfied that the Department of Public Works will soon receive several requests from my area, and that this additional sum of a hundred million dollars will be very much appreciated.
(Text):


Mr. Speakman:: I think the fact that the minister has brought in this resolution to amend the National Housing Act so as to make more funds available is in itself an indication that a need still exists. Certainly, no member of this committee would quarrel with the fact that, within a period of less than a year since last December when this legislation was previously amended so as to provide for university housing projects, it should be necessary to double the amount of money available. This only emphasizes the great need which existed in that area. When we find that the legislation brought in last December providing for assistance to municipalities in respect to sewerage projects has now to be amended so as to double the amount available, I think that sufficiently answers the question whether or not there was a need in that direction.
I wish to compliment the Department of Public Works and its minister on the fact that they have so greatly enlarged the degree of assistance given to communities whose population is less than 5,000. In my own community this assistance has led to its virtually doubling in size. Leduc, which is outside the international airport, has built this year nearly 100 homes, which represent about 25 per cent of its previous size. My own city of Wetaskiwin has had the largest percentage increase in building of any city in Alberta- an increase of 186 per cent. This, of course, is due in part to the fact that our population has increased as a result of a new Carnation milk plant coming into the city and also because of the fact that we shall be an alternate headquarters for the military establishment in Edmonton, as the Minister of National Defence announced the other day. Both in Ponoka and Rimbey there have been substantial increases in housing accommodation, and all this has happened just in the last couple of years since the act was broadened to include the smaller centres.
One thing I would urge on the minister and his department: I suggest they should seriously consider reserving a greater portion of these funds which are now being made available for the provision of smaller homes at lower cost. This would provide the lower income groups with more opportunities of buying homes than they have at the present

Western School Lands Administration
time. These people, too, need houses but they cannot afford to buy the larger houses which now cost in the neighbourhood of $15,000. The family groups which can only afford the smaller houses need them very much, and I commend action on these lines to the minister and to the national housing authorities.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Walker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-128, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATURAL RESOURCES


David James Walker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm certain agreements entered into between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, dated 13th July, 1961, 13th July, 1961, and 14th July, 1961, respectively, respecting the administration and control of natural resources in those provinces in order to vest those provinces with full power to administer and dispose of the school lands and the school land funds referred to in the said agreements.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secre-iary to the Minister of Finance):: The purpose of the bill to be founded upon this resolution is to secure parliamentary approval of agreements which have been entered into between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These agreements were laid on the table of the house on the 15th of this month by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Halpenny) and they appear as schedules to the bill. If approved by parliament and by the legislatures of the respective provinces, these agreements will have the effect of terminating the legislative control of the parliament of Canada over the school lands and school lands funds of the three prairie provinces and placing the administration and disposal of those lands and funds within the sole competence of the respective legislatures of those provinces.
The committee may wish to have recalled some of the historical background of the school lands and school lands funds. Under the Dominion Lands Act of 1872, the parliament of Canada set aside two sections of land 90205-6-536J
in each township in Manitoba and the then Northwest Territories as an endowment for education and in the consolidated Dominion Lands Act of 1879 set forth the manner in which this endowment was to be administered by the department of the interior. All sales were to be made by public auction after due advertisement, and at an upset price based upon the fair value of other unoccupied lands in the township. The terms of sale, which have subsequently been changed from time to time, were fixed in 1879 at one fifth in cash and the remainder in nine annual instalments with interest at 6 per cent. The principal arising from the sales was to be invested in dominion securities and the interest arising therefrom as well as the annual revenue from leases, hay permits, etc., on school lands were, after deducting the cost of management of the lands, to be paid annually to the governments of the province or territory within which such lands were situated. The moneys so paid were to be used by the province or territory to support public schools in such manner as the province or territory deemed expedient. In conformity with the above requirements, the government of Canada from 1883, the date of the first sale of school lands, until 1930, when the school lands and school lands funds were transferred to the jurisdiction of the provinces in the natural resources settlement of that year, administered the school lands and school lands funds.
In the agreements which constituted the 1930 natural resources settlement, the three provinces undertook to administer the school lands and the school lands fund they acquired in the settlement, according to the provisions of sections 37 to 40 of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. This provision of the natural resources agreements meant that while the provinces had assumed the administration of their school lands and associated funds, the principles on which those lands and funds were to be administered were not to change. The provinces were required to invest the principal from the sale of school lands in a school lands fund and invest the moneys of the fund in securities of Canada.
There have over the years been various representations from one or more of the prairie provinces to have the provisions of the natural resources transfer agreements of 1930 dealing with school lands and the school lands funds amended. As the result of such representations the natural resources transfer agreement with Saskatchewan was amended
8500	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Western School Lands Administration in 1948 and in 1951 the transfer agreements with each of the three provinces was amended. The 1948 amendment allowed Saskatchewan to sell school lands to veterans under provisions of the Veterans' Land Act without conforming to the requirement that school lands must only be sold at public auction. The 1951 amendment gave the provinces more latitude as to the securities in which the school lands funds might be invested. The definition of acceptable securities was broadened to include, in addition to securities of Canada, securities of any province, or securities of a municipal corporation or school districts within the province together with securities guaranteed by Canada or a province.
There have been since that time various representations from the prairie provinces that all federal legislative control over their school lands and school lands funds should be removed and the legislatures of the provinces given sole jurisdiction as to the manner of administration or disposal of the lands and the funds. It has been argued that the revenues provided from the school lands are now small in relation to total expenditures on education so that it can scarcely be contended that the maintenance of the funds assures adequate revenues for education.
I have in my hand a brief table relating to school lands funds setting forth the size of funds, expressed in thousands of dollars, the unsold lands, expressed in millions of acres, and the revenues from school lands and school lands funds expressed in thousands of dollars. I seek the unanimous consent of the committee to have this inserted in Hansard at this point.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has the parliamentary secretary leave of the committee to have the table printed at this point in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editors note: The table above referred to is as follows:]



SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
Size of Funds (in thousands of dollars)
Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta1930-31 ...	.. $5,920	$17,809	$ 9,5651945-46 ..	.. 6,146	23,696	11,8361959-60 ...	.. 7,412	35,743	16,937Unsold Lands	(in millions of acres)	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta1930-31 ...	.. 7.6	5.9	6.61959-60 ..	.. 7.4	2.3	6.2[Mr. BeU	(Carleton) .1	
Revenues from School Lands and School Lands Funds (in thousands of dollars)
Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
1945-46   $293	$1,369	$ 740
1950-60 ____ $600 (est.) $2,214	$5,660«>
o>
Includes
Interest on investments	$ 366,468.10
Fees and rentals		$2,126,506.60
Royalties	 1,980,750.93
Sale of Crown reserve
leases	 1,181,349.17
Miscellaneous			5,412.04	$5,294,018.74
[Stage Direction]
The situation today is this. The revenues from school lands as a percentage of provincial expenditure on education declined in Manitoba from 9.5 per cent in 1945-46 to 3.5 per cent in 1957-58. In Saskatchewan, the revenues from school lands were 21.9 per cent of educational expenditures in 1945-46 and 14.2 per cent in 1958-59. In Alberta, the school lands revenues constituted 12.9 per cent of educational expenditures in 1945-46 and 8.8 per cent in 1958-59.
The provinces have also contended that the retention of federal control over the use of the school lands and school lands funds in the three prairie provinces infringes upon their autonomy and that the existence of this legislative control involves unnecessary administrative work and impairs the financial flexibility of the provinces concerned. In the belief that the arguments advanced by the provinces were reasonable and in the desire to co-operate with the prairie provinces in this matter, the Prime Minister at the dominion-provincial conference of February 1961, suggested that the governments of Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should enter into an agreement to confer on those provinces complete authority over their school lands and their school lands funds. The provinces were agreeable to such an arrangement and agreements to this effect have been entered into by the governments concerned. The house will be asked by the bill to be founded upon this resolution to approve on behalf of Canada the agreements entered into with the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The agreements as I said will become effective when they have also been approved by the legislatures of the provinces concerned.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated we are discussing an amendment to section 7 of the basic agreement between the federal government and the three prairie provinces entered into in 1930, removing any suggestion that these funds are to be regarded as trust funds and specially segregated and under special

Western School Lands Administration
rules in so far as income therefrom is concerned in the hands of the provincial governments.
I do not think the amendment to the original agreement that will likely appear in the bill will prove to be nearly as controversial or delaying in debate as was the original amendment introduced by the Mackenzie King government in 1930.
At that time the opposition of the day suggested that, notwithstanding that the agreement seemed to eliminate a long standing controversy and sense of grievance that existed in the prairie provinces because they did not appear to be on a similar basis as were the other provinces of Canada with respect to their natural resources under section 109, I believe, of the original British North America Act of 1867, and quite apart from any infringement of autonomy with respect to school lands, there were none the less other infringements of autonomy unlike the conditions that applied with respect to the natural resources of the older provinces. It was suggested that the federal government retained certain rights with respect to lands in which it had made investments for national parks, including mineral rights with respect thereto. Certain suggestions were made to the effect that there were also some restrictions on the prairie provinces with respect to water development unlike the situation in the older provinces. There was also the suggestion that by the retention of some federal rights with respect to lands that had already been designated as Indian reserves, the amendment of 1930 was unsatisfactory.
I wonder whether, as a result of the recent negotiations with these provinces which result in the present amendments to the 1930 agreement, the prairie provinces have indicated that they seek changes in the areas I have outlined and in the area of control of national parks. Of course, if control were to be released they might also seek control with respect to expenditures in relation to those territories designated as parks. Perhaps this control would fall to the provinces ipso facto. I wonder whether a request was made for control of mineral rights in the parks and whether there were negotiations with respect to lands designated as Indian reserves. In any event, we on this side have no quarrel with the proposed bill. It will leave the provinces unfettered. I take it that at the moment the control is largely in the segregation of revenues from those sources and certain stipulations as to the form of investment of those revenues. We have no quarrel with that. The requirements of the long standing Dominion Lands Act will no longer prevail. I think the parliamentary secretary indicated that the
pertinent sections of the Dominion Lands Act which will no longer prevail are sections 34 to 40. As I read the agreement, which was tabled last Friday, I take it that it involves section 37.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Sections 37 to 40.


William Moore Benidickson: Inclusive.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, one can be in this house for a number of years and yet always learn something. This afternoon I listened with interest to the historical background of those school lands of the three prairie provinces concerned, of their administration, of the sales and of the amendments to the original legislation to date given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
We support this legislation. It seems to us that these agreements are the result of negotiation. They are a sensible arrangement; they are in accord with the spirit of the times and of the wishes of the provinces concerned.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I should like to know whether this transfer of school lands would be subject to the performance by the province of Manitoba of its obligations under the Manitoba Act of 1870 or under the British North America Act of 1871. Section 6 of the latter act says:
Except as provided by the third section of this act, it shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned act of the said parliament, in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba, or of any other act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said dominion, (e) subject always to the right of a legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and members of the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.
This shows that under the British North America Act of 1871 the province of Manitoba has no right to deal with school matters in that province in connection with the rights reserved by the act except subject to what is mentioned in the section I have just read. I take it that if there is any transfer of school lands to the province of Manitoba it should be made clear and understood that they are transferred subject to the performance by the province of its obligations under the British North America Act and the Manitoba Act of 1870.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Leon Balcer (for ihe Acting Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-129, to amend certain agreements respecting the administration and control of natural resources in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
8502	HOUSE OF
Western School Lands Administration


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since there is nothing controversial in the bill, I think we on this side would be disposed to proceed with the second reading at 7.30 o'clock, if copies of the bill were made available in the meantime so we could have a look at it.


Richard Albert Bell: I would have to check with the law clerk. The bill has been printed but I am not certain as to its availability.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If copies could be made available a few minutes before 7.30 o'clock we on our part would not object to going ahead with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to say that the bill be read a second time later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.


Lionel Chevrier: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Later this day or at the next sitting of the house, depending on the state of the printing of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-129, to amend certain agreements respecting the administration and control of natural resources in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.


William Moore Benidickson: As indicated earlier today at the resolution stage, this does not appear to be a controversial bill. It amends only one section of an act that was very important in 1930, as I know because I was a resident of Manitoba in 1930. This act was introduced, then, by the Mackenzie King government. I recall that at that time one of the sections of the bill before us was objected to at great length, and the objections covered many pages of Hansard, by some of the most eminent lawyers we had at that time including the Hon. C. H. Cahan and the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I refer to the argument to the effect that parliament should not be presented with a bill after an agreement which more or less tied its hands had been signed.
However, in this case the tying of hands does not appear to me to be any more important today than it was at that time. It


was the essence of the agreement that was important then, as it is now. I quite agree with the presentation of the parliamentary secretary to the effect that the provinces should be unfettered with respect to jurisdiction over revenues that might derive from crown lands that were transferred to them, so that they would be on an equivalent basis with the older provinces of Canada which form the confederation about which we were talking this afternoon when we were thinking about our centenary year.
I do notice, however, Mr. Speaker, that the schedules to the bill, if you will permit me to refer to them now rather than later, are signed on behalf of the government in all instances I think by one who identifies himself as Walt. Dinsdale. I might ask, why not Wally? I might perhaps indicate that another eminent gentlemen who used the term "Walt", and I refer to Mr. Whitman, said at one time, "My rendezvous is certain; it is appointed." I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) might think there was some significance in that. However, I am sure that he would not agree with another quotation from one who was ultimately known as "Walt" when he said, "And nothing, not God, is greater to one than oneself."
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time; now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Grimshaw, in the province of Alberta, in a northerly direction to Great Slave lake, in the northwest territories.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which we now have before us is an important and long

awaited step in the development of the north, but more particularly in that portion of the Northwest Territories tributary to Great Slave lake.
Authority is being sought to enable the Canadian National Railways to build a branch line from Grimshaw, Alberta, to Great Slave lake, Northwest Territories, a distance of approximately 438 miles, under which the government will advance to the company the funds required for the construction of the line but not exceeding $86,250,000. This sum represents a preliminary estimate of the cost of construction of $75 million plus 15 per cent for contingencies.
As hon. members know, a survey of the route is in progress and is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Only then will it be possible to make a detailed and realistic estimate of costs. If it should develop that unforeseen construction difficulties should increase the costs beyond those presently estimated, then additional funds would have to be provided.
It is over 30 years since the settlers north of Grimshaw were promised an immediate extension of the Northern Alberta Railway to the northern boundary of Alberta. However, little serious interest was shown in the matter until 1954, when the existence of a major zinc-lead ore body at Pine Point was confirmed.
Following this development there were repeated intermittent discussions between the federal government and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company regarding the need for a railway to Great Slave lake. The royal commission on Canada's economic prospects also received representations in 1955 and 1956 on behalf of the Northwest Territories which emphasized the need for such a railway, but the commission dealt with the matter in a general and indefinite way.
The throne speech of May 1958, included the statement that in order to promote national development on the frontier in the north, parliament would be asked to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. A wide divergence of opinion immediately developed as to the route which should be followed by the proposed railway and a royal commission was appointed in June 1959, to inquire into the matter and to report to parliament. The report of the commission became available in July 1960, with the majority opinion favouring the western route from Grimshaw. In keeping with this opinion it was announced in November 1960, in the speech from the throne, that a detailed survey of the western route would be undertaken; and in December 1960, when $250,000 was appropriated to start the survey, I stated in the house that a railway would be built on
Canadian National Railways this route after the completion of the survey. In February 1961, I further stated that, because of the distance involved, the proposed line could not be self supporting from the start so that some form of governmental subvention would be necessary.
The proposed railway extension from Grimshaw will follow a route paralleling the Mackenzie highway and terminating at the port of Hay River. A spur line from the vicinity of Alexander Falls, some 25 miles south of Hay River, will serve the needs of Pine Point mine. Some might ask "Why build a railway when a highway is available", the suggestion being that the Pine Point mine might be brought into production on the basis of trucking. That possibility has been explored and we are satisfied that rail transport offers the more economical means of bringing the property into production as well as furthering the development of the north.
Construction of the railway line will bring about major new construction projects, namely a $21 million mining camp at Pine Point; a $16 million expansion of the plant of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at Trail, B.C; a $2 million community development at Pine Point; and some $5 million for new railway equipment and rehabilitation of existing railways. The total capital expenditure involved, including the $75 million estimated cost for the new line, will thus total about $120 million.
The operation of Pine Point mines will result in the annual production and shipment of some 215,000 tons of lead and zinc concentrates. As I indicated at the resolution stage, if the Pine Point operation was not undertaken, the Canadian economy would be adversely affected not only by the substantial loss in employment but by the necessity of importing foreign concentrates at a cost of about $13 million annually to maintain the output of the Trail plants. Moreover, under these circumstances, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company would not expand its plant at Trail so that additional export business from the sale of metal amounting to about $6 million per year would not be obtained.
While the Pine Point mining operations would be the most important immediate development resulting from the construction of the proposed railway, other important benefits would also be realized. I outlined some of them at the resolution stage, namely provision of service to some 8,000 people living north of Grimshaw; provision of service to existing industries such as commercial fishing on Great Slave lake and gold mining at Yellowknife; stimulation of agricultural expansion

Canadian National Railways in some 6 million acres of arable land adjacent to the railway; stimulation of forest industries based on some 13 million acres of adjacent forest lands; and stimulation of mineral exploration. In other words, the proposed railway would be somewhat different from most branch lines constructed in recent years which were designed to service one mine or a group of mines. Its purpose, in fact, is to open up a whole new region.
The Great Slave lake railway will therefore be for the general development of the north. A substantial freight movement will immediately be generated by the operation of Pine Point Mines Limited. It is estimated that this movement will result in total revenues of some $5 million annually from the shipment of concentrates southward from Pine Point and the shipment of supplies north to Pine Point. The portion of this revenue accruing to the new section of the line would be about $1,700,000 annually. In addition, the report of the royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway estimates that existing business in the area would provide a further $1,200,000 annually. Total revenues available to the new section of the line would thus approximate $2,900,000 per year.
Thus a considerable traffic will be carried over the line although not all of this can be expected to accrue immediately. For this reason we felt that some financial assistance from the mining company was required in view of the indispensability of the railway to the new mining development at Pine Point.
I am happy to state that it has been possible to reach an agreement with the companies concerned, namely Consolidated Mining and Smelting and its subsidiary, Pine Point Mines, respecting the amount of assistance to be extended by the companies and the conditions under which it is to be payable.
I should like to review the principal terms briefly. To provide sufficient flexibility in the discharging of the agreement provision has been made for varying rates of production at the mine and for varying levels of earnings of the railway, and the over-all results are averaged out over the period of the agreement.
The basic terms are:
(1)	The railway is to be completed on or before December 31, 1966.


William Moore Benidickson: Nineteen sixty six?


Léon Balcer: Yes, 1966.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, my.


Léon Balcer: Continuing the basic terms, they are:
(2)	The mine is to be in production on or before the same date.
(3)	The mining company is to pay a rate of $7.75 per ton on all ores or concentrates shipped up to 215,000 tons annually for the first 10 years of operation. Normal rates which are less than $7.75 per ton will be paid on traffic in excess of 215,000 tons in any year provided the cumulative shipments in previous years have averaged 215,000 tons or more annually.
(4)	In addition, the mining company will pay a special transportation charge, based on the value of the concentrates shipped, starting three years after the commencement of production and extending for 10 years. This will not exceed $2 million in any year and $20 million over the whole 10-year period. At the anticipated rate of production and at the average lead and zinc prices prevailing during the period 1951 to 1960 this contribution would aggregate $12,500,000 over the 10 years. This amount is to be payable to the railway, which will in turn pay it to the government. It constitutes a capital contribution of the mining company toward the building of the railway.
(5)	There are additional terms in the agreement which provide for the handling of current deficiencies or surpluses in the level of railway revenues during the 10-year period and safeguard the position of Canadian National Railways so that any reduction in the volume of mine traffic will not result in an operating deficit to be borne by the railway. The railway undertakes that no other producers of ores or concentrates on its line will receive any more favourable terms than those accorded Pine Point Mines.
The agreement also provides for the routing of the ores and concentrates traffic between Pine Point Mines and Tadanac, British Columbia, and the west coast so that each of the participating carriers will receive an equitable share of the traffic.
In summary, the advantages of constructing the proposed railway are very great:
(1)	It will implement an essential element of the government's announced program of northern development.
(2)	It will have a pronounced stimulating effect in all parts of the Mackenzie area.
(3)	It will avoid the importation of zinc concentrates and effect a substantial saving in foreign exchange.
(4)	It will bring about substantial employment, both in construction of the railway and in construction of the new mine at Pine Point, including the new community there, and expanded facilities at Trail, B.C. These projects will require about four years to complete and over that period employment for several hundred men will be provided.

In the light of all considerations the government believes the proposal is a sound one and I trust it will commend itself to all hon. members. When the bill has been given second reading I propose to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the interesting statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) in connection with the construction of this Pine Point line from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake. We on this side of the house support this bill, as I stated during the discussion at the resolution stage. We support it for many reasons. First, because-and I need not repeat what I said at that time, except in a very general way-it was the former administration that recommended the construction of this line together with a whole program for the development of the northern part of Canada to the royal commission on economic prospects in November, 1955. I dealt with some of the details of the brief which was presented to the commission on that date by Mr. R. J. Robertson, the commissioner of the Northwest Territories as he then was.
I think I also indicated at the time that we favoured the construction of this, a developmental line, because not only would it assist in moving strategic material from the area in the Great Slave lake, but it would also assist intermediate traffic between that point and Grimshaw and Edmonton.
In the course of his statement a moment ago the minister added a number of very important reasons why parliament should approve the construction of this line. However, I hope the minister will not feel that the criticism I intend to make now is criticism againt the principle of this measure. Rather it is criticism of the manner in which the government has proceeded.
We think, sir, the government has put the cart before the horse in this case and that this is an example of another Columbia river project. In other words, that long before the agreement among the four parties, namely Her Majesty, Canadian National Railways, Consolidated Mining and Smelting and Pine Point Mines was signed, executed and completed, parliament was asked to deal with this measure first by way of resolution and then by way of a bill.
On July 1 I put the following question to the Prime Minister:
Could I ask the Prime Minister whether the agreement referred to in the resolution which appeared on the order paper yesterday among the Canadian National Railways, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada and the Pine Point Mines Limited has been negotiated and signed by the parties involved in this bill?
90205-6-537
Canadian National Railways
There was no answer from the Prime Minister although he was in his seat. Then I put this additional question:
Surely the Prime Minister ought to be in a position to know whether the agreement has been negotiated, because I presume the bill was based on the agreement.
Then the Speaker intervened and I was not allowed to proceed further. On July 3 I put the following question to the minister:
May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Has the agreement between Canadian National Railways, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the Pine Point Mines Limited been completed? I refer to the agreement upon which the resolution which the minister introduced the other day was based. Are the negotiations concerning this agreement completed?
In reply to which the minister said:
No, Mr. Speaker, negotiations are not completed. Discussions have been going on for a long time. All the major points have been cleared. There is only one minor matter that has still to be agreed on but it has nothing to do with the main principle of the agreement; it is only a detail and should be dealt with very shortly.
The record continues:


Lionel Chevrier: I shall ask a supplementary question if I may. Does the minister intend to introduce the bill in the house for discussion and consideration even though the agreement is not completed?


Léon Balcer: The bill will be introduced when the government places it on the order paper.
Well, the bill was never placed on the order paper, as the minister knows. It was announced that second reading would take place and then when I asked the minister this morning whether or not an agreement had been executed and signed he said that it had not but he hoped it would be by the time the measure was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I say that this is not the proper way to proceed with a bill of this importance where the expenditure of a sum of $86 million or more may well be in contemplation-that will depend upon the survey which the minister said would be reported upon by the end of this year. It only goes to show that in matters of this importance there is confusion and disorder on the part of the members of the government.


An hon. Member:: Only in your mind.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Edmonton West interrupted me by saying it is only in my mind. Well, in fact I have put on record the point that the agreement has not been signed even until this day, though we have had a resolution passed by the committee and now the house is being asked to pass this bill-another Columbia river project where the government is so anxious to be able to announce to the world that a

Canadian National Railways great developmental project for natural resources has been executed but agreement with the province of British Columbia, the one concerned, has not been brought forward. Today the case is the same.
I want to say a word or two about the route. After four years the government has decided to follow the Grimshaw-Great Slave lake route. The minister himself told the sad story. Here is what he said: In 1958 here is what the government said in the speech from the throne: "Parliament will be asked to authorize the construction of the Pine Point railway". In 1959 a royal commission was established to select a route, to decide whether it should be the eastern route by way of Waterways or the western route through Grimshaw. In 1960 the report of the royal commission was available favouring the Grimshaw route. In 1961, the minister announced that the line would be self supporting.
The question I put to the minister is this: did not the officials of his department-I shall not accuse him, of course, because he was not the minister then-did not the officials of his department know that this was the best route to follow long before the speech from the throne of 1958 was prepared? Is there no evidence in the files of the department to indicate that the Grimshaw route was the one favoured by the authorities in the department? I think parliament is entitled to know that. If that is the case, why did the government wait four years before bringing about this legislation when it had in its flies a recommendation, so I understand- if I am wrong the minister will correct me- to the effect that the Grimshaw route was more suitable from the point of view of terrain and should be followed? None the less there has been all this delay because, we are informed, the government favoured the Waterways route and hoped and expected that the royal commission would report unanimously or at least in the majority in favour of the Waterways route. I think the house is entitled to get some clarification on that point from the minister.
Then I think we should hear something about the cost. Is there anything in the files of the department to indicate what the cost of this project was going to be when the government took office in 1957? I think we should be told. The information which has been brought to my attention is that the line would have cost between $50 million and $55 million. If this is the case, the house is entitled to an explanation of why there has been an increase to $86 million.
Then we are entitled to know whether the taxpayers of Canada will get their capital back. Is this line going to be economic in the
[Mr. Chevrier.l
light of the traffic which will move from the mines and the intermediate points? Then again, where will the traffic go after it reaches Edmonton; how will it be divided between the railways?
Of course, the minister has outlined in some detail what is contained in the agreement but does he not think we should be shown the agreement before we dispose of a matter of this importance? After all, I am sure the minister is anxious to get this legislation through. This is good legislation in principle. He should give the house all the information available so that the opposition may be in possession of the same information as he has in order to be able to pass judgment on whether the agreement is one which is beneficial to the crown interests and those of the taxpayer. The only way in which we can decide this is by perusal of the agreement. How will this payment of $20 million to which the minister referred work out? How much of the traffic represented by the payment of $20 million will go towards operating costs and the maintenance of the line? I am informed that this is a matter of some consequence in the bill. I think the only manner in which these questions can be disposed of satisfactorily is by production of the agreement now, not in a week's time, so that we may be able to discuss this matter intelligently when it is referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I do not wish to delay the house. Because of what is contained in the representations made by the Northwest Territories council to the royal commission on economic prospects in 1955 it is the position of the opposition that a railway from Grimshaw to Pine Point is essential if the base metal deposits in the Great Slave lake area are to be developed. Also, a railway constructed to serve the Pine Point area would extend transportation benefits to the whole of the Mackenzie river basin and would bring rail service to an area in that part of the country capable of agricultural development. What that agricultural development is, I am not in a position to say at this time. I know, however, that repeatedly that development has been discussed in the house every time there was a question raised concerning construction of a railway in that part of the country.
I conclude simply by saying that as on the resolution so also on this bill we favour the construction of this line. We hope it will be possible for the minister to produce the agreement so we can decide for ourselves whether the capital invested will be for the general good of Canada and for the good of the taxpayer as well. I trust that the minister will

find it possible not only to answer the objections I raised earlier but also to produce the agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as I said when speaking to the resolution we support the principle of the bill because it provides for transportation that will serve the settlers in this area as well as meet the needs of the present development there. Without doubt it will also promote further development. However, it is quite obvious that the possibility of the construction of the railroad is based almost entirely upon the Pine Point development and its stability and future.
Before proceeding with my remarks in that connection I wish to bring to the attention of the house the fact that we have here another instance of the Canadian Pacific Railway failing to assume its responsibility. It refuses to build a railroad to its own mine. That is a matter of fact. Pine Point Mines Limited is owned by Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited and the C.P.R. is the major owner of Consolidated Mining and Smelting.
Like the previous speaker I express regret at the fact that the house is being asked to deal with this legislation without a copy of a completed and signed agreement. We are dealing with it with the feeling that there are uncertainties of which we would not have knowledge at this time with respect to this agreement.
I have followed this development with a great deal of interest because I represent a constituency in which Consolidated Mining and Smelting is the largest industrial operation. I am always interested in their activities both industrial and otherwise. I have had much correspondence with mining engineers and have held conversations with engineers connected with mines in the Kootenays, and so on that account I have amassed a considerable amount of information on the subject. I shall deal with only one aspect of the proposal this evening. The construction of this line is based almost entirely on the stability and future of Pine Point Mines Limited.
I have in my hand an extract from the May 1954 Canadian Mining Journal which I wish to place on the record. I always tend to cock an eye with respect to mining prospects. I have lived in mining country all my life. I have noticed an inclination on the part of those engaged in this industry to be too optimistic with respect to future development. I shall quote a few extracts from various sources to indicate the variation in the estimates of the ore reserves connected with Pine Point Mines Limited.
90205-6-537i
Canadian National Railways
The journal to which I referred points out:
Thus the tonnage of indicated ore has been expanded from the 500,000 tons reported in 1930 to several million tons. This testing has been concentrated in the shallower eastern part of the property, and as a result about two thirds of the indicated ore can be mined by open pit methods.
I turn now to the 1960 issue of the Canadian Mines Handbook which refers to the fact that churn drilling at Pine Point Mines Limited has outlined several million tons of ore of which approximately 50 per cent is minable by open pit methods.
I deal now with a report published by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources entitled "Known Mineralized Areas and Mining Development-Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories" prepared by K. J. Christie, B.Sc., P.Eng. head, mining section, resources division, northern administration branch, in which he has the following to say:
Some of the world's largest deposits of lead and zinc have been found in this type of deposit and it would appear that Pine Point is not an exception. Although the company does not state the amount of ore reserves, the generally accepted figure is in excess of 10 million tons.
He then goes on to deal with the possibilities for the development of this ore.
The Financial Post of April 4, 1960 carried an article entitled "Push Railways to Catch Vote". That is a rather unkind implication, is it not? In this article I read:
The Pine Point deposit contains 5 million tons of 7.4 per cent zinc ore which could be mined on an open pit basis and milled on the spot for Cominco Trail, B.C., smelter.
I turn now to the report of the annual meeting of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada held on April 28, 1960 at Montreal, in which is contained the address to shareholders of the president, Mr. W. S. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Kirkpatrick had this to say:
At the annual meeting in 1940 Sir Edward Beatty, then chairman of the company, remarked that ore reserves at the Sullivan were sufficient for well over 20 years of operation at the existing rate of production. The same statement can be made today after 20 years of continuous production at rates between 2 and 3 million tons of ore per year.
He went on to say:
Therefore, while operation at the present rate of 21 million tons annually is assured for many years, it would not be sound practice to attempt to satisfy our full smelter capacity by increasing the output from the Sullivan .. . The most important result has been the Pine Point discovery at Great Slave lake where work completed in 1954 indicates reserves of the same general order as those at the Sullivan.
I come now to the address of Mr. Kirkpatrick to the annual meeting of the shareholders which was held on April 27, 1961, in which he says:

Canadian National Railways
In my address last year I touched on the subject of ore reserves, and I wish to discuss this further today.
This is an interesting point:
It has not been the practice of the company to report ore reserves in terms of tons and grade because we feel that such information is commonly misinterpreted.
While our mining plan sets out our program for the next 25 years, this does not define the extent of Sullivan ore reserves, and I can assure you that the mine is good for many decades at the present rate of output.
Anyway, here is a company indicating that it does not report its ore reserves in terms of tons and grade. I just make that point at the present time.
This is part of an article which appeared in Collier's magazine for August 9, 1952:
Just across the lake at Pine Point, Consolidated Mining and Smelting is sinking an exploratory shaft this year into what is believed to be the world's largest body of lead and zinc. Diamond drilling indicates that the ore is a 200 foot chunk, almost flat, and parallels the surface over an area 20 miles long and two miles wide.
It goes on with further details. In Maclean's magazine of March 31, 1956, we find this article in connection with this subject:
There seems to be no shortage of future Canadian economic milestones. One of the world's largest lead-zinc deposits has been outlined at Pine Point, on the south shore of Great Slave lake. The ore body is reported to be 36 miles long, three miles wide and up to 100 feet thick.
In Maclean's magazine of November 15, 1954, there is an article dealing with the same subject in which the following appears:
The ore bodies run for 36 miles in a three mile strip. The most conservative figure places the potential at 120 million tons.
I come to an address by Mr. R. H. Dean of Nesbitt, Thompson and Company Limited, in which he deals with this question as follows:
Extension of rail some 400 miles north to Great Slave lake has been recommended by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to hasten mineral development, particularly at Pine Point, said to have in excess of 600 million tons of ore containing lead and zinc, and awaiting early development by private industry.
At the convention of the mining institute of Canada, held at Edmonton in 1958, Mr. R. H. Dean is reported to have told the convention that the deposit was "said to have in excess of 600 million tons". We find that attending the conference was Mr. W. G. Jewett, vice president of Cominco, in charge of mines. According to this report he did not question Mr. Dean's estimate.
I mention these various reports and these articles in periodicals, Mr. Speaker, to indicate what a wide variation there is in the assessment of the reserves at Pine Point. I trust that when this bill goes before the committee the officials of the Department of

Mines and Technical Surveys will have some accurate information to give the committee so that it will know it has a sound basis on which to support this bill so far as the stability of the future production of Pine Point Mines is concerned.
According to the bill, this could cost the public $86,250,000. Hon. members have to justify that expenditure of public money. This matter should be very carefully considered by the committee. The officers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys should be heard. They have the information because they have issued reports on this mine. The officers of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway should be heard. It would be a wise thing for the committee to invite representatives from the Canadian institute of mining, and other witnesses who wish to attend. It is essential that the committee have all the facts available when it is discussing this question.
As the previous speaker said, the committee and the house are entitled to know whether the mine is going to be profitable. If it is not, we should be frank and tell the public that it must expect to lose a certain amount of money each year for a number of years in order to promote this development and in order to relieve the Canadian Pacific Railway of a responsibility which in the first instance is theirs. Then, they should give the final details of this agreement; otherwise, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) said, we might be endorsing a sort of second Columbia treaty which we find is not quite what we expected it to be when it was brought to our attention in the house.
Another point the committee should inquire into is how is this $20 million going to be paid by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the Pine Point Mines Limited. The committee should also be entitled to know whether the companies concerned are permitted to deduct expenditures made in this direction, or to include them as costs of operation and benefit from income tax deductions so that in the final analysis the country would never receive a very large percentage of the $20 million which may seem somewhat attractive in the bill at the present time.
There are numerous other details. This is an important matter. The committee has to give the bill very close study indeed so that when they return to their constituencies the members will be able to justify supporting this subsidy of possibly up to $86,250,000.
I have read some of these agreements with large companies in Canada and I can say

quite truthfully that in Canada some large companies have received very large concessions from the government of Canada on information given to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that was proven not to be true, and we can prove it. I think we must have all these details explained in order to understand the situation, the possibilities for expansion and development, the costs involved, the costs of maintenance and the situation the Canadian National Railways is likely to face in the years ahead.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, after being in this house for some years it is still a matter of amazement to me to observe the way in which the opposition parties persist in beating their weary, wounded, bloody heads against the stone wall of facts. I expect this of the party which sits to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker. Politically speaking they have the kind of head which is designed by nature for pushing up against stone walls. I feel sorry for members of the official opposition who really should know better. On several occasions, either in the house or in committee, I have placed before hon. members incontrovertible facts which I suggest are not capable of successful contradiction and which members of the opposition have not attempted to contradict, to explain and set out in words of one syllable, which they should be able to understand, that any delay which has been caused to the bringing about of this great national project can be attributed entirely to their actions.
I was glad to note that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) during the course of his remarks said he favoured the principle of this bill, but then he made a great number of exceptions. He referred to a four year delay. The memoranda to which he referred and which contained the brief filed by Mr. Robertson, the deputy minister of northern affairs in 1955 before the Gordon commission, did in truth say that they favoured the construction of this railway. The brief went on to make it manifestly clear that the route which was favoured was the western route. Attached to that brief was a map which outlined the route proposed to be followed, and it was similar to the one the present government now proposes.
However, it is my submission, and I have placed the facts on the record from time to time to prove this, that from that time on the feelings of the then government changed for some reason or other. I have never been able to ascertain the reason, but they decided to proceed with the construction, if at all, by the eastern route.
Canadian National Railways


William Moore Benidickson: That is just in your mind, but it might be so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am prepared to show the hon. member at any time that these are the facts and they cannot be controverted. This was the view of the then government. They may have held that view through ignorance or they might have been interested in helping their friends. There might have been many reasons, but that was their intention. This was the situation when the present government came into office. The government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), might have acted in an arbitrary and arrogant way. They might have said, we have certain records here and recommendations; we are going to build this railroad by the eastern or McMurray route. Instead of doing that, when it was brought to the attention of the members of the government that there was a logical and just reason for the construction of the western route, when it was made apparent that there were people who had a claim, in equity, to being considered, when the economics of construction and operation and of the potential traffic which might be generated were made plain, the government appointed a royal commission to consider the matter rather than have it debated in the partisan and heated atmosphere of this chamber.
Evidence was given by the various municipalities, private companies, private individuals and groups, and the hearings of that commission occupied a period of more than a year. Although the commission was set up in June, 1959, it was not until July, 1960 that a report was made. The government, as indicated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), then properly saw fit to accept the majority recommendations of that report and at the ensuing session of parliament included in the speech from the throne a statement to the effect that a location survey would be made. I believe effect was given to this intention some time in December. I recall going home to my constituency during the Christmas recess last year and finding that the people and equipment of the Canadian National Railways were then poised and ready, waiting for this house to pass the appropriation. They went to work at once and I believe the survey will be brought to a conclusion some time at the end of this year.
We have a proceeding in our profession known as estoppel. I suggest that the official opposition should be estopped from ever suggesting that any of this delay could be laid at the door of the existing government. They, and they alone must accept the responsibility.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some question has arisen as to the signing of the agreement. I think I can well leave that question to the minister,

Canadian National Railways but I can make this remark. I think it was essential that there be a survey. I believe some consideration must be given to the question of costs, to the question of grades and the operating costs of this railroad. I believe that question will not be completely answered until the survey is completed. However, I am satisfied in my own mind that enough information is now available to permit the parties to have some idea of what those figures will be.
I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is entirely incorrect when he says that this railroad is being constructed entirely for the Pine Point developers. I will agree it is a fact that the existence of this large ore body at Pine Point ensures, as I have said before, the bread and butter costs of operating the railroad for the first few years. It might well be difficult to justify the immediate construction of the road without this ore body. However, I deny absolutely that it constitutes the entire reason for construction. The minister mentioned something about 8,000 people living north of Grimshaw. I think the census concluded this year will indicate that the number is nearer 18,000 or 20,000. These people are the descendents of those who settled here many, many years ago and who were promised that, in due course, a railroad would be provided for them.
As I have said, it might be difficult to justify the costs which are envisaged by this measure if it were for the convenience of these people alone. However, when we find there is a more cogent reason, when we find that there is another reason economically for the railroad being built, surely under those circumstances it would be improper and unjust to build the railroad without regard to the promise to these people that a railroad would be constructed in due course. I propose, if I have the time, to say something to indicate what the resources are in this area in addition to Pine Point. I am not exaggerating when I say that long after Pine Point is forgotten there will be in the area which is tributary to this railway, settlements consisting of hundreds of thousands of people producing goods, commodities and services bearing no relationship at all to the mining properties at Pine Point.
Pine Point itself, Mr. Speaker, is something of an anomaly. It is found, not in the pre-Cambrian shield where so many of the mining properties in Canada have been discovered, but in a sedimentary basin many miles to the west. Extraordinarily enough, it was discovered in 1898 by prospectors who were travelling into the Yukon. Attempts were made from time to time to delineate the area of this particular ore body, but it was not until the last 10 or 15 years when

Consolidated Mining and Smelting, through its subsidiary Pine Point mines, continued studies and undertook the development and exploration work necessary that the ore body was delineated.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made some reference to a speech made by Mr. Kirkpatrick, the president of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, in dealing with this particular mine. If he had read a little further-and I give him credit that he did not read one of the truly pertinent parts of this speech-I think he would have found there significant facts which answered any questions he asked. This is what Mr. Kirkpatrick said in his speech. It may possibly not be the same speech to which the hon. member referred. The speech I have is one made by Mr. Kirkpatrick before the Alberta and northwest chamber of mines and resources at Edmonton on January 13,
1961.	Here is what Mr. Kirkpatrick said at that time:
The first claims in the Pine Point area were staked in 1898 by miners on their way to the Klondike. This find lay dormant until about 1916 when more exploration work was done. There was renewed activity around 1920, but again nothing came of it. About 1928, interest in the area was revived, and a program of drilling and shaft sinking was undertaken, but when the depression came the project was abandoned. It was not until 1948, 50 years after the original staking, that my company initiated a systematic program of exploration under a three year concession. As a result of this work, new claims were staked, and in 1951, Pine Point Mines Limited was incorporated to continue the development. By the end of 1954, and after the expenditure of some $3 million, the existence of large reserves of zinc-lead ore was established. Grade and other conditions were satisfactory for a mining operation, and tests had demonstrated that high grade concentrates could be produced.
As I indicated in my address to Cominco shareholders last April,-
That may well be the speech to which the hon. member referred.
-the Sullivan mine at Kimberley, B.C. now provides about two third of Cominco's lead and zinc, and can continue to produce at this rate for several decades to come. However-
And this is what I want to emphasize to the house.
-certain physical conditions in the mine limit the rate at which ore can be extracted, and we have been operating at the maximum economic limit for some years. Of course, in times of emergency, as during world war II, higher rates of production can be maintained for limited periods.
Certain other sources of Cominco metal are becoming depleted, particularly a large stockpile of residue material which will be exhausted in
1962.	In order that we may utilize the reserves of our various mines in the most economic manner, new sources of supply are needed both to maintain the present output of our reduction plants and to increase the output as required by expanding market opportunities.
The initial rate of operation proposed at Pine Point would result in an increase in the output of

refined metal from the Trail plants. In our opinion, it will be possible to dispose of this additional output by the time the mine can be brought into operation. For the more distant future, our longterm forecasts indicate that growing world consumption of lead and zinc will create growing opportunities for metal from Canadian mines.
Here may I interject that those who are familiar with the Paley report which is a projection of the material requirements of the North American continent made some years ago and projected to the end of 1975, and who have had the opportunity to study the reports or who have watched the progress made in the light of the Paley report, will agree with the statements which I think can be inferred from Mr. Kirkpatrick's address, namely that in the long term future lead and zinc from our country have a very considerable place in the world commodities market. Then Mr. Kirkpatrick goes on to say this:
However, it should be noted that, in view of the known resources of ore throughout the world, in relation to expected consumption, we do not anticipate a return to the peak metal prices obtained from time to time during the early 1950's .. .
To prepare for the proposed operations at Pine Point, and to extend the Trail plants to treat all resulting concentrates, will require direct investment by Pine Point Mines Limited and Cominco estimated to total in the order of $40 million.
That is very much along the lines mentioned by the minister. As the minister has intimated, by giving the analysis of the agreement, I do not think this large company is prepared to spend some $20 million for the railway and $40 million in development unless it has a fairly good assurance that it has a sufficient ore body there, that it requires the produce from the ore body at its Sullivan mine to make this a sound and economic operation, and not only for the purpose of enhancing to some extent existing operations but certainly to make sure that they are carried on in an economic way.
I personally do not hold any special brief for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company or for Pine Point Mines nor am I opposed. Large commercial concerns must be expected, I suppose, as one of the byproducts of our system but if kept within the bounds of propriety and good management, they must be accepted. But certainly this company, having expended this money, having opened up this property, having indicated its willingness to make these further expenditures, I think it is good business on the part of the government of Canada to make sure this is done by proceeding, as it has done, within the four corners of the bill.
Before I leave this matter there is one other subject I should like to discuss with regard to the Pine Point operation. I recognize the fact that at the present time it is
Canadian National Railways probably essential that the operations of the mine should be limited to mining and the shipment of concentrates to Trail. However, I hope that in the not too distant future, after proper consideration has been given to the economics of transportation as regards the shipment of concentrates as opposed to the shipment of finished product from the smelter, this company itself might well give some consideration to the establishment of a smelter at Pine Point. This could mean a city of some 15,000 to 25,000 people. At a time when unfortunately we have lagged so far behind the Soviet union in its program of northern development, I would think it most desirable, wherever possible, that through a reasonable measure of decentralization we should work towards the establishment of concentrations of population in the north. If we are going to keep this north country of ours we shall have to make sure that it does not go by default. The establishment of such a smelter might have some effect in accelerating and expanding further explorations in the Northwest Territories so that mine operations which might have otherwise been uneconomical because of the necessity for the shipment of concentrates over a great distance, might well come over the borderline and become economic if there is a custom smelter at Pine Point. I make my submission at this time so that it may in the future receive some consideration.
I mention the fact that there were other aspects of this railway in addition to the mining operation at Pine Point. It was my pleasure to be home during the brief summer recess. Owing to the fact that my constituency covers almost a third of the province of Alberta, I was not able to get around as much as I should have liked. However, I made it a point to go to Pine Point, the Mackenzie highway and into Yellowknife, with particular regard to the impact the proposal to build this railroad was having and would have in the future on northern development. I found there a spirit of optimism. We in the north like to think we have more optimism than others. We like to think that we are the country of tomorrow more than is any other part of Canada. I found that spirit more prevalent today not only because of the wonderful crop we have had but because of the fact that the people of my country have now learned that there, at long last, is a government prepared to give effect to their aspirations and their logical and legitimate request, and which has decided firmly and irrevocably to proceed with this great project. I found up and down the Mackenzie highway evidence of new businesses which had come

Canadian National Railways into existence, indications that new communities will spring up. Farmers who have existed for many years faced with the prospect of having to haul their produce hundreds of miles now see a railroad coming close to them. I spoke to one farmer who told me he went up there 35 years ago waiting for this railroad. Today the survey stakes pass within one half mile of his window. He told me that each day he walks out to examine these stakes. To him this is a dream come true, or a pledge redeemed.
This country offers a potential in agriculture far beyond what was ever conceived. I had an opportunity to speak to the management of one of the experimental farms in our area which has been conducting a most interesting innovation in connection with the provision of community pasture. Nobody yet knows what is the true potential acreage of agriculture in the area which will be tributary to this railway. The best figures I have been able to obtain coincide somewhat with those given by the minister, that there are somewhere between 6 million and 8 million acres of arable land, some 4 million to 5 million acres of what is called doubtful arable land, and some 15 million or 16 million acres of what is described as bush or woodland.
If this innovation which has been carried out by the experimental farm proves successful-and I saw evidence to indicate that it will be-then what I saw leads me to the firm conclusion that there is available in this district north of Grimshaw millions of acres of land which could provide summer pasturage for great herds of cattle. We have just passed through a very difficult period of drought in western Canada. In the light of the expanding population, in the light of the requirements of our people and of the peoples of other parts of the world, it is my firm belief that in the future the country which lies north of Grimshaw will, on the basis of the livestock population, provide an area of settlement and development for many, many thousands of farmers.
I suppose I may be accused of being naive and of making arguments which are farfetched, but when we hear talk at this time of many billions of dollars being expended in weapons of destruction I think it is a mark of courage, a mark of significance that our government is prepared at this time to pledge its belief in the future by this comparatively modest contribution. I say that because the contribution is modest in the light of the moneys which are being voted by other governments for purposes of destruction. It is a mark of courage and significance to open up this great area lying between Grimshaw and Great Slave lake so that the agricultural products, the products of the

lakes and of the forests will be available to be devoted in the interests of peace when we have learned to adapt and fashion our methods of trade so that the unaligned nations will be the recipients of this produce.
I think it is significant that today when the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) had occasion to speak about the centennial, he made several observations which to me are quite important in relating to this particular bill. The Prime Minister referred to what happened during 1867 and shortly thereafter-the march to the west. I think it would be remarkably significant and related to our centennial observations if, when we come to observe them in 1967, we find we have come to the point where because of the march to the north we have added to Canada the equivalent of another vast empire of productivity. This railroad, I submit-and I think it will be shown-will be the catalyst which will bring it about. This will probably be one of the brightest jewels in the diadem of our centennial observations.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, this is not for me a local issue. It is a national issue because it involves progress on a level comparable to those large national developments which have concerned us in more recent days. I refer to the St. Lawrence seaway, the Cape Breton causeway, the Kitimat development, projects that are to be compared with those that concern Canada today in the Saskatchewan dam, and some other developments to which people in parliament have devoted their attention on a national basis.
I am prompted to make a few remarks tonight upon second reading of this bill because I talked within the last few days to one who had a very personal interest in it. I refer to our esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) who unfortunately is not able to be with us. He is one of those who wanted to see an advance of this kind develop post haste, without too much controversy perhaps as to route.
I felt that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was always capable of making a very good speech. However, I must say I thought he spoke tonight with some embarrassment, and perhaps even humiliation, because I think the arguments of the opposition are valid when he considers the elements that contributed perhaps to his election and to the election of others in Alberta in 1957 and 1958. I say that because there has been delay and confusion in the policy of this government with respect to the development of this very important Canadian National Railways system for national development.

I do not need to refer to the campaign speeches the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker) made in 1957. It was clear then that he was not expecting any help from others in the development of the north. He said, "We will build a railway". As it turns out, after their stomping around the country, four and a half years later, as hon. members on the government side have reminded us, we are only now getting some suggestion through a legislative bill that authority is available for going forward with this railway. If we have any doubt about the forthrightness of this government, irrespective of election campaigns-


An hon. Member:: You have no idea.


William Moore Benidickson: -let us look at their sincerity in speaking to parliament. I refer to the speech from the throne of May 12, 1958. This government talked about a royal commission. They were passing the buck. This government, enthused with the vote it had received from the Canadian electorate, said:
In order to promote our national development on the frontier in the north you will be asked-
That is, we in parliament would be asked:
-to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. My ministers regard this as a major step in the establishment of productive industry on an economic basis in the Northwest Territories.
What was the economic climate at the time of the speech from the throne on May 12, 1958? It was the lowest it had been since the end of the second world war, though we have had it lower since under the Conservative regime. What has happened? After that great statement, after the endorsation which they received, we got, on December 20, another refresher, Oh, there were palliatives and aspirins given with respect to this in the meantime. On December 20, 1960, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) felt that he would emulate the great record of the late minister of trade and commerce, the Right Hon. Mr. Howe by putting forward certain proposals for economic advancement at the right time. And he said as reported on page 1023 of Hansard:
We are also proposing to commence a number of specific major projects which will lay the groundwork for the resumption and acceleration of the long-term growth of our natural resource industries.
That was on December 20. That was after the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) had said in 1960 that we were just about to give this fillip to the economy. This was after the speech from the throne of 1958, part of which I have recited; and I have no hesitation in
Canadian National Railways saying that this is a government of talkers, not of doers in the economic field. They are expert chiefly at procrastination and indecision with respect to economic matters.
In so far as this bill is concerned I should like to ask a question or two. What was there from the beginning to have prevented this government from asking the Canadian Pacific Railway which, I think, has ultimate ownership of the primary mining entity in the area, to build this line? To what extent did the government pursue that line of investigation? In the second place, I would ask: is this, as so many speakers up to now have described it, a subsidy, or is it a capital investment made on behalf of the people of Canada with the idea that it will be good for Canada and likely to pay off? My third question is: if this is a subsidy in the opinion of the government, why should the government not implement a policy of taking, in partnership with those others who contribute to the advancement of the economy, equity stock in the Pine Point railway? Everybody else who invests in such things aspires ultimately to some share of the capital stock. I should also like to know whether or not this so-called investment by the railroad-or is it the government?-includes concessions for freight rates which will ultimately be assessed against the railroad. I have experience of a natural resource development in my riding, a development of extreme importance, and I refer to Steep Rock Iron Mines. While the company did not, as I understand it, contribute directly to the capital investment involving improvements to the railway line, as a result of the traffic to be produced there was ultimately a moral obligation on the C.N.R. with respect to the rate per ton which would be charged by the government-owned railroad on the iron ore transported to the lakehead for distribution. I understand that arbitrarily the C.N.R. has increased that rate by 25 per cent. Is there anything of that kind involved here? I think the minister should give us some assurance as to the relationship between guaranteed tonnages, if any, and the capital investment which either the government or the C.N.R. are prepared to make with respect to this railway. I think it was significant for the minister to have said that in certain circumstances certain variations might occur in the future.
According to information I have received I believe there is a possible ore tonnage of 120 million tons involved in this development. I do not think the minister said anything to indicate what the economists of either the government or the C.N.R. consider to be a firm estimate. I am well aware that promoters of mining enterprises sometimes get a little excited, a little enthused as to the prospects

Canadian National Railways of the property in which they are interested, and conscientiously enlarge their estimates of what they think the nearby or ultimate production will be. I have heard estimates that the ultimate production of this resource may be as much as $2J billion. This amounts to between 17 and 20 per cent of our present national debt, so we are talking about something which is of very great importance.
But I come back to the question of timing, judgment and leadership. I say to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who is not now in his place-


An hon. Member:: He is over there.


William Moore Benidickson: I see him. I say to him
that he cannot repeat himself too often. He cannot say to his electors that this is imminent and to be done at once when we hear tonight-and I questioned the minister about it-that completion of this enterprise which has been talked about so much on political platforms cannot be expected until 1966. I said "Oh," and the minister confirmed that it would not be completed until 1966. The hon. member for Peace River was interviewed by the Edmonton Journal on December 5, 1960. Of course, he forgot about the delay which had taken place. That statement in the speech from the throne did not suggest for a moment that any royal commission would be intervening. However, he said that we could expect completion of the railway within two years. That was in December, 1960. It is now almost December of the year 1961. While it was not mentioned by the Minister of Transport, before we proceed to pass this bill we and the people in the area concerned must have a more detailed estimate of progress not only in connection with the survey which parliament has already approved but with respect to final completion. The government has information from the company on its files as to its intentions with respect to completion of the mill and its readiness to have available traffic for the railway and the government which apparently, under this bill, is guaranteeing certain losses. That information must be given in committee before the bill is finally passed. This is of great consequence to the people who reside in this area.
The Minister of Transport, as a member of the government, is very respectful of northern mining. In my dealings with the mining fraternity I have found them to be generally very fair, extremely knowledgeable and-if you will permit me Mr. Speaker, -very conservative in their approval of activity in this parliament not only under the former but under the present administration.

With respect to the Pine Point railway may I quote from an editorial which appeared in The Northern Miner of April 27, 1961:
Consistency of word and deed is also imperative. We have a government which encourages the people at large to think that there is something shameful about foreigners, like Americans, developing our natural resources, and which has given mild verbal urgings to Canadians to do the developing themselves. Yet when an opportunity to have a big mining project like Pine Point developed 100 per cent with Canadian talent, money, and ownership, where is the government? Is it mired to the knees in the muskeg of indecision?
Another point: the country could very well do with the extra employment that development of this new mine would provide. Why, then, wait any longer?
This article appeared in April, 1961 after this same publication had pointed out that in 1958, in the speech from the throne the government indicated there was to be no royal commission, no equivocation, that it was going forward just as had been suggested in the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958. Even this evening we are denied answers to the question "How soon will this railway be complete?" except that we might take the answer of the minister, 1966, after another election.
But what about the survey? Parliament has previously taken an attitude with respect to survey expenditures. How far toward completion is the survey? The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that the idea of delay and confusion existed solely in the mind of the hon. member for Laurier who made an excellent speech. I am sure the people of northern Alberta will not welcome that kind of criticism from the hon. member for Edmonton West in reply to a speech made by the hon. member for Laurier who indicated the desire of this party to get on with this project which means so much to Canada as a whole and is equivalent to some of the projects that were undertaken on timely occasions by the previous government, to which projects I have already referred and which were undertaken at a time when unemployment required that kind of stimulus.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If It is possible for a humble backbencher to be misquoted, may I say that the quotation attributed to me to the effect that I said this railway would be built and completed within two years from December of 1960, is not a correct statement and is one I did not make.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's correction but I think both you and he will know that I have in my hand a photostatic copy of the Edmonton Journal of that date.


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the railroad leading to the north country. I did not blow in at the tail end of the storm as did my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who just addressed us. I know something about the north. I have lived there for over 40 years.


William Moore Benidickson: We refer to Kenora as northern Ontario.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Just recently I flew over that part of the country where the proposed railway will be built. This is a part of a country that contains the world's largest deposits of that kind of mineral. These vast reserves await development. The proposed railway will serve the 8,000 people who now live in the area. If the refinery is constructed there will be a city there with a population of between 25,000 to 30,000. We need that type of development in the north.
The part of the country to which I am referring is not like this part of the country. That area is filled with opportunities for people to make fortunes. The same opportunity awaits the railway. It will be of real value. I am surprised that people like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River should knock and buck a project of this nature which could lead to prosperity that would benefit the whole economy.
The north country is the richest land there is in Canada; there can be no argument about that. The area I referred to is adjacent to the Peace River country. In the Peace River country there exists the richest farmland in Canada. In the southern part there are
8,000	acres of arable land awaiting development by farmers who are not afraid to work.
I believe that the Pine Point railway is the key to the development of this area. The people there are waiting for it and I believe they will see it come into existence. It has taken this government, a government with a vision, to implement this project. The former government was too scared, and it just dreamed. This is a government that gets out and does what is necessary.
I do not intend to speak at further length because I know other hon. members wish to participate. My friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) really knows this part of the country and has laid it on the line. He has told the true story about this project and because I know of its value I am all for Pine Point railway. Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I could echo the words of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Indeed, I believe that every hon. member of the house would echo those
Canadian National Railways words. We all are "all for the Pine Point railway", but some of us believe we also ought to consider the Canadian taxpayer.
It is a rather extraordinary thing for the minister to be asking for the approval, even in principle, of a bill when he admits that the survey on which the estimate will be made as to the cost of the railway has not yet been completed, and when it is perfectly obvious that after four years, notwithstanding the hyperbole of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson), this government has no information on whether to jump into the water or keep its clothes on with respect to this railway, although it promised it four years ago. It does seem to me extraordinary that even after those four years of promises there is so little concrete evidence in what is before us. We do not know; the minister does not know what this railway is going to cost or even what the estimate will be if it is built.
The minister says that an agreement has been made with Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and its subsidiary and the Canadian National Railways to build this railway. He used a word which is not normally in my vocabulary. He said that it was finalized. Well, I suppose that means they are all agreed on it but we in parliament are not allowed to know what is in it. I cannot believe that there is any security of the state involved. There may be a good deal of security of the treasury involved in it but I do not think there is any security of the state involved in that sort of thing. Surely if this agreement has been made, if it is a firm agreement, we ought to know about it before we are asked to vote on this bill. If it is not a firm agreement we should not be approving this bill even in principle, because we are approving something that may be something quite different from what we think we are approving, as the government discovered when they rushed down to Washington and signed that treaty in the dying days of the Eisenhower administration when they thought they had the premier of British Columbia on the hook. We now find that someone else is on the hook. Nothing at all is going to happen for a very long time to come because of the bungling and mismanagement. There either has been bungling and mismanagement in this matter or there has not. We do not know because the government will not give us the facts. One cannot help suspecting, sir-and when you do not know all you can do is to suspect-that they do not know themselves, because surely if they did know they would be only too glad to tell the world that they had made a good agreement.
I am from Missouri, sir-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Moved again, eh.

Canadian National Railways


Mr. Harkness:: I thought it was Manitoba.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -metaphorically speaking. I am also from Manitoba, where from the time the Tory government was defeated in 1915 until very recently we had the most prudent governments financially in that province, and perhaps that rubbed off a little bit on the rest of us. We who lived in Manitoba wanted to know what things were going to cost and what return we were going to get before we laid out our money.


William Moore Benidickson: That even included Mr. Bracken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One cannot help having the sneaking suspicion which was voiced by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River that if this railway was really going to be as profitable as the hon. member from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) hope-and we all hope it will be-the C.P.R. which owns the biggest chunk of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and therefore the biggest chunk of this new mine and is still in the railway business, would be in there with both feet. It would be in there trying to build the railway itself.
The minister ought to tell us why the C.P.R. is not doing it and why instead the treasury of Canada is going to be doing it, because the C.P.R. is supposed to be a great exponent of private enterprise, adopting the words which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) uses in a rhetorical sense but in no other sense that I have ever been able to discover. The Canadian Pacific is supposed to be a great exponent of private industry and a great opponent of public transportation concerns and very anxious to compete with them and push them aside, as we have seen recently, and the government has co-operated in that kind of effort in recent times.
Here is a great chance for the Canadian Pacific to go in and engage in private enterprise, develop its own resources and get the gravy of carrying this ore. Oh, I suppose it would not be a gravy train but at any rate if this-


William Moore Benidickson: A lead train.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One fears that it is a lead train. We ought to know as nearly as one can predict what 20 years from now the balance sheet of this operation is going to look like. I think this is of great importance, sir, because the estimate of the cost that the minister has put in the bill amounts to $86 million and some odd. Well, I remember the greatest explosion that we have had in this parliament since I have observed it over the advancement of $80 million, all of which is going to come back to the treasury-this is as
[Mr. MacEwan.l
certain as anything in this world-with a very good rate of interest. This was the loan to the pipe line, to build a great enterprise which was going to cost four or five times that much and spread across the whole country. Here we are talking about $86 million of which up to $20 million may be recovered from this mine. Reading the language of the bill I say "May be".


William Moore Benidickson: Based on freight rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Based on freight rates. We do not know at all what we are talking about in this measure.


Michael Starr: Sit down, then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, not so very long ago at a meeting of a committee which has reported, and therefore I think we can quote properly from its proceedings we were told we would know something about this. I refer to the committee on railways, air lines and shipping and the minutes of proceedings and evidence of June 20, I think it was. At any rate I can give the page number. I asked the president of the Canadian National Railways or the gentleman who from day to day continues as the president of the Canadian National Railways and who is treated in that disgraceful way by this government, this question:
Could I ask Mr. Gordon a question at this point? Is there any provision here for the Pine Point railway?
I was referring to the planned expenditures for new works for this current year. Mr. Gordon replied:
This is an item on contingent for branch lines. I will complete this later, Mr. Pickersgill, and I will pick it up in a moment.
This appears on page 380. Mr. Gordon went on to discuss something else and then he came back to this subject at page 381. Perhaps I should say I came back to it and said:
I would like to ask Mr. Gordon with respect to the Pine Point railway. I recognize that has not yet been approved by parliament. Since there has been a $10 million amount put in the capital budget, I would assume that the C.N.R. has some policy about it. There is one point which troubles me very much. I understand that this line will connect with the line which the C.N.R. operates into Edmonton.


Mr. Gordon:: No, it will connect with the Northern Alberta railway. I have just been thinking on what I said about that $10 million. I may have left a mistaken impression. I do not mean by that that the C.N.R. necessarily is going to put up any money for the building of that line.
A little later on I went on to say:
The point I am on is a quite different one. I understand the principal reason for the building of that line is to carry ore from the mine to the smelter at Trail. When that ore reaches Edmonton there will be a haul between Edmonton and Calgary-and assuming it goes that way-and I am

being hypothetical about this, and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected and will not waste the time of the committee-
You will see, sir, that I am always very concerned not to waste time. I continue:
-between Edmonton and Calgary there are two alternative ways for shipping it, one by the old Grand Trunk Pacific line, and the other is by the C.P.R. I think it would be very helpful to us, in considering the legislation in the house, if we knew whether there was any understanding between the railways about how that ore will be shipped.


The Chairman:: That resolution is before the house, is it not-the resolution is on the order paper now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I just wanted to confer-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the best speech you made during that committee meeting.


William Moore Benidickson: You were not there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue quoting:


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I just wanted to confer with the minister, because this is a matter which is pending and I did not want to make the mistake of anticipating what may be said with regard to legislation. On the point you have in mind, it will be covered, as I understand it,-
I would ask the minister to recall these words.
-in an agreement which is now being negotiated between the company and the railway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I see.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We hope that by the time the legislation reaches you, you will also be able to see that agreement.
Now, this is what Mr. Gordon said alter conferring with the minister. Hon. members who were there will recall that he turned to the minister and they had a whispered conversation before he gave his answer. Then the report continues:


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just wanted to be sure the C.N.R. had got a fair deal in this matter.
I think everybody in the house wants to be sure of that. We also want to be sure that the taxpayers of Canada, who not only pay Canadian National deficits but who will be expected to pay the interest on the money that is being used in the building of this line, know where they are going and whether or not there is going to be any real return commensurate with the cost.
Now, everybody agrees that there are times and circumstances when these capital expenditures by the state are necessary for development purposes and that the direct return from the line is not the only way in which there is a return to the taxpayers and to the nation. We all know that. We also know that in the history of this country over the last 125 or 130 years, the taxpayers' money has been put into railways which have returned nothing either to the investors, the taxpayers, or to the nation, comparable with what was put into them. I do think,
Canadian National Railways sir, that in the dying days of this session there is no need to rush this bill through, especially when we do not know what the facts are. If the minister has the answers to all these questions that have been put by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and which I have endeavoured to sum up, and if the answers are clear, precise and certain, not based on a lot of hypotheses, a lot of ifs and buts and not based on the kind of agreement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) thought they had with the premier of British Columbia before they signed that Columbia treaty, then we would like to have those answers. We would like to save the government from falling on its face again in this matter as it did in that. After all, it is the government of Canada and, although they might be our political opponents, we do not like to see them making themselves ridiculous as they have been recently over the Columbia and as it appears they may very easily do over this measure.
It does not seem to me, sir, that we would be delaying much. Heaven knows, there has been delay enough on this matter already as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River pointed out. No one wants to delay it any further, but we would like to get precise answers. If we cannot get precise answers and if we put through legislation to make a temporary impression upon the public, they are going to be disillusioned again. On the other hand, if we had a deal whereby Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is going to get a railway company built to carry this ore on which they will make a profit while the taxpayers of Canada incur a steady and continuing loss, we should know about that before we vote on this proposal. It does seem to me there is something to be said for someone raising a voice in this house on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Léon Balcer: I must say at the start of my remarks that I am certainly surprised to hear this kind of attack from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).


William Moore Benidickson: About delay?


Léon Balcer: No, about this agreement. During the time that these gentlemen were in

Canadian National Railways power, not once did they produce any agreements between the Canadian National and any mining company or other company for which a branch line was being built. Practically for the first time in the history of this parliament, we are going to give to the committee the full agreement entered into by the Pine Point Mines, the Canadian National and the government of Canada. The committee has got to have everything in detail, the contract, the tables of the various freight rates that are going to be charged, the various undertakings by Pine Point Mines and the Canadian National.


William Moore Benidickson: Will we adjourn so we can read that?


Léon Balcer: You will have that in the committee because this bill is going to be sent to committee. As I said this afternoon, the agreement will be in the hands of the committee; the experts will be there and all the members of that committee will be able to ask questions and to study the freight rates in edtail. This will be the first time this has detail. This will be the first time this has ever happened in the history of this parliament.
I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is trying to bring a cloud of secrecy into this debate, is trying to raise certain doubts about this bill. I believe the bill is absolutely clear. We have stated very clearly, through our officials, what this great undertaking is going to cost. My hon. friend says we should not bring the bill forward at this time, but that we should wait until the next session. He suggests we should wait until the survey is terminated and we know exactly how much it is going to cost. This is what he said a few minutes ago; but ten minutes before that his deskmate was blaming us because we had taken so long. They should get together in their criticisms. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with this great undertaking the government has been acting with logic.
First of all, we made a decision that we should go ahead with the building of this railroad and that decision was announced in the speech from the throne. As I explained earlier we were being subjected to tremendous pressure from people who wanted this railroad to follow a certain route. There were extremely strong arguments being made on behalf of both groups. We even had the Alberta government receiving a report from a commission stating that the eastern route would be better, and so forth. The government did not want to impose anything on the people. We wanted to have a fair inquiry, and for that reason we appointed a royal commission. We had to wait for the royal commission to study the problem and recommend

a route. As soon as this was done, the government acted and that is the reason this survey was started. The survey is going extremely well. We are going to have a final report in December. However, the government was not going to sit and wait for these engineers to complete the survey, and for that reason we introduced the bill, which follows the usual practice of setting an estimate for the cost of building this line. Of course this bill is different from the ordinary branch line bill. Of course it is for a different railway, in a different part of the country and for a different purpose. This is the kind of bill which makes provision for the development of the country. As my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated, it might not be an economical undertaking or produce results in the first year or cover all the expenses in the first few years of operation. On the other hand I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will be accompanied by an agreement which will be based on the various stipulations contained in clause 6 which states the principles on which the agreement will be entered into and also the various conditions that will be required of the various parties to this agreement. These conditions are quite clear. The principles are set out. I think it will be a good deal for Canada and also a good deal for the Canadian National Railways.
A few moments ago my hon. friend asked where the traffic is going to be routed. Clause 6 paragraph (c) provides as follows:
(c) for the routing, in a manner satisfactory to the company, of the railway traffic originating at or from the properties of Pine Point Mines Limited at Pine Point and moving by railway to any place or point beyond the southern terminal of the railway line, for the purpose of ensuring to the company-
That is the Canadian National Railway Company.
-an equitable share of such traffic.
I can say now-and my hon. friend will see it in the agreement-that the traffic between Edmonton and Calgary will be carried exclusively on the C.N.R. lines. I therefore think it is absolutely unfair to say that this bill is giving certain advantages to the C.P.R. and that the government is giving some unfair advantage to the C.P.R. On the contrary, I can assure the house that the agreement that has been entered into is the result of extremely tough discussions between Cominco, Pine Point, the C.N.R. and ourselves. The committee will also find that the C.N.R. is not going to have one cent of operating deficit out of the whole operation of this undertaking.
I think it is quite an achievement. I think it is fair to the crown company. I also think that the government, by forcing the C.N.R.

to take over the operation of this line, are not at the same time imposing an unfair burden on our crown company. On the contrary, I think it is a tremendously good situation for it. It will be a profitable undertaking for the crown company. It is going to be a profitable undertaking for the long range welfare of that whole area and for the whole of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: During the course of my remarks I had something to say about the cost and the minister did not deal with that matter. Can the minister indicate why there is a discrepancy between the original amount of $50 million to $55 million which, as I understand it, was estimated by the Canadian National Railways, and the amount of $86 million?


Léon Balcer: All I can say at the present time is simply this. My officials, after taking into account all the various factors they had at their disposal, came to this conclusion. As I said earlier, the survey is not finished or anything like that. This was the figure that was given to me by my officials after consideration of the various factors at the present time. It is, or course, always rather difficult to make a proper estimate so far in advance on such a major undertaking. However, the estimate at the present time is $75 million with 15 per cent added for contingencies. As to the reason the figure has gone from $60 million to $75 million, I may say that it is simply that my officials have made a more complete study of the matter and have come to the conclusion that we should include in this bill $75 million plus 15 per cent for contingencies in order to make sure that we give parliament a fair estimate of this cost.


Lionel Chevrier: Am I accurate in saying that the amount estimated by the Canadian National Railways in 1957 was $50 million to $55 million?


Léon Balcer: I was under the impression it was $50 million but I will not disagree with the hon. member. As I remember it, the latest figure was $60 million.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister one question. Will Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and Pine Point Mines Limited be allowed to consider the payment at up to $20 million to the government of Canada in connection with the building of this road when calculating income tax? In other words, will they be allowed to deduct that amount as a cost of operation?


Léon Balcer: I shall have to check on that matter. I have an opinion of my own but I
Civil Service Act
should not like to give an incorrect answer. If my hon. friend does not mind, I will get the information.


Gordon Campbell Chown: When the committee rose on July 13 we were considering clause 7 of the bill and the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa East.
On clause 7-Consultation with staff organizations.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the government has amended Part I of Bill C-71 as proposed so that it may seem a little more attractive to civil servants.
Subsection (1) of section 7 reads as follows:
The Minister of Finance or such members of the public service as he may designate shall from time to time consult with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees-
It is further stated in subsection 2:
The commission and such members of the public service as the Minister of Finance may designate shall from time to time consult with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees-
Then, in subsection 3:
The commission and such members of the public with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees-
I quite agree that it is an improvement over the first bill. On the other hand, that is exactly the opposite of what the civil servants' associations have been asking for. They asked for the right to bargain at any time and not only when the minister would deem it proper to call them in. All the associations agreed on that point; they asked for the right to bargain directly. They insisted on the right for civil servants to open negotiations with any representative of the government whom the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) may care to designate. We raised that point in the committee but that did not seem to please the government's representatives.
It was claimed that this would perhaps deprive parliament of the right to settle problems. In my opinion, the prerogatives of parliament are not involved because even if civil servants were given bargaining rights or arbitration, the funds to pay their salaries would still have to be voted by parliament and if the latter did not approve them, there would be no question of salary increases.
It was also submitted that such a thing could lead to claims for the right to strike on the part of civil servants. Well, we know that, before the committee, representatives from the different civil servant associations clearly indicated that they were opposed to the right to strike, except the Canadian postal employees association which requested that right.

As a matter of fact, I wonder why it is said that there is danger that some day the civil servants will decide to strike, because neither in the existing legislation nor in the former act, chapter 48 in the revised statutes, nor in the present amendments, do I see anything forbidding them to strike now. Well, when something is not forbidden, it follows that it is allowed, but the civil servants have no intention of taking advantage of this situation to go on strike.
Moreover, we know that in Saskatchewan, government employees have the right to bargain, to negotiate directly with the government, and it has been like that for some time now. However, the employees have not made use of the right to put the government in a difficult situation. They simply benefit-ted by that and the government did not complain. Besides, in most provinces there are some means of forcing the government to negotiate with civil servants and even in the province of Quebec, where there is no special formula, section 5 of the civil service act provides that, when the commission is made up of three members, one of them shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the general council of employees. In this way, the employees have at least a representative on the commission to protect their interests.
Furthermore, in Ontario, under the law, a four member advisory committee has been set up; three of its members are appointed by the lieutenant governor in council according to set rules, and the fourth upon a recommendation made under the provisions of the civil service act. The rules enacted under the civil service act, also provide for the creation of a public service grievance board composed of at least three members appointed by the lieutenant governor in council.
Civil servants' associations may represent an employee who wishes to submit his grievances. Again, this is bound to improve the situation, and much better than what is now provided in the bill, because it now says: "the minister must consult, from time to time"; the minister must consult but when are employees entitled to demand consultations from the department? Never, since the minister alone can decide when civil servants may come and discuss contentious issues. But civil servants may never, according to the bill, even as amended, require that the government undertake discussions with employees of the commission and civil service associations.
In section 45 of Manitoba's civil service act, the maintenance of a joint council is provided. The provincial secretary and two

members of the cabinet represent the government; therefore, three ministers represent the government. The association appoints three members who are supposed to represent the civil servants. And, further on, it is noted that a member of the civil service commission and the executive secretary of the association may attend a meeting of the joint council and of the government in an advisory capacity. It is a great improvement on what we have, and on what the Ottawa government is now proposing.
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Surely.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is not the hon. member dealing entirely with grievance procedures? I believe that what he has read concerning the Ontario and Manitoba procedures deals entirely with grievances and not with processes of consultation and negotiation with which we are concerned at this time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think it can be said that ultimately everything relates to grievances including salary discussions. There are always grievances between the government and the employees. This has to be taken into consideration. The same body must look after all grievances relating to increases in salary and working conditions. It cannot do otherwise.


Thomas Miller Bell: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe my hon. friend is dealing with grievance procedures and not with processes of consultation and negotiation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does my hon. friend believe that the desire for an increase in salary is not a grievance? Of course it is a grievance. If the employees feel they need more money they wish to submit their views to the government. They have a grievance against the government because they feel they are not receiving an adequate salary. Everything boils down to a grievance. I invite the hon. member to look at the wording.
(Translation):
In Saskatchewan, negotiations are carried out with a staff association certified as a negotiating agent, which has union status under the union act. Those negotiations are conducted on questions of salaries and other working conditions attached to positions in the classified service. Salaries for those positions excluded from the collective agreement, are established by a committee on salaries which reviews representations made by the
Civil Service Act
department involved. There is a right to appeal after rates of salary have been established.
This is similar with what we are asking for. It is similar to what staff associations in our civil service are asking for. It involves the right to initiate negotiations with the government even though the minister is not willing to go into negotiations. And when negotiations are carried out between representatives of the department, selected by the department, and representatives of the variousxStaff associations in the civil service, if they do not come to an agreement, we want some kind of an arbitration board to examine their grievances. And I take as a grievance at the present time, the fact of ascertaining whether the employees are right or wrong in demanding a reasonable salary or normal working conditions.
In Alberta, since 1923, the public service act provides for a joint council composed of three members appointed by the association and three members selected by the provincial government. Such council is the negotiating body on salaries, working conditions and grievances. The provincial secretary treasurer acts as chairman of the joint council. He is the counterpart of the Minister of Finance.
Generally speaking, agreement is achieved first at the level of the joint council whose recommendations are almost always accepted.
In British Columbia, under section 72 of the civil service act of that province, the government has to recognize a civil service association which represents more than half of all the public employees whenever questions relating to the welfare of the civil employees and their working conditions, including their salaries, are raised.
That provision does not exclude the right of appeal or discussion with one particular civil servant or a minority group among the staff.
This is the kind of association, the kind of union that is needed to satisfy the justified complaints of civil service associations, because until now they have been treated rather like second class citizens.
People say: "But how can they make such demands"?
I recall that before 1890, when workers in industry or other employees made such demands, i.e. the right to negotiate directly with their employers-they were considered as revolutionaries, or even communists and jailed. I know many labour leaders who had

Civil Service Act
to spend several weeks in jail because they had simply demanded what we are claiming now for civil servants.
But today, try and say in the labour world or elsewhere and say that the one who is claiming direct bargaining rights is revolutionary minded or a communist. No one will believe you because every human being has the right of discussion with his employer. It is a bounden right and you cannot take him to task or refuse him that right. Whether he is a factory worker or a government employee, he has that same right to try and protect through the power of an association his natural rights, and to protect himself against anyone who infringes his rights.
That is what the civil servants, members of every association, have come to ask for. They insisted. But the government does not seem prepared to grant their request. However, it is very simple, for our amendment reads as follows:
7 (1) The commission, and such members of the public service as the Minister of Finance may designate, shall negotiate directly with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees of the crown, with respect to pay and other terms and conditions of employment, at the request of such representatives, or wherever in the opinion of the commission or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, such negotiation and consultation is necessary or desirable in the interests of the civil service or the government. Such direct negotiation and consultation shall be initiated by either the governor in council, its appointees, or the appropriate staff associations and organizations noted above.
(2)	Where negotiation does not result in agreement, the matter under dispute shall be taken to an arbitration tribunal by either party.
(3)	The results of such negotiation and/or arbitration shall be proclaimed by a suitable instrument, where necessary subject to the approval of parliament.
Now, there is a reservation made that parliament approval is needed on all those matters of arbitration or bargaining, which means that parliament is not ignored and that its prerogatives are respected.
So, I hope the government will reconsider and understand that civil servants must be treated on the same basis as employees in all other parts of Canada and indeed the whole world. Public servants must be regarded as first class citizens like all other citizens of this country; that is all we are asking in the amendment we moved when we considered this bill at the end of June or early in July.
So, I hope the government will reconsider its stand and accept the proposed amendment in order that federal civil servants be considered as first class employees.

(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, there is hardly time before 10.30 to deal exhaustively with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa East. That amendment is identical in terms with one which was moved in the special committee and which after careful and detailed consideration was rejected by that committee.
The hon. member for Hull I think has just been proceeding on a misapprehension. Most of what he read from procedures in the various provinces dealt with grievance procedure rather than procedures of consultation or negotiation. I want to put my position clearly in only two or three minutes so that if it wishes the committee may vote before 10.30.


George James McIlraith: That comes from the hon. member who took all the time on the earlier vote.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. member is complaining about time taken on the earlier vote.


George James McIlraith: After the opposition had indicated its approval of second reading.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman who is principally responsible for the vote being taken earlier did not even bother to remain in the house while the vote was taken. If the hon. gentleman from Ottawa West wishes to deflect me from my particular subject I will say to him that I will be only too glad to enter into a debate with him on any controversial subject that may arise. I was trying to deal in a logical and rapid way with the principle here. I want to say there is no major difference in objective or principle between the hon. gentleman from Ottawa East and myself. Such differences as do exist relate to the methods and techniques of achieving the objective. My considered opinion is that to endeavour to spell out in the act the procedures, and processes of consultation between the treasury and the staff associations may very well delay rather than expedite the achievement of mutually satisfactory processes of consultation.
I would prefer, as I said on second reading, that the processes, the techniques, like freedom, should broaden down from precedent to precedent. To be explicit in the act, to set forth the detailed provisions relating to consultation and the results which are to flow from consultation may very well

create an unsatisfactory legislative strait-jacket within which satisfactory consultations might not develop.
This new experiment, this new adventure, in employer-employee relations might very well prove to be abortive before it really got started. It is on those grounds that I would ask the committee to take the same action that the special committee took, to reject the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa East and to proceed ahead with the very satisfactory amendment to section 7 which was proposed by the Minister of Finance.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: I wonder whether the hon. member for Carleton will hold it against me but I should like to say a few words on this amendment. Would you call it 10.30 p.m. Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and perhaps there will be some indication of what we will be doing on Wednesday.
Business of the House


Léon Balcer: First of all tomorrow we will take second reading of the bill respecting the centennial observance of the birthday of Canada. The second item will be second reading of the bill to amend the National Housing Act. The third item will be Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada, and the fourth item will be the resolution respecting physical fitness through amateur sport.
As far as Wednesday is concerned, I am afraid the house will have to wait until tomorrow night for an indication of the business for that day.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the house have available for its consideration the centennial bill which I understand has not yet been distributed?


George James McIlraith: It has not been printed and will not be available.


Léon Balcer: Yes, it will be available.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the acting house leader give any indication of the business for Wednesday?


Léon Balcer: It will depend on the progress made tomorrow and I am afraid I am not in a position to give any indication just now.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Has a supplementary order of the international joint commission, dated the 2nd of July, 1956, dealing with criteria for a method of regulation of the level of water on lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river, been amended?
2.	If so, how often, on what dates, and in what orders of the commission?
3.	Have any of these orders or amendments been put into effect by the international joint commission either on lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence river?
4.	Which method of regulation is now in operation?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of State for External Affairs):
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Plan of regulation 1958-A. However, the international St. Lawrence river board of control, under the supervision of the international joint commission, has exercised certain discretionary authority granted to it by the commission by accumulating storage on lake Ontario this summer in temporary deviation from the plan of regulation. The additional storage has been built up for use in
helping to alleviate any problem of low flows which may arise this autumn in Montreal harbour. In his appearance before the external affairs standing committee on June 14, 1961 General McNaughton stated that the board of control had been asked to keep a close watch on the river with a view to conserving water on lake Ontario in order to meet this problem of low flows. General McNaughton also announced on that occasion that the board of control was conducting a review of plan of regulation 1958-A.


SKILLED WORKERS LEAVING CANADA, 1961
Mr. Malheson: Does the government have any information as to the number of skilled workers who left Canada during the first six months of 1961?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
Statistics on the emigration of Canadians to the United States only by occupation are obtained from the immigration and naturalization service of the United States department of justice in the form of a semi-annual report which is available to the Department of Labour. The latest period for which these statistics are available is for the last six months of 1960. Data for the first six months of 1961 will be available late in November or early December 1961. No statistics are available on the emigration of Canadian workers to countries other than the United States.

Tuesday, September 19, 1961


CONGRATULATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to which I think no one will object. It is in order to wish the Prime Minister, on the anniversary of the day on which it all began, many happy returns. When I use the word "returns" I do so in the birthday and not the political sense. There are many things the Prime Minister says and does to which we on this side of the chamber object or have our reservations. However, we have no reservations in wishing him many years of health, happiness and continued service to Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to join with the leader of the official opposition in wishing the Prime Minister many happy returns of this day. Mr. Speaker, we most sincerely wish the Prime Minister an early, happy and lengthy rest from his political responsibilities and labours.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very kind words, which are much appreciated. I also thank the hon. member for Kootenay West, and would point out to him that prognostications and prophecies such as he has just indulged in have often been made during my life, but at 66 I am looking forward to continued service in the years to come.


ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the encouragement of physical fitness through amateur sport in Canada; to provide for the making of grants to agencies, organizations or institutions; to provide for entering into an agreement with any province for the payment by Canada to the province of certain contributions in respect
of the costs of programs relating to physical fitness and amateur sport; to provide for the establishment of a council to be called the national advisory council on physical fitness and amateur sport; to provide for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of the travelling and other expenses of the members of the council; and to provide further that the Minister of Finance shall pay out of the consolidated revenue fund each fiscal year such amounts not exceeding in the aggregate five million dollars as may be required for the purposes set forth in the measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Roberge:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions, and all other documents, since January 1, 1959, concerning the acquisition by the government of Canada of sites for the erection of a public building, namely a post office, in St. Ferdinand d'Halifax, county of Megantic, province of Quebec.
Motion agreed' to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 161-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the communication addressed to the Minister of Fisheries by the general secretary treasurer of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen on August 24, 1961, together with the reply thereto of the minister.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement attributed to the premier of British Columbia yesterday, to the effect that he is convinced the federal government will give in to British Columbia and permit the export of power from the Columbia river scheme. My question is, is there any ground for the conviction of the premier of British Columbia in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the stand taken by this government has been a consistent one, and the use of the words "give in" are scarcely in keeping with the relationship which one would expect to exist between the federal government and the provinces. In so

Death of Secretary General far as the Columbia river scheme is concerned, the policy of the government has been announced on a number of occasions, and there has been no change.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would he care to comment on Mr. Bennett's further remarks in this widely read speech, to the effect that the Columbia river agreement, while it is not the best, can be made to work?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on observations made by the premier of British Columbia.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with regard to the tidings that have just been given to me to the effect that the secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, is dead.
This is a tragic day in the history of the efforts that are being made for the maintenance of world peace. Mr. Hammarskjold gave of his selfless best to the preservation of peace through the instrumentality of the United Nations. Throughout the ages men, and women too, have given their lives on behalf of the highest things of life. Mr. Ham-marskj old's death will take its place among the deaths of others throughout history who gave their all in order to achieve an ideal for which men have searched ever since the earliest days of history. I am sure I express the thoughts of all hon. members when I say that our hearts go out to those of his family who survive him, coupled with the hope that his death at this time of momentous importance in the history of the United Nations will not constitute an irreparable loss to the cause of freedom.
I should mention, too, that I am informed that a young woman employed by the United Nations, a young Canadian woman from the city of Montreal, was aboard the same aircraft. I shall refrain from mentioning her name because I am not certain that her next of kin have been advised. To her family must go, too, the sympathy of the Canadian people in her tragic death in the service of all that is right and good.
Lester Bowles Pearson: These are heavy and sad tidings which the Prime Minister has announced to us. I should like to join with him in extending our sympathy to the families of Mr. Hammarskjold and of our Canadian colleague
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
who worked in the Secretary General's office -the young lady from Montreal.
Dag Hammarskjold died tragically and prematurely but, as I believe he would have wished, in the service of peace and the United Nations. I had the privilege of knowing him well for many years and the equal privilege of working with him closely at the United Nations during some difficult years in the development of the organization, so I think I am in a good position to appreciate the high character of the man and the great qualities of the statesman. He was indefatigable; he was wise; and he was entirely selfless in his devotion to his work. He was as sure and as resolute in carrying out instructions from the United Nations for international action in the cause of peace as he was skilful and objective in seeking to establish a basis for that action in the charter. As well as being an extremely dedicated servant of peace and the international community he was a most brilliant and cultivated gentleman and a good and loyal friend.
The world can ill afford to lose such a great man, especially at this time. His life was a triumph of service and achievement, and his passing at the very height of his powers is a tragic loss. His death should inspire all of us to do what we can to secure the triumph of the cause for which he died, peace and security in the world through the United Nations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to say that our reaction to this shocking and tragic news is one of sadness and of having suffered a great loss. Regardless of party, throughout the years all have recognized Mr. Hammarskjold's services to mankind through his office in the United Nations. We pay tribute to those services. His death is mankind's loss. We extend our sympathy to his loved ones, and also to the loved ones of the young lady mentioned by the Prime Minister.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the vacancies on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways which occurred almost a year ago, on September 30, 1960, are going to be filled in the near future and when the new appointments which were to be made as soon as the legislation was passed which was some months ago may be expected.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Minister of Transport announced that the appointments would be made known "very soon" when his estimates are before the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I trust he does not think it is Machiavellian. In view of a report in the Toronto Telegram, on Saturday, September 16, to the effect that the government has already decided that Mr. Gordon will be removed as chairman of the C.N.R. board of directors and also that he may not be reappointed as president, and in view of the public interest in this very important question, has the Prime Minister any information he can give the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Laurier rather forestalled the question of the hon. gentleman, and the same answer applies.


TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. As the Quebec government, on October 5 in Paris, France, will open a building to promote the natural resources and products of Quebec and other parts of Canada as well, can the minister inform the house what provision the government has made to give television coverage to this historic Canadian event?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter and report to the house.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that today we will be discussing second reading of the Pine Point railway bill, and I am sure it is the hope of the house to get on with it as quickly as possible, will the Minister of Transport table the agreement which was finalized, and I take it signed, by the four parties, so that we may have a proper appreciation of the bill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains the condition that an agreement must be signed containing various undertakings on the part of the C.N.R., the company, other interested companies and the government. This draft agreement has been approved in principle by all parties. All have agreed to this draft, which will be made available before the bill is sent to the committee. I think that is the proper place to study the agreement, which will be signed as soon as the bill is passed by both houses of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it the agreement has not yet been executed by the four parties?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, but the four parties have indicated their readiness to sign as soon as the legislation is passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister make at least one copy of this document available to the opposition for study so that we may debate the bill more intelligently and perhaps make greater progress?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains certain conditions. This draft will be available to the committee, where it can be studied in detail. I believe that is the proper place to discuss the matter, when experts and representatives of the various parties are available to answer questions. I do not see any advantage in bringing forward this unsigned draft at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, we are going to be asked to give approval in principle to a bill which is based entirely upon an agreement, and the minister has told us that that agreement, which I assume is not a secret document, has been agreed to by all the parties. Surely it is only reasonable that it should be made available in advance of the debate so that we will not be debating blindly. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are anxious, as I think we have shown, to get on with the business of the house, and we are merely seeking to expedite the business in this way.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think this proves that generosity does not always pay. This is the first time any agreement of this kind has been supplied to a committee for study. These agreements have always been kept confidential and have never been produced at this time. We are going to table this agreement for the committee so that it will have a document it never had in the past. Therefore I doubt very much that there is any question of privilege for my hon. friend.

Inquiries of the Ministry HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS



STONEY CREEK, ONT.-PRESERVATION OF BATTLEFIELD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the minister's assurance last May 31 of the federal government's interest in preserving the Stoney Creek battle-site from despoliation by the erection of a housing subdivision, can the minister now inform the house whether any specific proposals have been made to the historic sites division of his department by the local committee formed to discuss the matter? What action has been taken by his department in response to those proposals and to proposals of hon. members to protect the site from this encroachment?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that during the long hot days of the summer we were busy trying to devise some formula which would preserve this important historic site from encroachment. In this connection I wish to thank my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and also the hon. member for Wentworth for their valuable assistance in these matters.
As a result of the negotiations, the government of Canada has offered to make a contribution of $25,000, which is provided for in the current year's appropriations of my department, to be used in the acquisition of adjacent lands, which include a portion of the historic battlefield which was in danger of being subdivided for residential purposes.
We have had fruitful discussions with the municipalities of Stoney Creek and Hamilton and also with the very active local committee, and with the government of Ontario. I have just recently received the assurance of the latter government that steps are being taken by the Niagara parks commission to acquire the entire battlefield area including the present park, which has been maintained by the Wentworth women's historical society for many years, which will also include the historic Gage house and the impressive monument, as well as the adjacent land in question.
I think very shortly, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able to announce that a very happy conclusion has been arrived at for the preservation of this historic site.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question of the hon. member for Skeena of September 13, when he requested that I table correspondence with the Canadian Marconi Company which was under current discussion at the time of his earlier inquiry of June 26.
I am happy to table a letter from Mr. S. M. Finlayson, president of the Canadian Marconi Company, dated June 7, and my reply to him of June 21. In my reply you will note, Mr. Speaker, that I suggested that the Marconi company review its conditions of employment with regard to relations between its employees and Eskimo women. I assured Mr. Finlayson that my department stands ready to serve him if our advice and experience on inter-ethnic relations can be of assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the correspondence referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: As a result of the announcement by the minister, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour-and I can appreciate that without notice it will perhaps take some time to get this information- whether the request by Mr. Whitfield for permission to prosecute under the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act has been granted?


Michael Starr: I shall have to take the question as notice and report back.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has sent or will send a protest to the Cuban government against the suppression of religious rights and freedom, indicated by the dismissal of a number of the clergy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, according to press reports it would appear that five Canadians were among a number of Roman Catholic priests expelled from Cuba yesterday. There are at this time 25 Canadian priests and 21

Canadian nuns in Cuba. Although the reports are disturbing, we hope that arbitrary action of the kind suggested is not being taken against them.
As to the operative part of the hon. member's question, I might say that the Canadian embassy is investigating the accuracy of these news reports to which I have made reference and which have not yet been confirmed. If they are confirmed, then such action will be taken as is deemed proper and appropriate under the circumstances.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada and in relation thereto,-
1.	To provide for the constitution of a corporation called the national centennial administration;
2.	To provide for the establishment of a national conference on Canada's centennial;
3.	To provide for the objects, purposes and powers of the administration and of the conference; and
4.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only proper that I should make a rather complete statement respecting this matter at this time. The resolution is a prelude to a bill to establish the machinery for undertaking the dominion government's part in the observance of Canada's centennial. Although the centennial itself is nearly six years away, much preliminary work has already been done.
I think it will be agreed that the centennial is more than a holiday or an occasion for festive celebrations. I was reading yesterday some of the debates at the time of confederation and immediately thereafter. In reference to the celebrations, Sir John Macdonald said that a great opportunity was lost in 1867 when the dominion was formed out of the several provinces. This remarkable event in the history of the British empire passed almost without notice.
All during the years there have been references made to the fact that, for some reason or other, there were no celebrations other than desultory ones restricted to a few areas within the confederating provinces of that day. On this occasion, however, we will be celebrating the hundredth anniversary of our country. It should be a time of national stocktaking and of rededication to the future.
90205-6-534
Canadian Centennial
It will represent a dramatic year in Canadian history and an opportunity for Canadians to develop a fuller understanding of what it means and can mean to be a Canadian. One of the aims of the centennial observance should be to make Canadians aware of their unique heritage and their birth right, and of the contributions to our development that have been made by the peoples of the founding races as well as the many other nationalities who have come to our country.
I think it is not generally known that Canada played a very large part in the history of religious freedom. Indeed, the United Kingdom parliament in 1775 granted religious freedom to what is now Canada long in advance of it being granted in the United Kingdom. Further in that connection, I might mention that it was in Canada, some 25 years in advance of the same rights being attained in the United Kingdom, that those of the Jewish race received equality and the privilege of electing members of that faith to the House of Commons.
It is of interest to think of the beginnings of confederation, the arguments that were advanced by Sir John Macdonald and those associated with him, and the stand taken by those opposed to confederation. Following this there were meetings in Quebec and in Charlottetown. I was in the archives the other day and I found there a most interesting document. This is a report of the resolutions adopted at the conference of delegates from the provinces of Canada. I have a photographic summary of it, and it sets fortl; the basis of the proposed confederation of the provinces and colonies at a conference held in the city of Quebec in October, 1864. It sets out in detail the changes that were made. This is Macdonald's copy and it is covered with doodling, apparently drawings by Sir John of the various representatives at that conference, indicating a higher degree of art than has been displayed by any of his successors. I cannot place it on Hansard but I can say this, that there were few persons who were not honoured by having their features drawn.
The document sets out the views of that meeting and the various changes which were made, and which brought about a federation that few believed would have been possible. As may be seen through a reading of the document and also through a reading of the debates between 1860 and 1867, as was stated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time of Sir John A. Macdonald's death, the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald and his associates was underlined and emphasized. Indeed, it was the work of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier that made possible the

Canadian Centennial
transformation of colonial North America into the self governing country into which it has grown. Had it not been for their work there would never have been possible the development of the commonwealth concept of today.
There were few in the United Kingdom who believed that it would be possible to bring about confederation. It was Lafon-taine who would not accept the views of Lord John Russell and other imperial leaders that self government being granted to the colonies would mean the breaking up of the ties with the United Kingdom. It was Lafon-taine who foresaw that if representative self government was granted, the relations between the United Kingdom and the self governing possessions beyond the seas would be strengthened, not weakened. Macdonald and Cartier refused to accept the view of John Stuart Mill that parliamentary institutions could not live in a country that had two or more ethnic stocks.
Of all the countries of the commonwealth today-and this is something we sometimes forget-Canada was the first to attain responsible, representative and parliamentary government and the first, as I said a moment ago, to develop the federal system which in its essence made possible the uniting of areas representing various races, geographic separations and the like. It is a system that is being followed more and more in various parts of the developing commonwealth, and has been the contribution which has made possible the West Indies Federation and which within the next couple of years will make possible the Malayan confederation provided agreement is arrived at among Malaya, Singapore, Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. These are some of the matters which are of the past which recall some things that are often forgotten.
It was on February 19, 1865 that the "Attorney General West," Sir John A. Macdonald, introduced the resolution which read as follows:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the imperial parliament for the purpose of uniting the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island into one government with provisions based on certain resolutions, which were adopted at a conference of delegates from the said colonies held at the city of Quebec, on the 10th October 1864.
Speaking to the measure on February 6, 1865, Sir John said this:
When this union takes place, we will be at the outset no inconsiderable people. We find ourselves with a population approaching four millions of souls. Such a population in Europe would make a second, or at least, a third rate power. And with a rapidly increasing population-for X am satisfied that under this union our population will increase in a still greater ratio than ever before-with

increased credit-with a higher position in the eyes of Europe-with the increased security we can offer to immigrants, who would naturally prefer to seek a new home in what is known to them as a great country, than in any one little colony or another-with all this I am satisfied that, great as has been our increase in the last twenty five years since the union between Upper and Lower Canada, our future progress, during the next quarter of a century, will be vastly greater. And when, by means of this rapid increase, we become a nation of eight or nine millions of inhabitants, our alliance will be worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth.
He pictured the day ahead when there would be greatness on the part of Canada that would assure its recognition by the great countries of the world. So it was with Cartier, McGee and many others who spoke at that time. So we will celebrate an event great in its past and, I believe, greater in its future.
The systematic preparation of plans for the centennial, as I said, is already under way. It began two years ago. In February, 1960 the national committee on the centennial was inaugurated. This committee provides a means of consultation between the federal government and the governments of the provinces in matters relating to the centennial. The federal government is represented on the committee by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, who are joint chairmen, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Agriculture. Each of the provinces is represented by a minister and one other representative. The national committee has shown a high degree of unanimity on the significance of the centennial and on the general objectives to be sought. At its inaugural meeting the national committee set up four working committees to study the historical, cultural, ceremonial and administrative aspects of the planning.
Canadians everywhere were invited some 16 months ago to send in their suggestions as to how Canada's centennial might best be observed. This invitation provoked a healthy response. Indeed, if the projects that were suggested were adopted it would involve the expenditure of several billions of dollars. I have a list of the suggestions that were made. I think it might be well for me to table it, if the committee will agree, as they are indicative of the comprehensive nature of the representations and may be provocative of other suggestions from those who have given and are giving thought to this matter.
The suggestions range from proposals for pageants of different kinds to the building of a special centennial city; from postage stamp and coin issues to festivals of the arts; and from the eradication of particular diseases to the publication of biographies. It has also been suggested that special recognition should be given to the need for the

commemoration of the 1864 conferences in Charlottetown and Quebec which were the precursors of confederation.
I think I should pause for a moment to refer to the work being done by the committee or organization set up for the building of a confederation commemorative building in the city of Charlottetown. The committee is representative of all parts of the country and already has done much toward bringing about the building in question and also festivities to celebrate the conference that took place in that city.
The planning problem is, therefore, not to devise suitable projects but to select the most suitable ones. The federal-provincial working committees have been studying and assessing the various suggestions. The next meeting will take place in Ottawa on October 11.
The federal government has given consideration to the kinds of projects it should undertake. It is particularly impressed by the fact that the centennial will provide the opportunity for the execution of projects of a lasting nature. Last month the Minister of Public Works announced the first major centennial project, when he made it known that the government had decided to authorize the national capital commission to purchase land and buildings on Sussex drive, Ottawa. The project will be a rare opportunity for the preservation of those things that go back to confederation, and will make possible what has been described as "a mile of living history".
A number of non-government organizations have also begun preparations. In May, 1960 the Canadian centenary council was formed by these organizations. Its membership now comprises 125 national organizations and its purposes are to stimulate public interest in the centennial observances and to provide information and planning service to national organizations in this regard.
I realize that I cannot refer in any particular to the bill that will be introduced following the acceptance by the committee of this resolution. However, I would point out that it will have two principal divisions. The first will be the establishment of a national centennial administration which will assume responsibility for the planning and execution of programs of the federal government relating to the centennial. The national centennial administration will consist of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner and not more than eight directors, and to avoid duplication of functions it will work wherever possible through existing departments and agencies of the federal government.
Then, too, a second major provision will be the establishment of a national conference on
90205-6-5341
Canadian Centennial
the centennial. This will not be an administrative body but will be a forum where the centennial can be viewed and discussed as a whole by governmental and non-governmental representatives. Centennial activities will inevitably involve many elements and have various sponsors. Therefore special efforts will be required to give these activities some measure of unity and to guard against a formless jumble of individual projects. This conference will consist of a chairman who will be either the Prime Minister or such other minister as will be designated by the governor in council, and not more than 60 members appointed by the governor in council. Of these, two members will represent each of the provinces and will be appointed on the recommendation of the government of each of the provinces. The other representatives will be chosen from every major segment of Canadian life.
I feel the committee will agree that the observance of the centennial should reflect the whole range of Canada's history and not merely confederation itself. The program should not be designed merely to commemorate a past event, but to stir the imagination of the Canadian people and give to the people as a whole a sense of national progress and national unity. The centennial should be one in which every citizen will have an opportunity to play his or her part. I think the two bodies to be established will help to ensure that the aims and purposes of this one hundredth anniversary can be fully realized thereby. Although Ottawa will be the administrative and focal point, every region of Canada should avail itself of this great occasion.
It will be the role of the federal government, not to erect a giant superstructure but merely to assist and co-ordinate. The true expression of pride and fulfilment will, I hope, come largely from local levels. In each and every community in this country there is a wealth of local flavour and difference which should be emphasized in the national interest. Wherever possible or feasible the bigger national attractions should, I feel, be made portable so that all the provinces of Canada can share in the nation's birthday. I believe that nothing would be more beneficial than for a national train to be set up and travel fi om one end of Canada to the other, carrying thereon the documents of Canada's historical background, the constitutional documents, as well as those charters of freedom that are ours by reason of our heritage.
As Canada is a country on the threshold of an exciting tomorrow, the centennial should serve as a launching pad for new triumphs in her second century. We should

Canadian Centennial
honour history. At the same time a true birthday party should span the three dimensions of time, a national salute in retrospect, an appraisal of the present and a toast to the century to come.
Our history has been inextricably woven into the struggle against geography and climate. Courage in the face of formidable odds is the theme which I believe should run through the celebration that will take place, for this country is a land in which the odysseys of the explorers, the missionaries and the leaders of the past should be made available to all Canadians. As I read yesterday something of the events at the time of confederation and prior thereto it gave me a pride that can only come from a knowledge of what has been wrought by the hand of history. During the year to come I believe we should try to renew our past so that it becomes part of the possession of all Canadians, and at the same time lay the foundations for a greater future.
We are a creditor nation with historic ties to Great Britain and France. We are a creditor nation to most of the nations of men. We should emphasize the international aspect of being Canadian. If we do that, I feel our centennial celebrations will be a magnet to draw visitors from all around the earth. This will be Canada's year to appraise, admire and adjust. It will require a great deal of work and preparation. It will require not imitation but inspiration and imagination to properly reveal the Canada that is ours. I recall the words of Daniel Burnham who, when commenting on the plans for building the capital city of Washington in the United States, said this:
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood, and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble and logical diagram once recorded will never die but long alter we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.
I hope that all governments, federal, provincial and local, will be inspired by this one hundredth anniversary of our country to build for tomorrow, to fuse the functional with the beautiful, the concordant with the useful. The shaping of national destiny is no different from individual destiny, because we are the moulders of the future of our country. Fate itself plays a part, but more so does the work of those who contribute to the building of the kind of country that all of us hope will be wrought.
On January 18, 1904, Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied to the toast to Canada, and in that speech he stated what the hope of the future would be; that the twentieth century would
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
be Canada's. That is what this festival will emphasize, a stirring occasion so that Canadians may hold the nation's sights high upon the horizon.
I trust the committee will give unanimous support to this resolution and that in a spirit of unity all of us, whether in the federal parliament, in provincial legislatures or in the municipalities will join together and bring about an imaginative program so that we may relive our past and rededicate this land to its future, the hopes for which were spoken of so eloquently by those who were present at the birth of its institutions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think all members of this committee wherever they may sit would wish to give wholehearted support to this resolution. It is perhaps a happy coincidence that the Prime Minister on his sixty sixth birthday anniversary should be reminding us that our nation will soon be celebrating its one hundredth birthday anniversary. It is appropriate that we should prepare for that celebration.
A centenary is, of course, a momentous occasion in the history of a state. During the years since 1867 we have seen the completion of the geographical boundaries of confederation with the happy and fortunate union only a few years ago of Newfoundland with the rest of our homeland. We have, then, completed our boundaries nationally in that sense. But Canada is a new and developing country, and there is still much to be done. There are new horizons to be enlarged; there are frontiers to be pushed back and there are regions to be developed. In that sense we Canadians still have the excitements and the incentives which are usually attached to a new and developing society. While this is true, the fact that we shall soon be celebrating our hundredth birthday makes us one of the older states in the world.
As the Prime Minister has said, this celebration should encompass the whole range of Canada's history, not merely the achievement of confederation itself. The right hon. gentleman indicated how this could be done. It should certainly be celebrated in a way which is worthy of the occasion, not merely by ceremonies and memorials, which may be exciting but which will be ephemeral, but also in a more permanent way.
It is interesting in this regard to examine the various proposals which have been made for this purpose, and there are a great many of them. The Prime Minister made reference to this. I have before me the first report of the Canadian centennial council. If all these suggestions-and they are very interesting ones indeed-were carried out we should

need the whole centennial year in which to implement them. One of the subcommittees of the committee has suggested-and I think it is a wise suggestion and one we should be thinking about even now-that no celebration of our centenary would be complete unless by 1967 we had taken all the necessary legislative actions-and these things, I know, are not easy to do-which would complete, in the words of the recommendation, "our full autonomy as a nation".
The centenary council has also made suggestions which as I have indicated should be of value in establishing a permanent recognition of our centenary, by action which will not be temporary but which will redound over the years ahead to the benefit of all Canadians. In this regard they have put forward some very imaginative proposals. One suggestion is a program to remove from our country underdeveloped or depressed communities; also to ensure that in the future no Canadian in this country will be denied access to higher education because of a lack of funds. Perhaps along these lines we will be able to recognize in an enduring and valuable way some of the benefits we as Canadians have been fortunate enough to receive during our first hundred years. This recognition should be deepened and extended. We should take action in this centenary celebration to emphasize our national dignity and national destiny, to make life better for all of our people.
Also, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it would be appropriate to re-examine the values of our national society, and to resolve that we will do perhaps more than we have been able to do in the past to strengthen those values, based as they are on the enduring concept of freedom, and based as they are also in a political sense on the foundation of the two cultures, two languages and two traditions of the two founding peoples. Some years before confederation, when Lord Durham came to Canada, hon. members will recall that he said he found in Canada-and I think I am quoting his words correctly-two nations warring in the bosom of a single state. In the years that have passed since that statement was made there has been a change from conflict to co-operation. While in the cultural sense, in the racial sense, in the linguistic sense and indeed in the sense of separate traditions while we have-in that sense-two nations, nevertheless we now have two nations, co-operating in the bosom of a single state.
These two races, two cultures, and two nations in that sense, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, have been enriched in the
Canadian Centennial
years that have followed by people of practically every strain, race and culture from all parts of the world. To use the Prime Minister's own phrase we are indeed a creditor nation in that way, as well as a creditor nation in the sense that we have a dual foundation of the two basic races.
As has been pointed out, not very much attention was given to Canada's future, her destiny and potential greatness at the time of confederation. But the men in those days built better than perhaps even they knew. People in the mother countries did not realize then that in North America a strong new state had arisen dedicated to freedom, to human welfare and to the things that make life worth living for man when he bands himself together in a political society. As we approach our centennial year I think we can be proud of our growth, our progress and our achievements, but we can be proud without being smug. We can demonstrate that pride in the way we celebrate our centenary. One means which occurs to me, and there are many, to show our pride in our nation is by making our capital worthy in every way of its position as the heart and core of that nation.
The Prime Minister has outlined some of the organizations which will be set up, and it is appropriate that they should be set up at this time to make this occasion worthy of its historic import. He indicated that there will be a combination of public and private planning in that regard and that, of course, is the way it should be done. We on this side will be glad to support the steps which the government is proposing to this end.
Our nation has a great destiny ahead of it if we wish to make it so, and if man's inhumanity to man makes it possible for any nation to have a good destiny. It is appropriate, then, that as we discuss this resolution we should remind ourselves of our past and look forward with confidence to the future of what Charles Dickens so many years ago called this happy, hopeful land.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this group I rise to express our wholehearted and complete support for the spirit and purpose of this resolution, which reflects the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians at this time. Throughout the years there have been numerous references to the centennial celebration. I think it is correct to say that the first time it was brought to the attention of any large group was at the Ontario provincial convention of the C.C.F. in 1950. It was raised on that occasion and discussed.
Later on the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre placed on the order paper

Canadian Centennial
a resolution dealing with this subject. It was first introduced, I believe, in 1954 and was reintroduced in 1955, 1956 and 1957. In that latter year there occurred the first debate on that resolution, which I shall now place on the record because it was considered very comprehensive:


John Evans Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of the establishment of a 100th anniversary committee, with provision for federal and provincial representation, for the purpose of planning the economic and social development of this country on a vast scale, including inter alia housing and slum clearance, conservation, irrigation and power projects, improvements in transportation, highway construction, the elimination of grade crossings, the building of hospitals, assistance to municipal projects and other public works, and also for the purpose of planning ways and means to strengthen the economy of every section of this country; and that consideration should be given to the advisability of such a program being launched immediately and being pursued vigorously year by year so that on July 1, 1967, the people of Canada will be in a position to celebrate this nation's 100th birthday not only with fireworks and speeches but by the achievement of a land of health and abundance for all our people.
During the debate the hon. gentleman received support in principle from all hon. members who participated in the discussion. There was some criticism of the rather comprehensive nature of this resolution. I had the opportunity of participating in the debate. As we saw it at that time this was a resolution to focus attention upon desirable objectives to strive toward and accomplish by 1967. The hon. gentleman moved this resolution and spoke to it at some length, believing it would focus attention on this subject so that our celebration in 1967 would not only be a celebration in the ordinary sense of the word, a happy time, but in the deeper sense of having reality and meaning.
In listening to the Prime Minister I was very interested in his historical review of past developments and in certain statements he made respecting the approach and attitude of prominent people in Canadian history. I am one who always enjoys reading history. I find that history of the past is an antidote to the irritations of the present. I was interested also in his explanation of the proposed procedures which provide for federal and provincial co-operation and also cooperation with local communities. I am one who believes, as I am sure all members of this group firmly believe, that for an event of this type to be a success you must have co-operation among all communities in Canada; that success is dependent upon co-operation from the local level up no matter how small the community.

I cannot help but recall that I spent the fiftieth anniversary of confederation in a military hospital. You know, Mr. Chairman, some people have suggested that I might celebrate the one hundredth anniversary as a member of the government, but I might explain they have been very few in number to date. However, with a common pride in our history, in our achievements, in our hopes and in our aspirations, we can all look forward to this centennial as an opportunity to recognize the work of the pioneers and people of the past, to express our thanks for what they have done to provide the circumstances under which we live.
I often think there is insufficient understanding of the labours of people of the past in all groups of society who have given us so many of the things we enjoy today, the freedoms, the privileges and the material things of life. We can give thanks and celebrate in the knowledge that all Canadians are proud of the fact that by that time we shall have evolved national and provincial policies that will make certain that we are going to conserve and develop our natural resources, having in mind the welfare of the generations to come; because regardless of legislation, parties and theories, unless we conserve our natural resources we shall have nothing to build on in the future and no wealth to distribute.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I trust that by 1967 we shall be able to celebrate the fact that every child in Canada will have the opportunity to obtain all the education he is capable of taking advantage of; that every person in Canada willing and able to work will have employment; that all Canadians will be provided with satisfactory health services; that all the disabled and those ill in Canada, suffering from disabilities of various kinds, from whatever source they may arise, will be provided with a measure of comfort and security at the expense of us all, and that our senior citizens will continue to live in security with a measure of comfort. We believe these are objectives that we should work toward so that we can celebrate in 1967 with the knowledge that these are accomplishments.
The members of this group are glad to cooperate with all who are working to that end. We believe that with purpose, with determination, with energy and imagination we can succeed in reaching those objectives by 1967. To those objectives we must all march if we are going to succeed, and those objectives must be reached, in our opinion, if we are to celebrate our one hundredth anniversary in every sense of the word as an event that Canadians are proud of.

(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my French speaking fellow citizens, I should like to express, in my mother tongue, what we feel at the announcement of the celebrations which will, in a few years from now, mark the centenary of the Canadian constitution.
These celebrations will take on a distinctive character for all Canadians, more particularly because we realize that it is thanks to the pact of confederation that we developed as a nation and that we succeeded in burying the quarrels which, unfortunately, in 1867 threatened to plunge this nation into civil war.
When we consider the great country Canada is today, we cannot but think of the tremendous sacrifices made by our forefathers to found this country which now holds such an important place in the world.
When we consider the tremendous efforts which those pioneers from European countries had to make and the severity of the weather they had to endure in clearing this foreign land to set up their homes, we are filled with wonder and admiration. Indeed, those men deserve the tribute we want to pay them in the coming celebrations. And we want to pay a particular tribute to those men of genius who established this confederation pact which is the very basis, the strength of the nation.
We salute those men of character, Lafon-taine and Baldwin, who were able to establish the rule of justice in the houses of parliament.
We salute the genius of Macdonald and Cartier to whom we owe this confederation which is the cornerstone of the greatness of Canada.
It is actually due to confederation that peace has existed in this country since 1867. It is because of this pact that the respective rights and privileges of both great races which form our nation have been respected.
It is also through the confederative pact that the bi-ethnic and bi-cultural character of the nation has been preserved.
Finally, thanks to this agreement this country has achieved a national unity which is strengthening and enables us to live today not in a divided Canada but in a united Canada, a large and a strong Canada, where the future can be faced with confidence.
Since 1867, long strides have been made in every field of endeavour.
Canadian industry has reached gigantic proportions, trade is in the process of considerably expanding and increasing from day to day, and in the intellectual field we
Canadian Centennial
now have distinctive Canadian culture and art and a definite Canadian way of thinking. So it can be stated that since confederation gigantic steps have been accomplished towards the achievement and development of national life and thought. This is only a beginning.
Today the whole world's attention is focused on our country; other nations realize that we have in Canada, a tremendous potential and that there is a future for all who wish to settle here and associate themselves with those who have done so much already so that Canada could become what it is today. Canadians have achieved all these things because the highest principles of human ideals were guiding them. Canadians believe in freedom and every time the freedom of humankind was threatened, Canadians were among the first who wanted to protect that ideal against the barbarian onslaught threatening civilization.
During those two great wars, our soldiers fought with unrivalled courage. They fought on the battlefields of Europe and other continents not only to protect themselves but also in order that the ideals of kindness and justice they believed in could survive in this world. Those soldiers were the defenders of right, justice and truth.
We bow to those who have laid down their lives for those principles, to those who suffered on the battlefields and who, still bear today the scars of their glorious wounds. Moreover, we bow to the courage of all these men who, without exception, were the ambassadors of Canadian feeling, by defending in foreign lands the most beautiful and greatest thing of all: human freedom.
Our country, Mr. Chairman, is in full bloom, and the eyes of all men are turned in this direction. One only has to go abroad to realize that other countries sometimes view with envy what is being done in Canada. However, it is very easy to notice admiration everywhere for our accomplishments.
I believe it is our duty to thank Providence for having given so much to us Canadians. In fact, poverty is the lot of many countries which have been torn by terrible strife and which, even today, are threatened by revolutions.
I believe that it is necessary to repeat, whenever possible, Mr. Chairman, that there exists, here, in Canada, beauty, greatness, order, wealth, and belief in those principles of life: freedom and respect for human rights.

Canadian Centennial
I believe that it is absolutely essential to prepare with care the celebration of our centennial, to prepare it in such a way that it will attract millions of tourists who will be able to see for themselves the excellence of our democratic way of life. Those tourists may return home with a strong desire to imitate what is being done in our country, and they may even know the happiness which is ours.
If there is one reproach that could be made to the Canadian people, it is that they do not fully realize how lucky they are, and that they fail to appreciate their blessings in their own country. We too often hear politicians and others criticize everything that happens here, exaggerate certain social or economic problems that are serious, I agree, but that are, after all, not as serious as some events happening in other countries where the danger of revolution and communism is always present. Instead of readily criticizing what is happening in our country, instead of taking pleasure in blaming our leaders constantly, regardless of their political affiliation and of the field of their activities, it seems to me it would be better for every Canadian citizen to help with his advice those who are called upon to administer the country. In my opinion, they will always be glad to accept advice from right-minded people who have public interest at heart.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is essential to act in that way because prophets of doom and gloom will be pleased to sow doubt and anxiety in the minds of men, thus making it possible for communism, that horrible ideology which dominates so many countries, to get a foothold in Canada.
I hope that all French Canadian organizations, without exception, will join in the preparations for the centennial. Whether on the cultural, intellectual and social levels or in the industrial field, all Canadians who love their country must take an interest in this historic event.
Our country is in full progress and development. By taking an active part in the preparations for the centennial celebrations, the citizens will, in the years to come, work efficiently for Canada. I know that all French Canadians love Canada like I do. Perhaps some people love our country as much as I do, but certainly no one loves it more. I invite them to join with us who are entrusted with public affairs and who are anxious to

make of the centennial celebrations of our confederation, the greatest event in our history.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) and say that we agree that the statesmen of 1867 and previous years had to make great sacrifices in order to implement confederation. All the politicians put aside party feelings to bring forth the fullest national unity possible and thus bring into being an institution that neither the years nor difficulties could overcome.
Since then, as the Associate Minister of National Defence has said, we have been enjoying domestic peace, and we wonder whether such a thing would have been possible without confederation, because at that moment there was no friendship to spare between the Quebec Catholic group and the Ontario Anglo-Protestant group, and it was feared that one or the other would try to gain domination of the country by force.
But when the fathers of confederation paved the way to a federation of the existing provinces and of other provinces which could be formed later on, they found the right formula for two different races to live together and to co-operate for the good of Canada.
The rights and privileges of both races have been respected and I can say that almost every leader of the country has since recognized the necessity of maintaining that duality which is beneficial and profitable to the country. I hope that it will be maintained.
I readily recognize that here and there people have been found who did not understand the objectives of the fathers of confederation; that was to be expected because there will always be groups not sufficiently mature to realize what a great achievement it was and how essential has been the participation of two races and two ethnic groups.
It is agreed that since confederation, Canada has made gigantic progress. The small colony of that time has grown into an independent country and a member of the British commonwealth, as well as a nation in control of its own destiny. Canada has made tremendous progress in the fields of trade and industry and is well known the world over for her contribution to the welfare of the peoples of the world. In the field of diplomacy, we have had Canadians who have acquired wide recognition and who will continue to stand out.

In the fields of arts and culture, there has been remarkable improvement. True, we have not yet reached the quality of the masterpieces found in European countries because we lack the atmosphere conducive to the production of truly Canadian works. As far as literature is concerned, we have finally gone ahead in recent years and developed a truly Canadian literature. And with the help of the Canada Council and the continuing assistance of the various governments in office, we shall soon see the arts and literature flourish in Canada, as they should.
As the Associate Minister of National Defence said, Canada, twice at least, came to the rescue of European nations that needed support to preserve their freedoms and welfare. It did so with pleasure, and the sacrifices made have been recognized.
However, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that the time has come perhaps, since we are to celebrate the centenary of confederation, when Canada might give its armies, spread out across the world, a really distinctive, personal and specific flag, showing no sign whatever of interdependence, in order to prove that Canada has reached its maturity. I think such a project would be accepted by the great majority of the Canadian people, and even if some did object to that, they would be in a small minority that would eventually bow before the majority, as it has always happened since 1867.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Very well.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I should now like to close my remarks with these few words taken from a Canadian song:
Foreigners see with an envious eye the majestic flow of the St. Lawrence.
Well, foreigners not only see the St. Lawrence with an envious eye, they also see our way of life, our working methods and our democratic spirit. In fact I do not think there is a country in the world where democracy is better understood than in Canada.
I hope we shall be able to celebrate in a grand and glorious way the centenary of confederation, and that our successors will be able to say that Canada is constantly making gigantic steps forward.
(Text):


Walter George Pitman: This measure is obviously one that will receive the support of all parties in this house. It therefore needs little debate. No matter where we sit, I think we are all aware of and appreciate the sense 90205-6-535
Canadian Centennial
of history of our Prime Minister. We hope this measure will receive his constant personal interest. In our attempts to crystallize our thinking about our nation in its centennial, I hope we shall make some attempt to indicate just how Canada has added to the history of the world.
I can remember one professor who often said that Canada gave a pattern by which more people have received freedom than by any other pattern that has been established in this world. He, of course, meant the pattern of the commonwealth; for Canada led all other nations in finding a method by which a colony could become a nation. It perhaps seems strange that when we heard the announcement of the death of the Secretary General of the United Nations this morning, he should have been dealing with this very problem, namely the attempt to find a method by which undeveloped people who have lived in a colonial state may find freedom within a nation state. I think it brings home to us the extent to which Canada can show the pattern by means of which this may be done. I hope this will be one of the things emphasized in our centenary year. I hope we shall not look inward as much as we shall look outward and show others what we have learned.
I think the second great contribution we have made in our history as a nation is to show the world that two different cultures or, as some would have it, two different nations can live within the bosom of a single nation, can co-operate and can find a single consciousness and a single sense of identity within a nation state. Here again, in a world of bloodshed and trouble, I think this is the means by which we can present to the people of the world another area in which Canada has made such great strides. For indeed as we look at other nations, such as South Africa and others too numerous to mention, where the whole problem of national identity is going through a valiant decision, I think Canadian experience can have some real relevance.
In the year of the centennial of confederation I hope we shall do something to dramatize and even to romanticize the great figures in our past history. Perhaps it has been the lot of the prime ministers of our nation to bring forward the contributions of certain men in our past. I am thinking, of course, of men like William Lyon Mackenzie King, who I think gave us a greater realization of the contribution of his famous forebearer, William Lyon Mackenzie. I also think of the efforts of our present Prime Minister to bring about a recognition of the great work of Sir John A. Macdonald. But there are others, such as Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin and

Canadian Centennial
D'Arcy McGee, who virtually gave his life for this nation, who have not been sufficiently dramatized and who are not sufficiently known by the young people of our nation. I think it is to the young people that our efforts should be directed in connection with this centennial, because as yet they have not a sufficient sense of history in spite of what has been done by various branches of government at the federal and provincial levels.
We are heartened by this advance information in connection with the celebration. Perhaps some people may think it strange that it took but three years to create this nation while it has taken seven years to prepare for the celebration of its centenary. However, we live in an age when people are interested in history, and the various facets of Canadian life must be expressed. I can assure the Prime Minister and this government that they can expect the support of all parties in preparing this opportunity to show the world the contributions which Canada has made to the history of mankind.


Miss   Ailken@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a very few words on this resolution of the right hon. Prime Minister because I am in such wholehearted support of it. The Prime Minister has said that we must plan for much more than just a holiday. He has told us that our founding day as a confederation passed almost without notice, and that John A. Macdonald always regretted this. It may be that if there had been some women in the House of Commons in those days it would not have passed unnoticed, because I think we are much more conscious of anniversaries and celebrations than our male colleagues.
I believe the key word in our centennial celebration should be participation; participation by service clubs, by business organizations, by labour unions, by individuals and by women's clubs. I think one form could be the granting of scholarships, because what an honour it would be for any Canadian to win a centennial scholarship. It certainly would be a once in a lifetime event. There could also be essay contests in Canadian history and in local histories. In Saskatchewan for their jubilee they held an essay contest in local histories. I understand there are now about 3,000 local histories in the Saskatchewan archives. Labour unions might build centennial trade schools, perhaps one in each province. There could be slum clearance contributions by construction companies; literary prizes for books and poems about Canada, perhaps given by press clubs and authors' associations. There are also unlimited opportunities for business organizations.
The Prime Minister has said that the centenary committee has received many suggestions which might cost billions of dollars. Governments alone should not take on these projects or these celebration plans; every Canadian should participate in order to meet the objective voiced by the Prime Minister, which was to stir the imagination of the Canadian people toward national purpose and national unity. I know there will be much pomp and ceremony, parades and gaiety, but let us also celebrate with permanent monuments that will benefit future generations, just as we have benefited from our pioneering forefathers in the spirit and building of Canada.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister very correctly asked for unanimous consent when he presented the motion for this resolution. As far as my limited power is concerned, I am happy to grant him such unanimous approval for the resolution. I think that is generally the wish of the committee of the whole and of the country.
The Prime Minister took advantage of the occasion, very properly again, to make some remarks as to the history of our confederation and the propriety and objectives in celebrating its one hundredth anniversary. I have very few remarks to make. I will have one or two questions later arising out of the resolution itself, but they are purely of a practical nature and arise out of the wording of the resolution itself. This occasion however also provides the opportunity for expressing ideas, and indeed ideals, concerning the celebration of our centennial of confederation. At the same time it is couched in very practical language and in its main provision sets up the corporation that will have administrative responsibility for making the practical arrangements for the occasion and co-ordinating the efforts of others throughout the whole of the country. Therefore at one and the same time we have in this resolution the opportunity to debate the very large, somewhat idealistic question, and also to discuss some of the practical plans for the occasion.
The Associate Minister of National Defence made some remarks which unfortunately I had to listen to after translation. I regret that I was not able to follow them with that precision of understanding that I believe some of them deserve, particularly the latter part of his remarks. I refer to the ideals he was very properly seeking to express, and expressing well.
I wish the associate minister were here, because the earlier part of his remarks was translated in a way that seemed to indicate that a couple of persons only were responsible

for confederation. That idea was quite inconsistent with the main part of the speech and I think may probably be due to the loss of meaning in translation. I merely mention this because it is my understanding of history that confederation was brought about by a great many men of that period who had a wide vision of the future of this country. It was the collective effort of all of them that brought about this great event in our history.
I think we should be very careful not to say or do anything that would in any way detract from that concept of these men, because my whole understanding of history is that had it not been for the co-ordination of effort and the co-operation of all of them, confederation itself would not have been brought about.
I have some further remarks, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps I could call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George James McIlraith: When the committee rose for the luncheon adjournment I had not completed my remarks, but since this resolution will, I hope, be unanimously approved I think perhaps it would be as well not to extend my observations unduly or expand them at any great length for fear they might detract somewhat from the unanimity which is certainly desirable.
The development of the proper type of celebration for this occasion will require the participation of great numbers of Canadians, a point which was well taken by the hon. member for York-Humber. It will require the co-ordination of the work of a great many groups and committees throughout the country. Indeed, the more one thinks about it the more one is convinced that it will require a genius to head this organization and guide it in the way it should go, because of necessity there will have to be very close co-operation among provincial groups, provincial committees, local groups and municipal committees. The different points of view which will be put forward will also require co-ordination. The wholly artistic and creative approach will need to be reconciled with a more practical viewpoint in the light of what it is possible to do in a practical way.
I must say that today I extend to the Prime Minister not only good wishes on his birthday, but the hope that he may be blessed with the great skill and wisdom necessary for the wise selection of the personnel he will 90205-6-535J
Canadian Centennial
be appointing in connection with this celebration. This is a task which will require the greatest skill and wisdom. The occasion must be commemorative of the past. That is, of course, elementary. But we must be careful throughout to see that it is inspirational for the future, and that the whole of the celebration throughout the land is ordered in such a way that it will serve as a source of inspiration to those who come long after. This is why it is going to require such wisdom in the appointment of persons able to reconcile the two viewpoints I have mentioned and arrange the functions in a way that is both imaginative and practical.
Some reference has been made by previous speakers to the need for making Canadians aware of Canada; I think this was one of the phrases used. I am in complete accord. As a matter of fact there has been a good deal of discussion of history during the hour or so in which this resolution has been under consideration, and it occurs to me that at this point in our national progress, after making allowance for the economic condition of Canadians as individuals compared with a hundred years ago and after making allowance for the increased travel facilities available, it is probably true to say that we individual Canadians move about our country much less than we should, and know and understand less about other Canadians than we should. I hope that as the work of preparing for this centennial celebration proceeds, a new impetus may be given to the desirability of Canadians moving about Canada a great deal more. Increased importance should be attached to Canadians studying the history and geography of Canada a great deal more so that all of us will have an appreciation of the problems and aspirations of those in other parts of Canada. All Canadians should have a better understanding of the culture, aspirations, habits of life and methods of approaching the problem of living in a civilized society of Canadians in all areas of Canada.
As Canadians we seem in general to be given to travelling to other countries when family units take trips. While that is an excellent thing in itself, I am sometimes appalled at how little Canadians in one part of the country know about the culture, problems and aspirations of those in other parts of the country. I would hope that in the intervening six years as we prepare for the centenary a great deal of added impetus will be given to the study of Canadian history by Canadians, not only in an academic sense through textbooks and cultural programs but in a very real sense through personal contact by moving about the country.

Canadian Centennial
Much has been said about the ethnic groups that form this country, and I am in hearty accord with those remarks. When one analyses it, it seems to me we are really a race of minorities; of great numbers of ethnic groups each with distinctive characteristics and diversified and outstanding cultural attributes. When these centennial programs are initiated across the country, with all Canadians participating, I hope that background will be acknowledged and the programs arranged accordingly. I also hope, however, that running through them we will have the theme that we are now Canadians, and that while we are cherishing and keeping alive the various rich traditions and cultures that have contributed to this nation, we are doing so because they have contributed to our Canadianism, that we are now Canadians one and all, that it is Canada's centenary we are celebrating.
To accomplish this will require infinite tact, discretion and judgement. One adds to the other, as I view the question. In other words the richness of these cultural backgrounds enhances our Canadianism. It is only if these diverse backgrounds are mispresented at public functions that they become separate and detract from our Canadianism. I hope the kind of good judgment required to derive the maximum value from our rich assortment of backgrounds will be used, as I am sure it will be.
As our planning proceeds there will be need to focus the theme of this centennial occasion, and to keep it in focus. I have been reading with a great deal of interest the report of the first annual meeting of the Canadian centenary council in Ottawa on May 12, 1961. I do not know how to adequately describe the material contained in this publication, but perhaps I should draw attention to the reports of program research it contains. They contain an abundance of ideas, most of them excellent. What we must watch in the six years ahead in preparing for the centennial is that these excellent ideas are focused on one great theme.
I hope that in the legislation to be presented some provision will be made to bring this subject matter forward in the House of Commons each year so that hon. members may have an opportunity to express themselves on the direction of the organization, making sure it is focusing on a theme that is worthy of the occasion and is not allowed to become diffused and spread into preparations for a gigantic party celebration for the sake of having a party.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will have something to say on that point, and I hope something can be done in that respect. There are various ways by which this could be

accomplished, including an annual vote by parliament to provide funds, but it is not necessary to elaborate on the means at this time.
I shall now conclude this portion of my remarks. I have one or two questions I wish to direct to the Prime Minister, but I shall reserve them until those who wish to make general remarks on the subject have had an opportunity to do so.
(Translation):


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, as a member for Manitoba and especially fo rthe city of St. Boniface, which is the cultural centre of French speaking Canada west of the Ottawa river, it is my duty to say a few words on this resolution. I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for having taken this step six years before the hundredth anniversary of confederation.
Since we will soon be celebrating that centennial, I feel that we should do the same thing as a person who would have lived in the same house for a long time. We should call in architects and engineers to look over the building and see whether chinks have not formed in the structure over the years.
We know that the constitution of 1867 provided for the harmonious coexistence of two great cultures on a basis of unity. I regret to say that since then, especially since 1890, more than one chink has made its appearance in the province I represent.
We will need a lot of concrete to repair the damage caused since then.
The province of Manitoba was the first one to join confederation in 1870; at that time it had a population which was mostly Catholic and French speaking and which felt that the constitution was supposed to protect minority rights for the future. Yet, a few years afterwards, all guarantees were swept aside.
In the city I represent, we have schools which we must build at our own expense and teachers whom we must also pay ourselves. Why do we do that? It is because we wish to keep our French culture. What do we learn in those schools? We follow the curriculum of the province of Manitoba to acquire also the English culture. I am proud to have had the privilege of acquiring the two greatest cultures of the world, the French and English cultures. However, it is unfortunate that we should have to bleed ourselves white, in Manitoba, to have teachers who help us preserve our culture, and that we should also have-

(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his remarks are not related to the resolution before the committee. I would ask him to relate his comments to the subject of the Canadian centennial before the committee. The subject he is dealing with now is not within the jurisdictional authority of the federal government. Therefore I would ask him to come back to the resolution, if he will, please.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that some work should be done by the committee. I am implying that after living for 94 years in one house, this house needs inspection. We should get an architect and engineer to look at the state of the foundation of our building. I say there are cracks in this building. I say that in the province that I come from there is a huge crack that has been existing for more than three quarters of a century. I say that the committee should direct its attention to all the governments of the English speaking provinces and give justice and fair play to all.
We are talking now of repatriating the British North America Act from London. Most of the things that we have received in this country have come from London. We received the Quebec Act. We had a governor in 1846 who said that in Canada the French and English languages were on the same footing. Unless all the provinces, including my own, are prepared to live up to the British North America Act and to the Manitoba Act of 1870, it might be a good idea to leave the British North America Act where it is today.
I read in the press recently that the province of Manitoba is paying for three school teachers to go to Asia to teach. This is happening at the same time I have to pay so much every Sunday to try to maintain my own culture and my own schools in the city of St. Boniface. What do we teach in those schools? We teach the curriculum of Manitoba-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member again to advise him that the matter being discussed by him is a provincial issue which I cannot relate in any way to the resolution before the committee. I suggest to the hon. member that there will be other occasions and opportunities for him to discuss this matter. As I read the resolution, it does not embrace the matters the hon. member is now discussing, therefore I would ask him to relate his remarks strictly to the resolution, or he will have to resume his seat.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: With great deference, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order to speak about what the committee that we are about
Canadian Centennial
to appoint should do when we celebrate the centennial of our constitution. We should work toward the greatest aim in our nation, namely Canadian unity.
I respect my English fellow Canadians. I know that most of them are quite broadminded and tolerant. They acknowledge the fact that this nation is composed of more than one ethnic group. I know the fault is not with the people; sometimes it is with governments. If we wish to celebrate another anniversary in 200 years from 1867 we shall have to learn how to get along. The greatest monument that could be erected in 1967 would be to have the greatest concord that is possible in this country. We should endeavour to promote such a program by having study groups, by having those who are going to take part in the celebration prepare briefs and make recommendations so that all the people of the country will see that what is best for Canada is best for every citizen of Canada, along with our neighbours.
I do not want my English speaking fellow Canadians to learn French or to adopt the French culture. All we want is that those who desire to become acquainted with the French culture be given full freedom and opportunity to do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Although I have spoken previously on this resolution I should like to say a word before the Prime Minister closes the debate. I should like to make a comment and ask a question which I should like him to deal with when he replies. I am quite sure we all realize that to assure the success of our Canadian centennial celebrations we must have co-operation-that is essential-among all levels of governments and all interested groups. In my opinion, to a great extent that success will depend on the information given to those various groups and the continuous contact among various groups, from national organizations down to village societies and small community groups.
When the Prime Minister replies will he inform the committee what are the proposals for continuous information being given to interested groups, particularly the voluntary organizations, and the arrangements for continuous contact in order to focus public attention on the work of the committee and the program and continually to develop and promote interest in this proposal.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have an opportunity to say a word about this important and very happy matter which has come to us on this day which is marked by unhappiness and indeed by tragedy. Perhaps it would be inappropriate for this resolution to pass without a word from a member from the maritimes where, after all, confederation began.

Canadian Centennial
We Canadians are not an historically minded people. It is altogether fortunate for us that we have a Prime Minister who is historically minded. I was much impressed with the thoughts he gave us today and with the plans he outlined. I have also been very much impressed with the suggestions made from various parts of the chamber with respect to the celebration of our great centennial. I think it altogether fitting that the Prime Minister laid the emphasis he did on the great questions of tolerance, mutual understanding and the great freedoms.
Our country began with the union of more than one ethnic group. It has now broadened and developed and contains many strands. I am one who has little support or sympathy for those who would think we have any other way but the united way. We in Canada find it difficult at times to reach back in history and discover that great blinding moment of truth. It is said that when the republic of Argentina turned over to Canada a square in the capital city of Buenos Aires they expected that on that square this country would erect a statue to our liberator, because in Latin America the equestrian liberator is the great figure of history. I would hate to be called upon to state what mounted figure should represent Canada in any square in any part of the world. We do not have a great revolution to which we can refer. As the Prime Minister says, the 1867 episode occurred without a great deal of fanfare, without a great deal of fuss, and with not too many of these excited utterances that appeal to public opinion and to which other countries point when they look down the historic passages of time.
We have not had much bloodshed although, as the Associate Minister of National Defence said, when it came to shedding blood for great issues Canadians were in the forefront. Indeed we can say, Mr. Chairman, that our anthem of nationalism has been played in a minor key. In fact sometimes we have not even been aware of the great things which were accomplished. The achievement of 1867 is as remarkable an achievement as ever occurred anywhere in the world, requiring continuing statesmanship to hold together a collection of communities when great factors were there which would contribute to their disunity and perhaps even their disintegration.
I often think it is typical of our lack of appreciation of these things when I go to that beautiful village of Grand Pre in Nova Scotia, where for many years everyone knew about Evangeline national park and the monument there to a mythical figure created by a United States poet, while a stone's throw away was the birthplace of one of our
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
great Canadian statesmen, Sir Robert Borden, unmarked and unknown except to a very few people. I believe our Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is correcting this situation. We have missed the jingoism, and I think it is well that we have; but as hon. members have said, it is time for a greater awareness of what Canada is and what Canadians have done.
I like the emphasis put by the hon. member for York-Humber on the fact that this must be an opportunity for the young people of our land to inform themselves, to interest themselves, and indeed to be inspired by what this great country is all about. As we go forward with the centennial plans, Mr. Chairman, hon. members will have an opportunity to see a preview of the great celebrations to come in the celebrations for the Charlottetown conference of 1864. As the hon. member for Peterborough said, it took three years to effect confederation. We look upon the opening event as the one which took place in 1864.
Here the historians and publicists have done us a great disservice. You will read that the islanders were busy at a circus when the delegates came and did not properly greet the visitors. This is not altogether true. The delegates stayed there for eight or nine days and were well entertained at Government House, that historic and beautiful building which still stands. How could visitors be treated more kindly than by the maritime delegates agreeing to set aside their own subjects of discussion in order to hear the distinguished representatives of the old provinces of Canada? This surely was hospitality.
Perhaps that unsung feeling of mutual understanding was expressed by a little incident which took place in Charlottetown in September of 1864. The orator, the great speaker of the visiting group undoubtedly was Thomas D'Arcy McGee, the ancestor of my colleague the hon. member for York-Sear -borough. On the night they held the ball at Government House in Charlottetown where was McGee? He was in the city lecturing, and on what? He was lecturing on Robert Burns, and delivered one of the finest talks ever given on that finest of poets.
In 1964 there will be events which will celebrate this preliminary and essential step in the confederation development. The province of Prince Edward Island has invited the area conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to meet in Charlottetown. This will be a direct repetition of the event of 1864, namely a gathering of the political leaders of all parties from all over Canada, (now a much enlarged Canada, a much greater Canada), in the birthplace of confederation. I think the inscription on the

wall of the confederation chamber is one, and I say this unashamedly, which we should not forget in these difficult times. These men went there from what might be said by some to be primitive legislatures; and small communities and sat down to build a great nation. The inscription which is on the memorial erected to them states simply, "Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew." Perhaps never before have we had a greater need for the guidance of Providence.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am filled with great pride and pleasure at the steps which are being taken to celebrate our nation's birthday. It is appropriate that these steps are being taken on the birthday of the Prime Minister. I tender him my good wishes on this happy day for him. I know that we will all, irrespective of our place in Canada, our place in society or our place in this chamber, unite in a great effort to make this centennial worthy of our great country.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has the hon. member for Ottawa West some questions which he wishes to ask?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The questions arise out of the resolution itself and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I wonder if at this stage the Prime Minister would mind elaborating a bit more as to just how he proposes the relationship between the national conference and the centennial administration will work out. I would ask him to develop that a bit further. Then, I have no criticism whatever of this, but the Prime Minister did not make any remarks about the financial side of the resolution, and how the money would be provided for this purpose. Presumably the resolution is being brought before the committee in order for the committee to pass on whether or not money should be provided for this purpose.
Is it the government's intention that the funds required should be provided directly through votes of other departments, or is it intended that the money will be provided directly to the corporation to be set up? I have in mind such things as the national capital commission, possible grants to provinces, and so on. Will the financing be done through this corporation or directly by the government? If the Prime Minister is in the position to do so, although I would not expect he would be at the moment, could he give us any idea as to what the cost will be, whether this involves a large expenditure of money or whether the resolution envisages something in the nature of planning and organization rather than the expenditure of money?
Canadian Centennial
Then there was one other matter upon which the Prime Minister may wish to express himself, but I do not propose to press it. Would he describe the set-up of the national conference and the work of this organization? As I understand, he set out in part the composition of that very large conference, which will include representatives of the federal government and representatives of the provincial governments. Since 11 governments are involved, and as governments change, was it his intention that this should be made an all party type of conference in all the 11 jurisdictions, or does he envisage it being a government conference as such? I am drawing the distinction between governments as such and all the parties. I hope it will be an all party set-up as I think that is the way in which this subject must be approached if for no other reason than the practicality of the situation. It is inevitable that governments will change within the six years. I refer to some of the 11 governments. In order to get the kind of continuity that is desirable, thought should be given to the wisdom of making the representation on that conference, whose duties as I understand it will be largely advisory, on a larger basis than merely that of the government in office in any given jurisdiction at any given moment. If the Prime Minister could clarify those points it would perhaps be helpful to the committee. I certainly should be grateful if he would do so.


John George Diefenbaker: First, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank hon. members in all parts of the chamber for the contribution each has made in placing before the committee ideas and suggestions, all of which will receive full and complete consideration.
Possibly I should begin by answering the questions asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West. While I am not at liberty to refer particularly to the bill, may I say this. The national centennial administration tc which I made reference will have the righi to expend any moneys appropriated by parliament for the work of the administration or received by the administration through the conduct of its operations or by gift, donation, bequest or otherwise.
As to the second question asked by him, maj I say this. It is the purpose and object of this legislation when brought before the house to assure that the celebration to take place in 1967 shall be a national celebration representative, as I said earlier, of all the people of Canada, and naturally representative of all the political thinking of Canada. To that end provision will be made in the legislation so that each province will appoint

Canadian Centennial
two members to the organization to be set up in that connection known as the national conference on Canada's centennial.
I think that covers the two questions the hon. member brought before the committee, although earlier he made reference to an opportunity being given to the House of Commons each year during the next six years to express its views with regard to matters which, in the opinion of members, it might be necessary to discuss in order to improve and to expand the work of the conference or of the administration. While there is no definite plan in that connection I should think it would be considered the course of reason to give the house from time to time the opportunity to place its collective views before the government and, through the government, before the conference and the committee.
It has been a worth-while occasion as we forget for a moment those things that ordinarily separate us and as we deal with a matter of national importance, see the degree of unanimity that has been apparent here during the course of the discussion. There have been many plans. Someone has asked what the total expenditure will be. That, of course, is a matter of conjecture. It will depend upon the nature and extent of the celebration to take place. It will depend as well on the extent to which the provinces co-operate and make their contributions. I would also hope there would be many private organizations which would feel the urge to make a contribution to the objective we all have in mind, namely a declaration to all the world of Canada's attainment of its centennial and also of our plans for the future.
Indeed, I should not be surprised that the time is not too far removed when the Canada of today will have additional provinces. Confederation was greatly strengthened when Newfoundland became a member of it. That was a step which it had been hoped would be achieved in 1867 or shortly thereafter but which, by reason of circumstances, was postponed for some 80 years. There are other northern areas that are developing. As Canada spreads northward and as national development carries on still further in the direction of the pole-I refer to the developing population of those areas-we may yet see one province and possibly two added to the existing 10 within the lifetime of numbers of hon. members sitting in this chamber.
As I listened to the hon. member for St. Boniface I recalled the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier in 1867, at the time the nation had its beginning. His words were these:

The time has arrived to form a great nation, and X maintain that, as far as we are concerned, confederation has become necessary to our commerce, our prosperity, and our protection ...
The government is of the opinion that confederation is necessary, but it is ready to hear the honourable members on the other side who apparently intend to oppose it. I am aware that members of this House and a number of people in Upper Canada and the maritime provinces believe that a legislative union would be more advantageous than a confederation. As far as I am concerned, I believe that a single government could not deal properly with the private and local interests of the various sections or the various provinces. No other system is practicable but a federal system. It is pretended that it will be impossible to carry out confederation on account of differences of race and of religion. Those who hold that opinion are in error. It is precisely on account of the difference in races and local interests that the federal system should be established and that it will work well. We have often read in the newspapers-and there are public men who hold likewise-that it is a great evil to have such different races, such distinctions between French Canadians and English Canadians. I desire in this connection to vindicate the rights and merits of the French race in Canada. It will suffice to recall the efforts which the French Canadians made to uphold British power on this continent, and to show their attachment for the British crown in a time of trial...
Objection is made to our project, because of the words "a new nationality". But if we unite, we will form a political nationality independent of the national origin and religion of individuals. Some have regretted that we have a distinction of races, and have expressed the hope that, in time, this diversity will disappear. The idea of a fusion of all races is utopian; it is an impossibility. Distinctions of this character will always exist; diversity is the order of the physical, moral and political world. As to the objection that we cannot form a great nation because lower Canada is French and Catholic, upper Canada English and Protestant, and the maritime provinces mixed, it is futile. Take, for example, the United Kingdom, inhabited as it is by three great races. Has the diversity of races been an obstacle to the progress and welfare of Great Britain? Have not the three races united by their combined qualities, their energy and their courage, contributed to the glory of the empire, to its laws so wise, to its success on land, on sea and in commerce? In our confederation there will be catholics and protestants, English, French, Irish, Scotch, and each by its efforts and success will add to the prosperity of the dominion, to the glory of the new confederation. We are of different races, not to quarrel, but to work together for the common welfare. We cannot by law make the differences of race disappear, but I am convinced that the Anglo Canadians and the French Canadians will appreciate the advantages of their position. Set side by side, like a great family, their contact will produce a happy spirit of emulation. The diversity of races will in fact, believe me, contribute to the common prosperity.
That was the spirit of 1867, and that is the spirit of today. Indeed, when people tell me there are no developments taking place within our country toward the formation of a national purpose, I speak as one who on this day naturally looks back on his own lifetime. Who would have thought it possible that the day would come when a person of other than entirely British or French origin would be prime minister of this country? That would

have been a utopian dream; that would have been a figment of the imagination, but that is what has been brought about within this land. The divergencies of race and religion, while maintained constitutionally, none the less do not deny anyone within this land, whatever his origin, making his contribution to the country and having the support of all the people in endeavouring to do so.
That is the kind of Canada we are building. We are maintaining the rights under the constitution which must be inviolate and unchangeable, while at the same time bringing to this nation those of every race and religion, building a Canadianism. As I look back over my lifetime I see the tremendous change that has taken place. There is a new spirit of tolerance. There are some who say "Oh, we are divided east and west on the basis of race, origin and religion". I have not found that. I have found in my lifetime, and in particular since holding the responsible office that I hold today, that every part of this country, whatever its divergencies and differences may be, is united in a Canadianism and in a desire to build a strong, virile, vibrant and vital Canada.
I return now to the question of some of the things that might be done. While there will have to be diversification in the preparations -I am thinking of the capital city of Ottawa -we must keep other factors in mind. What are some of the things that have been suggested? In mentioning these I do not of course indicate that each and all of them will be accepted, but here are some of the suggestions that have been made.
One is the acceleration of the national capital plan. The next is the preservation of our historical monuments. I have dealt with this matter on previous occasions. One of our aims and purposes should be to preserve those places that are indeed the citadels of our freedom, that too often are removed or destroyed in order to meet the exigencies of modern life. One of those places is Earnscliffe, today the home of the British high commissioner in Canada. There indeed is one of those monuments that I hope in the years ahead will become part of the Canadian tradition and the property of the dominion. As one walks about in that place and sees the history of our country, one cannot help but have that feeling. One who has given strong support to that suggestion is the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. I refer to the necessity for the preservation of these things that, after all, show the greatness of a nation.
Then there has been suggested the establishment of a museum of Canadian history. Mention has been made of the greatness of our historical background. I await the day
Canadian Centennial
when a history will be written which is acceptable to all Canadians, representative of the greatness of our past, compiled by representatives of the two basic races and the other races to the end that no portion of the majesty of our past will be lost to the present and to the future. There has been the suggestion of a concert hall to make the nation's capital the artistic centre of Canada, to be taken in conjunction with the art gallery and those other institutions of art that we have within our city. The national library and the development of Sussex drive, along the lines that have been sketched and outlined by the Minister of Public Works, is a step in this direction. These are some of the things that will give substance to our national centennial and will also provide for Canadians yet unborn worthy and helpful institutions for the future. I return to one thing I have advocated throughout the years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit me to ask him one question before he goes on to this other point. I notice the Prime Minister did not mention a national auditorium. It seems to me-and recent events in Ottawa have made this very clear-that nothing is more needed than proper surroundings in which a national assembly could be held. This has been demonstrated by their lack in the last two or three years here in Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to know that idea has just developed within the last two or three years. It is one of those things the need for which has become very apparent. It was not one of the matters that were brought to our direct attention as a result of the suggestions made, although there was a reference to a national convention headquarters. Certainly it would be possible I should think, for one of the institutions already mentioned to be used for the purposes the hon. member has in mind. I was about to mention once more the portable institution of the Canadian freedom train. The United States tried out this plan, I think some 15 years ago, and to every part of the union went a freedom train in which were kept the various charters of American freedom. The youth of the United States was thus privileged to see something of the greatness of its past and some of the foundations of American liberty. I hope that we in Canada may be able to secure from the United Kingdom some of the great charters of freedom that are ours, and that from France we may secure those declarations of the latter part of the eighteenth century-the declaration of the rights of man-and then the various other statutes of our own country which are part and parcel of our constitutional development,

National Housing Act
beginning with the Quebec Act which, as I said earlier today, provided for the first time in the history of what is today the commonwealth, for freedom of religion, in addition to the Constitutional Act, the Act of Union, the British North America Act, the Statute of Westminster and any other statutes and constitutional documents, including the bill of rights, habeas corpus and magna carta which are part of our heritage. Hon. members may realize that there is no copy of the British North America Act in an official form-that it was just a statute in the normal manner of the passage of statutes through the United Kingdom parliament. Our foundation instrument is not an attractive one in the sense of its decorative or artistic qualities but it does represent something and there is a copy available which would be of great interest to the people of our country.
I do not think there is anything further I wish to say at this time except once again to bespeak the co-operation of hon. members and of the people of Canada as a whole so that when the organization is set up it may be said of us, in the words quoted by the hon. member for Queens which appear in the room in which the fathers of confederation met in Charlottetown, as it was said of them: "They builded better than they knew".
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Diefenbaker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-127 respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that in committee the Prime Minister offered for tabling suggestions received from various sources concerning possible projects for Canada's centennial celebrations. Does the house agree to the tabling of this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
David James Walker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954:
1.	To increase from one billion five hundred million dollars to two billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loaning by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation;
2.	To increase from five million dollars to ten million dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for housing research and community planning;

3.	To increase from fifty million dollars to one hundred million dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for loans for university housing projects;
4.	To increase from one hundred million dollars to two hundred million dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for loans for municipal sewage treatment projects.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


David James Walker: Because of the sincere and continuing interest of all hon. members in the question of housing, I propose at this time to make what might otherwise be considered as a somewhat comprehensive statement to the best of my ability so that I may anticipate some of the questions which must be in the minds of many of us after the summer recess.
Housing is a subject which has in a great measure been above party politics during the time I have been minister. All members of the house, in accordance with their own points of view, have made efforts to contribute toward the provision of better housing for our people and I know that everyone, regardless of where he sits, will be happy to know that since June, 1957, a new dwelling unit-a house or apartment-has been completed virtually every minute of every working day during the four year period.
The provision of new housing at this spectacular and unprecedented rate is, I respectfully suggest, an accomplishment in which each of us can take just pride. It is an accomplishment which we can better appreciate when we measure it in terms of human beings-hundreds of thousands of Canadian families obtaining new homes, many for the first time, or at least moving to a new and better environment in which to live and nurture their children. It is an accomplishment, too, which clearly indicates the forthright, considered and, if I may say so, successful approach by this government to a vital social and economic problem of national proportions. It is also interesting to know that there are today two million Canadians living in new homes-homes which were not built when this government took office four years ago.
Of the housing accommodation built since 1957, 42.6 per cent, or very close to one-half, was financed under the National Housing Act and, in turn, approximately one-half of the N.H.A. total was constructed with direct federal government assistance. To put it in another way, more than 595,000 new dwelling units have been built during the past four and a half years, of which some 252,000 were financed under the National Housing Act; and of the N.H.A. content, more than 132,000

units were made possible through the medium of public mortgage funds aggregating $1,264.9 million.
This, of course, is only a part of the story and I shall, if I may, deal with some of the other aspects a little later in my remarks. I shall be very happy to answer any questions asked by hon. members and to receive their suggestions as to how we can better go forward to build what we hope will be a magnificent program in housing. Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be permitted to review very briefly the situation that faced us in 1960, the positive actions taken by the government and the reflection of these actions in the results attained.
Hon. members may recall that on November 22, 1960-it seems so long ago when this session began; on that occasion I believe I had the privilege of introducing the first measure of the session-in introducing another measure to amend the National Housing Act, I said:
For the first time since the war demand for housing has become a limiting factor.
There were good reasons for the pause. The pressures of population and income growth had abated and the sustained rate of building in the post-war years had greatly improved general housing conditions. But it was a pause and I believe I was careful to stress that we considered it to be nothing more than that, a rest for revaluation, a time to take stock ourselves.
Our assessment, which events are already showing to be a valid one, was based on general acceptance of the fact that a very real need for good housing still exists, especially for the lower income groups, and will continue to exist for many years to come. But as 1960 advanced, it became increasingly apparent that we were undergoing a transition, a transition from 15 years of active, unbroken demand to an anticipated period of marked improvement throughout most of this decade when the children born in the years following the war will reach maturity and enter the housing market.
There were of course many problems accompanying the transition, problems that required a hard day to day scrutiny of our housing policies. As a result new measures geared to meet changing conditions were enacted from time to time by parliament and our administrative arrangements which are designed for a maximum of flexibility were also revised as required.
During last fall several other measures were introduced to stimulate winter construction and to encourage the highest possible level of employment in the building trades. These included a reduced rate of interest
National Housing Act
on loans to limited dividend companies providing rental accommodation for lower income families and for elderly persons; and extension of home improvement loans to rental properties including apartment houses. I need hardly say that these measures have had a tremendous influence on the house building industry in this past year.
The importance of housing to the economy was given further emphasis in December,
1960,	when a major rejuvenation of the National Housing Act was effected. Parliament passed a number of amendments which gave the act new purpose and which today are having far reaching consequences for the nation as well as for the housing industry. As a matter of fact we are very pleased to have noted that as Canada worked its way out of the recession it was the housing industry directed by the government which led the way.
Hon. members will recall, for instance, that the ratio of loan to lending value was increased to provide higher loans and lower down payments; the maximum National Housing Act loan by regulation was raised; the permissive repayment period was extended to 35 years; funds available by statute for redevelopment of the blighted areas of our cities were doubled to $50 million; the federal-provincial partnership arrangements were widened to permit the acquisition and renovation of existing lands for public housing.
In addition, of course, two completely new concepts were introduced into the National Housing Act, federal assistance to municipalities to finance the construction of sewage treatment projects and to universities to provide living accommodation for resident students.
What have been the results of these perceptive, imaginative actions? What has happened as a result of the government's determination to stand by every bona fide home owner applicant and any builder who has a purchaser?
I can tell the committee that while the value of contract awards in the business, industrial and engineering fields declined by about 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 25 per cent respectively during the first seven months of
1961,	residential contract awards jumped by some 30 per cent. These are remarkable figures to contemplate, but it is patent that new house construction and, in turn, new employment opportunities would also have suffered materially had activity not been spearheaded by an effective, up to date National Housing Act in the passing of which measure all hon. members of this committee shared.

National Housing Act
systems are being provided where they did not exist before. Furthermore, construction of sewage systems in the smaller localities has, in many instances, encouraged the installation of public water systems to replace individual wells.
Now, federal sewage loans have also enabled many major centres to extend their trunk sewage systems and either enlarge or, where none existed, establish sewage treatment plants. Sewage disposal and treatment have as one of their objectives the prevention of damage to receiving waters. The damage that may be done includes contamination or pollution of water supplies, bathing places and fishing grounds. This all-out effort by municipalities, in conjunction with the other levels of government, will do much to free our rivers, streams, lakes and coastal waters of the pollution problem. I should like, at this point, to commend the city of Ottawa for its foresight and for the promptness with which it acted to avail itself of the opportunities under the National Housing Act to go ahead immediately with its tremendous sewage disposal plant. The mayor of Ottawa deserves a great deal of credit for her leadership in this regard.
Since the legislation received royal assent on December 2, I960, we have already approved 106 loans to municipalities in every province in Canada. In addition, 14 other formal applications are being processed which will mean more than $44 million of the $100 million provided by statute for this purpose will have been allocated. There are also 203 preliminary inquiries, representing a loan potential of $70 million, on hand so that by early next year the entire $100 million should be committed.
The amendment the committee is being asked to consider would have the effect of increasing the statutory vote for funds for municipal sewage treatment project loans to $200 million from $100 million.
I now come to loans to universities to assist in the construction of accommodation for full-time students in the form of either new residences or the conversion of existing buildings into dormitories. This is the subject of another amendment to the National Housing Act now being recommended. To qualify under the N.H.A., as hon. members are aware, this type of accommodation must consist primarily of bedrooms and sanitary facilities, although dining halls and lounges will be considered in the over-all picture. Other facilities necessary to operate the project, such as self contained family housing units for the senior supervisor of resident students and a caretaker, may also be provided. Loan amounts are based on 90 per cent of the cost of the project, subject to a maximum of $7,000 for each student accommo-

dated. Loans may be for a term of up to 50 years and their interest at a rate prescribed by the governor in council, as low a rate as is possible.
The provision of dormitories for universities was a problem of national concern. The increasing number of scholarships, bursaries and grants has lowered many of the economic barriers to a university education and has contributed to an unprecedented rise in enrolment. All hon. members are interested in seeing that children, if they are properly qualified, have an opportunity for university education. Let us look at these figures: 63,500 enrolled in universities in 1952, 114,000 are enrolled at the present time and the estimate for our centenary year, 1967, is 185,000. This enrolment is increasing at a tremendous rate. The national conference of Canadian universities reported in 1958 that 60 per cent of all full-time students were domiciled 15 or more miles away from the university. Resident accommodation was limited to 25 per cent of the student body. Those of you who have attended university and have been unable to gain admittance to one of the university residences can appreciate the problems students are having at the present time.
Construction of adequate dormitories on university campuses will accomplish two purposes: First, those who travel many miles each day to obtain an education will be able to move to the university grounds, with its attendant benefits; and those living in small towns who heretofore have been denied an education because of lack of accommodation will now be able to attend university.
Response by the universities to these long term, low interest loans has been most gratifying and the program is achieving unqualified success. To date, applications for loans have been received from 30 universities and colleges and an additional 23 have made preliminary inquiries. Sixteen loans in the amount of $18 million have already been approved. Approvals and applications on hand will result in loans totalling more than $35 million. These would provide accommodation for in excess of 7,800 resident students.
Now, to avoid the possibility of running out of commitment authority-you will recall that when I became minister in the summer of 1959 we were either running out or had run out of commitment authority as the hon. member for Nipissing will recall-it is recommended that this statutory vote be increased to $100 million from $50 million.
The fourth and final proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, relates to part V of the National Housing Act. Under part V, a responsibility is imposed upon Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide leadership in the search for a house of more beauty,

a house of greater utility for Canadians at a lower cost; in other words, a better home for less money. This is what we all want, a better home for less money. Sections 32 and 33 of the National Housing Act enumerate 15 items of a general nature to which the corporation is to give its attention. It is under this part of the act, for example, that provision is made for scholarships, bursaries and urban renewal studies. As minister, I have been amazed at the great interest manifested in better housing as the result of the encouragement of these scholarships and bursaries and the urban renewal studies provided by the government.
Section 35 of the National Housing Act contains a statutory vote of $5 million for these purposes. This amount has been almost fully committed. It is now recommended that the statutory vote of $5 million should be increased to $10 million. This will restore the commitment authority to the amount originally provided by the act.
That briefly is the scope of the new housing legislation we are seeking at this time and the reasons additional commitment authority is required on these four counts. May I just summarize:	First, an increase of
$500 million in the statutory appropriation provided by section 22 of the National Housing Act to $2 billion; second, an increase of $100 million in the statutory vote under section 36H(3) to $200 million; third, an increase of $50 million in the statutory vote under section 36GC2) to $100 million; and fourth, an increase of $5 million in the statutory vote under section 35 to $10 million.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the indulgence of hon. members for a few minutes more in order to review one or two other considerations which the committee may want me to touch upon at this time.
My remarks have indicated that house building has not been impeded in 1961 by any over-all shortage of mortgage funds for National Housing Act lending. It must be remembered, however, that this year 40 per cent of all National Housing Act loans have been made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and I know the hon. member for Nipissing particularly will want to know this-with funds provided by the government and that private funds for National Housing Act lending have been quite inadequate to meet the total demand for National Housing Act loans. Hon. members of the House of Commons have heard me say over and over again how anxious we are to have more and more private funds finance this great program of national building in order to relieve the government of the necessity of doing so in as great an amount as we
National Housing Ace
are doing at the present time. But this year, in order to meet the commitments the government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has made contributions up to 40 per cent of all the National Housing Act loans made this year so that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its role as residual lender will likely make loans up to $300 million.
This does not mean that the National Housing Act interest rate cannot be reduced as long as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is engaged in the lending business. This question about the interest rate is asked very often. No one is more interested in it than am I. On the other hand, there would be little point in lowering the National Housing Act interest rate-and I ask all hon. members to note this point-if the principal effect of such a change were to replace private funds with government funds in the National Housing Act market, particularly since the government already is committed to 40 per cent of National Housing Act lending this year.
It has always been the policy of this government to maintain the lowest possible National Housing Act interest rate that would attract a substantial flow of mortgage funds for housing. Hon. members will recall that the National Housing Act provides for a ceiling N.H.A. interest rate 2J per cent higher than the interest rate on long term federal government bonds. This government has been able to encourage a substantial flow of mortgage funds from the private lenders at a rate significantly lower than the maximum provided in the National Housing Act. If a new National Housing Act interest rate were prescribed today, the formula contained in the National Housing Act would permit-and I ask the hon. member for Nipissing to note this point-a maximum rate of 7J per cent but, notwithstanding the attractiveness of alternative investments, such as corporate bonds and provincial and municipal bonds, the government has been able to hold the National Housing Act rate at 6j per cent. The government will continue its efforts to maintain the National Housing Act interest rate at the lowest possible level. This matter is subject to continuous review, and the National Housing Act rate will be reduced as soon as the relative attractiveness of this rate as compared with other investment yields will permit the action to be taken, without impeding the flow of mortgage funds for housing purposes. Even with a rate of 6J per cent we are only able to get this year from private lenders a 60 per cent participation in National Housing Act lending.
I therefore ask hon. members not to worry about my attention to the interest rate. I

National Housing Act
think about it every month and indeed every week. We have had our review. We have many reviews. I am always saying, "When can we reduce the interest rate?" However, until long term government bond-and my hon. friends know what I mean-yields are reduced, this cannot be done. As hon. members can appreciate, if the bonds go up in price, the interest rate gets correspondingly less. As soon as we reduce those bonds, just so soon will we be able to reduce the N.H.A. interest rate on loans for houses.
May I now say a word about assistance to lower income families. This is a matter close to my heart because, as all hon. members know, I am interested in this subject inasmuch as in my riding of Rosedale we have the first huge federal-provincial development located in Regent park. I am therefore vitally interested in lower income families. In the first place, the more generous N.H.A. terms afforded by statute in December last have a direct bearing on the amount of mortgage loan available, the amount of down payments required and the length of time over which the loan may be repaid. The easier terms are there, of course, for any prospective borrower who is eligible, but it must be obvious that the greatest advantage is to families of modest means and it was this group we had very much in mind when we sought from parliament last year authority to make these important statutory revisions.
I would point out also, that this year so far 36.3 per cent of National Housing Act borrowers have had annual incomes of $5,000 or less.
Second, I must point to the very heavy volume of lending under the limited dividend provisions of the act to assist in financing rental accommodation for families who come from the lower third income group in their community and also limited dividend projects built for elderly persons. Again, as I do every time I make a speech to these wonderful charitable and service clubs across Canada, I commend the taking of cognizance of the opportunity for service in their communities by building in their communities under their aegis, direction and control, limited dividend projects. They will not lose any money in the long run. The government will put up 90 per cent of the funds; they put up 10 per cent of them. The cost is amortized over a period of 40 years at a low interest rate. They can be of great benefit to the people in the lower income bracket and to the elderly people in their community by doing a service of this kind.
To September 8 of this year loans have been approved for nearly 3,000 units of this kind, a figure that compares with 510 units for the same period of 1960. Just think about that. It is almost six times as many and it is

almost double the total for all of that year. The value of limited dividend loans approved this year to date is $22.9 million, against $3 million a year ago.
Third, since this government took office in 1957 more than 3,000 units of federal-provincial housing have been approved under section 36 of the National Housing Act to a value of $34 million. This is equivalent to one half of all federal-provincial housing approved by the previous government since the measure was introduced in 1949. Again, federal-provincial housing is intended for lower income families. Indeed, in September, 1960 the average tenant had an income of $3,288 per year.
Finally, grants in an estimated amount of $13.5 million have been made by the federal government for slum clearance purposes since 1957, a little more than double the amount made available by the previous government, and there can be no doubt that this assistance ultimately is of the greatest possible help to families of lesser means.
All these beneficial provisions of the National Housing Act, together with the many helpful services afforded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the public and to prospective home owners, suggest on the part of the government, I think hon. members will agree, a very high degree of interest in and of assistance to the lower income family. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that no assistance which we can render can be great enough.
I wish to say something about the 35-year repayment period. Hon. members will recall that we extended the period, but we only do this where it is a case of necessity and where we ascertain that the person who receives such an extension is readily qualified and otherwise would not be able to obtain a loan.
I now wish to refer to the mortgage insurance fund. I expect to hear some remarks from the hon. member for Nipissing about this. It is one of his favourite subjects and I am always glad to hear from him on it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: regret to advise the minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David James Walker: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and through you hon. members of the committee. I have almost completed my remarks. As of July 31, 1961 the assets of the mortgage insurance fund totalled $79.1

million against mortgage loans outstanding of more than $3,428 million. The assets included $793,760 in mortgages, $4,062,625 in real estate, close to $1 million in accrued interest and the balance in cash or government securities. From March, 1954, when mortgage insurance was introduced, to September 13, 1961, 835 claims were made against the fund and the value of claims paid was in excess of $7.8 million.
Thus, although our loss experience to date has not been unduly severe, he would be a very rash man indeed who would seriously counsel against maintaining, and continuing to increase, our insurance against losses of public funds that are outstanding in such large amounts.
I wish to say just a word about the secondary mortgage market. Again, I stress that we are not talking about second mortgages, but about the secondary mortgage market. As hon. members know, a second successful offering of National Housing Act insured loans was made in August. The auction resulted in a wider list of successful bidders, together with first use of the 60-day option arrangement.
As announced on August 30, total bids and requests for options in the amount of $21 million were received for the $17.5 million offering, of which not more than $15 million was to be sold. The value of accepted tenders was $9.75 million, bringing to $22.25 million aggregate sales for the June and August auctions. In addition, there were accepted requests for options in August for $3.75 million.
The average accepted tender price was 101.35, compared with 101.17 for the initial offering made in June. Bids were again received from chartered banks, life insurance and trust companies and investment dealers.
We are very much encouraged by results of the offerings for two reasons. First, their success indicates a growing interest on the part of those whom we would expect to develop a secondary market in mortgages, and we now know that a number of loans purchased in June have since been resold to Canadian pension funds, some of which had not previously invested in mortgages. On the basis of our experience to date we expect a third offering will be made during the next few months. We are criticized at times for not offering a larger amount at these auctions. After all, we want to test the market and we want to develop this secondary mortgage market in an orderly and sensible way.
Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks on this resolution. I should be very happy to hear not only advice from hon. members of the committee, but also any constructive criticism.
National Housing Act
There is no one more anxious than I, as the minister in charge of the department and responsible for reporting to parliament in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to find ways and means of developing our concept of having every Canadian properly housed.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, before dealing directly with the resolution I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that national home week began last Saturday. I know that builders and the many others engaged in the house building industry will be putting forth extra efforts during this national home week. New models and new ideas for better living will be on display, in many cases for the first time, in an effort to reach today's home buyer, who is becoming more and more selective. The prospective buyer today is doing more shopping than ever before in his search for better value for his money.
I should like to pay tribute to those many Canadians engaged in the house building industry, to the people concerned in construction and selling, and in fact to all who are connected with this industry. I believe the great majority of the people engaged in this important industry are continually searching for ways and means of improving their particular field and in so doing are making a worthwhile contribution to the never ending job of providing better housing for Canadians.
I should like first of all to thank the minister for his very comprehensive and, if I may say so-I do not want him to misunderstand me-lengthy statement. He has covered the field very thoroughly. In fact, he has covered the actions of his government for the past four years since they took office. My remarks today, on the contrary, will be rather brief as we on this side of the chamber await the bill itself and the examination of it which will be made later.
I believe the outstanding aspect of the legislation which will follow today's resolution will be found in the timing of the legislation and the tremendous sums involved, especially in the light of the statements of the Prime Minister, that the next election will be fought on the basis of free enterprise v. socialism.
This legislation-at least that portion of it that increases the amount of $1,500 million to $2,000 million for direct lending-shows the degree to which this government has become involved in financing home construction. Despite their many statements that they intend to resume a residual role in this field, this legislation, necessary though it may be at this time, points up the degree to which

National Housing Act this government has taken over from the private sector. I intend to say more on this subject a little later on.
The other outstanding feature of the proposed legislation is the fact that it ignores completely the real problem that faces the prospective home buyer today. I refer to the high cost of housing resulting from the high interest rates which have been made necessary and which are being maintained, apparently, under this government despite their protests to the contrary. We, as members of this committee, must satisfy ourselves that the amount envisaged in the first section of this proposed legislation is justified at this time. We must ask ourselves: does this government really intend to lend this money in the near future or are they simply seeking to provide election insurance? I was hoping the minister would have been more specific-that he would have taken this house and the country into his confidence to a greater extent concerning the government's intentions for the next year or more. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the minister to do that later on.
The legislation envisaged in this resolution, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, falls into four distinct categories. While we are in basic agreement with the principle of the resolution just as we were in December when somewhat similar legislation was before us, and while we do not intend to offer any obstacle to its passage, we do believe that the first item

the increase from $1.5 billion to $2 billion-is worthy of some examination. However, before dealing with the first section may I say we warmly support sections 2, 3 and 4. That more research and community planning is required there will be no argument in this house. With respect to the third and fourth items dealing with loans for university housing projects and municipal sewage treatment projects, I may say that we are in full accord, as we were last December. However, as we said then, and especially in the case of the sewage treatment section, we did not feel the government's proposals went far enough. We believe there is a great need by our hard pressed municipalities for a much larger degree of assistance such as could be provided by a municipal loan fund along the lines we have been recommending since 1958.
We hope the increase in the ceiling from $1.5 billion to $2 billion will assure that in the future the government will not make the same mistake as it did between October 1959 and April 1960-the mistake of not making needed funds available, with the consequent disastrous impact on housing staffs during the first half of 1960 and the resulting substantial loss of employment opportunities at a time when they were needed most. The low level of starts last year-108,858, the lowest


since 1953-provides the statistical basis for government claims of an increase in 1961 as compared with last year's starts. I would also point out that the low carry-over of houses under construction has resulted in completions between January and July, 1961, being 18.4 per cent less than in the same period of 1960. In these circumstances over-all activity in residential construction has shown, really, only marginal improvement. We are perhaps justified in pointing out in passing that in respect to the legislation approved only last December the fact that the government is now asking for further increases raises some doubt as to the ability of this administration to plan ahead.
The first increase-the increase from $1.5 billion to $2 billion-is interesting in view of the government's oft-professed role as the only champions of free enterprise. It is of interest to note that during the last three full years of Liberal administration-1954, 1955 and 1956-approximately 380,000 homes were started as opposed to the 415,000 during the three full years of Tory administration, 1958, 1959 and 1960. The Liberal administration of those days found it necessary to lend only $65 million, while direct loans from 1958 to 1960 amounted to $924 million. In other words, in order to build less than 10 per cent more houses this government had to increase its lending by approximately 1,400 per cent; to start 35,000 more houses in three full years they had to supply $860 million more from the public sector. This is some example of free enterprise.
I should like to say just a few words with respect to the outlook of the future. Despite the fact that in July housing starts were below those of July last year-8,682 as against 8,966-and that on a seasonally adjusted basis starts have been tending downward since March, I believe there is every indication that during the next 12 months housing starts could recover substantially from last year's low level. Demand for housing, in the sense that there are still many Canadians who are ill housed, continues to be very great. However, there must always be the fear that as general economic conditions improve, as the recovery from recession broadens and, in particular, if a mild expansion should take place during the next 12 months that the government may once again lose interest in the housing industry or, conversely, in an election year, overstimulate that industry. Wise policy and planning is required. Often in the past over-emphasis of the anti-cyclical aspect of house building or over-stimulation of the industry has resulted in feast or famine situations, with an obvious upward pressure on the cost of housing. On previous occasions we have

dealt in some detail with the increase in costs and the fact that in consequence builders are unable to carry out any long term planning. It is not my intention to review those points today.
I should like, now, to say a few words about demand. Interest rates are one of the major factors because, as hon. members know, home owners are the largest users of long term credit. High interest rates have added and are adding substantially to the resistance of prospective buyers. Yet, as has been shown during the past few years, governments do have a tremendous influence on interest rates through both fiscal and monetary policies. We all recognize the control that any federal government has over interest rates by its power to adjust National Housing Act interest rates. It is my view, expressed at every opportunity and perhaps, in the minds of some, too often, that the main deterrent to the development of a more vigorous housing industry during these past many months have been this government's stubborn insistence on maintaining high interest rates. The rate of 6| per cent represents the highest ever during the life of the National Housing Act. I should like to cite one example, that of chartered banks. They have played a very important role during most of the time since they were introduced into the housing business in the time of the previous administration. It should be recalled that as recently as 1958 the chartered banks lent over $300 million. Well, this government maintained a high interest rate of 6| per cent, keeping the banks out of lending for housing during these past two years. I can think of few investments more attractive to the bank than these gilt-edged government backed mortgages at 6 per cent, yet this government keeps the banks out of approved lending by maintaining an N.H.A. rate of 6j per cent.
Finally, I should like to make a brief comment on the secondary mortgage market, which has been recommended from this side of the house for the past three years. We believe the government should be giving some consideration to the establishment of a federal agency which would purchase N.H.A. guaranteed mortgages and use them as collateral against the issuance of certificates in small denominations which would be made available to small investors.
During the last decade innumerable innovations have been perfected by those competing for the nation's savings. One has but to recall the gimmicks incorporated in the conversion loan to show to what lengths efforts have gone to create new instruments to attract funds. Such developments have not taken place in the housing field.
National Housing Act
From the point of view of the home owner a mortgage is a very convenient credit instrument but from that of the investor it is cumbersome. Anything that can be done to improve its liquidity, to knock it down into smaller units will undoubtedly attract public funds to housing and allow the government to revert to a more residual role in the field of mortgage loans.
It is true that the government, and I might add after some years of urging from this side, did take its first timorous step in the direction of assisting in the establishment of a secondary mortgage market, but it was timorous indeed as witness these two small token offerings, one in June and the second when the house was recessed, in relation to the over-all picture. An effective secondary mortgage market of the kind we envisage could have channelled hundreds of millions of dollars into housing and could have reduced the present dependence on government funds for new lending as outlined in the resolution before us.
Naturally we wish to analyse the legislation when it is available to us in bill form. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks we are in basic agreement with the principle of the resolution. We stand ready, of course, to support any legislation that will have the effect of providing a better housing for our people especially those in the medium and low income groups.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, on March 11, 1960 the minister first had occasion in his present capacity to make his first presentation to the house. On that occasion I recall that many hon. members on the government side of the chamber rose in succession and complemented the minister on the job he had done. At that time I stated, as will be found at page 2002 of Hansard of that date that I wished to defer my compliments for a year in order to see what the minister might accomplish. Whether or not that had anything to do with it, I feel better able to compliment the minister today than I felt at that time. As I recall it the figures at that time had indicated a drop of 75 per cent from the peak achieved under the minister's predecessor in that department. While no comparison was made with the previous high achieved under the former minister I was pleased that the minister today was able to report a marked increase in the 18 months that have elapsed since he last presented figures to us.
Perhaps one reason for the improvement is this. The minister has always been known as a firm believer in the good old free enterprise system. He was always willing to depend on that system to solve problems without, to

National Housing Act
use the popular phrase, too much interference from the government. Once the minister rid himself of that idea and undertook constructive action, despite its being considered as government interference in some quarters, he was able to accomplish significant results and present a brighter picture to us today. If the minister in the next 18 months continues to show an improvement such as he has shown in the last 18 months I shall possibly be able to compliment him completely without reservations, although I usually attach slight reservations to my compliments.
The minister may have overwhelmed us today in presenting his case in that he tended to drown us in a sea of statistics. At this stage after listening to the minister it is difficult to have a clear, comprehensive picture of the situation. He took the best possible view of the situation, but he looked at it from the top, the bottom, lengthwise, corner-wise and from all points of the compass. The minister is well known as an optimist and perhaps he has given us an optimistic view of an optimistic situation. One is led to wonder, if the situation is as good as it has been painted, why we should be faced with more amendments in this field. Surely, if the situation is as good as the minister suggests we would have reached the ultimate and not require additional amendments.
Despite references to surpluses in the housing field, we are still faced with a desperate shortage of housing for the people who really need it, those in the medium and lower income groups. I know the minister must realize that slums continue to grow in our major cities. Aggressive action will be required to hold our own in this field, let alone to enable us to solve the problem.
I trust the minister has learned that beyond a shadow of doubt free enterprise cannot solve the problems of his department despite the great pronouncement made by the Prime Minister about private enterprise versus socialism. Private enterprise has had 94 years in which to come to grips with our problems and increasingly over the years its inability to cope has been demonstrated. I hope the minister will continue to apply good socialist principles and as a result will be in a position to continue to present an improving picture in the department for which he is responsible.
It is not my intention to prolong the debate. We will be able to deal with the measure in greater detail when we have the amendments before us. In the meantime I urge the minister to cast his eye among his colleagues and suggest that in their respective fields they should begin to apply some of the fine socialist principles he has been so

successful in applying. We await the legislation with interest and in the interim wish the minister well in his department.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a most encouraging and comprehensive report this afternoon from the Minister of Public Works for which we are all grateful. We heard some most unusual comments from the opposition. The hon. member for Nipissing came down squarely on both sides of the argument as is perhaps typical of the attitude of hon. members of the Liberal party in these matters. To my great astonishment the hon. member for Timmins handed across a bouquet and, lo and behold, it did not contain the brick which is customarily contained in complimentary tributes which emanate from hon. gentlemen in that corner of the chamber.
Another interesting surprise derives from the fact that the hon. member for Timmins did not resort to use of the stock phrase that invariably graces the speeches of hon. members of that group: "This is a good idea but it does not go far enough and in any event we thought of it 20 years ago." We heard that tiresome phrase from that corner of the chamber this morning when the spokesman of that group was discussing the Prime Minister's resolution concerning the setting up of a Canadian centennial organization.
As I said, the hon. member for Nipissing was on both sides of the question at the same time. He cast his suspicious eye at the timing and the tremendous amount of money involved in the proposed resolution before us. He argued on the one hand that the previous government had encouraged a high level of participation on the part of the private sector of the economy and on the other hand argued that this particular legislation is very necessary.
He criticized the government for the lack of planning and the fact that they were short of funds at one particular time in the past few years. On the other hand, he criticized the government for having the foresight and the intelligence to plan ahead against the day when those funds may not be available in the future. Again he suggested that election insurance rather than intelligent planning was clearly involved in this legislation.


John Richard Garland: Will the hon. member tell us how many times his government has run out of funds since it assumed office?


Frank Charles McGee: I would not be prepared to do that offhand. I have not the figures nor the documents to reply to that question specifically. I would simply state that if this is part of his criticism, how does he square it with the other remarks criticizing the government for asking at this time for what he

describes as a tremendous amount of money? In the first place I suggest that the hon. member cannot have it both ways. He has to be on one side of this free enterprise versus socialism argument or the other; he cannot be on both sides at the same time.
However, when he concluded his remarks I was happy to hear him say that he was clearly in favour of and would support better housing for lower income groups. Perhaps that was the most impressive part of the minister's statement, along with his description of the statistics which he gave, indicating that the lower income groups have been helped in an unprecedented way. That is something that we can all be proud of.
The figure that particularly impressed me was the figure of $13.5 million expended in the slum clearance programs. In the few years since I have been in the House of Commons and working closely with the present Minister of Public Works and his predecessor, I have seen various projects go through the planning stage and the building stage and increasing numbers of them being occupied. It was my privilege and pleasure recently in my own constituency to attend the opening of a senior citizens dwelling unit, one of the finest in the country, if not on the continent. The minister's attendance there and the fact that he again underlined the program and the increased activity in this sphere served to emphasize a most auspicious event.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is putting you on the spot, by reason of your recent appointment as deputy chairman of this committee, but I am sure your interest will continue in this field regardless of that impediment. Some mention should be made of the contribution in this field of the person whom I shall describe as the hon. member from Winnipeg South.
The increase from $5 million to $10 million for housing research and community planning is one which is of particular interest and significance. This government's participation in research and intelligent planning in this field, exemplified by the grant which the government made to the royal architectural institute of Canada to survey and report on the urban environment in Canada was one of its more significant acts. That report has been studied since its presentation last year. Within the institute a committee has been established to explore ways and means of implementing the recommendations of that report. I am happy to see that according to the minister's statement today the amount of bursaries and scholarships, both from that organization and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been increased.
National Housing Act
It is very easy to deplore the mistakes in planning made in various municipalities during the hectic post-war housing period, but I think that one should pay tribute to the fact that this government has instigated an aggressive program to make sure that the mistakes of the past do not occur again. There is the fact that in the immediate post-war years and before any really intelligent work was done what I like to describe as the cookie cutter design was established. As I say, before any intelligent work was done on that design it was duplicated a hundred thousand times across the country. Part of the survey which I mentioned a moment ago was an attempt to determine the degree of dissatisfaction that exists in this country with housing design.
There is one particular scholarship and one particular bursary, either from C.M.H.C. or R.A.I.C., that I should like to see established, with a substantial award attached to it. It would have to do with a successful design of a three-bedroom unit which could be converted reasonably cheaply to a four-bedroom house at some future time. Some consideration would have to be given to the necessity arising for that fourth bedroom. This has become something of a fetish with me.
During election time I have had occasion to visit many thousands of suburban dwellings, and in almost every case the design is such that if a fourth living area is desired on the ground floor it requires in effect turning an existing bedroom into a hallway to reach it. This is one of the fundamental challenges to the architectural profession and leads, of course, to planning the lot, the design and other factors. I think this would be high on the list and I put forward the suggestion that scholarships and bursaries be focused on trying to find a solution to that problem.
There are other obvious requirements, particularly concerning senior citizen housing which I mentioned before. In my view the ideal would be the erection of smaller units sprinkled among the suburban population rather than the large and in most cases more efficient units in institutions which have a tendency sometimes to identify the area and preclude the kind of social intercourse that is desired between the senior citizen and the younger people with younger families in those growing communities. Co-operative effort is clearly required here among Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and provincial and municipal planning boards. It is necessary that they be consulted on the necessity and requirement of this type of establishment.

National Housing Act
The increase in the aid to the universities is another important matter. I was particularly impressed with the minister's description and the emphasis which had not occurred to me in the earlier discussions of this matter, that this indirectly is going to have a profound effect on making a university education available to more young men and women of modest means.
The question of the extension of the loans for sewer projects in Canada is so patently obvious and has been for so many years that it requires almost no comment at all except to register my own reaction to the response which has been forthcoming. It was certainly beyond my expectation at the time of the original legislation. I am sure that opinion was shared by many hon. members.
I was interested also, Mr. Chairman, recently to read remarks attributed to Mr. David Mansur and Mr. Fred Gardiner chairman of metro Toronto. In both instances the statements which I saw indicated that a greater degree of success is being encountered in clearing away some of the problems of red tape and delay in approving at various stages public housing projects in that city. These problems have been created in part, I suppose, as a result of the nature of the structure of metro. The most encouraging thing I have heard in recent times, however, is the fact that these difficulties are being surmounted and we can look forward to faster development of the many needed projects which are in the planning stage in metropolitan Toronto.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to go back to the sort of criticism we heard from both the hon. member for Timmins and the hon. member for Nipissing concerning the government's actions in the public and private sector, free enterprise, socialism and so on. It seems to me that this a quibbling sort of argument. Clearly, this government has demonstrated it stands ready to face its responsibilities in the housing field. The most encouraging factor is that the government has indicated again, by its actions, it is not prepared to stand idly by and watch slums fester and spread, as well as the other unfortunate aspects of housing, private and public, that have plagued this country for many years. This government has indicated by its actions that it is willing to step in and do the job that needs to be done.


Mr.   Carier@: I should like to take a minute to make an observation on the housing program with particular reference to the low rental housing. I understand that low rental housing is made available to people within a certain range of income and that in computing the family income the family allowance

payments are included. This was brought to my attention this summer when a number of veterans exceeded the income bracket for two reasons. In one case the pension plus the earnings had put him over the ceiling and, in the other case, the ceiling had been exceeded by reason of the inclusion of the family allowance payment.
It seems to me that there is a principle here at which we would do well to take another look. It does not seem right to me that family allowance payments should be counted as income for the purposes of this act. Family allowance payments, as I understand them, are paid to the parents to insure the well being of the children; they are not meant to be used for housing or for general expenditures and should not be counted as part of the general family income. There is another side to this question because such action penalizes the large family. In other words, if there are two or three children in the family, the family can probably stay within the prescribed income bracket, but if the family consists of a large number of children then receipt of family allowance payments puts that family beyond the ceiling and they have to look for another home. Making eligibility dependent upon the number of children is a principle, I think, that deserves to be reconsidered and I would ask the minister to reconsider this policy of including family allowance payments in computing income under the National Housing Act.


David Vaughan Pugh: My only reason for rising this afternoon is the question asked by the hon. member for Nipissing of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. The question was, how many times has this government run out of national housing funds. In my opinion, that is a rather laughable question, in view of the whole history of National Housing Act operations. The hon. member for Nipissing has a very good background and a very good knowledge of housing. I am rather surprised that he should ask this question. Certainly, last year this government ran out of funds but only after having put forward $300 million for housing last year. Then, the government brought forward further funds and made it $500 million.
All I am asking hon. members to do is to compare this amount with the rather puny start made by the Liberal government in 1954 under this act. They made available a total of $150 million. As I say, last year we put forward $300 million, then added $500 million and now we are putting forward another $500 million. In my opinion, the laughable part of the whole situation is the fact that although the Liberals put forward $150 million in 1954, by 1957 only $100 million of these funds had been put into housing. The

ridiculous part of this whole argument is that in 1957 the building of homes in Canada was at a standstill. What was the reason for this situation? The Liberal government brought in a true tight money policy. In other words, they upped the reserve from 8 per cent to 15 per cent and they stopped loans under the National Housing Act. This is the truth.
Look at your own constituency. In my constituency there were only one or two houses being built under the National Housing Act at that time. Ever since this party came into power we have been building more and more houses throughout the constituency. Under the present Conservative government policy, money has been made available, and that is all there is to it. Let us look at those figures again. Under the Liberals, $150 million were made available and only $100 million were allocated. Compare those figures with the figures for the present day. I believe about $2 billion-I may be wrong and it may be more-have been made available for housing.
The implication in my friend's question about running out is that this government could not look far enough ahead. We have looked ahead and we have provided funds at a time when they have been required for housing in Canada. We started the ball rolling in 1957 when we made money available, yet my friend would quibble with that. He says, why not leave it to private enterprise? Private enterprise was not willing to put up the money at the interest rate at which money was available under the National Housing Act. He said, where else could we have obtained the funds-


John Richard Garland: I wonder if I might rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman? I know the hon. member does not want to attribute to me something I did not say. I never said at any time, leave it to the private sector.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am only taking the inference which is so obvious from the words that have been spoken by my hon. friend so many times. It is not a question of leaving it to private interests. He says, "Why not let private interests do it?" However, in actual fact, as we all know, private interests were not willing to put up money at this rate. Even so, suppose they were willing to put it up at 6 per cent, 5J per cent, 5 per cent, or even 6J per cent, would not that money then have been used rather than recourse being had to C.M.H.C.? The answer to that question is that of course it would. But money from private interests was not available and now it is available.
One other remark made by my friend the hon. member for Nipissing was to the effect that we had no secondary mortgage funds available and that the government was not
National Housing Act
willing to step in. He says that this is a belated but good step. Of course it is. However, I might point out to my hon. friend that this is a Conservative government step. At the time after 1954 when things became a little bit rough in national housing, why in the world did not he and his government do what we have been doing, namely make funds available.
I do not want to prolong my speech by going into the many benefits that were provided since last year in the drawing up and the broadening of the act, making it available for so many other things such as sewerage. I wish to reiterate one thing which the hon. member for York-Scarborough mentioned, namely that under this act we are making funds available for university students. We are broadening the whole field there. Under this building program more university students will be able to attend university, as has been pointed out, at a lower rate. That is all to the good.
May I close with one small point. In Okanagan and elsewhere in my riding we have had a great many requests for loans to be made for the boarding house type of senior citizens housing. To my mind this is one form of loan which the C.M.H.C. could go into readily. I have in mind the fact that in the town of Oliver and in the municipality of Summerland two very successful projects were started and that with respect to them the federal government had not put up any funds, simply because they are of the boarding house type of senior citizens housing. I have had today from the city of Kelowna a request that the matter be taken up again- I would ask the minister, perhaps when the bill is before the house, to comment on this matter-and asking that the act be opened up so that funds will be available for this type of housing. As I said, in my own riding I have seen well built, well run and certainly satisfactory houses of the boarding house type. I suggest to the minister that this type is perhaps better in Canada in many instances than is the single dwelling type or double dwelling type for which funds are available. I ask myself why funds are not available for senior citizens housing of the boarding house type. The answer, of course, is perfectly obvious. When funds are being put up on mortgage, those who put up the funds wish to be sure that in the event payments of principal and interest are not kept up, the housing will be available for another purpose or, to put it more bluntly, will be readily saleable. In other words you do not want to take over a dud. But in the case of senior citizens housing which, to all intents and purposes, is backed by local and provincial governments-where it is supported

National Housing Act
by the municipality and the funds are put up by these other two bodies-I would suggest that the federal government could go along with this type of housing and that a great deal of benefit could flow therefrom.


Neil Alexander Matheson: As the most junior member of the opposition may I join in the cordial felicitations to the Prime Minister on this happy occasion of his birthday. I sincerely wish him a long and happy life crowded with pleasure and leisure.
I will not congratulate the minister on any particular phase of his program because such congratulations would tend to be repetitive of what he himself has said so enthusiastically. The hon. member for York-Scarborough has repeated almost each word of praise. However, I would say this to the minister. Even in the short time I have been in the house, I have become cognizant of the fact that he has been' willing to redress little matters of grievance. I should therefore like to mention briefly, if I may, with respect it this legislation some matters to which I think it would he helpful for him to address himself.
Both the minister and the hon. member for York-Scarborough, as I understand it, live in Toronto. The type of riding I represent is very different from those which they represent. This summer I took some time to fly over my riding of Leeds and study it from the air. I could not fail to be impressed by the comparative congestion of the town of Brock-ville and the town of Gananoque with the relatively uncrowded villages. A village like Elgin, for example, which has an extremely fine school, could grow and develop with some sort of assistance. Lansdowne and Athens are two other places that could easily develop with adequate assistance. The town of Smiths Falls which spills into the riding of Leeds to the south must grow in that direction. These places are in my opinion, of the type that could be given some interested scrutiny by the minister.
A riding such as Leeds, which is half urban and half rural, compels certain comparisons. I have been made aware of the fact that our farm population has been declining for approximately 20 years. Not only is that the fact, but these very attractive villages which were to a certain extent the centre of culture some years ago and which were happy places in which to live, have declined in importance rather than grown. I would ask the minister to consider the extent to which this legislation could be made applicable to some of these areas on the fringe of our towns or even in the smaller areas.
My constituents have made me cognizant of the fact that federal housing assistance appears to be available to the town dweller but

not to the country dweller and of the fact that in this regard there is marked disparity. It would be improper within the confines of this debate to spill over into the responsibilities, for example, of the Minister of Agriculture under the Farm Credit Act. However, I think it would be fair to say this. So much red tape is attendant upon getting farm loans that we must perhaps look to our Minister of Public Works for as liberal, broad and generous interpretation as is possible of the provisions of this act.
By people interested in housing and in construction, particularly in the Brockville area, it has been brought to my attention that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was at first brought into being to promote home building in areas that were unserviced and therefore not acceptable to insurance companies. It was for the purpose of issuing loans to individuals who perhaps could not qualify for insurance company loans. If I am in error in understanding the origins of this act, I am sure I will be corrected. However, in 1961 in the Kingston area we have seen a sharp change with respect to this approach. Now we find rulings which provide that no lot, unless it has services or is in a C.M.H.C. approved subdivision, is acceptable for a C.M.H.C. loan. This, to the thinking of some people very much interested in construction today, would appear to place C.M.H.C. in direct competition with the insurance companies, leaving the former field in which we understand C.M.H.C. was originally particularly interested with no one to look after it.
It seems almost as though in the C.M.H.C. Kingston area a circle has been drawn around a certain point in each town and at various distances out from the limits anyone beyond the perimeter is able to build on his land-for example, with septic systems, septic tanks and tank installations-but beyond that point this is not possible. I of course understand how the minister, whose program involves so many millions of dollars, is urgently concerned about orderly urban development. I can quite appreciate that lack of discipline and lack of orderly growth in this regard could be harmful and damaging. On the other hand I suggest to the minister that there are, particularly in a riding such as mine-which is on the river and extends to the north-many areas which have not been developed at all.
There are places such as Lyndhurst, Elgin, Morton, Delta, and so on, where the persons who live in those villages are for the most part employed in the towns. Many people work in Smiths Falls, Kingston or Brockville and there is not much difference between our countryfolk and our townsfolk. These

are not farmers; they are people enjoying a sort of suburban life. Before the minister simply rejects this suggestion I ask him to consider the possibility of liberalizing to some extent the conditions and requirements of these loans. Every area of ground is different, as we know. There is the problem of sewerage. They are working toward improvement in Gananoque at the present time. I must speak appreciatively of this aspect of assistance to our urban areas.
The Minister of Finance has visited our area. On one occasion in Athens he spoke on behalf of the late Hayden Stanton regarding the requirement of municipalities for greater assistance. This extremely well attended meeting was held in 1957 and his promise of municipal assistance was well received by people who knew something about the burden of municipal financing in our county. I think our municipalities are in a somewhat worse condition today than they were when the Minister of Finance made those suggestions in respect of the assistance to be provided.
The matter of assistance with respect to sewage disposal is of vital importance to an area such as Gananoque. We have there a community of 5,000 people who at the present moment are embarking upon a sewerage plan which will probably cost them in the order of $605,000. Without assistance it will be quite impossible for them to carry out this project. It will mean an expense of $121 for every man, woman and child in that small town, which has suffered its share of unemployment in the past two years. I think federal assistance for sewerage development is vitally important.
I also put forward this other point which I hope the minister will appreciate. There are areas beyond and outside these congested areas of, say 5,000-areas with populations of 1,000 or 1,500-where it is quite possible that independent septic systems with sufficient acreage could be installed which would meet the support and approval of the minister with respect to development.
I know many people have bought lots hoping to build under N.H.A. plans. One may now find that his lot is one that is circumscribed by the mystical line that has been drawn by the representative in Kingston, and that he will be unable to receive the assistance for which he applies.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I feel it would only be fair to make one comment with respect to the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I am sure he would not ask this committee to believe, after the recent careful scrutiny that 90205-6-536
National Housing Act
was made of the Bank of Canada, and particularly the annual reports thereof for the years 1956 and 1957 that the liquid reserve ratio was raised from 8 per cent to 15 per cent by the former administration. I know this matter is irrelevant to the subject we are discussing, but I earnestly ask that the record be put right in this respect. There was no such policy on the part of the previous government, nor indeed was there at any time any enforced direction from the Bank of Canada.
(Translation):


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to commend this government and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) for the resolution he just now introduced in the house. I was pleased to hear his explanations and, when the official critic of the opposition rose, I noticed that he was not as fiery and vigorous as in the past. He mentioned the fact that the further $500 million we wanted to put at the disposal of the Canadian people were added in view of an election. At that rate, Mr. Chairman, we have been on the eve of an election since 1957, because at that time, we set up a consolidated fund of about $250 million, which was later raised to $1,200,000,000; and today the minister asks us to increase it to $2 billion to promote housing projects in this country.
It is true that we rarely assess ourselves accurately, but, in the past, the former administration introduced some favourable legislation on the eve of an election, and you may be assured, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the case as far as we are concerned and that we shall continue this good policy to help the Canadian people and more particularly promote the building of homes.
Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in the building field, but mere common sense makes me say that legislation introduced by the Conservative government for the welfare of the Canadian people certainly did have beneficial results in my riding. That is why I now want to compare a few figures, more particularly since 1958, to those of 1954-57.
I could tell you for instance, Mr. Chairman, that from January to September of this year, 95 housing units went up at Alma, which has a population of 14,000, this means over $1,400,000 for housing, thanks to the beneficial policy of this government. This has, of course, some impact on the employment situation.
Last year, I heard some politicians claim that they would settle the unemployment

National Housing Act
problem by all sorts of means. But we, of the Conservative government, have each year taken steps to help the population and create increased employment opportunities.
Therefore, from 1957 to 1961, in the town of Alma alone, 346 dwelling units have been built through funds put at the disposal of the workers of my area. Considering the fact that the municipalities of Naudville and Isle Maligne have built more than 168 houses, I notice that for a population of about 22,000, more than 500 houses have been built with funds put at the disposal of the Canadian people.
And yet, from 1954 to 1957, merely 50 houses had been built under N.H.A. in my area.
Mr. Chairman, housing in my area has been increasing at a remarkable rate and I am proud to say that in Alma, 58 per cent of the citizens own their own homes today. I am of the opinion that this is an efficient means of fighting socialism, because when a man owns a house, he wants to protect what he has and is not likely to be taken in by all kinds of promises that he will be given this and that if he votes for such and such a party.
However, I bring to the minister's attention the fact that we need, in lake St. John, a branch of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or, if it is impossible to obtain a branch, we should at least get an inspector for the period from May to October, because, as I said a moment ago, housing construction increases each year in the municipalities of Naudville, Isle Maligne, Alma and all around lake St. John. The absence of an inspector delays construction considerably, and the contractors are not always very happy about it.
I therefore, call the minister's attention to the fact that it is necessary to name an inspector or establish a subsidiary of the corporation at lake St. John for the period from May to October, so as to give satisfaction to our contractors and the new owners.
Mr. Chairman, I heartily support this resolution which seeks to increase the maximum set apart for direct loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I also support the additional funds for housing research and community planning.
Each one of us wishes to improve his lot, and I am satisfied that with these monies, plans will be worked out for prettier and more comfortable houses in which our Canadian people will be happy to live, especially under a good government which promotes private enterprise and housing construction, thus creating employment.

As for the additional $100 million in loans for municipal sewage treatment projects, I am satisfied that the Department of Public Works will soon receive several requests from my area, and that this additional sum of a hundred million dollars will be very much appreciated.
(Text):


James Stanley Speakman: I think the fact that the minister has brought in this resolution to amend the National Housing Act so as to make more funds available is in itself an indication that a need still exists. Certainly, no member of this committee would quarrel with the fact that, within a period of less than a year since last December when this legislation was previously amended so as to provide for university housing projects, it should be necessary to double the amount of money available. This only emphasizes the great need which existed in that area. When we find that the legislation brought in last December providing for assistance to municipalities in respect to sewerage projects has now to be amended so as to double the amount available, I think that sufficiently answers the question whether or not there was a need in that direction.
I wish to compliment the Department of Public Works and its minister on the fact that they have so greatly enlarged the degree of assistance given to communities whose population is less than 5,000. In my own community this assistance has led to its virtually doubling in size. Leduc, which is outside the international airport, has built this year nearly 100 homes, which represent about 25 per cent of its previous size. My own city of Wetaskiwin has had the largest percentage increase in building of any city in Alberta- an increase of 186 per cent. This, of course, is due in part to the fact that our population has increased as a result of a new Carnation milk plant coming into the city and also because of the fact that we shall be an alternate headquarters for the military establishment in Edmonton, as the Minister of National Defence announced the other day. Both in Ponoka and Rimbey there have been substantial increases in housing accommodation, and all this has happened just in the last couple of years since the act was broadened to include the smaller centres.
One thing I would urge on the minister and his department: I suggest they should seriously consider reserving a greater portion of these funds which are now being made available for the provision of smaller homes at lower cost. This would provide the lower income groups with more opportunities of buying homes than they have at the present

Western School Lands Administration
time. These people, too, need houses but they cannot afford to buy the larger houses which now cost in the neighbourhood of $15,000. The family groups which can only afford the smaller houses need them very much, and I commend action on these lines to the minister and to the national housing authorities.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Walker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-128, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NATURAL RESOURCES
David James Walker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm certain agreements entered into between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, dated 13th July, 1961, 13th July, 1961, and 14th July, 1961, respectively, respecting the administration and control of natural resources in those provinces in order to vest those provinces with full power to administer and dispose of the school lands and the school land funds referred to in the said agreements.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Richard Albert Bell: The purpose of the bill to be founded upon this resolution is to secure parliamentary approval of agreements which have been entered into between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These agreements were laid on the table of the house on the 15th of this month by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Halpenny) and they appear as schedules to the bill. If approved by parliament and by the legislatures of the respective provinces, these agreements will have the effect of terminating the legislative control of the parliament of Canada over the school lands and school lands funds of the three prairie provinces and placing the administration and disposal of those lands and funds within the sole competence of the respective legislatures of those provinces.
The committee may wish to have recalled some of the historical background of the school lands and school lands funds. Under the Dominion Lands Act of 1872, the parliament of Canada set aside two sections of land 90205-6-536J
in each township in Manitoba and the then Northwest Territories as an endowment for education and in the consolidated Dominion Lands Act of 1879 set forth the manner in which this endowment was to be administered by the department of the interior. All sales were to be made by public auction after due advertisement, and at an upset price based upon the fair value of other unoccupied lands in the township. The terms of sale, which have subsequently been changed from time to time, were fixed in 1879 at one fifth in cash and the remainder in nine annual instalments with interest at 6 per cent. The principal arising from the sales was to be invested in dominion securities and the interest arising therefrom as well as the annual revenue from leases, hay permits, etc., on school lands were, after deducting the cost of management of the lands, to be paid annually to the governments of the province or territory within which such lands were situated. The moneys so paid were to be used by the province or territory to support public schools in such manner as the province or territory deemed expedient. In conformity with the above requirements, the government of Canada from 1883, the date of the first sale of school lands, until 1930, when the school lands and school lands funds were transferred to the jurisdiction of the provinces in the natural resources settlement of that year, administered the school lands and school lands funds.
In the agreements which constituted the 1930 natural resources settlement, the three provinces undertook to administer the school lands and the school lands fund they acquired in the settlement, according to the provisions of sections 37 to 40 of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. This provision of the natural resources agreements meant that while the provinces had assumed the administration of their school lands and associated funds, the principles on which those lands and funds were to be administered were not to change. The provinces were required to invest the principal from the sale of school lands in a school lands fund and invest the moneys of the fund in securities of Canada.
There have over the years been various representations from one or more of the prairie provinces to have the provisions of the natural resources transfer agreements of 1930 dealing with school lands and the school lands funds amended. As the result of such representations the natural resources transfer agreement with Saskatchewan was amended
8500	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Western School Lands Administration in 1948 and in 1951 the transfer agreements with each of the three provinces was amended. The 1948 amendment allowed Saskatchewan to sell school lands to veterans under provisions of the Veterans' Land Act without conforming to the requirement that school lands must only be sold at public auction. The 1951 amendment gave the provinces more latitude as to the securities in which the school lands funds might be invested. The definition of acceptable securities was broadened to include, in addition to securities of Canada, securities of any province, or securities of a municipal corporation or school districts within the province together with securities guaranteed by Canada or a province.
There have been since that time various representations from the prairie provinces that all federal legislative control over their school lands and school lands funds should be removed and the legislatures of the provinces given sole jurisdiction as to the manner of administration or disposal of the lands and the funds. It has been argued that the revenues provided from the school lands are now small in relation to total expenditures on education so that it can scarcely be contended that the maintenance of the funds assures adequate revenues for education.
I have in my hand a brief table relating to school lands funds setting forth the size of funds, expressed in thousands of dollars, the unsold lands, expressed in millions of acres, and the revenues from school lands and school lands funds expressed in thousands of dollars. I seek the unanimous consent of the committee to have this inserted in Hansard at this point.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has the parliamentary secretary leave of the committee to have the table printed at this point in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editors note: The table above referred to is as follows:]


SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS
[Stage Direction]
Size of Funds (in thousands of dollars)
Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta1930-31 ...	.. $5,920	$17,809	$ 9,5651945-46 ..	.. 6,146	23,696	11,8361959-60 ...	.. 7,412	35,743	16,937Unsold Lands	(in millions of acres)	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta1930-31 ...	.. 7.6	5.9	6.61959-60 ..	.. 7.4	2.3	6.2[Mr. BeU	(Carleton) .1	
Revenues from School Lands and School Lands Funds (in thousands of dollars)
Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
1945-46   $293	$1,369	$ 740
1950-60 ____ $600 (est.) $2,214	$5,660«>
o>
Includes
Interest on investments	$ 366,468.10
Fees and rentals		$2,126,506.60
Royalties	 1,980,750.93
Sale of Crown reserve
leases	 1,181,349.17
Miscellaneous			5,412.04	$5,294,018.74
[Stage Direction]
The situation today is this. The revenues from school lands as a percentage of provincial expenditure on education declined in Manitoba from 9.5 per cent in 1945-46 to 3.5 per cent in 1957-58. In Saskatchewan, the revenues from school lands were 21.9 per cent of educational expenditures in 1945-46 and 14.2 per cent in 1958-59. In Alberta, the school lands revenues constituted 12.9 per cent of educational expenditures in 1945-46 and 8.8 per cent in 1958-59.
The provinces have also contended that the retention of federal control over the use of the school lands and school lands funds in the three prairie provinces infringes upon their autonomy and that the existence of this legislative control involves unnecessary administrative work and impairs the financial flexibility of the provinces concerned. In the belief that the arguments advanced by the provinces were reasonable and in the desire to co-operate with the prairie provinces in this matter, the Prime Minister at the dominion-provincial conference of February 1961, suggested that the governments of Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should enter into an agreement to confer on those provinces complete authority over their school lands and their school lands funds. The provinces were agreeable to such an arrangement and agreements to this effect have been entered into by the governments concerned. The house will be asked by the bill to be founded upon this resolution to approve on behalf of Canada the agreements entered into with the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The agreements as I said will become effective when they have also been approved by the legislatures of the provinces concerned.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated we are discussing an amendment to section 7 of the basic agreement between the federal government and the three prairie provinces entered into in 1930, removing any suggestion that these funds are to be regarded as trust funds and specially segregated and under special

Western School Lands Administration
rules in so far as income therefrom is concerned in the hands of the provincial governments.
I do not think the amendment to the original agreement that will likely appear in the bill will prove to be nearly as controversial or delaying in debate as was the original amendment introduced by the Mackenzie King government in 1930.
At that time the opposition of the day suggested that, notwithstanding that the agreement seemed to eliminate a long standing controversy and sense of grievance that existed in the prairie provinces because they did not appear to be on a similar basis as were the other provinces of Canada with respect to their natural resources under section 109, I believe, of the original British North America Act of 1867, and quite apart from any infringement of autonomy with respect to school lands, there were none the less other infringements of autonomy unlike the conditions that applied with respect to the natural resources of the older provinces. It was suggested that the federal government retained certain rights with respect to lands in which it had made investments for national parks, including mineral rights with respect thereto. Certain suggestions were made to the effect that there were also some restrictions on the prairie provinces with respect to water development unlike the situation in the older provinces. There was also the suggestion that by the retention of some federal rights with respect to lands that had already been designated as Indian reserves, the amendment of 1930 was unsatisfactory.
I wonder whether, as a result of the recent negotiations with these provinces which result in the present amendments to the 1930 agreement, the prairie provinces have indicated that they seek changes in the areas I have outlined and in the area of control of national parks. Of course, if control were to be released they might also seek control with respect to expenditures in relation to those territories designated as parks. Perhaps this control would fall to the provinces ipso facto. I wonder whether a request was made for control of mineral rights in the parks and whether there were negotiations with respect to lands designated as Indian reserves. In any event, we on this side have no quarrel with the proposed bill. It will leave the provinces unfettered. I take it that at the moment the control is largely in the segregation of revenues from those sources and certain stipulations as to the form of investment of those revenues. We have no quarrel with that. The requirements of the long standing Dominion Lands Act will no longer prevail. I think the parliamentary secretary indicated that the
pertinent sections of the Dominion Lands Act which will no longer prevail are sections 34 to 40. As I read the agreement, which was tabled last Friday, I take it that it involves section 37.


Thomas Miller Bell: Sections 37 to 40.


William Moore Benidickson: Inclusive.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, one can be in this house for a number of years and yet always learn something. This afternoon I listened with interest to the historical background of those school lands of the three prairie provinces concerned, of their administration, of the sales and of the amendments to the original legislation to date given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
We support this legislation. It seems to us that these agreements are the result of negotiation. They are a sensible arrangement; they are in accord with the spirit of the times and of the wishes of the provinces concerned.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I should like to know whether this transfer of school lands would be subject to the performance by the province of Manitoba of its obligations under the Manitoba Act of 1870 or under the British North America Act of 1871. Section 6 of the latter act says:
Except as provided by the third section of this act, it shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned act of the said parliament, in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba, or of any other act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said dominion, (e) subject always to the right of a legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and members of the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.
This shows that under the British North America Act of 1871 the province of Manitoba has no right to deal with school matters in that province in connection with the rights reserved by the act except subject to what is mentioned in the section I have just read. I take it that if there is any transfer of school lands to the province of Manitoba it should be made clear and understood that they are transferred subject to the performance by the province of its obligations under the British North America Act and the Manitoba Act of 1870.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Leon Balcer (for ihe Acting Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-129, to amend certain agreements respecting the administration and control of natural resources in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
8502	HOUSE OF
Western School Lands Administration


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since there is nothing controversial in the bill, I think we on this side would be disposed to proceed with the second reading at 7.30 o'clock, if copies of the bill were made available in the meantime so we could have a look at it.


Richard Albert Bell: I would have to check with the law clerk. The bill has been printed but I am not certain as to its availability.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If copies could be made available a few minutes before 7.30 o'clock we on our part would not object to going ahead with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to say that the bill be read a second time later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.


Lionel Chevrier: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Later this day or at the next sitting of the house, depending on the state of the printing of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-129, to amend certain agreements respecting the administration and control of natural resources in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.


William Moore Benidickson: As indicated earlier today at the resolution stage, this does not appear to be a controversial bill. It amends only one section of an act that was very important in 1930, as I know because I was a resident of Manitoba in 1930. This act was introduced, then, by the Mackenzie King government. I recall that at that time one of the sections of the bill before us was objected to at great length, and the objections covered many pages of Hansard, by some of the most eminent lawyers we had at that time including the Hon. C. H. Cahan and the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I refer to the argument to the effect that parliament should not be presented with a bill after an agreement which more or less tied its hands had been signed.
However, in this case the tying of hands does not appear to me to be any more important today than it was at that time. It


was the essence of the agreement that was important then, as it is now. I quite agree with the presentation of the parliamentary secretary to the effect that the provinces should be unfettered with respect to jurisdiction over revenues that might derive from crown lands that were transferred to them, so that they would be on an equivalent basis with the older provinces of Canada which form the confederation about which we were talking this afternoon when we were thinking about our centenary year.
I do notice, however, Mr. Speaker, that the schedules to the bill, if you will permit me to refer to them now rather than later, are signed on behalf of the government in all instances I think by one who identifies himself as Walt. Dinsdale. I might ask, why not Wally? I might perhaps indicate that another eminent gentlemen who used the term "Walt", and I refer to Mr. Whitman, said at one time, "My rendezvous is certain; it is appointed." I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) might think there was some significance in that. However, I am sure that he would not agree with another quotation from one who was ultimately known as "Walt" when he said, "And nothing, not God, is greater to one than oneself."
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time; now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Grimshaw, in the province of Alberta, in a northerly direction to Great Slave lake, in the northwest territories.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which we now have before us is an important and long

awaited step in the development of the north, but more particularly in that portion of the Northwest Territories tributary to Great Slave lake.
Authority is being sought to enable the Canadian National Railways to build a branch line from Grimshaw, Alberta, to Great Slave lake, Northwest Territories, a distance of approximately 438 miles, under which the government will advance to the company the funds required for the construction of the line but not exceeding $86,250,000. This sum represents a preliminary estimate of the cost of construction of $75 million plus 15 per cent for contingencies.
As hon. members know, a survey of the route is in progress and is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Only then will it be possible to make a detailed and realistic estimate of costs. If it should develop that unforeseen construction difficulties should increase the costs beyond those presently estimated, then additional funds would have to be provided.
It is over 30 years since the settlers north of Grimshaw were promised an immediate extension of the Northern Alberta Railway to the northern boundary of Alberta. However, little serious interest was shown in the matter until 1954, when the existence of a major zinc-lead ore body at Pine Point was confirmed.
Following this development there were repeated intermittent discussions between the federal government and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company regarding the need for a railway to Great Slave lake. The royal commission on Canada's economic prospects also received representations in 1955 and 1956 on behalf of the Northwest Territories which emphasized the need for such a railway, but the commission dealt with the matter in a general and indefinite way.
The throne speech of May 1958, included the statement that in order to promote national development on the frontier in the north, parliament would be asked to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. A wide divergence of opinion immediately developed as to the route which should be followed by the proposed railway and a royal commission was appointed in June 1959, to inquire into the matter and to report to parliament. The report of the commission became available in July 1960, with the majority opinion favouring the western route from Grimshaw. In keeping with this opinion it was announced in November 1960, in the speech from the throne, that a detailed survey of the western route would be undertaken; and in December 1960, when $250,000 was appropriated to start the survey, I stated in the house that a railway would be built on
Canadian National Railways this route after the completion of the survey. In February 1961, I further stated that, because of the distance involved, the proposed line could not be self supporting from the start so that some form of governmental subvention would be necessary.
The proposed railway extension from Grimshaw will follow a route paralleling the Mackenzie highway and terminating at the port of Hay River. A spur line from the vicinity of Alexander Falls, some 25 miles south of Hay River, will serve the needs of Pine Point mine. Some might ask "Why build a railway when a highway is available", the suggestion being that the Pine Point mine might be brought into production on the basis of trucking. That possibility has been explored and we are satisfied that rail transport offers the more economical means of bringing the property into production as well as furthering the development of the north.
Construction of the railway line will bring about major new construction projects, namely a $21 million mining camp at Pine Point; a $16 million expansion of the plant of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at Trail, B.C; a $2 million community development at Pine Point; and some $5 million for new railway equipment and rehabilitation of existing railways. The total capital expenditure involved, including the $75 million estimated cost for the new line, will thus total about $120 million.
The operation of Pine Point mines will result in the annual production and shipment of some 215,000 tons of lead and zinc concentrates. As I indicated at the resolution stage, if the Pine Point operation was not undertaken, the Canadian economy would be adversely affected not only by the substantial loss in employment but by the necessity of importing foreign concentrates at a cost of about $13 million annually to maintain the output of the Trail plants. Moreover, under these circumstances, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company would not expand its plant at Trail so that additional export business from the sale of metal amounting to about $6 million per year would not be obtained.
While the Pine Point mining operations would be the most important immediate development resulting from the construction of the proposed railway, other important benefits would also be realized. I outlined some of them at the resolution stage, namely provision of service to some 8,000 people living north of Grimshaw; provision of service to existing industries such as commercial fishing on Great Slave lake and gold mining at Yellowknife; stimulation of agricultural expansion

Canadian National Railways in some 6 million acres of arable land adjacent to the railway; stimulation of forest industries based on some 13 million acres of adjacent forest lands; and stimulation of mineral exploration. In other words, the proposed railway would be somewhat different from most branch lines constructed in recent years which were designed to service one mine or a group of mines. Its purpose, in fact, is to open up a whole new region.
The Great Slave lake railway will therefore be for the general development of the north. A substantial freight movement will immediately be generated by the operation of Pine Point Mines Limited. It is estimated that this movement will result in total revenues of some $5 million annually from the shipment of concentrates southward from Pine Point and the shipment of supplies north to Pine Point. The portion of this revenue accruing to the new section of the line would be about $1,700,000 annually. In addition, the report of the royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway estimates that existing business in the area would provide a further $1,200,000 annually. Total revenues available to the new section of the line would thus approximate $2,900,000 per year.
Thus a considerable traffic will be carried over the line although not all of this can be expected to accrue immediately. For this reason we felt that some financial assistance from the mining company was required in view of the indispensability of the railway to the new mining development at Pine Point.
I am happy to state that it has been possible to reach an agreement with the companies concerned, namely Consolidated Mining and Smelting and its subsidiary, Pine Point Mines, respecting the amount of assistance to be extended by the companies and the conditions under which it is to be payable.
I should like to review the principal terms briefly. To provide sufficient flexibility in the discharging of the agreement provision has been made for varying rates of production at the mine and for varying levels of earnings of the railway, and the over-all results are averaged out over the period of the agreement.
The basic terms are:
(1)	The railway is to be completed on or before December 31, 1966.


William Moore Benidickson: Nineteen sixty six?


Léon Balcer: Yes, 1966.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, my.


Léon Balcer: Continuing the basic terms, they are:
(2)	The mine is to be in production on or before the same date.
(3)	The mining company is to pay a rate of $7.75 per ton on all ores or concentrates shipped up to 215,000 tons annually for the first 10 years of operation. Normal rates which are less than $7.75 per ton will be paid on traffic in excess of 215,000 tons in any year provided the cumulative shipments in previous years have averaged 215,000 tons or more annually.
(4)	In addition, the mining company will pay a special transportation charge, based on the value of the concentrates shipped, starting three years after the commencement of production and extending for 10 years. This will not exceed $2 million in any year and $20 million over the whole 10-year period. At the anticipated rate of production and at the average lead and zinc prices prevailing during the period 1951 to 1960 this contribution would aggregate $12,500,000 over the 10 years. This amount is to be payable to the railway, which will in turn pay it to the government. It constitutes a capital contribution of the mining company toward the building of the railway.
(5)	There are additional terms in the agreement which provide for the handling of current deficiencies or surpluses in the level of railway revenues during the 10-year period and safeguard the position of Canadian National Railways so that any reduction in the volume of mine traffic will not result in an operating deficit to be borne by the railway. The railway undertakes that no other producers of ores or concentrates on its line will receive any more favourable terms than those accorded Pine Point Mines.
The agreement also provides for the routing of the ores and concentrates traffic between Pine Point Mines and Tadanac, British Columbia, and the west coast so that each of the participating carriers will receive an equitable share of the traffic.
In summary, the advantages of constructing the proposed railway are very great:
(1)	It will implement an essential element of the government's announced program of northern development.
(2)	It will have a pronounced stimulating effect in all parts of the Mackenzie area.
(3)	It will avoid the importation of zinc concentrates and effect a substantial saving in foreign exchange.
(4)	It will bring about substantial employment, both in construction of the railway and in construction of the new mine at Pine Point, including the new community there, and expanded facilities at Trail, B.C. These projects will require about four years to complete and over that period employment for several hundred men will be provided.

In the light of all considerations the government believes the proposal is a sound one and I trust it will commend itself to all hon. members. When the bill has been given second reading I propose to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the interesting statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) in connection with the construction of this Pine Point line from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake. We on this side of the house support this bill, as I stated during the discussion at the resolution stage. We support it for many reasons. First, because-and I need not repeat what I said at that time, except in a very general way-it was the former administration that recommended the construction of this line together with a whole program for the development of the northern part of Canada to the royal commission on economic prospects in November, 1955. I dealt with some of the details of the brief which was presented to the commission on that date by Mr. R. J. Robertson, the commissioner of the Northwest Territories as he then was.
I think I also indicated at the time that we favoured the construction of this, a developmental line, because not only would it assist in moving strategic material from the area in the Great Slave lake, but it would also assist intermediate traffic between that point and Grimshaw and Edmonton.
In the course of his statement a moment ago the minister added a number of very important reasons why parliament should approve the construction of this line. However, I hope the minister will not feel that the criticism I intend to make now is criticism againt the principle of this measure. Rather it is criticism of the manner in which the government has proceeded.
We think, sir, the government has put the cart before the horse in this case and that this is an example of another Columbia river project. In other words, that long before the agreement among the four parties, namely Her Majesty, Canadian National Railways, Consolidated Mining and Smelting and Pine Point Mines was signed, executed and completed, parliament was asked to deal with this measure first by way of resolution and then by way of a bill.
On July 1 I put the following question to the Prime Minister:
Could I ask the Prime Minister whether the agreement referred to in the resolution which appeared on the order paper yesterday among the Canadian National Railways, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada and the Pine Point Mines Limited has been negotiated and signed by the parties involved in this bill?
90205-6-537
Canadian National Railways
There was no answer from the Prime Minister although he was in his seat. Then I put this additional question:
Surely the Prime Minister ought to be in a position to know whether the agreement has been negotiated, because I presume the bill was based on the agreement.
Then the Speaker intervened and I was not allowed to proceed further. On July 3 I put the following question to the minister:
May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Has the agreement between Canadian National Railways, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the Pine Point Mines Limited been completed? I refer to the agreement upon which the resolution which the minister introduced the other day was based. Are the negotiations concerning this agreement completed?
In reply to which the minister said:
No, Mr. Speaker, negotiations are not completed. Discussions have been going on for a long time. All the major points have been cleared. There is only one minor matter that has still to be agreed on but it has nothing to do with the main principle of the agreement; it is only a detail and should be dealt with very shortly.
The record continues:


Lionel Chevrier: I shall ask a supplementary question if I may. Does the minister intend to introduce the bill in the house for discussion and consideration even though the agreement is not completed?


Léon Balcer: The bill will be introduced when the government places it on the order paper.
Well, the bill was never placed on the order paper, as the minister knows. It was announced that second reading would take place and then when I asked the minister this morning whether or not an agreement had been executed and signed he said that it had not but he hoped it would be by the time the measure was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I say that this is not the proper way to proceed with a bill of this importance where the expenditure of a sum of $86 million or more may well be in contemplation-that will depend upon the survey which the minister said would be reported upon by the end of this year. It only goes to show that in matters of this importance there is confusion and disorder on the part of the members of the government.


An hon. Member:: Only in your mind.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Edmonton West interrupted me by saying it is only in my mind. Well, in fact I have put on record the point that the agreement has not been signed even until this day, though we have had a resolution passed by the committee and now the house is being asked to pass this bill-another Columbia river project where the government is so anxious to be able to announce to the world that a

Canadian National Railways great developmental project for natural resources has been executed but agreement with the province of British Columbia, the one concerned, has not been brought forward. Today the case is the same.
I want to say a word or two about the route. After four years the government has decided to follow the Grimshaw-Great Slave lake route. The minister himself told the sad story. Here is what he said: In 1958 here is what the government said in the speech from the throne: "Parliament will be asked to authorize the construction of the Pine Point railway". In 1959 a royal commission was established to select a route, to decide whether it should be the eastern route by way of Waterways or the western route through Grimshaw. In 1960 the report of the royal commission was available favouring the Grimshaw route. In 1961, the minister announced that the line would be self supporting.
The question I put to the minister is this: did not the officials of his department-I shall not accuse him, of course, because he was not the minister then-did not the officials of his department know that this was the best route to follow long before the speech from the throne of 1958 was prepared? Is there no evidence in the files of the department to indicate that the Grimshaw route was the one favoured by the authorities in the department? I think parliament is entitled to know that. If that is the case, why did the government wait four years before bringing about this legislation when it had in its flies a recommendation, so I understand- if I am wrong the minister will correct me- to the effect that the Grimshaw route was more suitable from the point of view of terrain and should be followed? None the less there has been all this delay because, we are informed, the government favoured the Waterways route and hoped and expected that the royal commission would report unanimously or at least in the majority in favour of the Waterways route. I think the house is entitled to get some clarification on that point from the minister.
Then I think we should hear something about the cost. Is there anything in the files of the department to indicate what the cost of this project was going to be when the government took office in 1957? I think we should be told. The information which has been brought to my attention is that the line would have cost between $50 million and $55 million. If this is the case, the house is entitled to an explanation of why there has been an increase to $86 million.
Then we are entitled to know whether the taxpayers of Canada will get their capital back. Is this line going to be economic in the
[Mr. Chevrier.l
light of the traffic which will move from the mines and the intermediate points? Then again, where will the traffic go after it reaches Edmonton; how will it be divided between the railways?
Of course, the minister has outlined in some detail what is contained in the agreement but does he not think we should be shown the agreement before we dispose of a matter of this importance? After all, I am sure the minister is anxious to get this legislation through. This is good legislation in principle. He should give the house all the information available so that the opposition may be in possession of the same information as he has in order to be able to pass judgment on whether the agreement is one which is beneficial to the crown interests and those of the taxpayer. The only way in which we can decide this is by perusal of the agreement. How will this payment of $20 million to which the minister referred work out? How much of the traffic represented by the payment of $20 million will go towards operating costs and the maintenance of the line? I am informed that this is a matter of some consequence in the bill. I think the only manner in which these questions can be disposed of satisfactorily is by production of the agreement now, not in a week's time, so that we may be able to discuss this matter intelligently when it is referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I do not wish to delay the house. Because of what is contained in the representations made by the Northwest Territories council to the royal commission on economic prospects in 1955 it is the position of the opposition that a railway from Grimshaw to Pine Point is essential if the base metal deposits in the Great Slave lake area are to be developed. Also, a railway constructed to serve the Pine Point area would extend transportation benefits to the whole of the Mackenzie river basin and would bring rail service to an area in that part of the country capable of agricultural development. What that agricultural development is, I am not in a position to say at this time. I know, however, that repeatedly that development has been discussed in the house every time there was a question raised concerning construction of a railway in that part of the country.
I conclude simply by saying that as on the resolution so also on this bill we favour the construction of this line. We hope it will be possible for the minister to produce the agreement so we can decide for ourselves whether the capital invested will be for the general good of Canada and for the good of the taxpayer as well. I trust that the minister will

find it possible not only to answer the objections I raised earlier but also to produce the agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as I said when speaking to the resolution we support the principle of the bill because it provides for transportation that will serve the settlers in this area as well as meet the needs of the present development there. Without doubt it will also promote further development. However, it is quite obvious that the possibility of the construction of the railroad is based almost entirely upon the Pine Point development and its stability and future.
Before proceeding with my remarks in that connection I wish to bring to the attention of the house the fact that we have here another instance of the Canadian Pacific Railway failing to assume its responsibility. It refuses to build a railroad to its own mine. That is a matter of fact. Pine Point Mines Limited is owned by Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited and the C.P.R. is the major owner of Consolidated Mining and Smelting.
Like the previous speaker I express regret at the fact that the house is being asked to deal with this legislation without a copy of a completed and signed agreement. We are dealing with it with the feeling that there are uncertainties of which we would not have knowledge at this time with respect to this agreement.
I have followed this development with a great deal of interest because I represent a constituency in which Consolidated Mining and Smelting is the largest industrial operation. I am always interested in their activities both industrial and otherwise. I have had much correspondence with mining engineers and have held conversations with engineers connected with mines in the Kootenays, and so on that account I have amassed a considerable amount of information on the subject. I shall deal with only one aspect of the proposal this evening. The construction of this line is based almost entirely on the stability and future of Pine Point Mines Limited.
I have in my hand an extract from the May 1954 Canadian Mining Journal which I wish to place on the record. I always tend to cock an eye with respect to mining prospects. I have lived in mining country all my life. I have noticed an inclination on the part of those engaged in this industry to be too optimistic with respect to future development. I shall quote a few extracts from various sources to indicate the variation in the estimates of the ore reserves connected with Pine Point Mines Limited.
90205-6-537i
Canadian National Railways
The journal to which I referred points out:
Thus the tonnage of indicated ore has been expanded from the 500,000 tons reported in 1930 to several million tons. This testing has been concentrated in the shallower eastern part of the property, and as a result about two thirds of the indicated ore can be mined by open pit methods.
I turn now to the 1960 issue of the Canadian Mines Handbook which refers to the fact that churn drilling at Pine Point Mines Limited has outlined several million tons of ore of which approximately 50 per cent is minable by open pit methods.
I deal now with a report published by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources entitled "Known Mineralized Areas and Mining Development-Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories" prepared by K. J. Christie, B.Sc., P.Eng. head, mining section, resources division, northern administration branch, in which he has the following to say:
Some of the world's largest deposits of lead and zinc have been found in this type of deposit and it would appear that Pine Point is not an exception. Although the company does not state the amount of ore reserves, the generally accepted figure is in excess of 10 million tons.
He then goes on to deal with the possibilities for the development of this ore.
The Financial Post of April 4, 1960 carried an article entitled "Push Railways to Catch Vote". That is a rather unkind implication, is it not? In this article I read:
The Pine Point deposit contains 5 million tons of 7.4 per cent zinc ore which could be mined on an open pit basis and milled on the spot for Cominco Trail, B.C., smelter.
I turn now to the report of the annual meeting of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada held on April 28, 1960 at Montreal, in which is contained the address to shareholders of the president, Mr. W. S. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Kirkpatrick had this to say:
At the annual meeting in 1940 Sir Edward Beatty, then chairman of the company, remarked that ore reserves at the Sullivan were sufficient for well over 20 years of operation at the existing rate of production. The same statement can be made today after 20 years of continuous production at rates between 2 and 3 million tons of ore per year.
He went on to say:
Therefore, while operation at the present rate of 21 million tons annually is assured for many years, it would not be sound practice to attempt to satisfy our full smelter capacity by increasing the output from the Sullivan .. . The most important result has been the Pine Point discovery at Great Slave lake where work completed in 1954 indicates reserves of the same general order as those at the Sullivan.
I come now to the address of Mr. Kirkpatrick to the annual meeting of the shareholders which was held on April 27, 1961, in which he says:

Canadian National Railways
In my address last year I touched on the subject of ore reserves, and I wish to discuss this further today.
This is an interesting point:
It has not been the practice of the company to report ore reserves in terms of tons and grade because we feel that such information is commonly misinterpreted.
While our mining plan sets out our program for the next 25 years, this does not define the extent of Sullivan ore reserves, and I can assure you that the mine is good for many decades at the present rate of output.
Anyway, here is a company indicating that it does not report its ore reserves in terms of tons and grade. I just make that point at the present time.
This is part of an article which appeared in Collier's magazine for August 9, 1952:
Just across the lake at Pine Point, Consolidated Mining and Smelting is sinking an exploratory shaft this year into what is believed to be the world's largest body of lead and zinc. Diamond drilling indicates that the ore is a 200 foot chunk, almost flat, and parallels the surface over an area 20 miles long and two miles wide.
It goes on with further details. In Maclean's magazine of March 31, 1956, we find this article in connection with this subject:
There seems to be no shortage of future Canadian economic milestones. One of the world's largest lead-zinc deposits has been outlined at Pine Point, on the south shore of Great Slave lake. The ore body is reported to be 36 miles long, three miles wide and up to 100 feet thick.
In Maclean's magazine of November 15, 1954, there is an article dealing with the same subject in which the following appears:
The ore bodies run for 36 miles in a three mile strip. The most conservative figure places the potential at 120 million tons.
I come to an address by Mr. R. H. Dean of Nesbitt, Thompson and Company Limited, in which he deals with this question as follows:
Extension of rail some 400 miles north to Great Slave lake has been recommended by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to hasten mineral development, particularly at Pine Point, said to have in excess of 600 million tons of ore containing lead and zinc, and awaiting early development by private industry.
At the convention of the mining institute of Canada, held at Edmonton in 1958, Mr. R. H. Dean is reported to have told the convention that the deposit was "said to have in excess of 600 million tons". We find that attending the conference was Mr. W. G. Jewett, vice president of Cominco, in charge of mines. According to this report he did not question Mr. Dean's estimate.
I mention these various reports and these articles in periodicals, Mr. Speaker, to indicate what a wide variation there is in the assessment of the reserves at Pine Point. I trust that when this bill goes before the committee the officials of the Department of

Mines and Technical Surveys will have some accurate information to give the committee so that it will know it has a sound basis on which to support this bill so far as the stability of the future production of Pine Point Mines is concerned.
According to the bill, this could cost the public $86,250,000. Hon. members have to justify that expenditure of public money. This matter should be very carefully considered by the committee. The officers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys should be heard. They have the information because they have issued reports on this mine. The officers of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway should be heard. It would be a wise thing for the committee to invite representatives from the Canadian institute of mining, and other witnesses who wish to attend. It is essential that the committee have all the facts available when it is discussing this question.
As the previous speaker said, the committee and the house are entitled to know whether the mine is going to be profitable. If it is not, we should be frank and tell the public that it must expect to lose a certain amount of money each year for a number of years in order to promote this development and in order to relieve the Canadian Pacific Railway of a responsibility which in the first instance is theirs. Then, they should give the final details of this agreement; otherwise, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) said, we might be endorsing a sort of second Columbia treaty which we find is not quite what we expected it to be when it was brought to our attention in the house.
Another point the committee should inquire into is how is this $20 million going to be paid by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the Pine Point Mines Limited. The committee should also be entitled to know whether the companies concerned are permitted to deduct expenditures made in this direction, or to include them as costs of operation and benefit from income tax deductions so that in the final analysis the country would never receive a very large percentage of the $20 million which may seem somewhat attractive in the bill at the present time.
There are numerous other details. This is an important matter. The committee has to give the bill very close study indeed so that when they return to their constituencies the members will be able to justify supporting this subsidy of possibly up to $86,250,000.
I have read some of these agreements with large companies in Canada and I can say

quite truthfully that in Canada some large companies have received very large concessions from the government of Canada on information given to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that was proven not to be true, and we can prove it. I think we must have all these details explained in order to understand the situation, the possibilities for expansion and development, the costs involved, the costs of maintenance and the situation the Canadian National Railways is likely to face in the years ahead.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, after being in this house for some years it is still a matter of amazement to me to observe the way in which the opposition parties persist in beating their weary, wounded, bloody heads against the stone wall of facts. I expect this of the party which sits to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker. Politically speaking they have the kind of head which is designed by nature for pushing up against stone walls. I feel sorry for members of the official opposition who really should know better. On several occasions, either in the house or in committee, I have placed before hon. members incontrovertible facts which I suggest are not capable of successful contradiction and which members of the opposition have not attempted to contradict, to explain and set out in words of one syllable, which they should be able to understand, that any delay which has been caused to the bringing about of this great national project can be attributed entirely to their actions.
I was glad to note that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) during the course of his remarks said he favoured the principle of this bill, but then he made a great number of exceptions. He referred to a four year delay. The memoranda to which he referred and which contained the brief filed by Mr. Robertson, the deputy minister of northern affairs in 1955 before the Gordon commission, did in truth say that they favoured the construction of this railway. The brief went on to make it manifestly clear that the route which was favoured was the western route. Attached to that brief was a map which outlined the route proposed to be followed, and it was similar to the one the present government now proposes.
However, it is my submission, and I have placed the facts on the record from time to time to prove this, that from that time on the feelings of the then government changed for some reason or other. I have never been able to ascertain the reason, but they decided to proceed with the construction, if at all, by the eastern route.
Canadian National Railways


William Moore Benidickson: That is just in your mind, but it might be so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am prepared to show the hon. member at any time that these are the facts and they cannot be controverted. This was the view of the then government. They may have held that view through ignorance or they might have been interested in helping their friends. There might have been many reasons, but that was their intention. This was the situation when the present government came into office. The government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), might have acted in an arbitrary and arrogant way. They might have said, we have certain records here and recommendations; we are going to build this railroad by the eastern or McMurray route. Instead of doing that, when it was brought to the attention of the members of the government that there was a logical and just reason for the construction of the western route, when it was made apparent that there were people who had a claim, in equity, to being considered, when the economics of construction and operation and of the potential traffic which might be generated were made plain, the government appointed a royal commission to consider the matter rather than have it debated in the partisan and heated atmosphere of this chamber.
Evidence was given by the various municipalities, private companies, private individuals and groups, and the hearings of that commission occupied a period of more than a year. Although the commission was set up in June, 1959, it was not until July, 1960 that a report was made. The government, as indicated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), then properly saw fit to accept the majority recommendations of that report and at the ensuing session of parliament included in the speech from the throne a statement to the effect that a location survey would be made. I believe effect was given to this intention some time in December. I recall going home to my constituency during the Christmas recess last year and finding that the people and equipment of the Canadian National Railways were then poised and ready, waiting for this house to pass the appropriation. They went to work at once and I believe the survey will be brought to a conclusion some time at the end of this year.
We have a proceeding in our profession known as estoppel. I suggest that the official opposition should be estopped from ever suggesting that any of this delay could be laid at the door of the existing government. They, and they alone must accept the responsibility.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some question has arisen as to the signing of the agreement. I think I can well leave that question to the minister,

Canadian National Railways but I can make this remark. I think it was essential that there be a survey. I believe some consideration must be given to the question of costs, to the question of grades and the operating costs of this railroad. I believe that question will not be completely answered until the survey is completed. However, I am satisfied in my own mind that enough information is now available to permit the parties to have some idea of what those figures will be.
I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is entirely incorrect when he says that this railroad is being constructed entirely for the Pine Point developers. I will agree it is a fact that the existence of this large ore body at Pine Point ensures, as I have said before, the bread and butter costs of operating the railroad for the first few years. It might well be difficult to justify the immediate construction of the road without this ore body. However, I deny absolutely that it constitutes the entire reason for construction. The minister mentioned something about 8,000 people living north of Grimshaw. I think the census concluded this year will indicate that the number is nearer 18,000 or 20,000. These people are the descendents of those who settled here many, many years ago and who were promised that, in due course, a railroad would be provided for them.
As I have said, it might be difficult to justify the costs which are envisaged by this measure if it were for the convenience of these people alone. However, when we find there is a more cogent reason, when we find that there is another reason economically for the railroad being built, surely under those circumstances it would be improper and unjust to build the railroad without regard to the promise to these people that a railroad would be constructed in due course. I propose, if I have the time, to say something to indicate what the resources are in this area in addition to Pine Point. I am not exaggerating when I say that long after Pine Point is forgotten there will be in the area which is tributary to this railway, settlements consisting of hundreds of thousands of people producing goods, commodities and services bearing no relationship at all to the mining properties at Pine Point.
Pine Point itself, Mr. Speaker, is something of an anomaly. It is found, not in the pre-Cambrian shield where so many of the mining properties in Canada have been discovered, but in a sedimentary basin many miles to the west. Extraordinarily enough, it was discovered in 1898 by prospectors who were travelling into the Yukon. Attempts were made from time to time to delineate the area of this particular ore body, but it was not until the last 10 or 15 years when

Consolidated Mining and Smelting, through its subsidiary Pine Point mines, continued studies and undertook the development and exploration work necessary that the ore body was delineated.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made some reference to a speech made by Mr. Kirkpatrick, the president of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, in dealing with this particular mine. If he had read a little further-and I give him credit that he did not read one of the truly pertinent parts of this speech-I think he would have found there significant facts which answered any questions he asked. This is what Mr. Kirkpatrick said in his speech. It may possibly not be the same speech to which the hon. member referred. The speech I have is one made by Mr. Kirkpatrick before the Alberta and northwest chamber of mines and resources at Edmonton on January 13,
1961.	Here is what Mr. Kirkpatrick said at that time:
The first claims in the Pine Point area were staked in 1898 by miners on their way to the Klondike. This find lay dormant until about 1916 when more exploration work was done. There was renewed activity around 1920, but again nothing came of it. About 1928, interest in the area was revived, and a program of drilling and shaft sinking was undertaken, but when the depression came the project was abandoned. It was not until 1948, 50 years after the original staking, that my company initiated a systematic program of exploration under a three year concession. As a result of this work, new claims were staked, and in 1951, Pine Point Mines Limited was incorporated to continue the development. By the end of 1954, and after the expenditure of some $3 million, the existence of large reserves of zinc-lead ore was established. Grade and other conditions were satisfactory for a mining operation, and tests had demonstrated that high grade concentrates could be produced.
As I indicated in my address to Cominco shareholders last April,-
That may well be the speech to which the hon. member referred.
-the Sullivan mine at Kimberley, B.C. now provides about two third of Cominco's lead and zinc, and can continue to produce at this rate for several decades to come. However-
And this is what I want to emphasize to the house.
-certain physical conditions in the mine limit the rate at which ore can be extracted, and we have been operating at the maximum economic limit for some years. Of course, in times of emergency, as during world war II, higher rates of production can be maintained for limited periods.
Certain other sources of Cominco metal are becoming depleted, particularly a large stockpile of residue material which will be exhausted in
1962.	In order that we may utilize the reserves of our various mines in the most economic manner, new sources of supply are needed both to maintain the present output of our reduction plants and to increase the output as required by expanding market opportunities.
The initial rate of operation proposed at Pine Point would result in an increase in the output of

refined metal from the Trail plants. In our opinion, it will be possible to dispose of this additional output by the time the mine can be brought into operation. For the more distant future, our longterm forecasts indicate that growing world consumption of lead and zinc will create growing opportunities for metal from Canadian mines.
Here may I interject that those who are familiar with the Paley report which is a projection of the material requirements of the North American continent made some years ago and projected to the end of 1975, and who have had the opportunity to study the reports or who have watched the progress made in the light of the Paley report, will agree with the statements which I think can be inferred from Mr. Kirkpatrick's address, namely that in the long term future lead and zinc from our country have a very considerable place in the world commodities market. Then Mr. Kirkpatrick goes on to say this:
However, it should be noted that, in view of the known resources of ore throughout the world, in relation to expected consumption, we do not anticipate a return to the peak metal prices obtained from time to time during the early 1950's .. .
To prepare for the proposed operations at Pine Point, and to extend the Trail plants to treat all resulting concentrates, will require direct investment by Pine Point Mines Limited and Cominco estimated to total in the order of $40 million.
That is very much along the lines mentioned by the minister. As the minister has intimated, by giving the analysis of the agreement, I do not think this large company is prepared to spend some $20 million for the railway and $40 million in development unless it has a fairly good assurance that it has a sufficient ore body there, that it requires the produce from the ore body at its Sullivan mine to make this a sound and economic operation, and not only for the purpose of enhancing to some extent existing operations but certainly to make sure that they are carried on in an economic way.
I personally do not hold any special brief for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company or for Pine Point Mines nor am I opposed. Large commercial concerns must be expected, I suppose, as one of the byproducts of our system but if kept within the bounds of propriety and good management, they must be accepted. But certainly this company, having expended this money, having opened up this property, having indicated its willingness to make these further expenditures, I think it is good business on the part of the government of Canada to make sure this is done by proceeding, as it has done, within the four corners of the bill.
Before I leave this matter there is one other subject I should like to discuss with regard to the Pine Point operation. I recognize the fact that at the present time it is
Canadian National Railways probably essential that the operations of the mine should be limited to mining and the shipment of concentrates to Trail. However, I hope that in the not too distant future, after proper consideration has been given to the economics of transportation as regards the shipment of concentrates as opposed to the shipment of finished product from the smelter, this company itself might well give some consideration to the establishment of a smelter at Pine Point. This could mean a city of some 15,000 to 25,000 people. At a time when unfortunately we have lagged so far behind the Soviet union in its program of northern development, I would think it most desirable, wherever possible, that through a reasonable measure of decentralization we should work towards the establishment of concentrations of population in the north. If we are going to keep this north country of ours we shall have to make sure that it does not go by default. The establishment of such a smelter might have some effect in accelerating and expanding further explorations in the Northwest Territories so that mine operations which might have otherwise been uneconomical because of the necessity for the shipment of concentrates over a great distance, might well come over the borderline and become economic if there is a custom smelter at Pine Point. I make my submission at this time so that it may in the future receive some consideration.
I mention the fact that there were other aspects of this railway in addition to the mining operation at Pine Point. It was my pleasure to be home during the brief summer recess. Owing to the fact that my constituency covers almost a third of the province of Alberta, I was not able to get around as much as I should have liked. However, I made it a point to go to Pine Point, the Mackenzie highway and into Yellowknife, with particular regard to the impact the proposal to build this railroad was having and would have in the future on northern development. I found there a spirit of optimism. We in the north like to think we have more optimism than others. We like to think that we are the country of tomorrow more than is any other part of Canada. I found that spirit more prevalent today not only because of the wonderful crop we have had but because of the fact that the people of my country have now learned that there, at long last, is a government prepared to give effect to their aspirations and their logical and legitimate request, and which has decided firmly and irrevocably to proceed with this great project. I found up and down the Mackenzie highway evidence of new businesses which had come

Canadian National Railways into existence, indications that new communities will spring up. Farmers who have existed for many years faced with the prospect of having to haul their produce hundreds of miles now see a railroad coming close to them. I spoke to one farmer who told me he went up there 35 years ago waiting for this railroad. Today the survey stakes pass within one half mile of his window. He told me that each day he walks out to examine these stakes. To him this is a dream come true, or a pledge redeemed.
This country offers a potential in agriculture far beyond what was ever conceived. I had an opportunity to speak to the management of one of the experimental farms in our area which has been conducting a most interesting innovation in connection with the provision of community pasture. Nobody yet knows what is the true potential acreage of agriculture in the area which will be tributary to this railway. The best figures I have been able to obtain coincide somewhat with those given by the minister, that there are somewhere between 6 million and 8 million acres of arable land, some 4 million to 5 million acres of what is called doubtful arable land, and some 15 million or 16 million acres of what is described as bush or woodland.
If this innovation which has been carried out by the experimental farm proves successful-and I saw evidence to indicate that it will be-then what I saw leads me to the firm conclusion that there is available in this district north of Grimshaw millions of acres of land which could provide summer pasturage for great herds of cattle. We have just passed through a very difficult period of drought in western Canada. In the light of the expanding population, in the light of the requirements of our people and of the peoples of other parts of the world, it is my firm belief that in the future the country which lies north of Grimshaw will, on the basis of the livestock population, provide an area of settlement and development for many, many thousands of farmers.
I suppose I may be accused of being naive and of making arguments which are farfetched, but when we hear talk at this time of many billions of dollars being expended in weapons of destruction I think it is a mark of courage, a mark of significance that our government is prepared at this time to pledge its belief in the future by this comparatively modest contribution. I say that because the contribution is modest in the light of the moneys which are being voted by other governments for purposes of destruction. It is a mark of courage and significance to open up this great area lying between Grimshaw and Great Slave lake so that the agricultural products, the products of the

lakes and of the forests will be available to be devoted in the interests of peace when we have learned to adapt and fashion our methods of trade so that the unaligned nations will be the recipients of this produce.
I think it is significant that today when the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) had occasion to speak about the centennial, he made several observations which to me are quite important in relating to this particular bill. The Prime Minister referred to what happened during 1867 and shortly thereafter-the march to the west. I think it would be remarkably significant and related to our centennial observations if, when we come to observe them in 1967, we find we have come to the point where because of the march to the north we have added to Canada the equivalent of another vast empire of productivity. This railroad, I submit-and I think it will be shown-will be the catalyst which will bring it about. This will probably be one of the brightest jewels in the diadem of our centennial observations.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, this is not for me a local issue. It is a national issue because it involves progress on a level comparable to those large national developments which have concerned us in more recent days. I refer to the St. Lawrence seaway, the Cape Breton causeway, the Kitimat development, projects that are to be compared with those that concern Canada today in the Saskatchewan dam, and some other developments to which people in parliament have devoted their attention on a national basis.
I am prompted to make a few remarks tonight upon second reading of this bill because I talked within the last few days to one who had a very personal interest in it. I refer to our esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) who unfortunately is not able to be with us. He is one of those who wanted to see an advance of this kind develop post haste, without too much controversy perhaps as to route.
I felt that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was always capable of making a very good speech. However, I must say I thought he spoke tonight with some embarrassment, and perhaps even humiliation, because I think the arguments of the opposition are valid when he considers the elements that contributed perhaps to his election and to the election of others in Alberta in 1957 and 1958. I say that because there has been delay and confusion in the policy of this government with respect to the development of this very important Canadian National Railways system for national development.

I do not need to refer to the campaign speeches the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker) made in 1957. It was clear then that he was not expecting any help from others in the development of the north. He said, "We will build a railway". As it turns out, after their stomping around the country, four and a half years later, as hon. members on the government side have reminded us, we are only now getting some suggestion through a legislative bill that authority is available for going forward with this railway. If we have any doubt about the forthrightness of this government, irrespective of election campaigns-


An hon. Member:: You have no idea.


William Moore Benidickson: -let us look at their sincerity in speaking to parliament. I refer to the speech from the throne of May 12, 1958. This government talked about a royal commission. They were passing the buck. This government, enthused with the vote it had received from the Canadian electorate, said:
In order to promote our national development on the frontier in the north you will be asked-
That is, we in parliament would be asked:
-to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. My ministers regard this as a major step in the establishment of productive industry on an economic basis in the Northwest Territories.
What was the economic climate at the time of the speech from the throne on May 12, 1958? It was the lowest it had been since the end of the second world war, though we have had it lower since under the Conservative regime. What has happened? After that great statement, after the endorsation which they received, we got, on December 20, another refresher, Oh, there were palliatives and aspirins given with respect to this in the meantime. On December 20, 1960, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) felt that he would emulate the great record of the late minister of trade and commerce, the Right Hon. Mr. Howe by putting forward certain proposals for economic advancement at the right time. And he said as reported on page 1023 of Hansard:
We are also proposing to commence a number of specific major projects which will lay the groundwork for the resumption and acceleration of the long-term growth of our natural resource industries.
That was on December 20. That was after the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) had said in 1960 that we were just about to give this fillip to the economy. This was after the speech from the throne of 1958, part of which I have recited; and I have no hesitation in
Canadian National Railways saying that this is a government of talkers, not of doers in the economic field. They are expert chiefly at procrastination and indecision with respect to economic matters.
In so far as this bill is concerned I should like to ask a question or two. What was there from the beginning to have prevented this government from asking the Canadian Pacific Railway which, I think, has ultimate ownership of the primary mining entity in the area, to build this line? To what extent did the government pursue that line of investigation? In the second place, I would ask: is this, as so many speakers up to now have described it, a subsidy, or is it a capital investment made on behalf of the people of Canada with the idea that it will be good for Canada and likely to pay off? My third question is: if this is a subsidy in the opinion of the government, why should the government not implement a policy of taking, in partnership with those others who contribute to the advancement of the economy, equity stock in the Pine Point railway? Everybody else who invests in such things aspires ultimately to some share of the capital stock. I should also like to know whether or not this so-called investment by the railroad-or is it the government?-includes concessions for freight rates which will ultimately be assessed against the railroad. I have experience of a natural resource development in my riding, a development of extreme importance, and I refer to Steep Rock Iron Mines. While the company did not, as I understand it, contribute directly to the capital investment involving improvements to the railway line, as a result of the traffic to be produced there was ultimately a moral obligation on the C.N.R. with respect to the rate per ton which would be charged by the government-owned railroad on the iron ore transported to the lakehead for distribution. I understand that arbitrarily the C.N.R. has increased that rate by 25 per cent. Is there anything of that kind involved here? I think the minister should give us some assurance as to the relationship between guaranteed tonnages, if any, and the capital investment which either the government or the C.N.R. are prepared to make with respect to this railway. I think it was significant for the minister to have said that in certain circumstances certain variations might occur in the future.
According to information I have received I believe there is a possible ore tonnage of 120 million tons involved in this development. I do not think the minister said anything to indicate what the economists of either the government or the C.N.R. consider to be a firm estimate. I am well aware that promoters of mining enterprises sometimes get a little excited, a little enthused as to the prospects

Canadian National Railways of the property in which they are interested, and conscientiously enlarge their estimates of what they think the nearby or ultimate production will be. I have heard estimates that the ultimate production of this resource may be as much as $2J billion. This amounts to between 17 and 20 per cent of our present national debt, so we are talking about something which is of very great importance.
But I come back to the question of timing, judgment and leadership. I say to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who is not now in his place-


An hon. Member:: He is over there.


William Moore Benidickson: I see him. I say to him
that he cannot repeat himself too often. He cannot say to his electors that this is imminent and to be done at once when we hear tonight-and I questioned the minister about it-that completion of this enterprise which has been talked about so much on political platforms cannot be expected until 1966. I said "Oh," and the minister confirmed that it would not be completed until 1966. The hon. member for Peace River was interviewed by the Edmonton Journal on December 5, 1960. Of course, he forgot about the delay which had taken place. That statement in the speech from the throne did not suggest for a moment that any royal commission would be intervening. However, he said that we could expect completion of the railway within two years. That was in December, 1960. It is now almost December of the year 1961. While it was not mentioned by the Minister of Transport, before we proceed to pass this bill we and the people in the area concerned must have a more detailed estimate of progress not only in connection with the survey which parliament has already approved but with respect to final completion. The government has information from the company on its files as to its intentions with respect to completion of the mill and its readiness to have available traffic for the railway and the government which apparently, under this bill, is guaranteeing certain losses. That information must be given in committee before the bill is finally passed. This is of great consequence to the people who reside in this area.
The Minister of Transport, as a member of the government, is very respectful of northern mining. In my dealings with the mining fraternity I have found them to be generally very fair, extremely knowledgeable and-if you will permit me Mr. Speaker, -very conservative in their approval of activity in this parliament not only under the former but under the present administration.

With respect to the Pine Point railway may I quote from an editorial which appeared in The Northern Miner of April 27, 1961:
Consistency of word and deed is also imperative. We have a government which encourages the people at large to think that there is something shameful about foreigners, like Americans, developing our natural resources, and which has given mild verbal urgings to Canadians to do the developing themselves. Yet when an opportunity to have a big mining project like Pine Point developed 100 per cent with Canadian talent, money, and ownership, where is the government? Is it mired to the knees in the muskeg of indecision?
Another point: the country could very well do with the extra employment that development of this new mine would provide. Why, then, wait any longer?
This article appeared in April, 1961 after this same publication had pointed out that in 1958, in the speech from the throne the government indicated there was to be no royal commission, no equivocation, that it was going forward just as had been suggested in the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958. Even this evening we are denied answers to the question "How soon will this railway be complete?" except that we might take the answer of the minister, 1966, after another election.
But what about the survey? Parliament has previously taken an attitude with respect to survey expenditures. How far toward completion is the survey? The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that the idea of delay and confusion existed solely in the mind of the hon. member for Laurier who made an excellent speech. I am sure the people of northern Alberta will not welcome that kind of criticism from the hon. member for Edmonton West in reply to a speech made by the hon. member for Laurier who indicated the desire of this party to get on with this project which means so much to Canada as a whole and is equivalent to some of the projects that were undertaken on timely occasions by the previous government, to which projects I have already referred and which were undertaken at a time when unemployment required that kind of stimulus.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If It is possible for a humble backbencher to be misquoted, may I say that the quotation attributed to me to the effect that I said this railway would be built and completed within two years from December of 1960, is not a correct statement and is one I did not make.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's correction but I think both you and he will know that I have in my hand a photostatic copy of the Edmonton Journal of that date.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the railroad leading to the north country. I did not blow in at the tail end of the storm as did my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who just addressed us. I know something about the north. I have lived there for over 40 years.


William Moore Benidickson: We refer to Kenora as northern Ontario.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Just recently I flew over that part of the country where the proposed railway will be built. This is a part of a country that contains the world's largest deposits of that kind of mineral. These vast reserves await development. The proposed railway will serve the 8,000 people who now live in the area. If the refinery is constructed there will be a city there with a population of between 25,000 to 30,000. We need that type of development in the north.
The part of the country to which I am referring is not like this part of the country. That area is filled with opportunities for people to make fortunes. The same opportunity awaits the railway. It will be of real value. I am surprised that people like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River should knock and buck a project of this nature which could lead to prosperity that would benefit the whole economy.
The north country is the richest land there is in Canada; there can be no argument about that. The area I referred to is adjacent to the Peace River country. In the Peace River country there exists the richest farmland in Canada. In the southern part there are 8,000 acres of arable land awaiting development by farmers who are not afraid to work.
I believe that the Pine Point railway is the key to the development of this area. The people there are waiting for it and I believe they will see it come into existence. It has taken this government, a government with a vision, to implement this project. The former government was too scared, and it just dreamed. This is a government that gets out and does what is necessary.
I do not intend to speak at further length because I know other hon. members wish to participate. My friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) really knows this part of the country and has laid it on the line. He has told the true story about this project and because I know of its value I am all for Pine Point railway. Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I could echo the words of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Indeed, I believe that every hon. member of the house would echo those
Canadian National Railways words. We all are "all for the Pine Point railway", but some of us believe we also ought to consider the Canadian taxpayer.
It is a rather extraordinary thing for the minister to be asking for the approval, even in principle, of a bill when he admits that the survey on which the estimate will be made as to the cost of the railway has not yet been completed, and when it is perfectly obvious that after four years, notwithstanding the hyperbole of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson), this government has no information on whether to jump into the water or keep its clothes on with respect to this railway, although it promised it four years ago. It does seem to me extraordinary that even after those four years of promises there is so little concrete evidence in what is before us. We do not know; the minister does not know what this railway is going to cost or even what the estimate will be if it is built.
The minister says that an agreement has been made with Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and its subsidiary and the Canadian National Railways to build this railway. He used a word which is not normally in my vocabulary. He said that it was finalized. Well, I suppose that means they are all agreed on it but we in parliament are not allowed to know what is in it. I cannot believe that there is any security of the state involved. There may be a good deal of security of the treasury involved in it but I do not think there is any security of the state involved in that sort of thing. Surely if this agreement has been made, if it is a firm agreement, we ought to know about it before we are asked to vote on this bill. If it is not a firm agreement we should not be approving this bill even in principle, because we are approving something that may be something quite different from what we think we are approving, as the government discovered when they rushed down to Washington and signed that treaty in the dying days of the Eisenhower administration when they thought they had the premier of British Columbia on the hook. We now find that someone else is on the hook. Nothing at all is going to happen for a very long time to come because of the bungling and mismanagement. There either has been bungling and mismanagement in this matter or there has not. We do not know because the government will not give us the facts. One cannot help suspecting, sir-and when you do not know all you can do is to suspect-that they do not know themselves, because surely if they did know they would be only too glad to tell the world that they had made a good agreement.
I am from Missouri, sir-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Moved again, eh.

Canadian National Railways


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thought it was Manitoba.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -metaphorically speaking. I am also from Manitoba, where from the time the Tory government was defeated in 1915 until very recently we had the most prudent governments financially in that province, and perhaps that rubbed off a little bit on the rest of us. We who lived in Manitoba wanted to know what things were going to cost and what return we were going to get before we laid out our money.


William Moore Benidickson: That even included Mr. Bracken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One cannot help having the sneaking suspicion which was voiced by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River that if this railway was really going to be as profitable as the hon. member from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) hope-and we all hope it will be-the C.P.R. which owns the biggest chunk of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and therefore the biggest chunk of this new mine and is still in the railway business, would be in there with both feet. It would be in there trying to build the railway itself.
The minister ought to tell us why the C.P.R. is not doing it and why instead the treasury of Canada is going to be doing it, because the C.P.R. is supposed to be a great exponent of private enterprise, adopting the words which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) uses in a rhetorical sense but in no other sense that I have ever been able to discover. The Canadian Pacific is supposed to be a great exponent of private industry and a great opponent of public transportation concerns and very anxious to compete with them and push them aside, as we have seen recently, and the government has co-operated in that kind of effort in recent times.
Here is a great chance for the Canadian Pacific to go in and engage in private enterprise, develop its own resources and get the gravy of carrying this ore. Oh, I suppose it would not be a gravy train but at any rate if this-


William Moore Benidickson: A lead train.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One fears that it is a lead train. We ought to know as nearly as one can predict what 20 years from now the balance sheet of this operation is going to look like. I think this is of great importance, sir, because the estimate of the cost that the minister has put in the bill amounts to $86 million and some odd. Well, I remember the greatest explosion that we have had in this parliament since I have observed it over the advancement of $80 million, all of which is going to come back to the treasury-this is as
[Mr. MacEwan.l
certain as anything in this world-with a very good rate of interest. This was the loan to the pipe line, to build a great enterprise which was going to cost four or five times that much and spread across the whole country. Here we are talking about $86 million of which up to $20 million may be recovered from this mine. Reading the language of the bill I say "May be".


William Moore Benidickson: Based on freight rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Based on freight rates. We do not know at all what we are talking about in this measure.


Michael Starr: Sit down, then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, not so very long ago at a meeting of a committee which has reported, and therefore I think we can quote properly from its proceedings we were told we would know something about this. I refer to the committee on railways, air lines and shipping and the minutes of proceedings and evidence of June 20, I think it was. At any rate I can give the page number. I asked the president of the Canadian National Railways or the gentleman who from day to day continues as the president of the Canadian National Railways and who is treated in that disgraceful way by this government, this question:
Could I ask Mr. Gordon a question at this point? Is there any provision here for the Pine Point railway?
I was referring to the planned expenditures for new works for this current year. Mr. Gordon replied:
This is an item on contingent for branch lines. I will complete this later, Mr. Pickersgill, and I will pick it up in a moment.
This appears on page 380. Mr. Gordon went on to discuss something else and then he came back to this subject at page 381. Perhaps I should say I came back to it and said:
I would like to ask Mr. Gordon with respect to the Pine Point railway. I recognize that has not yet been approved by parliament. Since there has been a $10 million amount put in the capital budget, I would assume that the C.N.R. has some policy about it. There is one point which troubles me very much. I understand that this line will connect with the line which the C.N.R. operates into Edmonton.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, it will connect with the Northern Alberta railway. I have just been thinking on what I said about that $10 million. I may have left a mistaken impression. I do not mean by that that the C.N.R. necessarily is going to put up any money for the building of that line.
A little later on I went on to say:
The point I am on is a quite different one. I understand the principal reason for the building of that line is to carry ore from the mine to the smelter at Trail. When that ore reaches Edmonton there will be a haul between Edmonton and Calgary-and assuming it goes that way-and I am

being hypothetical about this, and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected and will not waste the time of the committee-
You will see, sir, that I am always very concerned not to waste time. I continue:
-between Edmonton and Calgary there are two alternative ways for shipping it, one by the old Grand Trunk Pacific line, and the other is by the C.P.R. I think it would be very helpful to us, in considering the legislation in the house, if we knew whether there was any understanding between the railways about how that ore will be shipped.


Jacques Flynn: That resolution is before the house, is it not-the resolution is on the order paper now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I just wanted to confer-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the best speech you made during that committee meeting.


William Moore Benidickson: You were not there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue quoting:


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I just wanted to confer with the minister, because this is a matter which is pending and I did not want to make the mistake of anticipating what may be said with regard to legislation. On the point you have in mind, it will be covered, as I understand it,-
I would ask the minister to recall these words.
-in an agreement which is now being negotiated between the company and the railway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I see.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We hope that by the time the legislation reaches you, you will also be able to see that agreement.
Now, this is what Mr. Gordon said alter conferring with the minister. Hon. members who were there will recall that he turned to the minister and they had a whispered conversation before he gave his answer. Then the report continues:


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just wanted to be sure the C.N.R. had got a fair deal in this matter.
I think everybody in the house wants to be sure of that. We also want to be sure that the taxpayers of Canada, who not only pay Canadian National deficits but who will be expected to pay the interest on the money that is being used in the building of this line, know where they are going and whether or not there is going to be any real return commensurate with the cost.
Now, everybody agrees that there are times and circumstances when these capital expenditures by the state are necessary for development purposes and that the direct return from the line is not the only way in which there is a return to the taxpayers and to the nation. We all know that. We also know that in the history of this country over the last 125 or 130 years, the taxpayers' money has been put into railways which have returned nothing either to the investors, the taxpayers, or to the nation, comparable with what was put into them. I do think,
Canadian National Railways sir, that in the dying days of this session there is no need to rush this bill through, especially when we do not know what the facts are. If the minister has the answers to all these questions that have been put by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and which I have endeavoured to sum up, and if the answers are clear, precise and certain, not based on a lot of hypotheses, a lot of ifs and buts and not based on the kind of agreement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) thought they had with the premier of British Columbia before they signed that Columbia treaty, then we would like to have those answers. We would like to save the government from falling on its face again in this matter as it did in that. After all, it is the government of Canada and, although they might be our political opponents, we do not like to see them making themselves ridiculous as they have been recently over the Columbia and as it appears they may very easily do over this measure.
It does not seem to me, sir, that we would be delaying much. Heaven knows, there has been delay enough on this matter already as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River pointed out. No one wants to delay it any further, but we would like to get precise answers. If we cannot get precise answers and if we put through legislation to make a temporary impression upon the public, they are going to be disillusioned again. On the other hand, if we had a deal whereby Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is going to get a railway company built to carry this ore on which they will make a profit while the taxpayers of Canada incur a steady and continuing loss, we should know about that before we vote on this proposal. It does seem to me there is something to be said for someone raising a voice in this house on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Léon Balcer: I must say at the start of my remarks that I am certainly surprised to hear this kind of attack from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).


William Moore Benidickson: About delay?


Léon Balcer: No, about this agreement. During the time that these gentlemen were in

Canadian National Railways power, not once did they produce any agreements between the Canadian National and any mining company or other company for which a branch line was being built. Practically for the first time in the history of this parliament, we are going to give to the committee the full agreement entered into by the Pine Point Mines, the Canadian National and the government of Canada. The committee has got to have everything in detail, the contract, the tables of the various freight rates that are going to be charged, the various undertakings by Pine Point Mines and the Canadian National.


William Moore Benidickson: Will we adjourn so we can read that?


Léon Balcer: You will have that in the committee because this bill is going to be sent to committee. As I said this afternoon, the agreement will be in the hands of the committee; the experts will be there and all the members of that committee will be able to ask questions and to study the freight rates in edtail. This will be the first time this has detail. This will be the first time this has ever happened in the history of this parliament.
I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is trying to bring a cloud of secrecy into this debate, is trying to raise certain doubts about this bill. I believe the bill is absolutely clear. We have stated very clearly, through our officials, what this great undertaking is going to cost. My hon. friend says we should not bring the bill forward at this time, but that we should wait until the next session. He suggests we should wait until the survey is terminated and we know exactly how much it is going to cost. This is what he said a few minutes ago; but ten minutes before that his deskmate was blaming us because we had taken so long. They should get together in their criticisms. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with this great undertaking the government has been acting with logic.
First of all, we made a decision that we should go ahead with the building of this railroad and that decision was announced in the speech from the throne. As I explained earlier we were being subjected to tremendous pressure from people who wanted this railroad to follow a certain route. There were extremely strong arguments being made on behalf of both groups. We even had the Alberta government receiving a report from a commission stating that the eastern route would be better, and so forth. The government did not want to impose anything on the people. We wanted to have a fair inquiry, and for that reason we appointed a royal commission. We had to wait for the royal commission to study the problem and recommend

a route. As soon as this was done, the government acted and that is the reason this survey was started. The survey is going extremely well. We are going to have a final report in December. However, the government was not going to sit and wait for these engineers to complete the survey, and for that reason we introduced the bill, which follows the usual practice of setting an estimate for the cost of building this line. Of course this bill is different from the ordinary branch line bill. Of course it is for a different railway, in a different part of the country and for a different purpose. This is the kind of bill which makes provision for the development of the country. As my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated, it might not be an economical undertaking or produce results in the first year or cover all the expenses in the first few years of operation. On the other hand I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will be accompanied by an agreement which will be based on the various stipulations contained in clause 6 which states the principles on which the agreement will be entered into and also the various conditions that will be required of the various parties to this agreement. These conditions are quite clear. The principles are set out. I think it will be a good deal for Canada and also a good deal for the Canadian National Railways.
A few moments ago my hon. friend asked where the traffic is going to be routed. Clause 6 paragraph (c) provides as follows:
(c) for the routing, in a manner satisfactory to the company, of the railway traffic originating at or from the properties of Pine Point Mines Limited at Pine Point and moving by railway to any place or point beyond the southern terminal of the railway line, for the purpose of ensuring to the company-
That is the Canadian National Railway Company.
-an equitable share of such traffic.
I can say now-and my hon. friend will see it in the agreement-that the traffic between Edmonton and Calgary will be carried exclusively on the C.N.R. lines. I therefore think it is absolutely unfair to say that this bill is giving certain advantages to the C.P.R. and that the government is giving some unfair advantage to the C.P.R. On the contrary, I can assure the house that the agreement that has been entered into is the result of extremely tough discussions between Cominco, Pine Point, the C.N.R. and ourselves. The committee will also find that the C.N.R. is not going to have one cent of operating deficit out of the whole operation of this undertaking.
I think it is quite an achievement. I think it is fair to the crown company. I also think that the government, by forcing the C.N.R.

to take over the operation of this line, are not at the same time imposing an unfair burden on our crown company. On the contrary, I think it is a tremendously good situation for it. It will be a profitable undertaking for the crown company. It is going to be a profitable undertaking for the long range welfare of that whole area and for the whole of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: During the course of my remarks I had something to say about the cost and the minister did not deal with that matter. Can the minister indicate why there is a discrepancy between the original amount of $50 million to $55 million which, as I understand it, was estimated by the Canadian National Railways, and the amount of $86 million?


Léon Balcer: All I can say at the present time is simply this. My officials, after taking into account all the various factors they had at their disposal, came to this conclusion. As I said earlier, the survey is not finished or anything like that. This was the figure that was given to me by my officials after consideration of the various factors at the present time. It is, or course, always rather difficult to make a proper estimate so far in advance on such a major undertaking. However, the estimate at the present time is $75 million with 15 per cent added for contingencies. As to the reason the figure has gone from $60 million to $75 million, I may say that it is simply that my officials have made a more complete study of the matter and have come to the conclusion that we should include in this bill $75 million plus 15 per cent for contingencies in order to make sure that we give parliament a fair estimate of this cost.


Lionel Chevrier: Am I accurate in saying that the amount estimated by the Canadian National Railways in 1957 was $50 million to $55 million?


Léon Balcer: I was under the impression it was $50 million but I will not disagree with the hon. member. As I remember it, the latest figure was $60 million.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister one question. Will Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and Pine Point Mines Limited be allowed to consider the payment at up to $20 million to the government of Canada in connection with the building of this road when calculating income tax? In other words, will they be allowed to deduct that amount as a cost of operation?


Léon Balcer: I shall have to check on that matter. I have an opinion of my own but I
Civil Service Act
should not like to give an incorrect answer. If my hon. friend does not mind, I will get the information.


Gordon Campbell Chown: When the committee rose on July 13 we were considering clause 7 of the bill and the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa East.
On clause 7-Consultation with staff organizations.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the government has amended Part I of Bill C-71 as proposed so that it may seem a little more attractive to civil servants.
Subsection (1) of section 7 reads as follows:
The Minister of Finance or such members of the public service as he may designate shall from time to time consult with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees-
It is further stated in subsection 2:
The commission and such members of the public service as the Minister of Finance may designate shall from time to time consult with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees-
Then, in subsection 3:
The commission and such members of the public with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees-
I quite agree that it is an improvement over the first bill. On the other hand, that is exactly the opposite of what the civil servants' associations have been asking for. They asked for the right to bargain at any time and not only when the minister would deem it proper to call them in. All the associations agreed on that point; they asked for the right to bargain directly. They insisted on the right for civil servants to open negotiations with any representative of the government whom the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) may care to designate. We raised that point in the committee but that did not seem to please the government's representatives.
It was claimed that this would perhaps deprive parliament of the right to settle problems. In my opinion, the prerogatives of parliament are not involved because even if civil servants were given bargaining rights or arbitration, the funds to pay their salaries would still have to be voted by parliament and if the latter did not approve them, there would be no question of salary increases.
It was also submitted that such a thing could lead to claims for the right to strike on the part of civil servants. Well, we know that, before the committee, representatives from the different civil servant associations clearly indicated that they were opposed to the right to strike, except the Canadian postal employees association which requested that right.

As a matter of fact, I wonder why it is said that there is danger that some day the civil servants will decide to strike, because neither in the existing legislation nor in the former act, chapter 48 in the revised statutes, nor in the present amendments, do I see anything forbidding them to strike now. Well, when something is not forbidden, it follows that it is allowed, but the civil servants have no intention of taking advantage of this situation to go on strike.
Moreover, we know that in Saskatchewan, government employees have the right to bargain, to negotiate directly with the government, and it has been like that for some time now. However, the employees have not made use of the right to put the government in a difficult situation. They simply benefit-ted by that and the government did not complain. Besides, in most provinces there are some means of forcing the government to negotiate with civil servants and even in the province of Quebec, where there is no special formula, section 5 of the civil service act provides that, when the commission is made up of three members, one of them shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the general council of employees. In this way, the employees have at least a representative on the commission to protect their interests.
Furthermore, in Ontario, under the law, a four member advisory committee has been set up; three of its members are appointed by the lieutenant governor in council according to set rules, and the fourth upon a recommendation made under the provisions of the civil service act. The rules enacted under the civil service act, also provide for the creation of a public service grievance board composed of at least three members appointed by the lieutenant governor in council.
Civil servants' associations may represent an employee who wishes to submit his grievances. Again, this is bound to improve the situation, and much better than what is now provided in the bill, because it now says: "the minister must consult, from time to time"; the minister must consult but when are employees entitled to demand consultations from the department? Never, since the minister alone can decide when civil servants may come and discuss contentious issues. But civil servants may never, according to the bill, even as amended, require that the government undertake discussions with employees of the commission and civil service associations.
In section 45 of Manitoba's civil service act, the maintenance of a joint council is provided. The provincial secretary and two

members of the cabinet represent the government; therefore, three ministers represent the government. The association appoints three members who are supposed to represent the civil servants. And, further on, it is noted that a member of the civil service commission and the executive secretary of the association may attend a meeting of the joint council and of the government in an advisory capacity. It is a great improvement on what we have, and on what the Ottawa government is now proposing.
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Surely.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is not the hon. member dealing entirely with grievance procedures? I believe that what he has read concerning the Ontario and Manitoba procedures deals entirely with grievances and not with processes of consultation and negotiation with which we are concerned at this time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think it can be said that ultimately everything relates to grievances including salary discussions. There are always grievances between the government and the employees. This has to be taken into consideration. The same body must look after all grievances relating to increases in salary and working conditions. It cannot do otherwise.


Thomas Miller Bell: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe my hon. friend is dealing with grievance procedures and not with processes of consultation and negotiation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does my hon. friend believe that the desire for an increase in salary is not a grievance? Of course it is a grievance. If the employees feel they need more money they wish to submit their views to the government. They have a grievance against the government because they feel they are not receiving an adequate salary. Everything boils down to a grievance. I invite the hon. member to look at the wording.
(Translation):
In Saskatchewan, negotiations are carried out with a staff association certified as a negotiating agent, which has union status under the union act. Those negotiations are conducted on questions of salaries and other working conditions attached to positions in the classified service. Salaries for those positions excluded from the collective agreement, are established by a committee on salaries which reviews representations made by the
Civil Service Act
department involved. There is a right to appeal after rates of salary have been established.
This is similar with what we are asking for. It is similar to what staff associations in our civil service are asking for. It involves the right to initiate negotiations with the government even though the minister is not willing to go into negotiations. And when negotiations are carried out between representatives of the department, selected by the department, and representatives of the variousxStaff associations in the civil service, if they do not come to an agreement, we want some kind of an arbitration board to examine their grievances. And I take as a grievance at the present time, the fact of ascertaining whether the employees are right or wrong in demanding a reasonable salary or normal working conditions.
In Alberta, since 1923, the public service act provides for a joint council composed of three members appointed by the association and three members selected by the provincial government. Such council is the negotiating body on salaries, working conditions and grievances. The provincial secretary treasurer acts as chairman of the joint council. He is the counterpart of the Minister of Finance.
Generally speaking, agreement is achieved first at the level of the joint council whose recommendations are almost always accepted.
In British Columbia, under section 72 of the civil service act of that province, the government has to recognize a civil service association which represents more than half of all the public employees whenever questions relating to the welfare of the civil employees and their working conditions, including their salaries, are raised.
That provision does not exclude the right of appeal or discussion with one particular civil servant or a minority group among the staff.
This is the kind of association, the kind of union that is needed to satisfy the justified complaints of civil service associations, because until now they have been treated rather like second class citizens.
People say: "But how can they make such demands"?
I recall that before 1890, when workers in industry or other employees made such demands, i.e. the right to negotiate directly with their employers-they were considered as revolutionaries, or even communists and jailed. I know many labour leaders who had

Civil Service Act
to spend several weeks in jail because they had simply demanded what we are claiming now for civil servants.
But today, try and say in the labour world or elsewhere and say that the one who is claiming direct bargaining rights is revolutionary minded or a communist. No one will believe you because every human being has the right of discussion with his employer. It is a bounden right and you cannot take him to task or refuse him that right. Whether he is a factory worker or a government employee, he has that same right to try and protect through the power of an association his natural rights, and to protect himself against anyone who infringes his rights.
That is what the civil servants, members of every association, have come to ask for. They insisted. But the government does not seem prepared to grant their request. However, it is very simple, for our amendment reads as follows:
7 (1) The commission, and such members of the public service as the Minister of Finance may designate, shall negotiate directly with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees of the crown, with respect to pay and other terms and conditions of employment, at the request of such representatives, or wherever in the opinion of the commission or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, such negotiation and consultation is necessary or desirable in the interests of the civil service or the government. Such direct negotiation and consultation shall be initiated by either the governor in council, its appointees, or the appropriate staff associations and organizations noted above.
(2)	Where negotiation does not result in agreement, the matter under dispute shall be taken to an arbitration tribunal by either party.
(3)	The results of such negotiation and/or arbitration shall be proclaimed by a suitable instrument, where necessary subject to the approval of parliament.
Now, there is a reservation made that parliament approval is needed on all those matters of arbitration or bargaining, which means that parliament is not ignored and that its prerogatives are respected.
So, I hope the government will reconsider and understand that civil servants must be treated on the same basis as employees in all other parts of Canada and indeed the whole world. Public servants must be regarded as first class citizens like all other citizens of this country; that is all we are asking in the amendment we moved when we considered this bill at the end of June or early in July.
So, I hope the government will reconsider its stand and accept the proposed amendment in order that federal civil servants be considered as first class employees.

(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, there is hardly time before 10.30 to deal exhaustively with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa East. That amendment is identical in terms with one which was moved in the special committee and which after careful and detailed consideration was rejected by that committee.
The hon. member for Hull I think has just been proceeding on a misapprehension. Most of what he read from procedures in the various provinces dealt with grievance procedure rather than procedures of consultation or negotiation. I want to put my position clearly in only two or three minutes so that if it wishes the committee may vote before 10.30.


George James McIlraith: That comes from the hon. member who took all the time on the earlier vote.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. member is complaining about time taken on the earlier vote.


George James McIlraith: After the opposition had indicated its approval of second reading.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman who is principally responsible for the vote being taken earlier did not even bother to remain in the house while the vote was taken. If the hon. gentleman from Ottawa West wishes to deflect me from my particular subject I will say to him that I will be only too glad to enter into a debate with him on any controversial subject that may arise. I was trying to deal in a logical and rapid way with the principle here. I want to say there is no major difference in objective or principle between the hon. gentleman from Ottawa East and myself. Such differences as do exist relate to the methods and techniques of achieving the objective. My considered opinion is that to endeavour to spell out in the act the procedures, and processes of consultation between the treasury and the staff associations may very well delay rather than expedite the achievement of mutually satisfactory processes of consultation.
I would prefer, as I said on second reading, that the processes, the techniques, like freedom, should broaden down from precedent to precedent. To be explicit in the act, to set forth the detailed provisions relating to consultation and the results which are to flow from consultation may very well

create an unsatisfactory legislative strait-jacket within which satisfactory consultations might not develop.
This new experiment, this new adventure, in employer-employee relations might very well prove to be abortive before it really got started. It is on those grounds that I would ask the committee to take the same action that the special committee took, to reject the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa East and to proceed ahead with the very satisfactory amendment to section 7 which was proposed by the Minister of Finance.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The question is on the amendment.


Augustin Brassard: I wonder whether the hon. member for Carleton will hold it against me but I should like to say a few words on this amendment. Would you call it 10.30 p.m. Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and perhaps there will be some indication of what we will be doing on Wednesday.
Business of the House


Léon Balcer: First of all tomorrow we will take second reading of the bill respecting the centennial observance of the birthday of Canada. The second item will be second reading of the bill to amend the National Housing Act. The third item will be Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada, and the fourth item will be the resolution respecting physical fitness through amateur sport.
As far as Wednesday is concerned, I am afraid the house will have to wait until tomorrow night for an indication of the business for that day.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the house have available for its consideration the centennial bill which I understand has not yet been distributed?


George James McIlraith: It has not been printed and will not be available.


Léon Balcer: Yes, it will be available.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the acting house leader give any indication of the business for Wednesday?


Léon Balcer: It will depend on the progress made tomorrow and I am afraid I am not in a position to give any indication just now.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Has a supplementary order of the international joint commission, dated the 2nd of July, 1956, dealing with criteria for a method of regulation of the level of water on lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river, been amended?
2.	If so, how often, on what dates, and in what orders of the commission?
3.	Have any of these orders or amendments been put into effect by the international joint commission either on lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence river?
4.	Which method of regulation is now in operation?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of State for External Affairs):
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Plan of regulation 1958-A. However, the international St. Lawrence river board of control, under the supervision of the international joint commission, has exercised certain discretionary authority granted to it by the commission by accumulating storage on lake Ontario this summer in temporary deviation from the plan of regulation. The additional storage has been built up for use in
helping to alleviate any problem of low flows which may arise this autumn in Montreal harbour. In his appearance before the external affairs standing committee on June 14, 1961 General McNaughton stated that the board of control had been asked to keep a close watch on the river with a view to conserving water on lake Ontario in order to meet this problem of low flows. General McNaughton also announced on that occasion that the board of control was conducting a review of plan of regulation 1958-A.


SKILLED WORKERS LEAVING CANADA, 1961
Mr. Malheson: Does the government have any information as to the number of skilled workers who left Canada during the first six months of 1961?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
Statistics on the emigration of Canadians to the United States only by occupation are obtained from the immigration and naturalization service of the United States department of justice in the form of a semi-annual report which is available to the Department of Labour. The latest period for which these statistics are available is for the last six months of 1960. Data for the first six months of 1961 will be available late in November or early December 1961. No statistics are available on the emigration of Canadian workers to countries other than the United States.

Tuesday, September 19, 1961