1961-05-11

[Stage Direction]
QUEEN*S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1961
90205-6-293£
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 11, 1961


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the President of the United States will speak to a joint meeting of the House of Commons and Senate on Wednesday afternoon beginning at 2.30. It occurred to me that the house might give some consideration to the order of business that day.
As usual the house will convene at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. We could then continue until one o'clock. Many preparations have to be made in order to make possible the joint meeting of the two houses, and by the time the afternoon proceedings have concluded and we are in a position to have the staffs clear away the chairs, radio, television equipment and the like, most of the afternoon would have passed away before any business could be done.
I hope the house might agree that at the conclusion of the President's address we would not reconvene. If that is accepted in place of a motion, I offer to the house the suggestion that on Wednesday next at one o'clock when the adjournment takes place the house be formally adjourned until the next day. I hope there can be agreement in that connection.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: The arrangements which the Prime Minister has outlined for next Wednesday are satisfactory to us on this side.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Agreed
here, also.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I take it that by unanimous consent the house orders that on Wednesday next when the house adjourns at one o'clock it shall stand adjourned until the following morning at eleven o'clock.



ARRANGEMENTS FOR PHOTOGRAPH OF HOUSE IN SESSION

Mr. Speaker:: While we are discussing the arrangements for Wednesday, may I ask leave of hon. members-and if there is no dissident
voice I take it I have leave-to arrange a photograph of the house. We shall have the facilities in connection with the President's visit and, the following morning, a good photograph, which does not exist today, of the house in session could be taken by leaving some equipment here for that purpose.
I would not consider making the arrangement if there were any objection raised in regard to it, but if there is not I think hon. members might like to have a good photograph of the house in session which we could use in our gallery pamphlet and booklets.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yesterday I stated that I would ask leave to table a copy of the communique which was issued at the conclusion of the NATO ministerial meeting which took place in Oslo from May 8 to 10. I should also like to make a statement to supplement the communique. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will, when he returns, give the house the benefit of the impressions he formed in the course of the meeting. However, there are some general observations which might be made.
The NATO foreign ministers usually meet in the spring each year to review the various problems confronting the alliance. Military problems are not excluded from the discussion, although the defence posture of the alliance is usually examined in greater detail at the December meeting, which is attended as well by the defence and finance ministers of the various member countries. It was the first meeting of the council under the chairmanship of the new secretary general, Mr. D. U. Stikker of the Netherlands.
In Oslo the foreign ministers stressed once more the defensive character of the alliance, but recognized that the menace which drew them together is now not only military but also has world wide political, economic, scientific and psychological aspects. They reaffirmed NATO's determination to help build a world free from war and also free from the false Marxist doctrine of continuing and inevitable conflict.
One of the main threats to world peace is the lack of progress in the solution of the problem of Germany, including Berlin. The

NATO Meeting in Oslo foreign ministers re-emphasized that such a solution can only be found on the basis of self determination. They reiterated the determination of all to maintain the freedom of West Berlin and its people. As to the often repeated threat by the Soviet union to sign a separate peace treaty, they reaffirmed the statement in the 1958 declaration that the denunciation by the Soviet union of the interallied agreements on Berlin can in no way deprive the other parties of their rights or relieve the Soviet union of its obligations.
While Germany and Berlin may be the most immediate potential cause of friction between the Soviet and the west in Europe, the NATO council continued to be concerned about the need for progress toward disarmament. The council expressed the hope that the proposed discussions between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. would permit the resumption of negotiations at the end of July, and reaffirmed the western objectives of disarmament by stages under effective international control. A major first step toward disarmament would be the conclusion of an agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests. The foreign ministers expressed the hope that the U.S.S.R. would revise its attitude and will agree to consider the draft treaty tabled by the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
The council also gave high priority to the question of assisting less developed areas of the world and of NATO in raising their standards of living.
The ministers stressed once more the need for close consultation between NATO members to develop an increased unity of purpose within the alliance. This question of consultation has been the subject of consideration throughout the years, and more and more it becomes mandatory that consultation shall be even closer than it has been heretofore.
The ministers also instructed the permanent council to keep under constant review NATO's military posture and to report to the ministerial meeting in December.
Sir, with the leave of the house I table the communique.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to receive this preliminary report from the Prime Minister on the NATO meeting in Oslo. We will no doubt be hearing in greater detail from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he returns, as to the results of the meeting. There is no doubt that this meeting took place at a very important moment in NATO's history, and that there were many problems and difficulties which had to be faced.


We all hope that the meeting itself, under the chairmanship of the distinguished new secretary general, Mr. Stikker, will help to ensure progress in the solution of these problems and difficulties. It is clear from the communique that many of these problems are concerned with issues strictly outside the NATO geographical area, but from which NATO members cannot isolate themselves. It is important that NATO should make progress, and it is satisfying to learn that this council meeting has made some contribution to that progress. At this time, of all times, NATO should be strong and united, not only for defence but in the building up of the North Atlantic community.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all listened with interest to the statement of the Prime Minister with respect to the communique issued at the conclusion of the NATO meeting. We in this group were very glad to hear of the change of direction, and that emphasis is not only being placed on the military aspect but on the psychological, cultural and economic aspects, as well as the desire of NATO to work to develop self determination. When we say that we must not forget that there is one country which is a member of NATO, Portugal, which has a colony known as Angola where there is slave labour and suppression of freedom.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the matters on which the hon. member is commenting do not arise from the statement of the Prime Minister. That statement was made for the information of the house, and does not give hon. members an opportunity to roam about the field of international affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to wander, but was making those remarks as a prelude to my conclusion. We in this group are very pleased to know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned with these matters.



HIGHWAYS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that under the roads to resources program, agreement has been reached with the province of New Brunswick for the immediate construction of an important road to develop the resources of that province. Construction of some 75 miles of road in the north central part of New Brunswick west of Bathurst, to provide access to a major mineralized zone, is involved in the project.

The first stage of construction provides for a road north from Heath Steele across the Nepisiguit river and thence westerly for two miles to the Wedge property of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. This will bring the mine into production and reactivate the smelter at Heath Steele by 1962. The cost of construction of this section of road will be divided among the province, the federal government and the company directly benefiting. In subsequent years this road will be extended north a further 16 miles to connect with an east-west development road of approximately 50 miles in length to be constructed under this program.
It is expected that the project will result in a mining complex which will make a real contribution toward stimulating employment and economic opportunities generally in the northern part of the province. I think hon. members will agree it is an excellent example of the kind of resource development contemplated in the roads to resources program.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
put a question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I have been in committee since 9.30 and did not have an opportunity to reach him. Has the minister any information that would indicate the existence of a Soviet missile base on the island of Cuba? Would the minister care to comment on a press report over the radio this morning concerning this possibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Was the hon. member's question about a missile base in Cuba?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see how the hon. member can bring that subject under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would you not agree that a Soviet missile base in a neighbouring country would be a matter of concern and interest to this country and its government?


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that it is a matter of interest, but I do not think it is the administrative responsibility of the Minister of National Defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not part of the responsibility of the minister and the government to consider a missile base in an adjoining country?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps so, but it is not of such immediate consequence and urgency as to permit a question to be asked at this time. I think hon. members will agree that if I permitted the question it would be permissible to ask whether any of the republics in Africa were acquiring submarines for the purpose of attacking Canada, or a variety of questions on which obviously the house should not spend its time on the orders of the day; therefore, with all due respect to the hon. member who posed the question, I do not consider it appropriate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house whether legislation will be introduced at this session based on the MacPher-son royal commission report on transportation? I wonder whether the Prime Minister could assure those communities in the country which are dependent on branch line railway service that there will be no wholesale abandonment of branch railway lines pending the introduction of legislation based on this report.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as one who knows something of the advantages of branch lines in the province of Saskatchewan in the early years, continuing until today, I am sure every consideration will be given by the railroads to assuring that in the years ahead the services rendered shall be those that are requisite.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a communication from Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, United Kingdom member of parliament, or from any other passengers travelling from overseas by air complaining about the procedure involved in getting their vaccinations checked at the Montreal airport?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, almost simultaneously with the receipt of a letter dated the 8th of this month I heard the substance of that letter over the radio. That is just a coincidence, but it indicates that even before I had an
4640	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry opportunity to have the matter looked into the requisite publicity was given to it by someone not connected with my office. The Minister of National Health and Welfare may be able to give an answer with respect to the matter raised.


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to learn that Mr. Woodrow Wyatt experienced inconvenience during his medical clearance at Dorval. Because of limitations of space it simply has not been possible to clear passengers in a location other than the main terminal building. However, I have been trying to improve this situation, and a small office closer to the landing field will be opening very soon on a trial basis. This involved some construction and the provision of vaccination facilities, but all the arrangements are virtually completed.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. Is anything being done by the departmental officials concerning the long distances it is necessary for passengers to walk in order to embark or disembark at Montreal airport?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are always open to any good suggestions. We have received suggestions from time to time from the general public and from members of parliament, and I can say that at the present time my department has the matter under very serious consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Has consideration been given to moving walks such as I understand are used in many other terminals?


Léon Balcer: The information I have is that this would involve an expense of close to $300,000. I also understand that the experience with these walks has not been a very happy one. Before we do anything along this line we must make sure that we have the type of facility that will really render good service to the public and at the same time will not involve too heavy a burden on the taxpayers.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gale):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the case of persons who have vaccination certificates and are simply in transit, would it not be possible to have them checked right on the aircraft and only require those persons who do not have certificates to disembark?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am going to look into this particular case and one or two other complaints I have had along this line and examine them very carefully. tMr. Diefenbaker.)



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell us whether the four ladies appointed census commissioners in Broadview riding, and who are members of the Broadview-Riverdale women's Progressive Conservative Association have husbands and whether these men are gainfully employed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, some have and some have not.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister answer the important balance of the question?


George Harris Hees: I did not notice that there was any important balance of the question.


John Richard Garland: It may not be important to the minister, but it is important to national employment.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pif Lessard (SI. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the government received representations from the provincial government in Quebec concerning the possibility of keeping the St. Lawrence open for shipping on a year-round basis, and could the minister indicate what is the position of the federal government in this regard?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received any such communication from the provincial government in Quebec.
However, with regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, may I say that the Department of Transport is interested in any suggestion or any study that could lead to an improvement of shipping in Canada.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.

Has the minister seen a letter published in he Devoir on May 8, 1961 over the signature of the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, concerning the Soulanges canal?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the letter in question, but I must say I have had several exceedingly constructive talks on that subject with the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.


Gaston Clermont: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Transport indicate under what authority the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges prevented the Soulanges canal from being turned over to the province of Quebec?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this government always pays close attention to responsible suggestions made by hon. members with regard to any such projects.
I think the offer we made to the province of Quebec to surrender for one dollar 13 miles of the Soulanges canal for the purpose of using it as a fish hatchery was reasonable and indeed generous; and our decision to temporarily set aside certain parts of the property in case some industrial concerns might be interested in locating there was justified in the circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Has the minister had occasion to prepare an answer to the question I asked him last week, in which I asked which chamber of commerce had asked the minister to set aside a mile of the Soulanges canal for industrial purposes?


Léon Balcer: It is the chamber of commerce of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I have in my hand a very well written pamphlet which indicates the industrial advantages to be found in this beautiful area close to Cascades, which, as requested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, we are anxious to offer to Canadian or foreign industries.
(Text):



P.E.I. CAUSEWAY  REQUEST FOR FINAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he expects to have available for the house before the end of this month the final report on the feasibility and cost of the causeway to Prince Edward Island?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous project and of necessity requires the most minute investigation.
90205-6-294
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: As to whether or not it will be available, I am not in a position at the present time to say. What significance can there be in wanting it by the end of the month?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Does he not realize that the people of Prince Edward Island would like him to get on with this project as was promised?


David James Walker: For 22 years under the Liberal administration nothing was done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The usual answer.


Mr. Peters:: You'll have to wait for the New party for that to happen.


Mr. Howard:: I decline to comment on that last interjection, although I think it is a quite proper one.



SPRINGHILL, N.S.-STATEMENT ON MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired concerning the spur line from Springhill to Spring-hill Junction. I might say that the hon. member for Cumberland recently came to see me with a delegation from the town of Springhill, and the additional representations put forward were referred to the Canadian National Railways. There have also been discussions with the provincial government, but all I can say at the moment is that the matter is still under very serious consideration.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF HIGHWAY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: While I am on my feet, I wonder whether I might ask if the Minister of Public Works is in a position to give an answer to my question of yesterday.


David James Walker: In answer to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked a similar question of the former minister of public works. The answer was then and still is that the locale of the trans-Canada highway or its route was fixed by the province of British Columbia
4642	HOUSE CF
Inquiries of the Ministry at the inception of the agreement, and on each renewal of the agreement the same route has been signified and was included in schedule A of the agreement last year, namely from Nanaimo to Victoria on Vancouver Island. The hon. member will therefore appreciate that there is no legislative authority which we could invoke under the Trans-Canada Highway Act to make any extensions.
As a matter of fact we would be very grateful if the province of British Columbia would undertake to complete as soon as possible the very large amount of highway which still has to be completed. To this end I wish to reiterate that the federal government has spent in the province of British Columbia upwards of $100 million on this highway.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. I wonder if I may ask the minister, with respect to the questions asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni of the minister's predecessor, whether those questions were predicated upon telegrams or communications from the highways minister also, or whether perhaps this particular telegram to which he refers has some connection with events in Esquimalt-Saanich?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly admire the perspicacity of the hon. member who has asked that question. I think the minister of highways in British Columbia is always flying a political kite one way or another.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I appear to have had a great deal of difficulty with the Hansard reporters. I wonder if I could ask for another correction. At page 4604, in a question to the Prime Minister, I am quoted as saying "the salary structure and promotion steps of Mr. Stepler". What I said was "the salary structure and expense allowance". I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to answer that question?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will read further in Hansard he will find that I suggested that the question should be put on the order paper. May I say also that the time of the house is valuable, and that it should not be taken up in making unimportant corrections in Hansard. The opportunity is afforded to every member to go to the editor's office, read the script of what he has said, and make his corrections on the day the speech is made. There is also an opportunity to make corrections in the final


revised copy. I therefore think it is incumbent on all hon. members to use restraint in using the time of the house for the purpose of making corrections in the reports of the debates.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege affecting myself and every hon. member of this house, while I cannot find the direct Hansard reference immediately I recall a statement by Your Honour on a previous occasion in which you admonished hon. members for making corrections in Hansard in the Hansard office and said the proper place to make them was in the house itself.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: Yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to motions because of an announcement to be made respecting a visit to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister
leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform hon. members of this house that the premier of Israel, Mr. David Ben-Gurion, has accepted an invitation to visit this country. He will arrive in Ottawa on May 24 for a two day visit and will thereafter spend a brief period privately in this country. He will be visiting the United States, of course, during the month.
Canada will welcome Mr. David Ben-Gurion as the distinguished leader of a young and vigorous state whose energy and guidance have been so important in the rapid progress made by his country. It is the hope of the government and people of Canada that the close and friendly relations which have existed between our countries since the founding of Israel will continue to grow. The visit is regarded as a further step in that direction.
This will be the premier's first visit to Canada as premier of his country. During the visit matters of common interest to our two countries will be discussed, and I feel sure both countries will benefit by the exchange of views which will be made possible by the visit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in recent years Canada has received many very distinguished visitors, but I am sure none has been given a warmer welcome than will be given

Premier Ben-Gurion, not only because of
the distinction of his own achievements but because he represents a state which has become a bastion of progressive democracy in the Middle East and which has very close and friendly relationships with our own country and our own people. We hope this visit of Premier Ben-Gurion will make those relationships even stronger.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the Prime Minister is most welcome. We are very pleased that the premier of Israel has agreed to come to Canada. We acknowledge his great efforts in building a democracy in Israel. We acknowledge the great social experiment that is being conducted there, and I am sure the ties between Canada and Israel will become even stronger because of this visit.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES National parks branch-
290. Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $823,390.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, under this item concerning the Migratory Birds Convention Act I should like to make a few remarks and ask the minister some questions. These questions concern the damage done to farmers' crops each fall by thousands of sandhill cranes in an area in my constituency at the northern end of Last Mountain lake.
I brought this problem of crop damage to the attention of the committee of supply last year. Because the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has assumed his portfolio since consideration of last year's estimates, perhaps I should review the situation briefly.
I should first like to congratulate the minister on the presentation of his first estimates, on the way they are passing through the committee of supply and on his direct and straightforward answers. I also wish to congratulate him on the fine work he is doing in guiding the operations of a department which covers so many fields of activity that the items of expenditure require five pages in the blue book. As well as being very large, the minister's department is very important in the government's national development program.
I imagine the minister has heard of the problem of the sandhill cranes in the Nokomis district and other areas around Last Mountain 90205-6-294J
Supply-Northern Affairs lake. I know the files in his department contain resolutions and suggestions in the matter, including appeals for an open season on the birds when they land in thousands in grain fields to feed before continuing on their way south for the winter.
I agree with the department's policy of protecting the birds from open season shooting because of the danger of killing one or more of the nearly-extinct whooping cranes which sometimes accompany flocks of sandhill cranes on their flight south. Last August the minister's department conducted a three-week survey of the sandhill cranes and their feeding habits around Last Mountain lake. A news report in the Nokomis Times provides some interesting details, and perhaps I may just refer to it:
The study was concentrated in an area of some 400 square miles bounded by highway 2 on the west, an east-west line through Lockwood on the north, highway 20 on the east and a line from Govan to Stalwart on the south.
Several methods and techniques were used to gather information on crane habits and movements and to explore the possibilities of controlling those movements.
Information on the numbers of cranes and their distribution in the area was obtained from both ground and aerial observations. The crane population was estimated to number some 1,000 birds when the survey was initiated. It increased to some 5,000 birds at the end of the second week and by the end of the third week, had reached at least 15,000 birds.
An 80 mile survey of some 285 seeded fields on August 31-
That is when the test was under way:
-showed 24 per cent standing crop, 7 per cent swathed and 69 per cent harvested.
Acetylene exploders were used on several crane roosting areas to try to restrict roosting and thus feeding activity to the area adjacent to a small sanctuary.
Attempts were made to herd cranes by the use of a single aircraft, also by two and by three aircraft. The experiments were planned to test the effectiveness of aerial herding of feeding cranes from crop areas to adjacent water-roosting grounds and also to see if the cranes could be pushed southward along their migration route.
I might point out for the information of the minister and his officials that although there is complaint in the district because of the damage done by these sandhill cranes, there are also many people who wish to see that the birds are given all the protection possible. I have seen the losses to crops when the cranes land for a few days' feeding on their way south, and I do not wish to minimize this loss in any way.
I think some action should be taken to reduce this destruction. I am passing on a suggestion made to me by some residents of the district, that the bird sanctuary already established near Last Mountain lake be extended. Incidentally, I have a letter from Mrs. J. M. Rutherford of Govan in which

Supply-Northern Affairs she states that this Last Mountain lake sanctuary was the first wild fowl refuge in Canada, being established by the federal government in 1887. Without too great an expense it should be possible to acquire adjoining acreage and make the present sanctuary into a large self-contained protected area on one of the main flyways of migratory birds on this continent, where wild fowl could feed without encroaching too much on farmers' land. Crops could be planted in the sanctuary and the marsh areas maintained accordingly.
Dealing with this suggestion, the Manitou Times states that such a scheme would be beneficial to the local economy because it would attract a large number of people to the area.
I noticed in the Free Press Weekly of May 3, 1961 a reference to what the government of Alberta is doing in respect to crop damage by wild fowl. I realize this is a provincial matter; nevertheless I thought I would draw the attention of the minister to it because he may be able to work with the Saskatchewan government in the same way. This reference was as follows:
This year hunters will pay a special $1 tee into an insurance fund when they buy their provincial licence. The fund will be used to compensate farmers for crop losses caused by game and migratory water fowl.
I should like to ask the minister if he would outline his department's policy with regard to the crane problem during the present year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a few brief remarks to make on this item because I have always been interested in wildlife, as are many of my constituents. The conservation of our game birds, fish and other wildlife is a matter of great interest and local concern.
There has been considerable concern expressed in the Kootenays over the prospect of dams being built on the Columbia river, and at a recent meeting of all the rod and gun clubs in southern British Columbia, representing 3,225 members, a resolution was unanimously passed expressing opposition to the building of what is known as the High Arrow dam.
I have risen particularly to deal with the fact that last year they asked for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in connection with a study of this whole problem-the impact of the development of these water resources on the fish and wildlife of our district. This was a topic of discussion at a meeting held in Creston and at a meeting held later, two or three weeks ago, in Vernon, and I should like the minister to tell us when he speaks what has been the result of that request, not only on the part of the rod and gun clubs but on the part of the


British Columbia federation of fish and game clubs. Perhaps he will tell us what has been done in respect to research as a result of cooperation between federal and provincial agencies in respect to this matter which is of such serious importance.
There has been a long continued interest in the constituency I have the honour to represent in the preservation of Duck lake, an area at the end of Kootenay lake adjacent to Creston flats. This question has been discussed during the year between federal and provincial authorities, local rod and gun clubs and other persons interested, and I am pleased to note that Dr. Munro, who is a well known advocate of wildlife conservation, has been interested in this project for many years and supports wholeheartedly the views of those who are anxious to preserve Duck lake for the nesting of the transient ducks passing through that area. Research into this problem has been requested, and when the minister speaks I should like him to tell the committee what are the latest developments so far as wildlife conservation is concerned, what meetings have lately taken place, and the situation generally with respect to Duck lake.
Some of the farming interests and primarily commercial interests in the area are anxious to drain this lake. This sheet of water was left as the result of a compromise between those concerned with agriculture and those concerned with the preservation of wildlife. It was believed the matter had been settled. Now there are those who would like to see this whole area drained. It was of great importance as a flyway for ducks, and I should like the minister to bring us up to date on this situation and tell us whether any further research has been undertaken in connection with this subject. I should like him also to tell the committee, if he can, the number of prosecutions in the last five years of persons who have violated the Migratory Birds Convention Act by either shooting or keeping egrets or by wearing hats or adornments made from egret feathers.
Finally I should like to support the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat with respect to the need for preserving the whooping cranes. I notice that an article in the Leader Press of June 16, 1960 deals with this question and mentions that the Audubon society of Canada has expressed concern that the proposed Great Slave lake railway might disturb the only whooper nesting ground yet found in northern Canada. It advocates the selection of the more westerly of the two possible routes, and adds that under the migratory birds convention the United States could protest if

wildlife officials there felt the Canadian nesting grounds were being violated.
I have raised this question at the request of a number of persons, and I was pleased to note the importance attached to the subject by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I trust that when the minister replies he will inform us what is being undertaken by his wildlife survey branch and what the branch proposes to do to protect these very rare birds.
With those few remarks I resume my seat, much, I presume, to the pleasure of a number of members.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I will reply to the specific questions which have been raised before this item carries. Perhaps I should deal first of all with the question raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last evening when he discussed the problem of sea ducks in the province of Newfoundland. On investigating this matter I discovered that there are various names for the birds which come into the general category of sea ducks. I also recall that the hon. member for Trinity-Conception was in touch with me recently concerning this same difficulty.
There is an open season provided in Newfoundland which extends from November 14 to February 28. I also understand that the Newfoundland director of game has been requesting a change in the migratory birds protection program. I think that is about all the information I can give the hon. member at this time. We are aware of the problem, but because it involves various species of birds it is difficult to produce one simple solution. However, we do appreciate having this question brought to the attention of the committee at this time.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has raised a question in respect of the perennial difficulty regarding sandhill cranes. I have been personally acquainted with this problem over the years. The hon. member has outlined the difficulty from his own knowledge of the matter. The lesser and greater sandhill cranes are protected because of the possibility of their being mistaken for the whooping cranes. The population of lesser sandhill cranes, sometimes known as the little brown crane, has now reached approximately 200,000, whereas the population of greater sandhill cranes is down to about 2,000, which is hardly substantial enough to remove the threat of possible extinction.
For these reasons, and because of the similarity among these three types of birds, it has not been possible to allow any open season. I can assure the hon. member, however, that depredation studies are in progress. He has outlined some of the procedures
Supply-Northern Affairs that have been tried, but I can inform him that during 1960 a co-operative study program was undertaken to determine the usefulness of exploders for scaring these birds. Exploders will be tested during 1961 to determine their usefulness in respect of sandhill cranes. Most of this program will be carried out in the Last Mountain lake region of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has asked for some information concerning studies going forward regarding the possible impact of the High Arrow dam project on wildlife. I am informed that our wildlife branch made an offer about a year ago to the director of the British Columbia game branch to cooperate with British Columbia in a study of this problem. A reply has been received, but at the moment no specific program has been launched and this subject is still in the discussion stage. Our wildlife people are aware of the difficulties and have been assured of co-operation from their counterparts in British Columbia.
I have received some information in regard to the Duck lake question which was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I understand that British Columbia has taken no action and will make no decision regarding the land use at Duck lake until all details of the Columbia river development program are settled. The area concerned is British Columbia crown land; therefore we can do nothing without the concurrence of the British Columbia government.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised a third question regarding the number of prosecutions under the Migratory Birds Convention Act in respect of the taking of egrets or egret feathers. We have no knowledge of any prosecutions, with the exception of the one case which was under discussion some time ago. I do not know whether the hon. member has any other information in this regard which he could bring to the attention of the committee, but I would invite him to do so in the event that he has.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have no further information, but simply asked the question because I wondered whether the example set by one very important person had been followed by others.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his explanation so far as birds in Newfoundland are concerned, but I should like to ask him whether the reason has resulted from written agreement or treaty with the United States, or is simply an agreement arrived at in Canada?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I understand in respect of this matter that the outer limits

Supply-Northern Affairs are determined under international agreement, but that details are worked out in the provinces themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would take advantage of the visit next week to bring this matter up in the highest quarters with the President of the United States to see whether the necessary consent could be obtained so that Newfoundlanders could exercise their ancient rights.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact I discussed this matter in a preliminary way at a relatively high level-not quite at the summit-with the secretary for the interior who was in Ottawa during the early part of this week. All the international aspects of the problems involved regarding the migratory bird conventions were discussed. I realize that migratory birds are becoming increasingly important and, because the treaty goes back to 1916, I believe, it is felt the time has come for some streamlining and modernization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Water resources branch-
291. Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's share oi the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $1,754,455.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on vote 291 I feel I ought at least very briefly to press the minister a little further regarding this question which, as he knows, is regarded in Manitoba as a matter of utmost importance. I refer to what is to be done on the Red river floodway, which we were told in the speech from the throne was to be embarked upon this year. It seems to me that once this item is passed there will be no other occasion, under the rules of the house, to speak on this subject, unless the government itself brings forward some legislation or other measure in this regard.
I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates or delay their passage in any way, but this will be a very big project. It is not a small matter at all. I am sure the minister knows that I am very pleased regarding the small project which has been undertaken on the Fairford river. I have had a great deal of personal interest in this situation over the years. I do not mean personal interest in any monetary sense because, I am sorry to have to say, I do not own a square inch of land in Manitoba, nor have I any interest in any.

However, I was raised alongside lake Manitoba and realize how important it is that the level of that lake should be properly regulated.
This is a very small part of a big program for the protection of metropolitan Winnipeg against flooding. I am not going to labour this question, because I realize the minister is familiar with the problems and it is conceivable that he knows more about it than I do. However, the provincial legislature prorogued without anyone in that legislature being able to find out from the government of Manitoba when this matter was going to be brought to a conclusion. By next week six months will have passed since the speech from the throne was read in the other place. When this project was considered to be of sufficient urgency at that time to be mentioned in that speech from the throne surely it is about time the government told us precisely what it intends to do, and particularly -and this is the most important factor-what the cost sharing formula will be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, there is very little I can add on this subject to what I said during consideration of the first item. This matter is going forward, and a committee of engineers from the government of Manitoba and from our own department has been formed to consider the engineering aspect of the matter. The engineering data will, of course, be available when negotiations are completed with respect to the financing terms, and that is the only part of the whole project which remains to be settled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says the financial division is the only part of the project that remains to be settled. Does that mean the two governments are completely agreed upon the nature of the scheme to be carried forward; that there is no longer any difference of any kind, in other words that the whole of the engineering details are settled? I do not mean the details of construction, but that the plan is definitely agreed upon?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there is general agreement on the engineering aspect of the problem. No doubt, however, there will be some amendments resulting from the report of the committee of engineers which is now giving consideration to the project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what effect the carrying out of this project will have on the St. Andrews rapids and the locks there?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether this is in the original engineering data; I have not studied the engineering report in detail, but I can assure the hon. member

that our own engineers as well as the provincial engineers will give due to consideration to this aspect of the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make one more brief observation on this point. I just wish to point out to the minister, in case this matter has not been fully considered, that I understand- and the minister probably has far more information about this than I have, or at least his officials may well have-there are many engineers who feel that this problem could be dealt with most effectively simply by removing the St. Andrews locks and dredging the river where that obstruction is located. I am sure this point has been considered a good many times before, but if the minister has any views on the subject-I know it is a subject of controversy among engineers-I think the committee would appreciate hearing them.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am assured, Mr. Chairman, that this point has been considered thoroughly by the advisory group of engineers, and they have come up with the firm report that this would be no substitute for the floodway. If there is a difference of opinion on the part of engineers, the engineers would appear to differ as much in their respective opinions as do politicians, although I think they are a little more definitive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not so sure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At the request of a number of organizations in southeastern British Columbia and a good number of individuals, I have been asked to make a few remarks on this item to indicate the many contradictions among statements of federal and provincial government officials and other important persons with respect to the proposed development of the Columbia. I must explain, Mr. Chairman, that this will be a strictly nonpartisan speech. I have the support of prominent C.C.F. people, members of the legislature, the support of well known Conservatives, well known Liberals and well known members of the Social Credit party. Therefore I can say I am speaking without any suggestion of bias but in the interests of the people of British Columbia and particularly of those of the Kootenays.
In order to be accurate, and unless I otherwise state, I am quoting from a text because this speech will go out to thousands of people when it is published, you know. Are these developments in the national interest? Well, let us have a look first of all at what General McNaughton has to say concerning it, with his obvious devotion to the development of the Columbia on the basis of equity to all governments and people concerned. I may say that the people of my district and of the Kootenays as a whole have a great respect
Supply-Northern Affairs for General McNaughton. I get dozens and dozens of letters saying "We support General McNaughton; we do hope the government will listen to him finally". This is what he had to say in the external affairs committee last year.


Mr. Payne:: What page?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have not the page number here, but this is correct. My stenographer omitted the page number, but I never quote anything unless it is exact.


William Hector Payne: Are we not entitled to the page reference, Mr. Chairman? I have General McNaughton's remarks before me, and I should like to follow what the hon. member is quoting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is taken from the record itself, but I notice my secretary omitted the page number. With respect to the building of this proposed High Arrow dam General McNaughton said:
It has become evident, I think, that from the point of view of power production, Canada would obtain no advantage whatever from flooding out the territories along the Arrow lakes to give the increased storage represented by the High Arrow project. The advantage powerwise in that project goes entirely to the United States. The only advantage which could come to Canada would be in recompense for power produced in the United States.
Later the same day General McNaughton said:
Of course, I will grant you that I may be looking at this whole business through tinted spectacles, but I cannot reconcile myself to the thought that people would be thrown out of their homes for an advantage which is transient.
What does the Minister of Justice have to say about the treaty that provides for the building of the Libby and High Arrow dams? I quote from the text of his speech delivered to the Canadian club in Montreal on February 13, 1961 of which I have a copy:
We are proud of the treaty we have negotiated for British Columbia and for Canada and I am satisfied that you will agree with me that the outline I have given you of its advantages and its tremendous potential as a stimulus to the economy of this province justifies the effort that has gone into it and the desire to get on with the job at the earliest possible moment.
What does the Milwaukee Journal have to say about this proposed development?
The vast amount of additional cheap hydroelectric power will be shared equally with Canada. Canada will also be paid in cash for flood control at the rate of one half of estimated annual savings. If this seems to be extreme liberality on our part, it should be remembered that Canada could have chosen an all-Canadian project which would have meant more and cheaper power for that country. So Canada is being a good and generous neighbour in the deal.
4648	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
I have received an interesting letter from Sacramento, California, from Lieutenant-Colonel George Anthony, retired, who is a registered professional electrical engineer, and whose life work has been in the management of power systems and resources studies in the United States. He just retired from the United States service; otherwise he could not write me this letter. In his lengthy letter he had this to say:
There may be occasions (and this appears to be one) where political expediency will magnify marginal benefits out of all proportion to their worth, in an effort to justify an otherwise uneconomic international agreement. If successful and if the costs are carefully hidden, the success may add some glamour to giant storage systems and power pools, while the property owners along the Arrow lakes take the beating. Also, the public will be denied the right to enjoy one of the most scenic and most beautiful natural lakes yet untouched by a questionable economic power philosophy.
Then again in 1959 Hon. Ray Williston, minister of lands and forests for the province of British Columbia, gave the assurance at a public meeting in Nelson-I have listened to the tape recording of that address-that the Kootenay district would benefit directly from this development. However, in a letter the minister wrote later to the secretary of the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, he suggested the only benefits the Kootenays might expect from the Columbia treaty would be those accruing to the area as a result of the building of the dams, or other construction. In fact I have the minutes of the meeting of the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, dated February 25, 1961. In these minutes is a comment on the minister's letter, as follows:
It was pointed out that our association's official position is opposition to High Arrow storage dam unless proven beneficial to southeastern British Columbia. A letter, dated December 2, 1960, from the minister of lands and forests indicates that, other than the building boom, no benefits will accrue to this area.
When speaking in reply to a question asked by me in the house on March 2, the Minister of Justice said, as reported in Hansard of March 3, at page 2622:
A reference to the treaty and the annexes will show that the utmost precision possible at this stage has been introduced for the determination of precisely these matters at the only time they can be determined with complete certainty-
This in effect means that the Minister of Justice considered that the necessary and essential facts were known before the treaty was signed. However, in contrast the British Columbia energy board has stated, and I quote from their report-
The British Columbia energy board recommends delay in the signing of any agreement with the
[Mr. Herridge.j

government of Canada because certain aspects of each project require clarification before realistic cost estimates can be established.
Another contradiction. What about the cost of power? The Minister of Justice, in his speech before the Canadian club in Montreal from which I quoted previously, said:
With the treaty we can embark immediately on a tremendous series of developments which, taken together, will produce, not only initially but over many years to come, a greater quantity of power at lower cost than is available from any other presently known source.
But what has Mr. Williston, the British Columbia minister of lands and forests, said about this? When speaking to the legislature on February 8 this year he said:
I should like to emphasize that the present agreement with the United States will not provide an abundance of cheap electricity at this time, and that the agreement between the federal and provincial governments will not be ratified for some time.
Another contradiction. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I might mention at this point that last fall, when speaking in Nelson, the minister of lands and forests of British Columbia said that speed was essential in the development of the Columbia. When speaking to a public meeting in Castlegar, as reported in the Trail Times on September 6, 1960, Mr. Williston criticized the C.C.F. policy with respect to bringing the British Columbia Electric under public ownership, and said:
Taking over the B.C. Electric would not provide cheap electricity because the B.C. Electric hasn't got any cheap electricity.
Then he went on further to say, and I quote again from the Trail Times of the same date:
The first cheap electrical energy we are going to have is that which will come from the Columbia River development.
Now Mr. Williston tells a different story. Another contradiction. Again, only a few weeks ago we read in the press that Mr. Bennett is giving consideration to bringing the B.C. Electric under public ownership. After Mr. Williston's statement in Castlegar on this question, this appears like another contradiction. Speaking in Castlegar, as reported in the Trail Times on the same date, Mr. Williston said:
The High Arrow dam would not be built until public hearings had been held under the water rights act; that the High Arrow dam would never be built if the preponderance of evidence produced at these hearings shows the project not to be in the best interests of British Columbia and Canada, and that no agreement would be signed with the Americans or anyone else until public hearings had been held.
Well, what has happened? All hon. members know that no public hearings under the water rights act have been held. You all know that the treaty has been signed regardless of Mr. Williston's promise that no

agreement would be signed with the Americans until public hearings had been held. Another contradiction.
The Minister of Justice also states that the treaty with the United States was signed with the full understanding, knowledge and agreement of the government of British Columbia. However, it is generally known that the storage of 8 million acre feet of water in the Arrow lakes will make possible the irrigation of additional thousands of acres of land used for the production of fruit and vegetables in the United States. This development has caused some concern in the Okanagan valley. Mr. Perrault, leader of the Liberal party in the provincial house, later dealt with this action and said that British Columbia is already feeling the impact of farm produce from the Columbia valley in Washington state, where taxes and water rates are lower than in British Columbia. Mr. Perrault said that British Columbia now imports $125 million worth of farm produce a year, and that the total annual income from agriculture in British Columbia is lower by $5 million than in 1951.
What did the minister of agriculture of British Columbia have to say? We must remember that he comes from the Okanagan valley and fully appreciates the danger of this further competition from the United States. I now quote the minister of agriculture of British Columbia:
Competition from the United States farm produce is likely to be assisted by the Columbia development and will affect other parts of Canada besides British Columbia.
He further said:
I think it would be a matter of tariffs that we will have to consider.
He said the matter should be discussed at the national level, and that he would take up the whole issue at a conference of the provincial ministers of agriculture later this year. What does this mean? It means that in order to overcome the damage done British Columbia agricultural producers the minister of agriculture for British Columbia proposes to ask the federal government to increase the tariffs on fruit and vegetables. When you think of all the implications of this situation you will realize that this is another contradiction in the approach of the different ministers of the different governments.
Again, we have been told repeatedly that there is a shortage of power in British Columbia, yet in the March 11 issue of the Canada Gazette I note an application by the B.C. Electric Company to the national energy board to export surplus power for a period of 25 years to the United States. This appears to be another contradiction. The Minister
Supply-Northern Affairs of Justice hopes that this project will start in 1961. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has published some literature saying that it will start in 1961. There is no sense of certainty or similarity of approach in these statements.
These contradictory statements by federal and provincial cabinet ministers clearly indicate that the Columbia treaty has been signed hastily, without a knowledge or understanding of all the facts and without an agreement in writing between the two governments. In order to indicate the situation and the benefit of this project to the United States, I want to quote briefly from the Victoria Colonist:
Before the Columbia river treaty was signed last January its U.S. sponsors unleashed a veritable barrage of information in the Senate and around the election hustings to show that the harnessing of the Columbia river for hydroelectric development was a magnificent deal for the United States.
There is the booklet that was sent all over the United States. It was issued to every senator and representative. It was distributed all over the United States, and it clearly indicates the benefits to that country. I continue the quotation:
In the Senate where the treaty was up for approval, one speaker assured Senators that "The United States has driven a hard bargain-a very hard bargain-with Canada." Even President Eisenhower campaigning for Mr. Nixon declared on more than one occasion that the Columbia development was extremely favourable to the United States.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that as the member for Kootenay West I have, like a good many others, given this question most careful consideration. After listening to General McNaughton in the external affairs committee and the Minister of Justice and reading all the evidence available, I am convinced that I am representing the views of my constituents when I say that the treaty in its present form is not in the national, provincial, Kootenays' or local interest. Recent developments strengthen my conviction in that regard. A nation wide interest in this matter is developing. The newspapers are interested. One only has to refer to the articles in various papers, and there are going to be more. There was one in the Family Herald of April 27, another in the Western Producer of April 20, and others are appearing in various national magazines. I have heard recently that one national magazine has sent representatives into the area.
Here is the sort of thing one sees. I have here the Kimberley News, a newspaper owned by a Conservative and financed by Conservatives. The heading of the article is "Kootenays May Be Sold Out". This is the sort of opinion we are getting from all
4650	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs quarters because people have been studying this question. In the first instance people thought it was only natural that the group of 1,500 or 1,600 small farmers who would be flooded out would object. That is understandable, but this is not the whole case. These objections are being raised on a wide basis by people who have given the question the most serious consideration, not only people in the Kootenays and in British Columbia generally but in other parts of Canada as well.
Delay in signing an agreement with the federal government is urged by the British Columbia chambers of commerce and by the British Columbia research council. These groups have studied the Columbia river treaty from four angles, national interest, provincial interest, Kootenay interest and local interest. They are completely non-partisan in their objectives. They include the Arrow lakes committee and the Revelstoke city committee composed of people from all parties and chambers of commerce whose members are supporters of all parties.
The facts coming to light indicate that this problem has not been properly assessed. Our local people are communicating with the energy board in British Columbia. They are glad to get the information. The cost of the High Arrow dam is going to be millions of dollars more than was anticipated. The cost of getting logs through to the pulp mill below the dam is going to be in excess of what was contemplated, and the problems are going to be greater. The sociological impact is going to be much greater than was anticipated. The cost of compensating for the loss of public facilities and private investment in the district over a period of 60 years is going to be much greater than was anticipated. We have had the co-operation of various engineers, including civil engineers and hydro engineers, who have offered their services free because of their interest in this problem.
The treaty has been studied from various angles by competent persons who have presented their views to the government of British Columbia and to the water commission, and who are presenting them to the energy board from various angles such as economics and engineering; the impact on agriculture; the impact on forestry; the impact on fish, game and wildlife; the impact on the tourist industry; the sociological impact and the impact on the city of Revelstoke where the opposition to this High Arrow dam was led by one of the old time Conservatives, whom I have known for many years, and one of the old time Liberals, a friend of mine, who both make it a point to


attend, when possible, any meeting where this question is being discussed. They are opposed to this project at the present time.
To indicate that it is not a local matter or a matter of people objecting to certain circumstances, may I say this. No one would object if this was absolutely necessary, or if there were not another way of producing this power. These people object because they think it is an unnecessary destruction of Canadian natural resources. Those opposed include the Arrow lakes and the city of Revelstoke water resources board, the city of Revelstoke municipal council, the West Kootenay farmer's institute, the West Kootenay women's institute. In that connection may I say that I received a very nice letter from the women's institute of Kaslo, the birthplace of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They inform me that they are strenuously opposed to the building of the High Arrow dam.
I get such letters every day from such organizations and others. The British Columbia federation of labour; the mine, mill and smelter workers union and other unions in the Kootenays; the Vancouver and lower mainland council of unemployed and rod and gun clubs in southeastern British Columbia all are unanimously opposed to the building of the High Arrow dam, as are the Arrow boat club, the Nakusp launch club, the Na-kusp stock breeders' association, and the chambers of commerce of Revelstoke, Arrowhead, Nakusp and lower Arrow lakes. The chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia are opposed to the High Arrow dam until it is proven to be beneficial to the Kootenays. Only recently the leader of the provincial Liberal party was speaking in Revelstoke and he expressed his strong views. 1 quote from the Revelstoke Review of May 4:
In respect to the Columbia river development, Mr. Perrault said the government never gave even a few minutes to the delegates from this district protesting the High Arrow dam-
He is speaking of the provincial government.
-and these gentlemen had to be content with discussing their problems with the parties in opposition. Mr. Perrault made it perfectly clear that the Liberal party in B.C. wants the Columbia developed as soon as possible-
So do we all.
-and that it wants the plant proposed by General A. G. L. McNaughton, not the High Arrow which is only the Kaiser dam under a new name. He said General McNaughton should be brought to testify before the B.C. energy board and given a chance to defend his plan against Mr. Williston's so-called experts.
I have indicated the study that has been given to this question, and I am receiving letters now from various parts of British Columbia. There is one here from a lady in

Saskatchewan who read the article in the Western Producer. Letters of this kind continue to come in.
We wish to see the Columbia developed in the national, provincial and local interest. The people whom I represent-and they are people supporting all parties-are sincere about this matter. I might explain that the members of these committees who are doing this work are, with one or two exceptions, persons who will not be flooded out or who will not suffer material damage or inconvenience because of the proposed building of the High Arrow dam, but are persons who are long time residents and competent engineers in various fields who know the impact this will have on our civilization on the Arrow lakes.
As to the forest industry, we have no idea, Mr. Chairman, what this will do. There has been no assessment. We have no estimate in that direction of the millions of dollars Of extra costs that will be imposed on the forest industry, as well as the destruction of some of the finest land in British Columbia. One farmer wrote recently that he had $1,500 gross income per year per acre. This land is located where we grow peaches and high cost agricultural products, where there is intensified farming. There is also the matter of the disruption of public facilities, investment in wharfs and things of that sort.
This is an appeal on my part on behalf of the people I represent. I am getting letters from a good many parts of British Columbia now. This is an appeal that we take advantage of this delay, that we reconsider this whole question in order to secure a modification of the treaty so that we have a low Arrow dam instead of this High Arrow dam. There is no objection to a low Arrow dam, except that there would possibly be some protest from the United States having regard to the fact that the High Arrow dam is of great advantage to them. It can store water in great quantities and very quickly.
However, in the national interest and in the interests of the people whom I have the honour to represent, and who write me so continually about this problem about which they are so greatly concerned, I ask that we use this period of delay to reconsider this whole problem and work for a modification of the treaty so that it will provide us with power and development without unnecessary destruction of British Columbia's natural resources.


The Chairman:: Shall vote 291 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman. We have listened in the committee with some interest, I think, to the statement just made by the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard
Supply-Northern Affairs to the Columbia development treaty. I should like to say a few words about this matter, especially in view of the confused situation that now exists as to whether this treaty will or will not be brought before parliament this session.
Yesterday we learned from the Minister of Justice that there could be no assurance that this work would be done in 1961. However, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, being more exuberant and less cautions than the Minister of Justice, has issued from his department a booklet which deals with capital investment projects in Canada in 1961. In it he makes the flat statement that the work will begin or is to begin-I think that is the expression used-in 1961.
It is rather important to know which of these ministers is correct in his assumption, because this is one of the most important international arrangements for the development of Canada that has ever been entered into by a Canadian government. One may have differing views about the relative advantages to Canada and to the United States of the contents of this arrangement, but there can be no difference of opinion over its importance in the development of British Columbia and indeed of the whole country.
The negotiations leading up to this treaty began many years ago, of course, and the preliminary studies, the engineering and technical studies, which I think began in 1943 took many years to complete, if indeed they are completed now. It was, of course, quite impossible to work out a diplomatic arrangement, a formal international treaty between the two countries, or indeed to discuss these diplomatic arrangements until the preliminary technical and engineering surveys by the joint commission had been completed. That was not done, I believe, until-the Minister of Justice will know the date-some time in 1954 or 1955. Anyway, they were not completed until well into the 1950's.
When the discussions took place between representatives of the two governments, initially through the international joint commission, there were many difficulties, of course, which were encountered before an agreement could be reached. Perhaps the most important difficulty in the earlier stages of the discussions was that concerned with the sharing of downstream benefits. I recall that when this matter was before the international joint commission some years ago the position taken by the United States side of the joint commission was such as to make agreement virtually impossible, largely over a difference of opinion on this question of sharing downstream benefits. I think all Canadians must be very grateful to General
4652	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs McNaughton for many things, but more particularly for the way he stood up for Canadian interests and Canadian rights at that time and later.
The negotiations were transferred back to government representatives at one stage. Then they went back to the international joint commission, and I believe there was a change of membership on the United States side of the commission which made those discussions a little more constructive than they had been earlier.
As we all know, eventually the treaty was signed by the plenipotentiaries of the two governments. It was signed in the dying days of the Republican administration of the United States with what appears to us over here, in the light of what has happened since, unnecessary haste. I say that because surely it is unwise for any Canadian government, in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign country, to put its signature to an international agreement which cannot be implemented without the co-operation of one or more provinces of Canada until it is absolutely certain that this co-operation as been achieved. Once a plenipotentiary acting on behalf of Canada does sign an international agreement, Canada as such accepts an international obligation to carry out that agreement. Our word as a country is pledged to the extent of accepting the obligation and implementing the treaty once that treaty, of course, has been ratified.
Therefore any federal government should be very, very careful, to say the least in accepting that kind of international obligation on behalf of Canada until it is certain the obligation can be implemented. In this case, and in many other cases, because we are a federal state implementation will require the active and specific co-operation of the provinces concerned, in this case British Columbia. I recall-and this will be in contrast with the way this particular treaty was negotiated- that when the St. Lawrence waterway agreement was negotiated there was no difficulty with the province of Ontario in implementing that treaty.
I know perfectly well that the representative of British Columbia took part in the Columbia negotiations. I know there may have been reason to believe during those days that this representative was in accord with what was going on. Perhaps there was some reason to assume that he and the provincial government of British Columbia accepted all the details of the treaty as eventually signed. There may have been some reason to assume that, but we know there was not sufficient reason, because the assumption was certainly based, as we know now, on a false premise.


The treaty has been signed. The United States Senate has approved it by an almost unprecedented majority so far as a treaty of this kind is concerned; I think the vote was 91 to 1. As my hon. friend from Kootenay West pointed out, there has been a great deal of satisfaction in the United States over the negotiation and ratification of this treaty. Presumably the states of the United States which are involved have been very happy about it, because apparently there has been no difficulty with them in the discussion of the matter in the Senate and in ratification. Indeed, the United States and the interests concerned in that country seem to be entirely satisfied with this treaty.
The fact that the United States is satisfied does not necessarily make it a bad treaty from the Canadian point of view. The difference is that in this country there are apparently many doubts raised about the relative advantages of this treaty to Canada, and the province of British Columbia is showing no desire at the present time, as far as one can gather, to co-operate with the federal government in a way which will make the implementation of this treaty immediately possible.
We on this side assumed that when this treaty was signed, before ratification the normal constitutional procedure would be followed and it would be submitted to the House of Commons for consideration; and only after that consideration and approval, if it were given, would the act of ratification take place. We were given some reason to believe in the early days of this session that the submission of this treaty would take place not long after signing and would go before the committee on external affairs. There it could be given the searching kind of examination which its importance warrants, and the members of the committee could ascertain whether Canadian interests had been safeguarded in all possible respects in the terms of this treaty as it was signed.
So far as the terms of the treaty are concerned, we on this side will reserve our views on that point until the treaty has been submitted to the committee on external affairs, after we have listened to experts and especially General McNaughton, whom I am sure the committee will wish to examine. However, this cannot be done now because of the lack of co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia; because British Columbia is now raising doubts about this treaty; because the financial arrangements which are necessary as between the province and the federal governments before it can be carried out have not been made; because the provincial government apparently has doubts as to whether the price of power

indicated in the treaty is realistic, and for other reasons which I suppose are more familiar to the Minister of Justice than they are to me, because he has been concerned with these discussions with the province of British Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, all this surely proves that it is unwise for a federal government to sign a treaty of this kind until it has the precise approval of the province concerned to the details of that treaty, as was the case with the St. Lawrence waterway agreement. So far as we can gather on this side, that approval has not been obtained. That is no doubt why there has been delay in submitting the matter to the House of Commons, because quite clearly it would be futile and perhaps inappropriate to ask this house or a committee of this house to consider a treaty of this kind in the absence of agreement with the province directly concerned.
There are other considerations arising, it seems to me, in British Columbia, which have developed as this treaty is subjected to scrutiny and examination. There is the whole question of the relationship of this development to other power developments in that province, and the feeling in certain quarters of that province that if both developments- I am thinking about the Peace river development and the Columbia river development- go forward at the same time in the same decade this would be imprudent unless some assurance could be obtained that it will be possible to export some of the resulting power which may, in the eyes of some people, not be required by the province.
In the past we have had a good deal of experience of the dangers and the difficulties encountered when the question of the export of power from this country arises. The Liberal government has, in the past, taken steps to ensure that the interests of Canada are protected by legislation designed for that purpose. It is true, naturally, that any application for the export of power made by any corporation in any part of Canada would have to be considered. Indeed, the present government considered such an application in New Brunswick two or three years ago, and I think permits have been granted down there for the export of power on the understanding that it is to be recaptured when developments in New Brunswick require that power for provincial purposes.
We have learned in the past, however, that one has to be particularly careful about granting permits for the export of power of any kind, however carefully guarded the provisions might be with respect to recap-turability, if I may use that word; because experience in the past has shown that when the time comes when you wish to get that
Supply-Northern Affairs power back from the United States, obstacles are created which make such a course almost impossible.
Therefore, while it would be natural to consider any application for the export of power from British Columbia or any other province in the future, one would hope there would be no departure by any government in Canada from the policy which has been laid down in the past and, I think, accepted now by governments representing both parties; that the national interest with regard to power must be protected; that the national interest must be protected for a good many years ahead, and that no steps should be taken to export any power without every kind of assurance that the national interest is completely safeguarded.
These are some of the questions which have been raised in recent months in consideration of this whole matter. Our position is that we in this country should not have got ourselves into a situation where the federal government has signed a treaty and accepted an international obligation in signing that treaty before it was certain that it would have the co-operation of the provincial government concerned, without which cooperation the treaty cannot be carried out. The United States is not in this position. The treaty has been ratified down there and approved by the Senate, and they are very eager indeed, apparently, to proceed with it and are pressing hard, as we have learned in the last few days, for progress to be made by Canada. Such progress is not possible because the federal and provincial governments have not been able to get together in respect to the steps to be taken before this treaty can even be considered in this house.
We hope these difficulties can be resolved without delay, at least to the point where we can examine this treaty in parliament; where it can be submitted to the committee on external affairs where the doubts which have arisen in certain quarters about the feasibility, the advantage, of this treaty to Canada can be considered and where experts such as General McNaughton can be consulted. We would then be able to give these arrangements the careful scrutiny which their importance to Canada and to British Columbia in particular warrants. At that time, if that time comes, we shall have to make our position clear with regard to the advantages or otherwise of this treaty to Canada, if we are to approve it.
That time has not yet arrived, however, and the reason is that the federal government which signed this treaty in haste has not been able to work out arrangements with the province concerned, for lack of which the treaty cannot be implemented.
4654	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs


Mr. Fulton:: I enter the discussion at this point for one purpose. That is to deal with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that this treaty was signed in haste, and to refute that suggestion completely. There was no haste in signing the treaty. The Leader of the Opposition has himself pointed out that the discussions dealing toward the ultimate co-operative development of the Columbia river began 17 years ago, and it is not my interpretation of the meaning of words that taking 17 years to conclude a treaty represents haste.
Certainly progress was very slow in some of the previous years. I could perhaps make some partisan comments on that point, but I shall not do so. I will say, however, that there was plenty of time taken in working out the details with regard to this treaty. It is not my intention to enter now into a discussion of the treaty itself because, first of all, these are not my estimates and, second, I agree that the proper place to do that is before the committee on external affairs when there will be the fullest discussion and the fullest vindication of the terms of this treaty, and the fullest explanation of the enormous advantages to Canada and to British Columbia which the treaty secures.
I am concerned at this time to discuss only this question of the situation surrounding the signature of the treaty, the circumstances concerning the negotiation of the treaty, and the care which was taken to ensure the knowledge and the co-operation and the consent of British Columbia, all of which makes it difficult indeed, to say the least, to explain the extraordinary position which the government of British Columbia is now adopting.
Just before one o'clock, or before the lunch hour intervenes, I should like to put this to the Leader of the Opposition. There was nothing improper or unusual in Canada signing this treaty even before complete and detailed arrangements had been made with British Columbia and before final agreement between Canada and British Columbia as to the things that our respective governments would do, because there was so much which depended on the form of the treaty itself-so many things which would have to be done the nature of which could not be ascertained until the treaty itself had taken shape and was in being. It was recognized on both sides that it would be perfectly appropriate to sign this treaty and leave those matters to be worked out, and to take care of this situation by the provision which was inserted in the treaty that the obligation arises only on the exchange of instruments of ratification.
That is the situation. That course was worked out because we both recognized that


we could not get all the details settled; the experts could not go to work on them; the necessary applications could not be made with respect to the location of dams and so on, until there had been a determination in the form of a treaty of what were to be the rights and obligations of both sides. So the treaty was worked out and was given formal expression by the signatures of the two countries, and the treaty itself provides for the situation which I have just described by saying that the obligation arises only after it has been finally approved by both countries and formal instruments of ratification have been exchanged. In the United States the approval of congress is necessary. Here the Prime Minister has said the approval of parliament would be asked for. So there was nothing imprudent or in the least improper or untoward in our signing this treaty, even though the detailed provisions which have to be worked out had not been worked out at that time because it is only the exchange of ratification which brings it into effect.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, just before one o'clock I had dealt with the suggestion that it was somehow an unwise procedure for Canada to have signed a treaty with the United States in respect of the Columbia river development in advance of the final settlement of all details with British Columbia. I had explained that this suggestion is not well founded because there were many things that could only be settled after the form of the treaty itself was determined, although it is also true that these things which require to be settled include some things which it is essential to dispose of before the treaty becomes effective. They are such things as the physical location of dams, the issuing of licences authorizing the dams under the British Columbia water act, and details of the relationship between Canada and British Columbia.
Because these things could not be finally settled until the form of the treaty was agreed to, and because, before the treaty came into effect, it was essential to have them settled, the device I referred to was used. That is, the treaty itself contains a clause the effect of which is that the treaty does not become operative or effective, and no obligation arises thereunder, until there has been formal exchange of instruments of ratification.

This provision was fully understood by the United States. Their negotiators understood the nature of the domestic law in Canada, and they were apprised that these things would have to be done after the treaty was signed and before there could be a formal exchange of ratification. There is therefore no foundation to the suggestion that it was unwise or in any sense imprudent to sign the treaty under the circumstances in which we did.
The other point I want to deal with is the question of the domestic situation, and the implications of the statement that it is unfortunate that there now appears to be a divergence of opinion between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, notwithstanding the fact that we have a treaty. I think those were the words used by the Leader of the Opposition.
It is not easy to say how much of real difference there is between the governments of Canada and British Columbia and how much is only apparent. What appears on the surface to be a real difference is the result perhaps of some attempt to establish a bargaining position on the part of the government of British Columbia.
Negotiations with regard to financing are still going on; therefore I feel it would be improper for me at this stage to go into details in this connection. It is true that financial arrangements between the two governments have to be settled. We have made a very generous financial offer, but I suppose it is natural to assume that the province should want an even more generous offer. I make the suggestion, at any rate, that part of the reason why the government of British Columbia has adopted attitudes that would otherwise be impossible to understand may be that they are indulging in a little bargaining. All I can say is that I hope they will realize that the important and numerous benefits to be secured by this treaty should not be jeopardized by an unreasonable position on their part.
The fact of the matter is, however, that on the surface at any rate, there is justification for the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that there appear to be divergences between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. I wish, therefore, to let the house know what are the facts in this respect, and to advise the committee of the steps taken to ensure that there would be unanimity between the governments of Canada and British Columbia at every stage surrounding the negotiations and implementation of this treaty.
The government of British Columbia was brought into the discussions at every stage and on every level; in the negotiations, in the policy making by ministers, and at the level
Supply-Northern Affairs of expert advisers. A short summary of the negotiations will serve to demonstrate the reality of what I say. It should of course be borne in mind that the government of British Columbia, as well as the officials in British Columbia, were relatively well informed about the Columbia river development in its technical aspects, as well as about the general thinking of the government of Canada, even before the detailed negotiations of the treaty started; but I should like to confine these remarks particularly to the negotiating stage.
You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that in January of 1959 the governments of Canada and the United States agreed on a reference back to the international joint commission of the specific question of the policy or principles which should govern any co-operative development of this river. From January of 1959 through to December of 1959 the international joint commission examined this problem in detail, and in December, 1959 they came up with their unanimous report which included recommendations as to the general principles, the power principles and the flood control principles, that should be incorporated in any treaty for the co-operative development of the river.
When we got the agreement of the United States to make this reference to the international joint commission we knew we had made an important breakthrough, because this was the first occasion on which the United States had ever agreed to sit down and study this question of the division of benefits and the entitlement of the upstream country to a portion of the power generated downstream.
Having made this significant breakthrough, we lost no time in taking the necessary steps to initiate discussions with British Columbia so that when we should receive the international joint commission report we would be in a position to commence negotiations with the United States without delay on the basis of a position agreed with the government of British Columbia. Accordingly, in March of 1959 we took steps to set up what is known as the policy liaison committee. This committee consisted of two ministers of the government of Canada and two ministers of the government of British Columbia -on their part the minister of lands and forests and the attorney general. This committee had as advisers officials of the government of Canada and of the government of British Columbia, as well as engineers of the British Columbia power commission and officials of the international joint commission.
The purpose of this policy liaison committee was to ensure that in working out the policy which should be carried forward, the policy on which the position of the

Supply-Northern Affairs government of Canada would rest in negotiating the treaty, we would be certain that we had the agreement of British Columbia to that policy, because we felt it essential-and I am sure the committee will agree with me that it is essential-in dealing with a resource of this nature which lies in the province of British Columbia, that the government of that province should be in agreement as to the policy to be followed and as to the steps to be taken in the development of that resource. Although it was an international negotiation, the responsibility as well as the authority for which rests with the government of Canada, we took the unusual step of associating the government of British Columbia with us from the very outset when we began to develop the detailed policy which should be followed in the negotiations.
That policy liaison committee had then, as advisers, officials of the two governments and of the international joint commission who were constituted as a technical committee comprising officials of the British Columbia water rights branch, the British Columbia power commission and, from Canada, officials of the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and of the international joint commission, as well as from the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Commerce. This committee went to work from March, 1959 on.
The international joint commission made its report on principles in December, 1959, and in January of 1960 we took the necessary steps to commence negotiation of a treaty with the government of the United States. It was agreed between the two governments that negotiating teams should be appointed and should meet to work out the details of a treaty which they would recommend to their governments for consideration. Again we took steps to ensure that British Columbia would have full knowledge of everything that was being discussed and everything that was being suggested and recommended by those negotiating teams. We did that by asking British Columbia to name a person to be a member of the negotiating team. Again, even though the sole authority and responsibility for negotiating treaties rests on the government of Canada, nevertheless, in view of the importance of ensuring the agreement of British Columbia in the circumstances we took that step; and at our invitation they named Mr. Bassett, the deputy minister of lands and forests, to be a member of the Canadian negotiating team. The team thus named consisted of myself as chairman, the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources, the assistant deputy minister of external affairs, and Mr. Bassett, the

deputy minister of lands and forests of British Columbia. During the course of the negotiations, then, not only was British Columbia represented on the negotiating team and therefore kept fully informed of everything that was discussed, but there was at every stage constant reference back by our Canadian negotiating team to the policy liaison committee.
It will be appreciated that we were negotiators; we were not plenipotentiaries. We were instructed to negotiate and to report back what we would recommend as a treaty. We took our position in the negotiations on the basis of the policy as worked out and approved by the governments of Canada and British Columbia as a result of the work of the policy liaison committee, on which British Columbia was represented. After each negotiating session at which progress was made we reported back to the policy liaison committee, as well as individually reporting to our governments.
After each session, on receipt of our report there was a further meeting of the policy liaison committee to assess the situation and to recommend the position that should be taken at the next stage of negotiations. That recommendation of the policy liaison committee was again referred to and approved by the governments of Canada and British Columbia. We then carried into the next meeting of the negotiators the position worked out and approved by Canada and British Columbia; and so we proceeded through stage after stage. After every session of the negotiating teams we reported back. Full information was given to both governments. The position we had taken was explained, and the position we should take at the next meeting was cleared and agreed to, and we took that position on instructions agreed to by both governments. So that right to the time of our final meeting as negotiators, from which we emerged with an agreed recommendation as to the terms of the Columbia river treaty, we had been working forward on the basis of a position agreed to between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.
In addition, I should remind the committee that all the estimates that were prepared, all the figuring, all the calculation that was done to form the background of the position we would take, to establish the basis upon which we would estimate whether a certain position was sound or not or alternatively whether we should accept some suggestion made by the United States-all these suggestions and positions and their implications had to be processed by our technical advisers, and I would remind the committee that that technical team consisted of officials of both the

government of Canada and of British Columbia. As well, during the course of negotiations we set up an international work group consisting of representatives of Canada and the United States, technical advisers from our two countries, to work together on the technical data that were arising and being considered in the course of our negotiations so that we might have agreed facts and figures between the two countries in order that the negotiators would have a sound and agreed base on which to carry out their negotiations. Again British Columbia had representatives on that international work group processing all the facts and figures, all the engineering data and the economic analyses and so on that were being put before the negotiators to work on.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is surely clear that at every stage and at every level British Columbia knew and approved of what was being done.
And so we come to the reporting of the treaty itself. Early in January the negotiators reached agreement on the terms of the treaty we should recommend, and we reported to our governments accordingly. British Columbia of course knew about the terms of the treaty because they had a member on the negotiating team, Mr. Bassett who signed our unanimous report. But as chairman of the Canadian negotiating team I felt it only proper to give the government of British Columbia formal advice of the treaty that we would be recommending, and I did so. I sent an authentic copy to Mr. Williston, as British Columbia co-chairman of the policy liaison committee, and reminded him of the circumstances of the negotiations to which I have just referred, that is the extent to which British Columbia had been associated, and approved of what we were doing. I stated that under those circumstances they, of course, had knowledge of what was in the treaty but that I was sending him a copy for his official information. I advised him on January 9 that the government of Canada in considering the treaty would act on the assumption that British Columbia was in accord with its terms. I also advised him that, if approved, we would sign it on January 16, and that under all these circumstances we would assume that the government of British Columbia approved the signing of the treaty unless I heard from him to the contrary. I did not hear to the contrary, so the treaty was signed with the knowledge and approval of the government of British Columbia. Every word, every phrase, every clause, every provision, every annex, every implication of that treaty had been exhaustively discussed with and approved by British Columbia before the treaty was signed.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Perhaps I should point out that at the very end, when it came to the actual drafting of the treaty, when the negotiators sat down to write out in formal language the effects of our agreement, we then had associated with us as an adviser the deputy attorney general of British Columbia, who attended the session at which the treaty was being drafted by the negotiators. So, sir, it is an incontrovertible fact that everything that is in the treaty, every implication that is contained therein, was known to and approved by the government of British Columbia before the treaty was signed.
So we are now in the position that what remains to be settled are the details of the agreement between Canada and British Columbia as to the implementation of the treaty, responsibility for construction and operation and so on. It is, of course, understood and was always understood that there were some final engineering matters to be settled before ratification. The actual physical sites of the dams have to be settled. This can only be done by engineering studies which are going forward now. This has to be settled before applications can be made for permits to build the dam. It was well understood that these things would require some little time to settle before we could formally ratify the treaty by the exchange of instruments of ratification, as provided for therein.
If delay was sought by British Columbia on this basis alone there would be no misunderstanding. I am concerned, however, because the delay which is taking place and the positions which are being adopted by British Columbia appear to be suggestive of differences or difficulties certainly wider than the mere desire to establish the final details of engineering such as the actual, precise, physical location of the dams.
However, Mr. Chairman, I have taken the position before, and I think I should take it again, that in view of the circumstances I have outlined, in view of the extent to which there was unanimity between Canada and British Columbia, and in view of the knowledge, consent and approval by British Columbia of this treaty, it is incomprehensible and inconceivable to me that British Columbia should really change its position. I think all of us must proceed on the assumption that, this having been the situation, this having been the agreement, there can be no reversal of position on the part of British Columbia, and that they will agree with us that the treaty should be ratified and should go into effect.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon, I am unable to account for some of the things they have said and some of the positions they have taken, except that

Supply-Northern Affairs it must be for the purpose of bargaining. But whatever be the purpose, whatever be the position that they now take outwardly, the facts are as I have outlined them; that we signed the treaty with British Columbia's knowledge and approval, and it is inconceivable in the light of those facts that there should be any fundamental change of position on the part of the provincial government.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, all I can say now, and I am sure the house and every member present will agree with me, is that what is desirable at this time is that there should be early formal approval of this treaty by British Columbia so that ratification can take place, construction can commence at the earliest possible moment and all the benefits in terms of low cost power, stimulus to the economy and millions of man hours of direct employment, as well as the indirect employment in production that will be necessary, can go forward at the earliest possible moment.
I have just one final word. I have sometimes been concerned by the implications of what is being said in British Columbia to the effect that somehow or other there were not adequate engineering and economic analyses of the treaty provisions before it was signed. The federal government alone, Mr. Chairman, has spent over $4J million on engineering and economic studies of the Columbia river. This is quite apart from what the Americans have spent, what British Columbia has spent and what private concerns have spent. Engineers are great experts and very important people and maybe their services come high, but you can still buy a heck of a lot of engineering for $4J million. Therefore I must reject out of hand any suggestion, from wherever it comes, that we rushed into this treaty without adequate engineering or economic studies and analyses.
As I have said, some engineering naturally remains to be done, and it is important engineering. It is the kind of engineering that will determine the precise physical location of dams. I am not suggesting for one moment that such engineering is not required, but what I do say quite definitely is that for the purposes of a treaty of this kind-and I am confirmed in my view by comparison with what was done on the St. Lawrence river- every reasonable, and indeed more than reasonable, completely adequate preliminary engineering and economic studies and analyses were made. The government of Canada is satisfied as to the position it took and the information it had as a result of those studies. The government of Canada remains ready to go forward immediately with the ratification of the treaty and the commencement of construction of the project.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to hold up this estimate very long. The minister has made a statement on which I should like to make a short comment. I do not quarrel with his recital of the facts or challenge them in any way. He and the federal government felt they had every reason to believe that the provincial government of British Columbia had been associated with these negotiations leading up to the treaty, that they were kept informed of the developments, that they knew all about the negotiations and, indeed, had participated in them, and therefore he feels that the government had the right to assume that the resulting treaty was acceptable to the government of British Columbia whose co-operation in carrying it out, as I said this morning, is absolutely essential.
The fact is, however, that so far as one can gather that this provincial government does not feel committed at this time to the acceptance of all the proposals, all the implications of the treaty, and further negotiations are under way. I also do not quarrel with what the minister has said about the fact that the international obligation undertaken by Canada in the signature of an important treaty of this kind does not come into effect until the treaty is ratified and the treaty, in accordance with our constitutional practice, will not be ratified until it has been considered by the House of Commons. Nevertheless the fact remains that this treaty cannot be submitted to this parliament for consideration at this time because of the absence of an arrangement with British Columbia.
This procedure is in contrast to that which was followed in the negotiation of the St. Lawrence seaway agreement. When that agreement was negotiated with the United States-and I have the treaty before me-the treaty of 1941 was signed by representatives of the government of Canada, namely Mr. King, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Reed, and representatives of the government of the United States, namely, Mr. Moffat, Mr. Berle and Mr. Olds, on March 19, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty one. On that very same day an agreement was signed between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario which was necessary to the implementation of this international agreement.
Therefore once the international agreement was ratified there was in existence a signed agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario which made it possible to implement the international arrangement. That agreement was signed by Mr. King, Mr. Howe, Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Nixon. The

same procedure was followed later, I think in 1951, when an agreement was made and signed by representatives of the province of Ontario and the federal government which again made possible the implementation of an international agreement regarding the St. Lawrence waterway.
That is not the situation at the present time. There is no agreement between British Columbia and the federal government in that sense. We therefore cannot consider this treaty in this house until such an arrangement or agreement is signed between the province and the federal government. That is why, when I talk about undue haste being shown in the signing of the treaty, I am not thinking of the years that were required to negotiate it. Of course it takes a long time to negotiate a treaty of this kind. However, I am thinking of the haste to sign an agreement at that particular moment in the negotiations without having a signed undertaking or commitment from the province of British Columbia which would enable that agreement to be carried out if this parliament approves of it.


William Hector Payne: May I transgress on the
committee's time for just a moment or two. At the outset I think it would be most fitting to offer congratulations from fellow members from British Columbia to the Minister of Justice for the able and splendid way in which he has conducted negotiations and has successfully brought about an arrangement between the United States and Canada with respect to the Columbia river.
There are two points I wish to discuss. I deeply regret that at this time the hon. member for Kootenay West is not present in the chamber, for he earlier today endeavoured to bring to this committee the view that the people of British Columbia were opposed to the ratification of the treaty which has been successfully negotiated with the United States.
The position he takes is one which I feel he rather poorly defined. I understand he has no quarrel with any part of the proposed development arranged for under the treaty with the exception only of the High Arrow dam. He has taken the position for parochial and local reasons, and not for reasons which are basically of interest to British Columbia as a whole. In doing so I think I should correct one misstatement of his, namely that the only benefit that would accrue to the province of British Columbia by virtue of the High Arrow dam consists in downstream power benefits. This is fundamentally wrong. A large cash sum is arranged to be paid by the Americans in view of flood control provided by the High Arrow dam. I believe the amount involved
Supply-Northern Affairs is a cash payment of some $64 million and I think this committee should be aware of these facts so that they are fully understood.
The hon. member for Kootenay West dived deeply into his mail bag in order to find support for the position he took. I believe he quoted from certain alleged distinguished Canadian authorities resident in California. I am sure they must have a pronounced and profound interest in the welfare of British Columbia.
In this case he reminds me very much of the story that is told about the hon. gentleman from Kootenay West as a result of discussions in the coffee shop of the house recently. He was impressing everybody with regard to the volume of protests that were pouring in upon him daily from the people of British Columbia relative to the position then taken against the ratification of this treaty. I believe he made the statement that "his phone had been ringing all morning". One of the wags of the House of Commons retorted, "Well, why didn't you answer it?" I think perhaps this story alone can be fairly well transposed to him in the realm of incoming mail. This will indicate the breadth of protests and the extent and number of protests received by the hon. gentleman.
Being a member from British Columbia I also receive mail as, I am sure, do other colleagues who join me from that province. I have yet to see one single indication of protest from people of many political faiths. Members of organizations who are endeavouring to serve the interests of their province to the best of their ability and who are giving of their time and service, write and say they trust that we shall get on with the ratification of this treaty. They further state very clearly-and these are people from all political parties-that in the interests of the people of British Columbia and in the interests of the welfare of the people of Canada as a whole they trust that Mr. Bennett will co-operate, will act in good faith and will quickly come to an agreement with the federal government in order that in this very important and very great undertaking, the multiple establishments of facilities required by this treaty, may enter the planning, and construction phase along the Columbia river immediately.
On behalf of many people in British Columbia I express the hope that the treaty will shortly be referred to the committee on external affairs for consideration. I express the further hope that after giving the matter a proper review, and after giving the Minister of Justice an opportunity in detail to set the record straight, this house may ratify this treaty without delay and see one of the greatest works projects ever undertaken in

Supply-Northern Affairs Canada under way thus providing employment for people who need it, providing power for areas of this continent that need it, and helping generally the welfare of the west.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must apologize, Mr. Chairman, for being somewhat late. I was at a dinner, and it would have been most discourteous for me to have left at the time I should have left. However, I heard the tail end of the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and I expected him to speak in that vein. That is the sort of thing he tells me in private. Of course he does not know much about the whole question. In order to indicate the general approach to this question in the interior of British Columbia, and in order to refute the argument put forward by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, I now quote from the minutes of a meeting protesting the construction of the High Arrow dam held at Revelstoke, last year, at which there were representatives of municipalities, chambers of commerce, labour and all political parties from southeastern British Columbia. I will quote half a dozen extracts to indicate the trend of public opinion:
Mayor Hardman in his opening remarks-
He is mayor of Revelstoke:
-stated that the purpose of this meeting was to draw to the attention of the governments concerned the opposition of the people of this region to the construction of the High Arrow dam.
Mr. Waterfield of Nakusp-
He is a Conservative minded person.
-spoke of the possible short time advantages to Nakusp while the dam was being built, but the more disadvantageous it becomes from the long term point of view.
Mr. Affleck, civil engineer from Nelson, spoke of the shortsightedness which seemed evident in the handling of our heritage. The flooding of the Arrow lake would build up industries across the line to enter into active competition with Canada.
Mr. H. S. McFadden, local solicitor-
He is from Revelstoke and was a provincial candidate for the Progressive Conservatives during the last provincial election:
*-detailed water elevations at various points on the lakes and river and gave a rather vivid indication of the devastation that would result from High Arrow development.
Mr. G. Hobbs, local M.L.A. for Revelstoke, expressed his opposition to the building of the High Arrow dam. Mr. S. Fleming, M.P. for Okanagan-Revelstoke, had this to say. I will quote what he said in part:
The construction of High Arrow would diminish the return from Mica dam, according to information received from General McNaughton. The government would undoubtedly take into account the fact that benefits of High Arrow would be of short duration only, while this meeting, quite justly, was concerned in the long range features.

That is what they are concerned about. They are looking at it from the long range point of view.
Mr. Bainbridge, president of the chamber of commerce at Castlegar, said that if High Arrow dam was built after Mica dam the accredited downstream benefits accruing from the High Arrow would be of little consequence.
His Worship Mayor Parkinson of Kelowna-
Kelowna is in Okanagan Boundary riding.
-said that he and the people of the Okanagan valley would very definitely protest if a dam were built on the south end of the Okanagan valley resulting in the flooding of the entire region, in order to give water for irrigation to the fruit growers across the American border. The effect would be represented in further U.S. competition for Canadian growers. It appeared to the speaker that this was one basic principle involved in the construction of High Arrow. The only difference being represented in aluminum rather than fruit.
Mayor Becker of Vernon-
That is in Okanagan-Revelstoke riding-


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


David Vaughan Pugh: With regard to Mayor Parkinson of Kelowna, where in his speech did he say the dam would be constructed? I believe you used the word "Okanagan".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, he said that if a dam were constructed-


David Vaughan Pugh: In the Okanagan valley?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In the Okanagan valley.


David Vaughan Pugh: Thank you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: These minutes continue:
Mayor Becker of Vernon spoke of the magnificent scenery throughout the Arrow lake region which would be devastated by flooding, and spoke of the many hot mineral springs and scenic beauty of immense value as a tourist attraction when the trans-Canada highway was completed. He stated that the Arrow lake was one of the most beautiful valleys in B.C. Mayor Becker unequivocally opposed the High Arrow project on the basis of his close association with Columbia valley communities and his experience as a qualified engineer.
Mr. A. W. Lundell-
Social Credit M.L.A. for Revelstoke:
-stated that he had been on record for a long time as being opposed to the High Arrow dam. He said that statements from Messrs. Fulton and Williston had already side-tracked the development of High Arrow ahead of Mica dam.
Mr. Reid, Salmon Arm-
Social Credit M.L.A. at that time. Salmon Arm is hundred miles or so to the west of Revelstoke:
-placed himself unalterably on record as completely opposing the construction of High Arrow dam but at the same time he thought it quite

feasible that Mica dam could be further implemented by the construction of the low Arrow which economic effect on the valley would be reduced to a minimum.
We agree with that:
The following resolution was unanimously adopted by all visiting delegates.
The mayor of Kamloops was present, and that is the riding of the Minister of Justice.
Resolution passed by meeting or representatives from southern interior municipalities and chambers of commerce, Tuesday, April 26, 1960.
Whereas it is the responsibility of the governments of Canada and British Columbia to provide for the present and future energy requirements of our country through the development of the Columbia river for power production in Canada, and
Whereas the construction of the High Arrow dam does not contribute to this vital requirement, and
Whereas this meeting is opposed to the construction of High Arrow dam for the following reasons:
(a)	The unnecessary destruction of 40,000 acres of our very limited agricultural resources.
(b)	The downstream benefits from High Arrow dam would progressively decrease.
(c)	The High Arrow dam practically eliminates civilization on the Arrow lakes and destroys 20 communities including the city of Revelstoke, involving a population of more than 7,000 people.
General McNaughton told the committee that the High Arrow dam practically eliminates civilization on the Arrow lakes:
(d)	The net balance of revenue over costs on the High Arrow dam would show an annual deficit of approximately $3 million when all losses chargeable to High Arrow are computed.
Therefore be it resolved that this meeting go on record as urging our governments to proceed with the construction and early completion of Mica dam, as the first step followed by the construction of Downie creek, Revelstoke canyon and Murphy creek dams, all producing power within Canada.
Carried unanimously.
These are the representatives of a number of municipalities and organizations in southeastern British Columbia. In addition, to indicate the attitude I want to read a resolution of the Okanagan-Revelstoke Progressive Conservative association. This association has written several letters, just as many Conservatives have in my riding. This is a resolution that was passed in respect to proposals to build the High Arrow dam:
Be it resolved that the Okanagan-Revelstoke Progressive Conservative association vigorously protests the proposed construction of the High Arrow dam in preference to the Mica creek dam for the following reasons:
1.	The full benefit to be derived therefrom will accrue to the United States except only the remuneration payable to Canada in power delivered and payment for flood control.
2.	The High Arrow dam will materially reduce the potential power development on the Canadian side of the border.
3.	The High Arrow, without flow control from Mica creek, will create untold devastation from the south end of Lower Arrow lake to and including the city of Revelstoke and is a potential menace to the lower levels of the city of Revelstoke.
Supply-Northern Affairs
4.	Flooding of Arrow lakes will completely destroy one of the four main valleys in British Columbia.
I have received numerous letters from very prominent members of the Conservative party, the Social Credit party and the Liberal party in British Columbia who are not going to be directly affected by the proposal to build this High Arrow dam. That is why I say I have every confidence in stating I am speaking on a completely non-partisan basis.
Mr. George Hobbs, member of the legislature for Revelstoke, who is a C.C.F. member, and Mr. Randolph Harding, M.L.A. member for Kaslo-Slocan, represent the two provincial ridings that will be seriously affected by the building of the proposed High Arrow dam. They expressed their complete opposition recently in the legislature of British Columbia, and they were supported by other members of the legislature.
This is a very important step so far as the governments of Canada and British Columbia are concerned. On behalf of the people I represent I do urge the governments of Canada and British Columbia to utilize this delay to reconsider this question, the consequences of which without doubt have not been completely considered. I urge upon these governments to take the opportunity to use this time to reconsider it and see if they cannot accept the proposals put forward by General McNaughton.
I have held meetings throughout the district and I have received letters from Kootenay East. I held a meeting in Invermere with the Invermere chamber of commerce. The majority of the members of the chamber of commerce at that meeting agreed with me, because when you compare the flooding of the Arrow lakes with flooding in the upper Columbia you bring into production four times as much land as you flood in the upper Columbia, if it is necessary-and it is not necessary at this stage, so far as we see it- whereas in the Arrow lakes area you flood for all time 40,000 acres of land, and forest.
There has been inadequate consideration given to the consequences. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, we have competent foresters working with us who point out that we are going to flood something more than 30,000 acres of first class forest land which provides an annual revenue from growth of $15 an acre? We are going to flood some 11,000 acres of the finest agricultural land in British Columbia. Some of that land at the present time is producing up to $1,500 an acre gross, per annum. I can speak of a small community in Renata where there are just over 81 acres under cultivation producing apples, plums, peaches and pears, and these growers have

Supply-Northern Affairs shipped up to $67,000 worth of fruit annually off that land. This is some of the most valuable land we have in British Columbia, yet the government proposes to flood it.
People in the area concerned consider this is entirely unnecessary. I could go on at great length about this, but representations with respect to the economic, sociological and other effects of this proposal will be presented by a delegation which will be coming from the ridings of Kootenay West and Okanagan-Revelstoke when the external affairs committee is considering the treaty. I would ask hon. members to give this matter serious consideration, remembering that once this flooding is done it is done for all time. We believe the proposal requires far more consideration than has so far been given to it, by members of parliament.


Mr, Henderson:: Might I suggest to both the hon. member who was just spoken and the premier of British Columbia that they should do their best to hasten the Peace river project. The Peace river is a natural source of power development. This development has been held back because of uncertainty about the development of the Columbia river. Let us go ahead and have this Peace river project, and never mind the Kootenays. Nobody will be flooded out when the Peace river project goes forward. Certainly it is the most beneficial project we could undertake in British Columbia or in North America.


Mr. Leduc:: I have followed this discussion with great interest. I have taken a special interest in this subject since I was advised that the development of the Columbia river would not be in the best interests of British Columbia.
During the recess I was fortunate enough to be able to take a trip to Vancouver. One evening I met an engineer who is working on the Peace river hydro project. He had a film. He asked me if I was interested, and he showed me the film. After discussing this matter for hours I could easily understand the position which the premier of British Columbia is taking. This engineer proved to me that for the same amount of money, or possibly less, more electricity could be produced if the province of British Columbia would promote the development of the northern section and still permit the province to sell electricity to the United States if it were needed.
I feel that British Columbia would be better off if it concentrated on the Peace river development because the flooded area to be created would not displace one single family. It would be the largest hydroelectric project and the largest dam in the world. So far as employment is concerned, it would


provide just as much as, or possibly more than, would be provided by the Columbia development, and it would lie entirely within the province of British Columbia. That province would therefore have the full benefit of all the money invested.
For these reasons I believe British Columbia is very wise in continuing its studies of this subject. If they are not convinced that the Columbia river project is the most beneficial one for them, I believe they have every right not to agree to the treaty, because the province is not committed in writing. Its representatives have taken part in the discussions in order to obtain more information, and now that they possess this information I believe the province should not be forced to approve an agreement which would not provide the greatest possible benefit for the residents of British Columbia.


Mr. Hanbidge:: Now that we have the Columbia river matter settled I want to introduce into this discussion a subject which is not controversial. I think this is the proper item under which to raise it. It has to do with the Red Deer river diversion in northern Alberta. My hon. friend the member for Red Deer and my hon. friend from Acadia in Alberta are much more familiar with this project than I am, but we in western Saskatchewan are particularly interested in it. I had hoped to bring up the question under the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture when the committee was dealing with P.F.R.A., but unfortunately I was not present when those estimates were considered.
The Red Deer river rises at a considerable distance to the southwest of the city of Red Deer, and for a great many years engineers have considered the possibility of using the waters from the Red Deer river, not for irrigation but for the benefit of stockmen and municipalities in the eastern part of Alberta and the western part of Saskatchewan.
Last August, after the house adjourned, I had the privilege of attending a meeting of chambers of commerce at a place called Consort in the constituency of the hon. member for Acadia. That meeting was attended by 300 or 400 people from Alberta and western Saskatchewan. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss this Red Deer river diversion plan, which is better known as the William Pearce plan. William Pearce was an engineer employed by one of the railway companies. It was he who worked on this plan and developed it, together with the specifications, in connection with this diversion for a great many years.
The meeting was attended by officials and engineers of the department of water resources of the province of Alberta and was

addressed by Mr. A. G. Underhill, the district engineer at Calgary. It was sponsored by the central Alberta association of chambers of commerce and, as I say, it was attended by a great many from western Saskatchewan. I have here a copy of the report which has been prepared by Mr. Underhill, the district engineer at Calgary.
I might say that those individuals who are familiar with it prefer to refer to it as the William Pearce plan rather than the Red Deer river diversion plan, Mr. Pearce having been the originator of the idea.
I might also say that members of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program have worked on this project since 1939. Mr. Phillips, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. A. B. Cooke and Mr. Huddlestone are the four engineers under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act who have been working on this plan. I should also add that Mr. L. B. Thomson, the former chairman of the P.F.R.A., was completely sold on this diversion plan. About a year and a half before his death I had the privilege of listening to him address the chamber of commerce at Kerrobert, and he produced his maps and plans at that time. As I said, he was completely sold on this idea. I do not intend to go into the plans and specifications, but the purpose of the plan is to bring water from the Red Deer river down through Alberta into Saskatchewan as far as the South Saskatchewan river. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, coming from the prairies, is very appreciative of the importance of furnishing water to the prairies, as is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I would like to compliment that minister on his appointment to that very important department, and I know that he will appreciate the difficulties that some of the small towns must face in regard to the supply of water. The cities of Edmonton, Calgary and Saskatoon are built by rivers, but there are many quite large towns dependent on the surface supply of water rather than on rivers, lakes or even wells. Quite a large number of towns in my constituency are dependent on the surface run off in the spring for their water supply. I do not have to emphasize the need those towns have for water, nor the effect upon those towns if they were supplied water through this project.
I realize that the minister is not in a position to go ahead with this plan at the present time, and that, as it affects two provinces, there will have to be co-operation between the federal government and the governments of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but I should like to urge the minister to give consideration to this plan, and remind him that it is not a question of irrigation
Supply-Northern Affairs but solely of furnishing water for stockmen, towns and villages who are now up against the problem of obtaining sufficient water to supply the needs of their citizens.
I might also mention that the chambers of commerce of several towns in my district including Kerrobert, Kindersley and Eston are particularly interested in this project. I should also like to pay tribute to the chambers of commerce organization of east central Alberta for the effort this organization has made in bringing this matter to the attention of both the government of the province of Alberta and the government of Canada. I would particularly like to commend Mr. Richard Fritze of Castor, Alberta, who is president of that organization. I hope the minister and his officials will keep this project in mind. I might also suggest that if Mr. L. B. Thomson, who was in my opinion one of the greatest men who ever had anything to do with P.F.R.A., had lived, we should probably see, in the not too distant future, the conclusion of this project.


Mr. Mitchell:: I should like to direct the minister's attention a little further north than the prairies, and make a further plea in regard to consideration of the grand replenishment and northern development canal. For the sake of a shorter name we have taken the first letters of each word and called it the Grand canal.
It will be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that representations were made a year ago on behalf of this replenishment canal, and I do not think it is necessary to go into the details or objectives of it at this stage. One of my constituents, who is the prime mover of this project, has spent a great deal of time and money investigating the possibilities of the project. It is true, perhaps, that the members of the committee did not take a very amiable or favourable view of the representations which were made a year ago, and thought the project was perhaps fantastic, but I should suggest that it is entirely capable of realization, and that the necessary moneys required could be provided as a result of the following hydro developments, and replenishment of the great lakes water through the reversal of the flow of rivers now flowing into James bay.
I should like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that it has recently come to our attention that our neighbours across the Bering sea in the northern part of Russia have considered a similar project in respect of the northern Siberian rivers, and have sent engineers there to investigate and make a study, with the intention of using those waters for the same purpose as we envisage in the proposition I have put forth. I realize this would be a gigantic undertaking, but

Supply-Northern Affairs also that if it were carried through, the waters of the great lakes would be replenished. I realize also that the states bordering on the south of the great lakes are against the proposed Chicago diversion, but I am led to believe that the Chicago authorities are perfectly willing, if necessary, to pay for the water they use as a result of this diversion.
I bring these matters to the attention of the minister with the hope that his department will make an engineering survey to determine the possibilities of such a program. While this plan is at the present time in its infancy, I feel it must be carried out sometime because of the great benefit which will be derived therefrom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before this item carries I wonder whether the minister could bring us up to date in regard to the Holland dam, the Russell dam and diversion of the Assiniboine river into lake Manitoba? I do not think he has said very much about this project this year.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, before I answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I should perhaps refer to the subject raised by the hon. member for Kindersley, regarding the Red river diversion in Alberta.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You mean the Red Deer river.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sorry; the Red Deer river diversion in Alberta. This project has been under study by the prairie provinces water board for some time. The latest information I have in this regard is to the effect that we cannot expect anything further on the subject for several months, but I should like to draw his attention to vote 296 in the estimates, which relates to the Nelson river and the Saskatchewan river basins. The study, when it gets under way, will incorporate a study of the Red Deer river diversion.
Regarding the subject mentioned by the hon. member for Sudbury, it was dealt with in answer to a question put on orders of the day same weeks ago. I understand this is a topic which recurs from time to time and, as a matter of fact, it was fairly thoroughly examined in the committee on mines, waters and forests a year ago. After an exhaustive examination of the subject by that committee the committee made a quite non-committal report. The report stated, in part:
The committee heard with interest from witnesses of the proposed Hurricanaw river development project, but it feels that there has been insufficient basic engineering evidence presented to come to any conclusion on this matter.
[Mr. Mitchell.l

I understand that one of the proponents of the scheme has come up with a few statistics on the possible cost-benefit relations and he estimates that the scheme would cost about $4.5 billion at 5 per cent interest over 50 years. It would take almost 300 million horsepower on a continuous basis to bring 25,000 cubic feet per second of water proposed to be diverted from James bay to the Ottawa river watershed and from there to the great lakes, and at the end of the 50 years the returns might amount to $100 million annually. On the basis of those figures, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to establish, of course, a favourable benefit-cost ratio.
Another difficult aspect of this whole project is the very large amount of hydro electric power potential which would be committed to essentially non-productive purposes. Therefore, in the light of all the other pressing matters of water resource development, at the moment it does not appear that this is one of the more urgent schemes. However, the subject referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does have a sense of urgency because the Assiniboine river passes through my constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the criterion?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, I should say from the personal standpoint it has a sense of urgency because of its location close to home. There are two possible approaches to flood control on the Assiniboine, as the hon. member knows, which have been under discussion for the past several years. The Holland dam diversion is one and the Russell reservoir is the other. There has been no final conclusion as to which is the better approach to the difficulty. There are supporters of both sides of the question. The study that is under way with respect to all flood problems relating to both the Red river and the Assiniboine river will make the final decision and the final choice in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This subject is quite separate and distinct, though, from the Red river floodway itself, I understand, because the minister said the scheme itself was all settled, but he did not say that the details were all settled. There is one other question. Has the idea of diverting the Assiniboine, or any part of it, into lake Manitoba been dropped?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The idea of diversion into lake Manitoba was pretty well set aside some two years ago, and at the time the Holland diversion became active. The original concept was to divert the river into lake Manitoba. It is now conceived by the engineers that the Holland diversion would be much more effective for the purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rather gathered that from the remarks made by the minister of agriculture in Manitoba but he was not conclusive about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
294. Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Fraser river board, $322,500.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what is being done at the present time in respect of this item?
Mr- Dinsdale: The Fraser river study has been a continuing one over the past several years. I believe it has been under way since 1949.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the big flood.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Since the big flood, as a matter of fact, yes. And the present study, which is actually a continuation of the work that got under way in 1949, is merely continuing investigations of the general water control problems on the Fraser river. There is an annual report on this subject that is available to hon. members. I am informed it is not an annual report. Reports are made from time to time. One was tabled in the house just the other day, which brings the project pretty well up to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no danger of a flood this year?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No; the flood potential is quite negligible during the current year.


Mr. McLennan:: In 1958 an elaborate report was made on flood control and hydroelectric power in the Fraser river basin. In that report the board stated that the immediate problem is the lower Fraser valley dikes. It would appear there is always enough snow and ice in the Fraser river valley basin to cause a flood if the weather is unfavourable. We all remember the disastrous flood of 1948, and the terrific property damage it caused. It is only in the real fertile lower Fraser valley that the problem of flood control assumes any major proportion.
Has the government of British Columbia made any approach to help the scheme of strengthening the dike described in the board's report?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, there has been no approach from the province of British Columbia and I think for a very good reason. Actually, the responsibility for strengthening the dikes would be a provincial responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90205-6-295
Supply-Northern Affairs 295. Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $1,950,000.
Mr. Nesbitt:: I have a few brief remarks I should like to make on this item. They have to do with the upper Thames river conservation authority. It may seem strange to members from other parts of this country that in southwestern Ontario, which is generally considered to be one of the most thickly populated and highly developed parts of Canada, both agriculturally and industrially, we should have conservation projects. But in some respects it is probably the most important part of the country where these projects could take place. The Thames river drains 2,250 square miles of land. The river rises in the highlands of Perth and Oxford counties, which lie northeast of the city of London. It flows for 190 miles into lake St. Clair. This watershed which I have already mentioned encompasses probably one of the most thoroughly populated areas in the country and contains some of the most highly used agricultural land in the area and, of course, is full of small and large industrial towns and cities.
This project under the upper Thames river conservation authority got under way some years ago. In 1953, the first dam, known as the Fanshawe dam, in London, Ontario, was completed. Since that time nothing further has been done. At the same time I should mention that in addition the part of the upper Thames river project known as the Ingersoll channel improvement scheme was also completed, but the principal part of the project completed was the one at London. Since then the people in the area, and I know the members in the area, have been pressing constantly to have the project completed. To complete the project, the channel of the Thames river must be improved. There are two branches of the Thames river, one known as the north and the other as the south branch. They meet in London.
The first item to complete the project is the Mitchell channel improvement scheme. The second is the St. Mary's channel improvement scheme and the third is the Woodstock channel improvement scheme. Then there will be dams and reservoirs at Wildwood, Woodstock and Glengowan. Two other projected dams and reservoirs are suggested at Thamesford and Cedar creek although I have heard recently that these latter two projects may not be found to be necessary. I say "may not" because it is by no means certain yet.
The members of the upper Thames valley conservation authority are appointed from the different municipalities concerned. For a number of years the members of the upper

Supply-Northern Affairs Thames valley conservation authority have sent delegations to Ottawa, tor a long time without success, I might say. I know that the hon. member for Perth, who is now Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Middlesex East, myself and other hon. members have constantly requested the government over the years to make a contribution toward the completion of this project.
I might say in this regard that the federal government pays 37J per cent of the cost, the provincial government of Ontario 37J per cent, and the remaining 25 per cent is paid by the municipalities concerned. The first part of this project having been completed in 1953 and having proved eminently successful, finally at long last in January of this year an agreement was signed with the Ontario government and by the middle of April engineering plans had been approved by the provincial and federal governments for the necessary steps to complete this project.
It is my understanding that engineering contracts have been approved for the Mitchell channel improvement scheme, the Woodstock channel improvement scheme, the Woodstock dam and reservoir and the Wildwood dam and reservoir. I also understand that work is already under way on these projects and that an actual start on construction is to be expected late this summer or early this fall.
I should like to take this opportunity to commend the minister and the government for being so farsighted as to take steps to complete this very valuable project. On completion the upper Thames river conservation authority will be a prototype or, if you wish to put it this way, it will be a "pilot project" which will serve as an example for similar projects in other parts of Canada that are thickly populated agricultural and industrial areas.
I should also like at this time to express the appreciation and thanks of everyone in the area to the members of the authority and their executive committees, and particularly to Mr. Gordon Pittock, the chairman of the upper Thames valley conservation authority. The untiring work and effort that these people have put into the completion of this scheme are highly commendable and they deserve the thanks of all the people in the area.
I see that the item in the estimates for this project this year is $350,000 which will mean a nice start during the current year. The estimated cost of the completed project is a little less than $10 million and the federal government's share is not to exceed $3,600,000 over the next few years.
I should like to point out for the benefit of other members that there will be a great

many very direct benefits from a project of this type which may be given consideration in other parts of the country. First of all, it provides flood protection for the communities along the river. I can well remember that when I was a student at the university in London in 1937 about 7,000 people were flooded out. I remember losing all my notes for examinations, which was a sad state of affairs indeed.
In addition, this particular project will ensure that there is a greater water supply for the larger urban areas such as London, Stratford and Woodstock. One of the most important aspects of such a project is that it will ensure a more constant rate of flow of water during the dry season in the summer and fall months. This, of course, will greatly assist in the disposal of sewage from the various industrial plants in the municipalities and will prevent pollution of the river which retards the development of recreational and living areas and, indeed, industrial areas along the river banks. During the summer months the odour from the Thames river near Woodstock, London, Ingersoll and elsewhere is anything but agreeable, and a more constant flow of water will greater alleviate this most unpleasant problem.
The recreational use of the lands around reservoirs is, of course, something that is of great benefit to the people in the area. Land for recreational purposes in southwestern Ontario is at a premium because of the greatly increased population. I know that the Fanshawe dam at London has provided some delightful park areas for the people of London and I know that the dams being constructed near St. Mary's and at Woodstock will likewise provide a great deal of fine recreational land not only for the permanent residents of the area but for visitors as well. Also, of course, as these projects are basically conservation projects they will prevent the erosion of valuable agricultural lands during the spring run-offs and will provide a large reservoir of water which will help to maintain the water table throughout the area and the levels of the various farm wells. The value of this last factor is, of course, difficult to estimate. One hears different opinions about it, but there is little doubt that it will greatly assist the level of the water table in the area.
There are other indirect benefits to be derived from this project but I do not wish to take the time of the committee to go into detail. Likewise I do not see the necessity of dealing with the actual figures concerning the number of cubic feet of water that will be stored and so on. These details can, of course, be obtained by any hon. member from the department.

Again I should like to thank the government. For the people of my area this project certainly is the long-awaited realization of a dream.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, this item deals with contributions to the provinces toward the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces. At this time I should like to express to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the government the appreciation of those people who are within the area of the metropolitan Toronto and region conservation authority for the announcement which the minister was able to make on April 19 of this year in which he indicated that an agreement would be entered into for the construction of certain works in that conservation area.
While my riding of Peel is not part of metropolitan Toronto, a portion of it comes within the area over which the conservation authority has jurisdiction. We have had experiences in the past of the ravaging of uncontrolled waters. In 1948 the town of Brampton suffered immense damage from the rampaging Etobicoke river. As a result of the scare at that time, a diversion was put around Brampton in 1951. The efficacy of such a measure was shown. When hurricane Hazel came along in 1954, Brampton was spared an event that would have resulted in practically eliminating the downtown area. We have there a practical demonstration of what can result when proper conservation works are carried out.
This announcement was also a source of personal satisfaction to me, as it must be to the hon. member for York West, the hon. member for York-Humber and other members who used to belabour the government when they sat on the other side of the house in order to get it to enter into these agreements to effect conservation measures. I well remember a debate in 1955 in which we did not seem to be able to convince the then minister of northern affairs of the benefits that would accrue to that particular area and the country as a whole if these agreements were entered into.
After listening to the debate this afternoon previously on the Columbia river and the inability of the provincial government to cooperate, I say this. The province of Ontario, under a Conservative administration, was prepared to co-operate in this scheme but the then Liberal federal government was not prepared to co-operate. Now that we have both the provincial government and the federal government of the same Conservative
90205-6-2954
Supply-Northern Affairs party, we find a measure of co-operation that is certainly resulting in benefits being made available under these conservation measures. I think that the resultant benefits which the hon. member for Oxford indicated in his area followed from these schemes, will certainly follow from this scheme.
Before I conclude I should like to pay a tribute to the conservation authority and in that I include the hon. member for Toronto High Park who sat on that authority, for the persistence shown by them and for their dedication to the work of convincing others that this scheme must be carried out. They persisted over the years. It is an example also of how, when groups at the local level work together themselves and put together their ideas, prepare them carefully and submit them to a responsible and responsive government, action will be achieved. It will result in the saving of property and lives, and greater enjoyment to the people of this area.
I would suggest that the course this government has taken in conservation generally is one that will be increased over the years. We in Canada, because of our abundance of natural resources are sometimes, a little careless with them. This fact is realized by the people in charge of the affairs of this country now. One of the things which must give them great satisfaction is to see put on the statute books of the country legislation such as A.R.D.A. to preserve the natural assets of the country and to see moneys voted in co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities so that our children and our grandchildren will have saved for them the beauties of nature that we enjoy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister can say what the formula is for the division of costs in these schemes?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: All these water conservation measures are carried out in the framework of the Canada Water Conservation Act which provides for participation by the federal government up to 37J per cent. In the case of the metropolitan Toronto scheme or the Humber scheme, the provincial participation is 374 per cent and that of the local authority 25 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say on what date that principle of division of costs was first established?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the act was first passed in 1953. The first occasion on which it was used was in 1960 in connection with the upper Thames program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was a different formula used in connection with developments on the Grand River?

Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the Grand river project was an ad hoc project, if my memory serves me correctly, but the formula was much the same.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Grand river project was undertaken even before 1953?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So that this co-operation with the provinces is not something of recent date.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: I do not think I have ever been accused of making a "me too" speech in this chamber and I do not wish to do so now; nor do I wish to take any time which could be devoted by the minister to answering questions on a vital matter. However, I would be remiss if I did not echo the remarks of the hon. member for Peel in connection with the satisfaction that I know the people of York West feel in finally seeing this program for the metropolitan Toronto and region conservation authority having a chance to be completed.
I think there is a fair amount of personal satisfaction for any hon. member of the house in seeing a project which has been close to him during his period of office, finally come within sight of completion. This is something which has been close to us in my area since 1954 and for very obvious reasons, namely because of the tremendous loss of life in York West during the period of hurricane Hazel. There have been many intermediate steps. 1 think the tribute paid to the conservation authority of the district was well earned. I think all of those in the metropolitan area who continued to bring to the attention of the government the need for completion of this project deserve a great deal of thanks.
I might say to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate that it is very easy on occasion to have legislation enacted by the house but it is a very different thing to see it implemented. We therefore greatly appreciate the move which the minister has made at this time.


Mr. Best:: I should like briefly to concur in the remarks of the hon. members for Oxford, Peel and York West concerning item 295 with regard to contributions from the federal government to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources. In our own county of Halton we have numerous river systems. Indeed, we have all or parts of four river valley conservation authorities. I refer to parts of the Grand, the Credit and the whole of Sixteen-mile creek and Twelve-mile creek authorities. In that respect the situation is much the same as that in the ridings of the hon. members
IMr. Pickersgill.]
who have spoken previously. We have been adding to our population sometimes at the rate of 10,000 people a year in Halton county. Because of the tremendous growth of our towns and since the number of people commuting to Hamilton and to metropolitan Toronto grows constantly it is important that our water systems, our parks and our farm lands be protected to an even greater extent for agricultural, recreational and safety purposes.
The use made of these areas, particularly in the northern part of my county, has increased tremendously in recent years. Thus any measures which may be able to aid the preservation of such land and water resources are of great importance indeed.
This measure, with the three specific amounts, two for Ontario and one in Manitoba, is indeed a large factor. I only hope it will be extended from year to year to other water systems as applications are made by municipalities and provinces or whoever may wish to initiate such contributions and such planning.
I do feel that this program, along with other matters such as the A.R.D.A. measure, brought forward by our Minister of Agriculture, and which we have been debating in this house in recent days, will go far towards providing greater water resource use in my own county and indeed in many areas across Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration branch-
297. Branch administration including authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $1,133,935.
Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke earlier in this debate I mentioned federal aid for Eskimos and said, in effect, that whereas Quebec Eskimos receive around $400 per person per year, the Eskimos in Newfoundland receive much less, perhaps around $250 per year.
I am afraid I left the impression that there was a yearly grant to Eskimos in Newfoundland. I should like to make a correction, because to the best of my knowledge, that is not so. There was a lump sum made available for their use.
I should like again to make my plea that an agreement be reached with the province by which the Eskimos in Labrador would receive the same help from federal sources as do Eskimos elsewhere. I have every reason to think that in saying the Eskimos in Newfoundland receive $250 per head, apart from perhaps creating the impression that this was an annual grant, in fact they receive much less.

May I again ask the minister for his very sympathetic attention to this problem of help for Eskimos in Labrador and an increase in the amount of assistance given to them through the provincial government.
I make this plea because their needs are great. In fact the needs of Eskimos and Indians throughout the north are great. They require additional educational facilities, and so on. I am sure all these things engage the sympathetic attention of the minister and I invite him to take on active interest in this matter.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question in relation to the switch in the northern affairs bulletin "North". I would ask the minister why it is now a bigger and a slicker magazine.
I want to ask him also whether he can give us some idea of the cost of this magazine and its circulation. Why do we have something this glossy? I was going to use the word "slick", but I think "cute" would be better. Why is it necessary?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the magazine "North", as the hon. member knows, because I believe he is in regular receipt of a copy, there is a subscription charge of some $3 per year. The subscription cost has not been changed, I understand, as between the present format of the magazine and the former format. This is because actually there is very little increase in cost as between the two formats.
As I recall, the paid circulation is 2,000. In addition certain copies are supplied to hon. members of the house and officers of the department. The total production cost is $5,000.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to suggest that it would be nice for me to see in it-and perhaps other hon. members would agree-an article written by someone other than a senior civil servant or a minister of the crown. I suggest that the hon. member for Mackenzie River-while I have seen mentions of him-might be a worth-while contributor comparable with the minister, especially since he has an interest in the area.
I wish to ask the minister another question. It relates to an article that appeared last year in the Ottawa Journal. This was a report by the Canadian Press from Montreal about the remarks of a Dr. Maxwell Dunbar of McGill University, an expert on northern living. This is the quotation from the Canadian Press report:
Far from being the dedicated, happy band of pioneers they are popularly pictured. Dr. Dunbar said Tuesday, most northern communities are "unhappy, torn by petty jealousy, boredom and over-developed egos".
Supply-Northern Affairs
They are this way, he told a meeting of the national federation of financial analysts societies, because companies interested in northern development don't hire the right sort of people.
He suggested they stop "trying to attract anyone at all to live for 18 months in an air-conditioned barracks at 80 degrees farenheit by means of high pay and airborne steaks".
These lures, he said, have attracted men "with movie and corner drugstore minds".
Dr. Dunbar said suitable men could be attracted by the "high moral standard" which used to characterize northern living; quiet, modest people with senses of humour, cynical rather than overoptimistic and without illusions about their strengths and weaknesses.
This is the most pungent criticism of the social situation	in	the	north that	I haveseen. I tried to	get	the	full text of	the remarks and did	not	come up with it, but I
heard several other speakers on C.B.C. programs last year indicate something of the same.
I have no idea whether there is any substance in these remarks, but is there a social situation	in	the	north such	as Dr.
Dunbar sets out? If so, how is it being met by the department and what aspect of it is the government's responsibility?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks before the minister answers this question. I have not read the article that the hon. member for Port Arthur has quoted from, but I want to be immediate, quick and decisive in saying that I dissociate myself completely from any confirmation of the remarks in that article. I think nothing could distort the true picture more than the doctor's remarks in that article.
I live there. I live in a normal community. I have travelled over the Mackenzie and over the Yukon. Nowhere have I found conditions such as those described by the good doctor. I am sure he meant well in writing this article. I do not know what experience he has in the north, but I do suggest that too many people write articles along the lines of the one quoted by the hon. member when they have not a scintilla of actual knowledge of living conditions in the north.
We are normal, healthy Canadians in the north. We are up there with a great deal of faith in the development of the country for the benefit of the whole of Canada. Nothing could be more wrong than the picture painted by the author of that article.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, actually I am very glad the hon. member for Port Arthur raised the question of contributions to the magazine "North". I do not know how many issues of this magazine he has seen, but it is a policy of the editor to encourage contributions from all possible sources, particularly those who have some

Supply-Northern Affairs knowledge of topics that would be of interest to northerners and readers of the magazine. Representatives of the church in the north have from time to time made outstanding contributions to the magazine. I would also like to suggest that if there is any member of parliament who feels he would like to contribute to the magazine such contributions would be greatly appreciated.


An hon. Member:: There is a volunteer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Port Arthur has written on various subjects from time to time and I assure him we would be happy to have anything from his pen which would be regarded as suitable. I am informed there is a very lenient editorial policy and that any such articles would be subjected to a minimum of editing.
As to the other matter, I do not think I can carry the subject further than the hon. member for Yukon, who represents the north, who lives in the north, who has travelled extensively in the north and who is intimately associated with the social life and the social problems north of the 60th parallel.
Articles are written on the north from time to time, and I think the hon. member would be the first to agree that some people look at the subject through jaundiced eyes. I am a newcomer as far as personal contact with our northern communities is concerned, but I have visited each of the areas-the west, the centre and the east. I have been in isolated communities such as Cambridge bay, Frobisher and Aklavik. The thing which has impressed me is the high quality of community life in these places.
Take Whitehorse, for example, which is a typical northern community. That city is as modern as, or even more modern than, communities of a similar size in the prairie regions of Canada. It has all the amenities such as paved roads, hospitals and schools; all the facilities which are required in order to live a healthy normal life by modern standards. The old town of Aklavik, when I visited it during the Easter recess, struck me as being the home of a most happy group of citizens. I think the reason for this social well being lies in the hands of the dedicated civil servants, teachers and welfare workers who are devoting their time to work in this part of Canada. The principal of the school there, for example, is a trained anthropologist, a man with a distinguished war record who has spent his entire teaching career up to the present time in the north. He has obviously set his stamp upon the community at Aklavik.
I could go to the other extreme of the Arctic, to Frobisher. The administrator there is well known to a good many members of

this house because two or three years ago, I think, he was on the personal staff of the Governor General. He decided he would like to make his contribution to the program of northern development and he is there now doing an outstanding job on behalf of the people of the north.
It was my privilege to visit Frobisher on a Sunday afternoon and the entire population had gathered together in the community hall, a hall which, incidentally, has been sponsored by the ladies of the I.O.D.E. It is a substantial building equipped for community purposes and there the entire Eskimo population of Frobisher Bay had gathered. The impression I received from talking to many of them was that they were enjoying a happy community life in this Arctic outpost. On that occasion, too, we made history by presenting a 25 year service certificate and button to Mr. Frank Delaute who is the administrator to whom I referred. The presentation was greeted with great acclaim by all the residents of Frobisher.
On the basis, then, of personal experience and also on the basis of extensive reading on the subject I would say that any report which suggests that the communities of the north are beset with difficult social problems as described in the report read by the hon. member must be the result of viewing the subject with limited knowledge or from a biased viewpoint.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one question which occurs to me now and it relates to the unique position which Mr. Robertson has as a deputy minister of the department and also in his relationship with the council. This is a unique situation, as far as I know, in government.
There are a number of senior civil servants, including deputy ministers, who are directors of crown corporations and similar organizations but I do not know of any other senior civil servant who has this particular role of being a focal point in what might possibly be a developing desire for autonomy, certainly in a political atmosphere.
I just wonder whether consideration has been given to how long this situation is likely to continue before there may be rifts or the possibility of an attack upon the council which, since some of the members are elected, might place Mr. Robertson as a civil servant in an invidious position. I am not suggesting this has happened. It is hypothetical. Nevertheless it seems to me something which could possibly happen and I should like to hear the minister's comments on whether any consideration has been given to altering the balance of the representation so that we should not have a senior civil servant in such a central position.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur is not a new one. This point has been discussed at the two recent meetings of the territorial council itself. The precedent for the appointment goes back to 1905, I understand. Since that year it has been the practice to appoint a high level civil servant to the post of commissioner of the Northwest Territories. On the other hand, in the Yukon Territory which until recently to a certain extent was in a more advanced state of development, the commissioner has not necessarily been a high ranking civil servant. As to possible future developments, I think recommendations will be forthcoming from the council itself in this respect. As I indicated the other day it is the desire of the government that these territories, both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, should move toward independent status as quickly as the economic and social situation permits.
There is even some suggestion that a separate territory be established in the Northwest Territories area. If and when this suggestion is followed, the commissioner appointed could perhaps be an individual completely outside the high level civil service category.
Progress has been made along this line through the provision of a council for the Northwest Territories which is partly elective and partly appointive. I am sure as progress continues the situation to which the hon. member has made reference will be resolved, and we shall move toward a greater position of independence in the territories.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister whether the Glassco commission has a task force operating in the department looking at this particular aspect; that is the dual role of the deputy minister?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The terms of reference to the Glassco commission do not necessarily include that subject matter to which the member has referred. Whether that commission will request the opportunity of looking at this situation is something to be decided in the future, but at the moment this is not a term of reference.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to put it to the minister, and the committee, that the onus of the extra responsibility in no way diminishes the attention and concern that the deputy minister can give to his departmental function as distinct from his other duties.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member will agree that the over-all responsibility of the deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources necessitates his vital interest in the
Supply-Northern Affairs activities of the north and, while this constitutes extra work-his doubling in the capacity of the commissioner-at the same time it allows him to present his knowledgeable viewpoint regarding the peculiar problems of the Northwest Territories. In the past, during the underdeveloped period, this viewpoint has been very useful.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I did not have that point in mind. I was thinking of the difficulties involved as a result of one individual helping to develop policy, making up estimates and recommending expenditures in certain areas of the northern administration, while at the same time putting on another hat of responsibility in the spending of this money. I was wondering about the possibility of there being a certain amount of conflict and a certain amount of overlap which is perhaps not ideal.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this subject. The hon. member for Port Arthur is probably aware of the fact that the history of the political development in the Yukon has followed almost the same course as that being followed now in the Northwest Territories. In 1901 the elected portion of the council in the Yukon numbered 5, and the appointed portion also numbered 5. At that time the commissioner was appointed by the minister. As a result of the amendment to the Yukon Act the elected members to that council now number 7, which is now the entire council, and it sits without any appointees whatsoever. The commissioner of the Yukon Territory is still appointed by the minister.
The point I am trying to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Port Arthur is that I have no reason to believe that the people of the Mackenzie river area would feel otherwise than did those people of the Yukon Territory, and that any move toward additional representation, control or autonomy on behalf of those people, should be initiated by themselves and not by this house.
There is a move afoot in the Yukon now for increased representation. Certain representations were made when the act was amended regarding an increase in the size of the council. Representations were also made, through the council, for an advisory committee, in respect of financial matters, which would sit with the commissioner of the territory to consider the budget and other fiscal problems. This is as it was desired by the people of the Yukon, and I am certain that the people of the Mackenzie river area would not wish anything different in regard to their situation. I am sure when they are ready to accept greater responsibility and desire a greater number of representatives on the Northwest

Supply-Northern Affairs Territories council similar to that of the Yukon where the commissioner is in a sense, separate from the departmental administration, they will not hesitate in making their views known. Northerners have a peculiar habit of making their views known quite forcibly and, I must say, during the few years I have been associated with the situation, the department has acceded to all reasonable requests made by the residents of the area.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, if there is any one person who is more concerned with this problem than anyone else, I speak of the anomaly of the deputy minister of the department being the chairman of the council, I am sure it is the deputy minister himself, who has served in both capacities with great distinction and efficiency. It is true, as has been pointed out, that as the work of the department grows, greater responsibility is put on the deputy minister, and he acquires many more duties. Perhaps because of that fact, if for no other reason, the time will come, because of the burdens on the deputy minister, when a change will have to be made.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure this is the right moment, or that we are dealing with the appropriate item, but I should like to direct some questions to the minister regarding the development of the roads to resources program, in so far as the Yukon and Northwest Territories are concerned. With your permission I shall put them now.
I should like to ask the minister if he can give figures regarding the expenditures to date, in respect of this program, in so far as the areas I have mentioned are concerned. I should also like to ask him what the maximum expenditures are, as envisaged in this program, and the amount of expenditure under the program which has already been committed.
I should also like to ask the minister for information in regard to the mileage of roads now under construction, and the total program in terms of mileage which has been agreed to by the government. Perhaps the minister could deal with those questions now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to answer the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, I should perhaps say a final word regarding the subject raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and endorse what has been said in this respect by the hon. member for the Yukon and the Leader of the Opposition.
I feel sure we can depend on the council members themselves to recommend a change in regard to the commissioner when they feel it is due. We have, in the four elected 

representatives of the territorial council, four vigorous spokesmen for the north. At the present time it is their opinion that the existing arrangement is the most useful and satisfactory one and, while there is a growing desire for independence, they have recommended that the present system of appointing members to the council be continued, because of the knowledge that these appointed council men have regarding the problems discussed by the territorial council.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked for rather detailed information on the roads to resources program in the territories. Perhaps I can break it down into the various categories that he requested. He asked for the total mileage of resources road construction in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. The figures for the Northwest Territories are as follows. The total mileage is 1,384. Up to the end of 1960-61, 754 miles had been surveyed. Of this total, 503 miles have been cleared and 337 miles constructed.
In the Yukon Territory the total mileage is 900. Of that, 595 miles have been surveyed, 287 miles cleared and 237 miles constructed. The total for the territories is 2,284 miles. In addition, reconstruction of roads is under way in the Yukon Territory. This involves a total mileage of 458.
As for the expenditure represented by this construction, I can give the hon. member the totals between 1957 and 1961. For the Northwest Territories the total was $15,999,000. The amount proposed for the Northwest Territories in 1961-62 is $3.4 million. The amount required to complete the mileage contemplated is $44.5 million. The total estimated expenditure in round figures is $64 million.
For the Yukon Territory the amount spent up to 1961 is $7.26 million. The amount proposed for the fiscal year under discussion is $3.73 million. The amount required to complete the program is $25.79 million. The estimated total is $36.79 million.
The cost of the roads to be reconstructed in the Yukon Territory; up to the present time $2.96 million has been expended. It is proposed to spend $1.23 million in the current fiscal year. The amount required to complete the program is $0.91 million, with a total expenditure of $5.11 million. I do not know whether this covers all the information requested by the hon. member. I can give a further breakdown if he would like to have it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is sufficient detail for my purposes, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to compare these figures with the figures given by the Prime Minister himself

in a television broadcast on March 3, 1960, which were as follows. I quote from the text of that broadcast. The Prime Minister was dealing with the roads to resources program in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and he said that at that time, namely March, 1960, federal expenditure had been about $20 million and that 600 or 700 miles of unprotected new roads and bridges were under way at that time. In the same broadcast, in regard to this program, he said that the maximum expenditure envisaged was $150 million and that agreements had been signed to cover this. He then went on to say in the broadcast that this program in the north provided for the building of an additional 4,000 miles of roads to tap the new resources of the north and that the total expenditure-that was March, 1960-at that time committed, amounted to $135 million. It will be interesting to compare these figures put on the air a year ago with what the minister has given us this afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question before he resumes his seat. Does he now agree that the roads to resources in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories-the development roads-are a sound policy on behalf of the government in developing the whole nation including that 40 per cent of the nation above the 60th parallel, or does he still adhere to his igloo to igloo statement which he made in 1957 and 1958?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very glad the hon. member has given me an opportunity to say something about this. He has asked me whether I now adhere to the position that the roads to resources program in the north is important to the development of that country. Well, of course, Mr. Chairman, I have always taken that position and I made statements to that effect long before the hon. member came into the House of Commons. Nothing could be more important to the development of the northern area than roads, communication and transport generally. There is no question about that. What I also say is that statements made in 1957 and 1958 by the Prime Minister and others that this roads to resources program-it was not called that then-this road-building program in the north, this great program of public works in the north, which included road building, was a phony one in so far as correcting the unemployment situation was concerned. If the hon. member will read the statements I made at that time

I repeat them now

he will find that I said this kind of program as a cure for unemployment was completely unrealistic. That has been shown since that time by the figures that have been given, not by the 90205-6-296
Supply-Northern Affairs present minister but by his predecessor, which indicated how much employment was being given by this program.
So far as development is concerned, no one underestimates their importance. But the Arctic road program as a cure never had anything but visionary, political importance attached to it. As a development program, nothing could be more important. As a program for curing unemployment, well, nothing could be more calculated to deceive the people than some of the statements made at that time on the employment aspects of this activity.
I think it should also be pointed out that while it is extremely important to develop the Arctic, it is also important to redevelop some of the older parts of the country where the economy is now slack and where unemployment is now very high. These two things have to go together, both development and redevelopment, in a healthy and balanced economy.


Erik Nielsen: I might just say that the Leader of the Opposition still has not yet answered my question.
First of all, may I say that I have read very carefully within the last week the 1957 and 1958 statements of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and my recollection of those statements is that the unemployment situation was not to be met by roads being built in the north but by national public works. The Leader of the Opposition made several statements throughout the west during 1957 and 1958 in which he referred to the northern development roads as roads from igloo to igloo. He said so in Saskatchewan and also in British Columbia. He selected one particular road in the Yukon running from Flat Creek into the potential oil and gas fields of the Yukon as being a road from igloo to igloo.
If the Leader of the Opposition will read the statistics which I put on the record on May 4, 1961, to be found at page 4384 of Hansard, he will see that this road from igloo to igloo, as he termed it then, has increasing significance now when oil and gas revenue has increased from a figure of $8,344,579 for the period 1953 to 1956 to a figure of $32,599,'956 for the period 1957 to 1960. He will also recall, I am sure, that the first oil well in the Yukon came in the year before last, the Chance No. 2, and that the Hope No. 1 well is now in the process of being drilled. Does he still feel that this road is a road from igloo to igloo?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot resist the invitation to prolong this discussion for a moment. When the hon. member talks about northern roads, whether they are from igloo to igloo or from

Supply-Northern Affairs oil well to oil well or from community to community, I would point out that these roads and their construction were put forward as a cure for unemployment, and I ask the hon. member to read the Prime Minister's speeches of that time when they were put forward as a cure for unemployment.
That was a phony performance and has been so described in the house many times. One reason why it has been shown to be so is the figures that have been given in the house of the amount of employment provided over the years by the construction of these very important and valuable roads for development purposes, whether from igloo to igloo, oil well to oil well or town to town. I will send him the text of my statement and also the text of the Prime Minister's statement so that the hon. member will be able to refresh his memory and be quite clear as to what is involved.


Erik Nielsen: I want to say one last word. As recently as last week I read these statements very carefully, and I mean no intentional disrespect to the Leader of the Opposition when I suggest that his interpretation of the Prime Minister's statement as being the promise of a cure for unemployment is, to say the least, a phony or less than accurate interpretation of the statements that were made. The Leader of the Opposition can speak as much as he likes about road development in the Yukon and how much he supports it now. That was not the position he took in 1958 when he introduced an amendment to a supply motion decrying the efforts of the government to develop roads in the north and saying that regional preference should be given rather than that such development should be carried on on a national basis.
He can speak as long as he likes in trying to wiggle out of his igloo to igloo statement, but there was no doubt in the minds of the people of this country, particularly the people of the north where I live, that the impression he was trying to leave with them was that these roads were useless, that they were roads from igloo to igloo and were not necessary for the development of national resources as opposed to regional resources. I do not think he can ever escape having that statement affixed to him, although I am sure he is rather sorry now that he made it when resources are being developed as a result of such road construction, which he perhaps thought was not going to be the case when he made these statements.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the question of accuracy, Mr. Chairman, before these estimates are through we will have an opportunity to put on the record what was said on both sides, and perhaps that will help in that regard.


Also on the question of accuracy, one of the reasons why I asked the minister to put on Hansard this afternoon the figures I requested and which he was good enough to give was to compare on the ground of accuracy the figures which the minister gave this afternoon with those that were given over the air by the Prime Minister a year ago. When the hon. member reads the two sets of figures in Hansard tomorrow, perhaps he will not have so much to say about accuracy with regard to statistics affecting the north.


Erik Nielsen: I will always have something to say about accuracy. I do not mean to be unkind but I think the Leader of the Opposition is merely drawing this distinction to further the political ends of his own party. The fact remains that if you compare the dollars spent in the north as I set forth the figures in Hansard of May 4, you will find we have advanced from a position where under a Liberal government we were spending for the national development of resources in the north $1.2 million or $1.3 million annually to a figure of $6.9 million annually since the present government took office. I think the distinction lies there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will have something to say about expenditures too. If you take the expenditures made under one item in these estimates, the relocation of Aklavik, you will see how much was involved in total expenditures there and under what program that was carried out. But I ask the minister again, or the hon. member if he would like to reply, does he consider this to be an accurate statement, and I quote from the Prime Minister's broadcast:
The program-
That is the program of roads to resources in the north.
-provides for the building of an additional 4,000 miles of road to tap the new resources of the north.
Is that an accurate statement?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think we can resolve the particular point raised by the Leader of the Opposition by pointing out that the roads to resources program is much more extensive than the statistics I have already given. The roads to resources program also deals with road construction in the northern part of the provinces, and I think he is well aware of that point. The additional mileage figure for roads to resources in the resource rich areas, many of which are in the northern parts of the provinces, comes to a total figure of 4,504 miles. That is in addition to the 2,000-plus miles we have already referred to in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories.

My own province of Manitoba has been a pioneer in northern development roads from the beginning. Most of our roads to resources program is taking place in the northern part of the province in order to open up the rich resource areas here.
Typical of the northern resource development is the opening of the Thompson mine which will involve a community of some 12,000 people within the next four years and is based on the deposit of nickel there. To deal with the area north of the 60th parallel, I have in my hand a copy of the Northern Miner for May 4 which has an article reading on page 24 in part as follows:
One of Ventures' new undertakings of importance is its participation in the financing of Canada Tungsten Mining Corporation, now being moved toward production in the Yukon. Ventures had slightly more than a 14 per cent interest in the project and is maintaining this by purchasing 217,800 shares for approximately S240.000, and $389,136 principal amount of 6 per cent debentures with an additional 116,159 shares. Ventures is also obligated to provide, if required, its pro rata share of up to $1 million working capital.
Then there is this particular paragraph:
With reference to Canada Tungsten, Mr. Fraser expressed appreciation for government aid and cooperation. Said he: "If the Canadian government had not undertaken the building of an 80-mile development road and had not agreed to contribute toward the cost of the 50-mile access road to the Canada Tungsten property, it might have been many years before the mine could have been brought into production or before further prospecting of the general area was vigorously pursued.
I read that because it is a concrete up-to-date example of the kind of development that is taking place much sooner than even the most optimistic could have anticipated under this roads to resources program.
I have been a member of the House of Commons for the past 10 years now and I do not recall anyone in the house ever suggesting that the problem of unemployment in the midst of prosperity is going to be resolved by one simple formula. I do not think it is a fair statement to suggest that any hon. member, including the Prime Minister, ever suggested in a simple generalization that roads to resources was the means whereby unemployment was going to be resolved. We all know that this is a North American problem. We all know, too, that it has been growing with cumulative effect ever since the end of world war II because of our failure to adapt our economy to the changing international economy as well as to domestic economics.
I sat in this House of Commons for year after year in the opposition and pointed out that Canada was living in an economic fools' paradise unless we came to grips with the adjustments that had to be made following the economic impact of world war II. Let us 90205-6-2961
Supply-Northern Affairs stick to the main subject at hand, namely the mileage involved in the roads to resources program. I think we can all recognize that it is having a beneficial economic stimulus on the total economy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the minister for his clarification and I will try to resist the temptation of following him into a discussion of unemployment. I have here a quotation from the Prime Minister's statement in Regina of February 13, 1958-it is from the Regina Leader-Post-in which he talks about a work program, including roads, of $1,185 million in order to assure jobs. It was a work program to assure jobs in so far as the 4,000 miles are concerned. Now the minister says he had in mind not only roads in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, but roads south leading to the north and access roads to the resources of the north. With a little bit more time I am sure the minister could find a good many more roads than even 4,000 miles of them because you could make a case for any road south being of value in opening up the north or leading in that direction.
The Prime Minister did not make any such suggestion as that in his broadcast, the text of which I have before me, and in which he talks about a road building program in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. He said the program was 4,000 miles and there it is.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is just merely a matter of-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Interpretation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -of different interpretations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Different figures.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think one of the essential features of the northern development program is the emphasis it gives to a new dimension in development in Canada. Up to fairly recently, the development has been an east-west development. I think we must agree that if we are going to move in a north-south dimension in terms of resources development, we must have access roads from our southern highway system. Typical of this is the Mackenzie highway which was completed last year and which now provides a highway into the Great Slave district which is an area of high mineralization. We could go into the Yukon and point out that the Alaska highway is an integral part of the northern development program. I think it all depends on the perspective from which you are viewing the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say when the Mackenzie highway was started?

Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Mackenzie highway was first under construction in 1949. It has been completely rebuilt since 1958, I believe.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am glad the minister has opened up discussion in the field of the roads to resources program at this point because it gives me an opportunity to touch on an aspect of it which the Leader of the Opposition has perhaps been too kind to take the opportunity of discussing. I refer to what I think has been a great deal of bluff and wind about the roads to resources program. I say this knowing that this phrase is perhaps going to hurt the former minister who is sitting over there. However, I can remember an election campaign in which he was describing the merits of this wonderful road that was going to run from somewhere up in Manitoba to Hudson bay and down through northwestern Ontario through the Patricia district. It even got into his maps in the propaganda. I refer to this magic dotted line. It has been part of that propaganda with regard to these 4,000 miles of roads that are going to be developed. I still have not heard from the minister about this ruddy road program. As far as we are concerned, it goes from Erehwon to nowhere or, if you want to use the imagery of the Leader of the Opposition, from wigwam to wigwam. There is nothing really in between at the present time.
We should like to have some of this roads to resources program in the south. The announcement the minister made today about the road in New Brunswick is exactly the sort of thing about which I have spoken previously. These tenuous, mystic terms of the past-I refer to past election campaigns- it seems to me have been brought down to hard, cold reality by the very figures the minister filed.
Earlier today we had some remarks by some Conservative members from Ontario who talked about the wonderful co-operation one gets when one has a Conservative government at Queen's Park and a Conservative government in Ottawa. They say that things are just lovely and that things are moving in the conservation area. Since the minister today raised this subject of roads to resources, I should like to ask him why he is having so much difficulty in northern Ontario in getting co-operation from premier Frost and this lovely government at Queen's Park. Why is it that in spite of all the road projects that have been listed in the past-I think eight of them were listed last year as projected

very little work has been done on any of them? Where is the breakdown? Is Premier Frost not co-operating with him or is he not co-operating with Premier Frost? I think he


knows the roads to which I am referring. I would appreciate greatly having answers to those questions.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The reversion to this subject gives me an opportunity to make a slight correction in the statement made on motions this morning wherein I referred to a smelter at Heath Steele in New Brunswick. The actual word should have been a concentrator at Heath Steele. I make that correction in order to avoid any misunderstanding on that point.
To go back to the specific question asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur, may I say this. I think he is aware of the fact that the roads to resources program covers a 10-year period. As to the pace of construction on the projects upon which agreements have been entered into by the federal government, that is a matter that is entirely in the hands of the provincial government. I do not think it would be proper for me to express any opinion on that score. We have signed the agreement with Ontario. The agreement covers certain roads that are specifically outlined. As long as Ontario completes those roads within the 10-year period, there is nothing that the federal government can do about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister, in trying to justify this 4,000 mile figure which the Prime Minister gave, says it is only 2,000. Apparently a mile of road in the north is two miles in the speeches of the Prime Minister.
This is described as a difference in point of view. I would have thought it was a difference in fact that one would hardly expect in the speeches of the leader of the government to the people of Canada on the program called "The Nation's Business". But this, I may say, is not the first time it has happened.
I should like to ask the minister about another road concerning which there was a good deal of talk. A road was to start from Lac La Ronge and be connected in some mysterious way with the bridge in Prince Albert, which is 175 miles away. It was then to go on to Uranium City. Could the minister say whether that road has been completed yet and whether it has speeded up the development of Uranium City.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I think we are somewhat out of order in getting into a detailed discussion on the roads to resources program. This item was passed some time ago.
The road to Uranium City is one of the roads specified in the agreement with Saskatchewan. I have the engineering data. The road covers a total of 505 miles. I am not quite sure of the date of this report, but it is a fairly recent one. It was made within a matter of a week or so ago.

I should say that about one quarter of that road has been completed. Progress is not too bad when you consider that there is a 10-year period in which the road can be completed. According to the engineering report, one quarter of the road has been completed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have two points which I should like to cover here. One refers to a point raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the other to a point raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. In my view both these gentlemen have been trying to make political mileage-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the Prime Minister who was trying to make political mileage.


Erik Nielsen: -in trying to pick picayune holes in statements made by the Prime Minister and others concerning this northern development roads' program.
I have had my files sent down from my office and I have in front of me two statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talks about making statements to the Canadian people which are not accurate. He should listen to a little bit of that advice himself, and so should his leader. They talk about misadvising and misleading the Canadian people on these things. They talk about giving the Canadian people facts which are not facts.
Here is the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in Vancouver on September 27, 1958:
Diefenbaker's promise of a billion dollar public works program in the Arctic is the phoniest promise ever made in Canadian history.
The Prime Minister, in this house, in any campaign or anywhere else in this country, never said there was going to be a billion dollar public works program in the Arctic. He was describing a national public works program, included in which was a program of northern development roads.
If that statement of the Leader of the Opposition is not misrepresenting what the Prime Minister went to the country with, I do not know what is a misrepresenting statement. The Leader of the Opposition made another statement in Edmonton, Alberta, on October 4, 1958:
Canadians have been hoodwinked by the Progressive Conservative government's promise of northern development.
That also is an extremely misrepresenting statement, because far from hoodwinking Canadians, the figures which I filed in this committee on May 4 show that in the period 1952-57 the total expenditures of the northern administration branch of this department
Supply-Northern Affairs were $29,906,075, compared with the period 1957-62 in which these expenditures amount to $137,600,472.
That is not a phony promise, as was expressed in the statement of the Leader of the Opposition in Edmonton on October 4. That is not hoodwinking the Canadian people. Does the hon. gentleman think it is hoodwinking the Canadian people to say to them, "We will build these development roads to develop the nation's resources"? All he has to do is consider the tungsten mine which is being developed. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources pointed out that it is the only tungsten mine in Canada and will commence production in November, 1962. The largest single tungsten deposit in the world-it will place Canada in the position of being the world's largest single supplier of this very rare and valuable metal in the race for space.
This is what these roads are accomplishing. These are not roads from igloo to igloo. I would point out to the hon. gentleman once again that he has not yet answered my question as to whether he still adheres to his igloo to igloo statement. I do not think he does, but I should like him to admit it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let me ask the minister some further questions on a general subject. I am not dealing with roads at this moment. I will have something more to say about that matter later when I obtain further details about the Prime Minister's statement. Perhaps when I have finished the hon. member for the Yukon will give me the sources of the quotations which he has just been good enough to put on the record.
I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with oil and gas development in the north. How many wells were drilled in the Yukon and Northwest Territories in the year 1959-60, and how many in the year 1960-61? How many acres in this northern area are under exploration, and how many acres are there over which permits are held or have been allotted?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Leader of the Opposition, in asking for some detailed information, restricted his question to the Yukon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To what period does the hon. gentleman want to go back with respect to acreage permits issued?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Since 1957-58.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The following are the figures:

Supply-Northern Affairs
Permits Issued	Permits Active
Total
No.	Acreage	No.	Acreage1957-58	N.W.T	
217	11,035,053	403	21,439,160Y.T	
203	9,163,588	225	10,006,9551958-59	N.W.T	
1,040	47,031,445	1,357	64,892,769Y.T	
153	7,144,616	323	14,953,9901959-60	N.W.T	
211	10,089,932	1,541	73,233,420Y.T	
120	5,410,831	411	19,029,7091960-61	N.W.T	
95	4,494,418	1,111	52,649,650Y.T	Nil	233	11,156,66831/3/61	Arctic	
868	42,905,547	868	42,905,547Water	
87	4,429,502	87	4,429,502
I believe the hon. member also asked me how many wells were driven. The totals for the two territories are as follows: in 1959-60, 30; in 1960-61 it is anticipated that the total will be 20.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the minister for that detailed information. 1 wonder if he could tell me, however, how many acres were under exploration at the end of the financial
year 1960 and also how many acres at that time in the Arctic islands were there over which individuals and companies held priority.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have the figures here as of March 31, 1961 concerning the disposition of the oil and gas holdings. I believe this is the information which the hon. member wishes to have. The figures, in tabulated form, are as follows:
DISPOSITION OF OIL AND GAS HOLDINGS-CANADA LAND (Except those situated in the Provinces)
(as of March 31, 1961)
Canadian Canadian	American American	JointlyCompanies	Individuals	Companies	Individuals	Held	TotalsArctic	
Islands	
18,684,620 	
(43.7)	5,493,495 (12.5)Territorial	
Waters	
2,145,706 	
(48.4)	-Mainland	
N.W.T	
26,905,181 	
(51.1)	409,041 (0.8)Mainland	
Y.T	
3,373,634 	
(28.4)	31,122 (0.3)Reservations	
5,117,604 (100%)	-Leases	
8,883	-
(13,4%)
7,947,899 (18.5)	2,829,272 (6.4)	8,081,606 43,036,892 (18.9) 50%-Can. 50%-Amer.2,283,796 (51.6)	-	- 4,429,50214,514,730 (27.7)	2,942,131 (5.6)	7,878,567 52,649,650 (14.8) 60%-Can. 40%-Amer.4,981,424 (48.%)	50,262 (0.4%)	2,720,226 11,156,668 (22.9%) 100%-Amer.-	-	- 5,117,604__	57,328 66,211
(86.6%) 50%-Can. 50%-Amer.
56,235,628	5,933,658	29,727,849	5,821,665	18,737,727	116,456,527(48.1)	(5%)	(26%)	(4.9)	(16)
IMr. Dinsdale.]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Again I thank the minister and I would like to put on the record for comparison with those figures a statement made over the air on "The Nation's Business" by the Prime Minister on March 3, 1960 as follows, and I quote from his broadcast dealing with oil and gas exploration and permits and priorities in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories:
Seventy five companies have taken almost 100 million acres under exploration.
Then:
In the Arctic islands 34 individuals and companies hold priorities over 130 million acres.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just let me point out that I think that reference was to priorities.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was what I asked about.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: These are permits. They do not necessarily represent the actual acreage taken out. Those were priority claims. In addition, the figure of 100 million quoted in the broadcast has been greatly exceeded.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked the minister about priorities and apparently he gave me the figures relating to permits. Could the minister now give me the figures with respect to priorities in the Arctic islands as of March, 1960.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Actually, we do not keep a record of priorities. They no longer exist. These figures represent the actual permits which have been taken out by companies and individuals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder, then, if the minister would explain what the Prime Minister meant by that very impressive statement concerning something about which the minister says figures are not kept. I quote again:
In the Arctic islands 34 individuals and companies hold priorities over 130 million acres.
What does that mean?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the hon. member has forgotten that there has been a change in the gas and oil regulations pertaining to the Northwest Territories. That was a reference to the situation exising before the regulations were changed, in 1959, I believe, or early in 1960. What I was referring to were permits taken out since the change in the regulations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought this might be a proper moment to give more permanent form to a clipping I have here from the Calgary Herald of April 14, 1960. The article is by Mr. Bruce Phillips of the Herald's Ottawa bureau. It is headed "Even Minister Confused by Northern Oil Code", and it reads:
Ottawa-The federal government hopes Canadians will be able to participate heavily in northern oil development-but it isn't making any guarantees.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Its hopes are contained in a loosely-drawn set of regulations governing Canadian participation made public Wednesday, which even resources minister Alvin Hamilton admits are open to various interpretations.
"Any lawyer could tear holes in them," he said.
He explained the government sought to avoid overly-restrietive rules-
And apparently overly-restrietive statistics, too.
-lest it discourage capital for northern development which must come in the first instance from foreigners.
"We don't want to kill the golden goose", he said.
And after more than a year of study, the minister said any lawyer could tear holes in it. The article goes on to say:
The regulations were drawn after more than a year's study, 30-odd full-scale cabinet meetings, and scores of conferences among government officials.
That is a rather impressive result.
The results appeared to confuse even the minister, and during the course of an hour-long press conference he gave two different interpretations of his own.
I could go on and read more of the article, but will confine myself to the doubtful section which reads as follows:
A lease shall not be granted-to a corporation incorporated outside of Canada, or-to a corporation unless the minister is satisfied that the shares of the corporation are listed on a recognized Canadian stock exchange and that Canadians will have an opportunity of assisting in the financing and ownership.
Then the article goes on as follows:
As Mr. Hamilton viewed this section after some discussion, it means a foreign company would have to set up a Canadian subsidiary and issue shares, a portion of which would be sold to the Canadian public.
He agreed, however, that others have placed a different meaning on the section. They believe it would allow a foreign company simply to register in Canada without having to establish a separate subsidiary selling shares of its own. The only shares available would be those of the parent company.
It seems to me that the minister, in giving statistics to the Leader of the Opposition, should also have indicated what interpretation has been placed upon this confusion which seems to exist about the regulations, as well as the statistics.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I have studied the oil and gas regulations with reference to the amendments which were made to the Canada mining regulations and, although I am not a lawyer, as I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A lawyer in process.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not know whether that hon. member has studied the regulations or not, but, as far as I am concerned, there is no problem in the interpretation of these regulations. Reputable lawyers representing various development companies have come to the conclusion that the regulations are quite specific in their application.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should perhaps know this, but maybe the minister will forgive me if I have forgotten; when did these regulations, of which we are talking, come into effect?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member repeat that question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, when did the regulations, that we have been discussing for the last few minutes, come into effect?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the gas and oil regulations became effective during April of 1960.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it the statement of the Prime Minister, made in March, 1960, covering priorities, in which he said they amounted to 130 million acres, dealt with the situation as it existed before these new regulations came into effect, and had no application to the present position at all?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. Perhaps the word
"priority" needs a little explanation. I should suggest it means exactly what it says; prior to the promulgation of the regulations, when companies approached the government with respect to taking out permits, they were informed that no action could be taken until such time as the regulations were promulgated. That merely meant that the first company applying would be first, the second would be second, and the third would be third. Allotments were made on a priority basis, and once the regulations were published, then permits could be taken out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I feel there is one question the minister should answer. Could he tell us how many acres of priorities there were on the day before the new regulations came into effect, and how many of those acres of priorities were transformed into permits? If I am using the wrong language perhaps the minister could begin by correcting it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member complained a day or two ago, when I asked for some specific information in regard to specific statistics. I have forgotten what my question was, but it did not deal with as precise information as he is requiring this afternoon. However, as far as I can recall, the figure

was something above 110 million acres. I could have that figure confirmed by the officials if it is desired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would like to have time to confirm that figure, and would go on now with something else. I feel we should have information regarding the total acreage under priority in various years in respect of the Arctic islands and the mainland before the regulations came into effect. I understand some of the priorities were converted into permits, but by no means all of them. Is that a correct statement, and to what extent have they become converted into permits?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I will obtain that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
300. Welfare and industrial divisions-administration, operation and maintenance, $1,977,426.
Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Mr. Chairman, without delaying the passage of these items, I should like to comment at this point on vote 300.
It is in regard to this item, as well as items 298 and 299, that one could make some remarks about education and the opportunities for development of our northern citizens, particularly the Eskimos and Indians. I should like to do so briefly. I understand from the various figures which the minister has given us that there are some 35,000 citizens of the north, of which 3,000 or 4,000 are Eskimos.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member, there are 12,000 Eskimos.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Thank you very much. I have been interested in the artistic, cultural, and social development of our northern citizens, particularly Eskimos to whom the minister's department has given great assistance. I feel the minister and his departmental officials should be complimented in this regard.
We often hear criticism in Canada regarding the influence of other Canadians on Eskimo traditions and life, and I can refer specifically to Eskimo designs, stone and bone carvings, and so forth. I understand that the situation was in a state of flux as times changed, and, that if it were not for the fact that direction was given to these people, these arts might truly have died out with the passage of years. These artistic talents, on the part of Eskimos, have been manifested in recent years through the production of stone carvings, and unusual prints, stimulated by the officers of the minister's department. These have created a great impression in the artistic world in this country and, in fact, in many lands of the globe. The recent

printing method which has been developed may prove even more international in artistic merit than the earlier carvings. Creative work with fur, leather and other materials has been encouraged and I feel it should be carried even further. The recognition and independence these achievements give as well as the remuneration to the Eskimo artists, are most important. As a result of this remuneration the Eskimos is becoming more varied in outlook and I think this is evidenced by the fact that the Eskimos have hired at least one individual from the south to advise them in regard to the sale and distribution of their artistic works.
In addition, the introduction of such things as one room houses for the Eskimos which have been developed by the department in recent years are most interesting. I understand that there are to be more than a thousand of these sent to the north in the months and years ahead, to be purchased largely by the Eskimos themselves. I think this is a move in the right direction. The best of the old ways must be maintained, but some changes must be planned, and brought about.
The employment of Eskimos in hospitals and in various services as mechanics, in the north, is a healthy sign. The new vocational school at Yellowknife costing, I believe, some $3 million is an interesting development and should give an opportunity to those northern citizens to educate themselves, to acquire additional skills to develop fully the very great natural talents they have. As the minister has pointed out, the people of the north are Canadians, and have every right to equal facilities and opportunities.
I understand that the education of Eskimo children is not now so much a problem when the facilities are there; that they are able to bridge the gap between civilizations to a very great extent. The problem may perhaps lie more with the older group of 15 to 30 years of age, and older still, to try to give them the skills and opportunities to make a living in a changing world. It is commendable that this year 60 per cent of the Eskimos of school age are attending school, compared with only 16 per cent three years ago.
I would say again that the efforts of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of the minister and of the industrial division of the department deserve the highest commendation.
As far as the art forms which have created such a stir around the world are concerned,
I would only say that the necessity for maintaining the highest standards possible both in materials and designs must always be kept in mind. As well, a close examination might continually be given to methods of sales and distribution of these products. From time to
Supply-Northern Affairs time it has come to my notice, largely by rumour, although from reputable people, indeed, that numbers of these products have gone forth from Canada to Great Britain, to Europe and the United States by various means. This may well be right and proper but I do feel that the first opportunity for acquiring these creations should be given to Canadians themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
305.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as the governor in council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $9,261,140.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This item represents, of course, a very large expenditure indeed. Perhaps the minister ought to give us a progress report on the moving of Aklavik.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think I can satisfy the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with a very brief statement. The construction of Inuvik has now been completed. I visited Inuvik during the Easter recess and I must say it is a very impressive community located in a beautiful situation close to the Mackenzie delta. As a matter of fact, during my visit to Inuvik it was my privilege to take part in or initiate what might be regarded as the first film premiere in that far northern part of Canada. It was a film produced by the national film board dealing with the subject of building in the north, and it gave a very interesting review of the specialized construction techniques that had been developed as a result of the experience in building the new Inuvik community.
One of the interesting features of Inuvik is the outdoor utilidors which carry all of the necessary services, water, sewers and so forth to provide the amenities of modern living. I was impressed, too, by the school facilities. One of the finest schools in the whole system of the territory, I feel, is located in Inuvik and this gives me an opportunity to make just a passing reference to the comments of the hon. member for Halton who dealt with what I believe is a most important aspect of northern development, namely the development of our human resources.
The total cost of the Inuvik project, which has now been completed, amounted to some $34 million, I believe, and we hope to have an official opening sometime during the summer. As a matter of fact, we hope to have the official opening of Inuvik as soon as the house rises, and we are very optimistic that this will not be long delayed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one thing that I think would be very interesting. As I recall

Supply-Northern Affairs it, some initial estimate was made of the cost of building Inuvik and moving people from Aklavik. Can the minister say what that official estimate was and how the actual cost has compared with the estimate? When this vote is passed will the expenditure be all completed?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am afraid I cannot give the initial estimate of the project. I have not it to hand but I can assure the hon. member that the vote before the committee represents the final cost of the construction of Inuvik, and the total figure is, as I mentioned, $34 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will be able to get the original estimate and give it to the committee at a later stage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National museum of Canada-
306.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $855,972.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister a few questions about the national museum. The catalogue of 1960, Canadian government publications, which I hold in my hand is, I think, a good guide to the amount of work being done by cultural divisions such as this. In the last couple of years there seems to have been a falling off in the number and the kind of monographs being published by the museum. We had a large issue last year of the Huron-Wyandot traditional narratives in translations and native texts, by Marius Barbeau, a most prolific contributor to the museum. But in the main, the publishing record as revealed in the Canadian government publications is rather an anaemic one by this department, considering the number of people it has in various cultural fields. I am wondering whether this is a residue of the disturbance that took place in the museum several years ago, and what the publishing program is? I know it is hard to compare one field with another. I am sure some of the people in the museum are having articles printed in university magazines and in other places. But, in a nutshell, this is not a very impressive list of publications in the national museum when we look at the details in the estimates and see the number of professionally trained people there. I would just like to know whether I am correct in thinking there has been a falling off in the publishing of monographs and, if so, why?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe we dealt with this subject to a limited extent earlier in the discussion. I do not have a copy of the publication referred to by the hon. member

for Port Arthur but I do have some information concerning the studies that are in process and the list strikes me as quite an impressive one. The major studies that are under way in connection with the museum are as follows: The birds of Canada, the mammals of Canada, marine animals of the Canadian coasts, fresh water and marine fishes of Canada, reptiles and amphibians of Canada, molluscs of Canada, dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates of Alberta and Saskatchewan, fossil vertebrates of Prince Edward Island, plants of the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic, plants of the Canadian Rocky mountains, plants of southern Canada, maritime provinces to to Manitoba, and mosses of Canada.
These are just a few of the studies that are under way in the natural history field and they strike me as being quite impressive. If the hon. member wishes details in other areas such as that of human history in which I presume he is most interested, I can say that the following studies are proceeding in that field: The pre-history of the Yukon territory to determine early human migrations to North America, the pre-history of the Arctic to establish the origin and migration of the Eskimo, the pre-history of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces to establish the migrations and interrelationships of the Indians of eastern Canada, the physical characteristics of the early Eskimo, the material and social culture of the Canadian Eskimo, the cultural history and the languages of the Algonkian tribes of Canada, folklore and folk music of the French speaking communities of eastern Canada, folklore and folk music of English speaking communities and other ethnic groups. These are a few in the human history field.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think the minister did this before in his remarks but could he indicate what plans are being made to develop gradually the human history side of the museum more so as to lead to a greater contribution on the part of French Canadians to the country and its administration?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We discussed this subject the other day as well and at that time I pointed out that every attempt is being made to strengthen the bilingual activity in the museum. There has been some difficulty in this respect because of the lack of required professional people with bilingual qualifications. The museum is offering assistance to certain research students for the specific purpose of strengthening this aspect of the museum's operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canadian government travel bureau-
307.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $3,019,963.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether there have been any recent changes made in the Canadian travel bureau?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. I think the major change is the decision to open a bureau in San Francisco. This project is well in hand and we expect to have the service in operation by the beginning of June in ample time to meet the needs of the forthcoming tourist season. There has been a preliminary exploration of the United Kingdom and European market but no decision has been made on that score. It is felt, however, that we will have to strengthen our operation in this area, particularly with a view to making preparations for our centennial celebration in 1967 and also to co-ordinate with the stepped-up United States policy in this area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I had in mind. It seems to me that with the tremendous growth in wealth in the European countries and the change in the currency situation which make it possible for peoples to travel in North America who have not been able to travel for 15 years we should not let all of them go to the United States and by-pass Canada if there is anything we can do effectively to attract them here. I know, of course, that our air lines and the steamship lines such as Canadian Pacific and Cunard and perhaps even some of the other lines such as the Greek line are doing a great deal to encourage people to come to Canada, but it does seem to me this one field in which we can perhaps hope to do a surprising amount in the next three or four years by way of redressing in some degree our unfavourable balance of trade. If the minister can throw any more light on how active these explorations are and precisely what is being done with respect to the European market, I think the committee would be interested.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not know whether I can add anything further to the remarks I have already made. The bureau is quite aware of the challenge of the changed economic picture in Europe. The director of the bureau, Mr. Alan Field, proceeded to Europe last year on an extensive survey. He has made representations which will become the basis of an expanded operation in this field.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is any use made of the officers of other departments such as external affairs, immigration and so on?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Oh, yes. The trade commissioners operate in this area. The high commissioner for the United Kingdom has been a very active and enthusiastic supporter of tourist promotion. The closest possible coordination is maintained by the travel bureau with government branches such as external affairs, trade and commerce and so on operating in this field as well as with private travel agencies.


John Richard Garland: I have a few questions I should like to ask. I wonder whether I might call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
John Richard Garland: At six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the fact that I had a few questions I wished to direct to the minister. In so doing, I do not wish to repeat the arguments I put forward on April 21 when we examined these matters. However, it seems to me that the minister has left unanswered some of the questions I put to him at that time. I should like to point out that I am not pursuing these matters in any political sense but only in the hope that we can perhaps together focus public attention on this particular problem. I am referring specifically to the deficit in our travel account.
I would refer you, Mr. Chairman, to two figures in the Bank of Canada report which shows a steady worsening of this situation, from that in 1950 where we had a surplus in that travel account of some $49 million to that in 1960, ten years later, where we had a deficit of $215 million. As I say, this situation, of course, is worsening-as is proven- and it will be changed only by vigorous and imaginative action that recognizes the seriousness of this problem. Concerning the travel account between ourselves and the United States, there is a deficit of something of the order of $100 million. I hope to have something to say about that matter a little bit later.
Further in this regard may I say that I was disappointed to hear the minister's brief report on the action being taken to recognize the importance of the European tourist spending. From what the minister has said, the situation appears to be this. Last year they had a look at it; this year they are having a look at what they had a look at last year, and next year they may take some action. Thus three years are wasted when we could be taking some real advantage of the resurgence of the economy in Europe. I noted also

Supply-Northern Affairs that the minister referred particularly to some proposed action in the United Kingdom. I hope he can give us some more information about that matter and about what action is proposed to be taken on the continent itself.
The other day I mentioned the matter of the degree of spending by the Canadian government as compared with that of some other countries. I do not wish to repeat the things I said the other day, but tonight I should like to refer briefly to the matter and compare our situation with that of Mexico. In 1960 the Mexican government more than doubled their spending on tourist promotion. They boosted it to 24.4 million pesos from 10 million pesos in '59 and there was a further increase in the 1961 budget. They are spending approximately $2 million. When one takes off the administrative costs from the Mexican allotment and does the same thing with regard to the allotment here in Canada, we find that we are spending a similar amount. When we compare our national budget with the national budget of Mexico, we find that ours is roughly $6.5 billion while theirs is $1 billion. It can therefore be seen that the Mexican government are spending six and one half times the amount of money that we are spending in this country. I would also remind the committee that this money is being mostly directed at the United States market and with some effect. In 1960 United States tourist spending amounted to $200 million plus another $100 million at the border.
Another aspect of the matter is, of course, the encouragement of more Canadians to spend their vacations in Canada. As I pointed out the other day, if one in six Canadian tourists spent his vacation in Canada, this deficit would be wiped out.
I think a strong program is needed to bring this matter to the attention of our people and also a strong program directed at our great potential markets. I very seldom in this chamber recommend the spending of more money by the government, but I believe the need in this field is very obvious. The returns are very rewarding. I do not think we can afford to ignore this situation any longer.
I should like to hear specifically what the government plans are because, from the results being obtained, it is quite clear that the present activity is not good enough, as is proven by these facts. I should like to hear from the minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, in replying to the comments of the hon. member the other day I suggested he was far too pessimistic in his observations on trends in the tourist industry in Canada.
I pointed out that for the first time our tourist industry occupies the No. 2 position

in terms of earning export dollars. I think that in itself is a move in a positive direction. We have occupied the No. 3 position for a number of years now, and our present position indicates that we are moving in the desired direction.
The hon. member made some point of comparing the Canadian situation with the Mexican situation. I do not think the two are quite comparable. For example, the climate of Mexico is somewhat warmer for a longer period of time and the tourist has access to the Mexican tourist market for almost a 12-month period.
The hon. member also quoted figures pointing out the growing number of United States dollars which are spent in Mexico. I understand that a good proportion of this expenditure is in the border towns, where extensive gambling operations are carried on. We do not have a similar activity in Canada, and from that standpoint I do not think the two countries are comparable. I think the percentage of United States dollars earned from that activity is 65 per cent of the total.
The hon. member also made a point about the increased allotment of funds by the Mexican government in tourist promotion. There is a special explanation for this. I understand there is a $3 per head tax on all tourists entering Mexico and this is applied to the cost of tourist promotion. A large percentage of the sum the hon. member mentioned is derived from that source.
We are on the verge of what we may call an explosion in tourist population-we use this phrase generally about a population explosion-and I think within the next few years we will see this situation developing in the tourist industry in Canada. The trend is already in that direction.
The tourist bureau has up to the present time devoted most of its attention to cultivating the United States tourist, for a very obvious reason. Here is a large population with a high standard of living right at our own doorstep and we feel this is the most lucrative source from which to increase our tourist dollars.
I am very happy to inform the committee that since 1958 the trend that had been under way up to that point, of a deficiency in terms of the relative position of United States dollars spent in Canada and Canadian dollars spent in the United States, is moving in the right direction. The imbalance in 1958 was $104 million; in 1959 it was $97 million, and last year it was down to $79 million. I think this is a very encouraging trend and suggests that the activities of the tourist bureau are paying off at an accelerated rate.
I think I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons for the larger

expenditure of Canadian dollars in the United States market arises from the fact that Canadians have been in the habit of making visits to the United States for the specific purpose of going on a shopping spree. It has been a favourite Canadian pastime to take a week end or a week or so for the specific purpose of shopping in the United States. Canadians have been under the impression that goods in the United States are cheaper and perhaps more varied than they are in Canada.
My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has recently been making speeches on this subject encouraging Canadians to shop at home. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been pointing out that goods available here are equally as good and as cheap as those to be purchased in any part of the United States. I am sure the enthusiasm he is devoting to imparting this message will have its effect on the problem upon which the hon. member for Nipissing dwelt at some length tonight.
We must also take into account the fact that a good many elderly, retired Canadians go south in the winter and are actually in residence in the warmer climates of the southern states for months at a time. This involves a considerable outlay of Canadian dollars.
I appreciate the hon. member's desire to encourage tourism as quickly and as aggressively as possible. I assure him that this is precisely what we are doing. If the hon. member has followed the tourist promotional theme during the past few years he will have noticed that it is one of getting to know Canada better.
We feel we now have more effective representation in the United States; we feel this is having its effect. I understand we have been promoting the federal-provincial tourist conference for the past 15 years. This conference was first brought together for the purpose of getting closer collaboration between the provinces and the federal government in making a concerted assault on the United States' tourist market potential.
The province of Quebec, for example, has special attractions for United States tourists and I am happy to say that this province has one of the most effective tourist promotional campaigns. They have also pioneered in encouraging Canadians to spend their holidays in Canada and there has been a noticeable increase in visits by Canadians from the maritimes, Ontario and other parts of Canada to the province of Quebec.
I do not know whether there is anything else I can add to the points which have already been stressed, except to refer to the potential in the European market. Up to the present time this potential has not been specifically tapped or promoted by our tourist
Supply-Northern Affairs bureau. The trend in balance of payments here has been moving against Canada. Our citizens have been visiting the United Kingdom and Europe in larger numbers than the number of visitors to Canada from those two areas.
It is for this very reason that we feel the time has come for a direct assault on this market, especially in view of the increased prosperity in Europe and the United Kingdom and the tendency on the part of these people to travel more than they have in the past.
I appreciate the support the hon. member for Nipissing has given to this matter. I can assure him that I, as minister, and the officials of the tourist bureau are entirely in sympathy with the representations he has made. All in all I think we can say that tourism is moving in the right direction. The figure for expenditures in Canada last year was $417 million. That is the highest on record and all I can say is: as far as we are concerned, that and better will do.


John Richard Garland: In spite of all the fine things the minister has just said, and I do appreciate them, the fact does remain that the situation-the deficit on our travel account- is worsening each year. I can only hope that through all the people who are working in the tourist industry in this country this problem can be met.
I should like to ask the minister if there is anything new in reference to the proposed United States legislation to restrict the expenditure of American tourists in Canada. I know the hon. gentleman answered this question on a couple of earlier occasions, but I would point out that some time has elapsed since the matter was raised. I think the idea was first suggested by President Kennedy early in February. As to the last word I have, I would refer to a press report which appeared in the London Free Press of April 25. It reads:
Washington (CP)-President Kennedy's proposed reduction in the U.S. tariff-free tourist goods allowance to $100 from $500 was approved by the house ways and means committee yesterday.
That was on April 25. The report goes on to say:
But a committee spokesman said that Kennedy's request to maintain the reduction for four years was opposed by the committee, which will offer a new bill to the house of representatives today cutting the authority to two years until July 1, 1963. Kennedy wanted the authority until April 1, 1965.
I wonder if the minister has anything new to report on this subject and, if not, whether he would seize any opportunity which may present itself when President Kennedy, perhaps the outstanding tourist to visit Canada this year, is in our capital.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We had two United States tourists with us on Monday and Tuesday, the secretary of agriculture and the secretary for the interior, and I assure the hon. member that I seized the opportunity to discuss this matter with those two gentlemen and particularly with the secretary of the interior. They pointed out that this whole subject has to be approved by congress and that there is every possibility of amendments being made. I am certain I have acquainted them with the Canadian viewpoint on this important subject. '


John Richard Garland: In connection with this same matter I should like to point out the seriousness with which some of the businessmen in Canada who are connected with the tourist industry view this proposed change. I would remind the minister that when our Prime Minister visited Washington, on February 20 I think it was, he indicated, according to a Canadian press report emanating from Washington, that he had heard of no objection in Canada.
I wish to refer to only one of the news items I have here, although I have several. I should like to refer to a report which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of February 7 according to which Mr. James Hughes, executive vice president of the greater Vancouver tourist association called on the federal government to seek exemption for Canada if congress passes the scheme. Also concerned, according to the same report, was Mr. E. L. Harrison, president of the Vancouver board of trade. He foresaw a threat to the provincial economy and launched a fact finding study of the situation. Mr. Hughes is reported to have said that such a move by the United States would cut retail spending in British Columbia by a third and mean a loss of $5 million a year. Thus, without pursuing this matter further, I again express the hope that most earnest representations can be made in the appropriate quarter. Perhaps I may read one further excerpt from this report in the Vancouver Sun, a statement attributed to Mr. Hughes:
If Ottawa takes the position that this will have no effect on the Canadian economy it will be wishful thinking.
So I think there is ample proof of the feeling across the country that such a move would mean a great loss to Canada if it were ever implemented as originally announced back in February.
Before I sit down, may I ask whether the minister can report on the activities of the tourist bureau office in New York since its move from 49th Street to Canada House on Fifth Avenue?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have just obtained the information from one of the officials. He informs me that inquiries are up from 60,800 to some 70,900 since the move was made, which indicates that the situation has been considerably improved.


John Richard Garland: I thank the minister for that reply. Perhaps I am being partisan here, but it seems to me that the view advanced by the Liberals on earlier occasions-I am referring particularly to January, 1958, when we supported this move and when so many hon. members who are now sitting opposite rejected it in principle-has been justified by events. I am glad to hear the minister say the rewards have been encouraging, because it seems to me that this move from 49th Street to Fifth Avenue, which is really the show street, was certainly a good move. I am glad to hear the minister confirm the wisdom of making it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The tourist industry is an important and growing industry in Kootenay West and consequently a good number of my constituents are interested in the activities of the Canadian travel bureau.
Before raising a few questions I want to say that I check the United States papers and I check the Canadian papers and keep in fairly close touch with what the travel bureau is doing. I think it is doing an excellent job and I think its work has improved in recent years. No doubt that is the result of experience and of the recommendations of the committee on mines, forests and waters when the estimates of this bureau are discussed and members present their views and put forward suggestions.
Would the minister inform the house whether arrangements are being made for the establishment of an office in San Francisco? This question was originally brought up in 1959. At that time the minister informed the house and informed me personally that the government did not see fit to establish an office there because of budget requirements and things of that sort. I should like the minister to inform the committee whether any consideration is now being given to establishing an office in San Francisco. This is a very important location. I think one of our former cabinet ministers has been put out to pasture in San Francisco.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They do not all go to San
Francisco.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This one was rather more fortunate. I do not know whether that would be altogether sufficient, but I should like the minister to inform us whether consideration has been given to that suggestion. I have been

asked to raise these matters in the committee by the tourist resorts association in my district.
During the discussion of the estimates a year or so ago there was reference made to the animated advertisement sign in Times Square, which was reputed to be the first, as far as publicity was concerned on the part of the tourist bureau, in perhaps any country. At that time the minister took a very optimistic view and approach to this animated advertisement. I should like the minister to inform the committee if that sign is still operating, and if there has been any check made as to the result.
I have been asked to inquire, regarding my third point, by a number of tourist resort operators in my district, and the number is growing every year. This operation provides an excellent opportunity, for an individual with limited capital who is willing to work over a period of years, to build up a nice litle business. I have been asked to point out that these resort operators are of the opinion that the Kootenays are somewhat overlooked in the advertisements directed to the potential tourist market. In looking at a United States paper recently I found there was quite a spread given to the advertisement of the Okanagan. The Okanagan is a very good fruit growing district; it is a lovely valley, but is not as scenic as the Kootenays. The only mention of the Kootenays, which appeared in that United States paper, was a statement to the effect that an individual would also find much of that which is to be desired in the Kootenays.
Mr. Chairman, the Kootenays are the Switzerland of Canada. There exist there unparalleled fishing, hunting, boating and hundreds of lovely beaches. There are seven excellent hot springs which are developed, or partially developed, as well as a number of small ones which have not been developed to date. The existence of these things provides a mecca for tourists, and I should like to impress this upon the minister and his officials this evening, because I feel they do not realize the opportunities for enjoyment that exist in the Kootenays along the lines I have mentioned. As a result I urge that further consideration be given, in advertising, to this garden of Eden of Canada.
I should also like the minister, when he is replying, to give us some information in regard to the department's policy on advertising in Canadian and United States papers and periodicals. I should like to know whether this is done on a rotation basis advertising one part of Canada one month and another part the next and what type of periodical is employed for this purpose. I should also like to know what psychology is used in the
Supply-Northern Affairs writing of these advertisements and whether they are written by government travel bureau officials or by private advertising firms.
I should be very pleased if the minister will answer these questions, and can assure him, if he does so, that I will be quiet for the rest of the evening while these estimates are being considered.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies, I should like to call his attention, and the attention of his officials, to those glowing remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, and inform this committee that those remarks apply equally to every constituency in British Columbia. British Columbia is really a tourist's paradise.
I am very pleased to note that a former cabinet minister is now in San Francisco in order to promote tourist travel, but I would suggest that the minister will be able to find very competent civil servants to staff the office, and will not be able to find any more cabinet ministers in British Columbia who are looking for jobs. I suggest one is probably enough in San Francisco.
As I understand the situation, his department is not using the direct mail method of inducing United States tourists to visit resorts in British Columbia, as well as Alberta, Ontario, the maritimes and across Canada, but I would suggest this is perhaps another method which would be useful. I would suspect that, because of the minister's love for the north, and the development of access roads to the north, it will soon become an equally attractive tourist paradise, and I refer to areas such as the Cariboo in British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The opening of these areas will provide to tourists visiting these areas the attraction of adventure of a type which will not be found in the more settled parts to the south.
In view of the present balance of trade with the United States it would be very detrimental to the tourist industry if anything were done in the way of advertising which would restrict the flow of tourists from the United States. Trade in a tourist sense has been and is in favour of the United States, and I do not think this should be so. The tourist trade balance should be on Canada's credit side, and I hope the minister and his officials will work to that end.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has indicated, we are opening a tourist bureau in San Francisco which will be in operation early in July. The opening of this bureau represents a concerted attempt on the part of the department to cultivate the very lucrative western United States tourist market. I am
4688	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs sure one of the areas which will benefit most as a result of this promotional campaign will be that garden of Eden referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sure it will.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Some of our best national parks are located in mountainous areas, and we feel that with the bureau operating in San Francisco there will be a dramatic increase in the number of tourists flowing into Canada from this part of the United States.
As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South, one of our most attractive tourist regions is, in our opinion, the wilderness of the Canadian north. Because of its geographic location it is anticipated that the greatest portion of the increase in the number of tourists coming to Canada will come from that area served by the San Francisco bureau. In anticipation of this influx of tourists the national historic sites and monuments branch has been active. As I mentioned in the committee the other day, we hope to have the Klondike festival operating for the 1962 tourist season. This festival is a revival of the romance of the trail of '98 and will be located in the Grand Palace auditorium in Dawson City. All these projects are designed to create greater drawing power on the United States tourist potential.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has made some inquiry as to the impact of the animated sign in Times Square in the city of New York, but I am afraid it is impossible to draw any categorical conclusions concerning its effectiveness. All one can say is that it is directed toward millions of people every day, and its effectiveness is shown by the increase of 40 per cent in the number of inquiries made at the New York office since the sign went into operation.
I think perhaps the hon. member himself may be able to draw some conclusions on this score if he attends the showing of the new animated films which will be held in the railway committee room on the evening of May 23 during the recess between the afternoon and the evening sittings. We are extending an invitation to all members of the house to be present. We feel this is even a better effort than last year because the drawings have been done by the eminent Canadian animationist, Mr. McLaren, who has gained an international reputation in the field of animated cartoons.
The hon. member also asked some questions about the nature of our advertising program. Recently the Canadian government travel bureau initiated media studies of its own which gather statistical data on a scientific basis and which make it possible for them to determine which media have had


the most significant impact with regard to tourist promotion; but perhaps I can give a little general information on this score which might be helpful to the committee.
Over the past four years a conscientious effort has been made to improve the image of Canada to show it as not only a place for outdoor recreation, sports and sightseeing but a country with the second highest standard of living in the world with good resorts, hotels and restaurants. Particular emphasis is laid on festivals and events like the Stratford festival, the Vancouver festival, the Calgary stampede, the Canadian national exhibition, the Gaelic Mod and others. Increasing use is made of the more influential publications which have a high prestige value.
In 1961, the bureau plans to continue advertising designed to create a broader image of Canada to those citizens who have the means to travel and who live near enough to be logical tourist prospects for Canada.
The new major theme in our advertising in 1961 will be the trans-Canada highway, which has now reached the stage of near-completion, which will permit us to feature it as a major attraction for the 70 million people of the United States who are owners of automobiles.
The newspaper campaign in 1961 will use photographs rather than drawings, as was done in 1960. Larger advertisements of 1,000 lines will appear in major newspapers to attract attention by dominating the page. Plans are also under way to streamline the lists of newspapers to remove non-productive publications.
Just before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the special Atlantic provinces campaign. The special Atlantic provinces campaign was inaugurated in 1957 as a special economic measure to help the four Atlantic provinces, on the grounds that these provinces were more economically depressed than other provinces. Since that time the impact of the tourist industry in the maritime provinces has been moving onward and upward. Indeed, it was in that area of Canada that tourism first occupied the No. 2 position.


Mr. Badanai:: I was very much interested in hearing the minister speak about the tourist bureau functioning now in New York and the one to be opened in San Francisco. Have we any tourist bureaux in the middle west, in Chicago or Minneapolis? In this area there are 30 million potential tourists. To my mind one of the greatest attractions is northwestern Ontario. People travel from Minneapolis up to Duluth, Minnesota and on to Fort William and Port Arthur. To complete the southern tour of lake Superior there is a highway of

approximately 1,200 to 1,300 miles which circles the entire lake from the Sault, down through the lakehead to Minnesota, and Michigan. I wish to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of the most scenic highways in North America. The scenic splendour is unsurpassed even by the magnitude of the rocky mountain area of British Columbia mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the area mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Nothing can compare with the splendour of the lake Superior area.
Is the minister's department considering doing anything about some promotional work to attract United States tourists to northwestern Ontario and inveigling them to take the southern tour? It is one of the features of northwestern Ontario. As a matter of fact, it can be classed as one of the major tourist attractions in Ontario. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to some promotional work in the middle west of the United States to attract tourists into northwestern Ontario. This may not be a national project to the extent that it benefits largely the province of Ontario, but indirectly, it benefits the entire nation. I can assure the minister that the lakehead cities are well provided with facilities to take care of many tourists when they get them, but we do need additional promotional work. The cities themselves are doing considerable work along that line; they are spending money on their own. People in the business are also doing the same thing, but we do require the assistance of the government, and I urge the minister to give some serious consideration to this part of the province of Ontario which richly deserves assistance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can assure the hon. member for Fort William that our Chicago office is very active on behalf of this important section of Canada. Indeed, every summer the government of Ontario assists in promoting this particular scenic drive to which he has referred in such ecstatic terms here tonight by sending a representative to the dominion government travel bureau office in Chicago for the specific purpose of creating interest in tourism generally in the province of Ontario. Furthermore, our United States friends assist us in promoting the scenic drive because in their promotional literature directed to this particular market they emphasize a bit of the Canadian section of the scenic drive. All in all, I think a major effort is directed toward this part of Canada.
One of the most encouraging developments in past months is the response to our trans-Canada highway booklet which I believe has
Supply-Northern Affairs been placed in the hands of most hon. members. It was published just over a month ago and depicts the tourist attractions of all sections of the trans-Canada highway. Already there have been 98,000 individual requests for this booklet, and 70,000 copies have been distributed to automobile clubs across the United States. In fact, the first printing has been exhausted and we are now proceeding to a second printing.


Hubert Badanai: I just want to make another suggestion to the minister. I should like to invite him to take the southern tour. If he comes up to the lakehead I shall personally undertake to conduct him around lake Superior. I am sure that once he sees that beautiful scenic highway, the splendour of which tourists will view on a tour of this great highway, he will be sold on it and will feel well repaid for his trip.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say what is the anticipated annual cost to operate the bureau being opened in San Francisco?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We estimate that the total cost including necessary capital expenditure in the form of decorating, et cetera in order to prepare the office will be $60,000 for this year. That includes rental, staff and all other activities.


John Richard Garland: What is the anticipated annual operating cost?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It should be reduced to $45,000 once the initial expenditures are out of the way.


John Richard Garland: I am speaking from memory now but I believe that the decision was made in November last year to open this bureau. I recall it being announced at that time. Is there any particular reason why it has not been opened earlier to take advantage of the full tourist year?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The announcement was made first at the dominion-provincial tourist conference and at that time we had not even selected a suitable building in San Francisco. That was the first task. It was not done too easily because suitable accommodation is rather scarce in a city like San Francisco. We feel we have an ideal location. Once we obtained suitable quarters, plans have proceeded as quickly as possible to decorate and furnish them and to obtain the necessary staff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if no one else has anything to say on this item, I allowed a couple of questions to stand. I know there is a loan item but otherwise this is the last item of the minister's spending estimates and I was wondering whether he could give me the information I asked for.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is the item with regard to Inuvik?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were two, the number of acres of priorities and the number transformed into permits.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It was rather difficult to obtain figures on the anticipated spending for Inuvik but I think we have them as completely as possible in the short time that has been available. As of June 15, 1956, the first over-all estimate of the total cost for moving the items at Aklavik and, second, the cost of the new and enlarged installations at Inuvik, was as follows: Removal costs were $2,190,000 and new construction was $21,092,500, which gives a total of $23,282,527 or pretty close to the final figure. This, however, did not include the Department of National Defence establishments and the engineering fees. The actual cost including these other factors was $34,045,970. The additional costs amounting to $10.8 million were made up as follows: Department of National Defence base, $900,000; airport terminal, $849,682; laundry and freezers, $515,000; fire hall, $100,000; engineering fees, $92,000, which comes to a total of $2,456,682. The cost increases were due to the larger size of facilities and the increases in costs from the time of the original estimates, amounting in all to $8.3 million. I understand there are complete details on this subject in the proceedings of the committee on mines, forests and waters for 1958 but I hope that this brief survey provides the necessary information.
With reference to the priorities situation in the Arctic, I understand that prior to the coming into effect of the Canada oil and gas regulations on April 13, 1960, there were 142 million acres under priority. Following promulgation of the Canada oil and gas regulations 43J million acres were taken up under oil and gas exploration permits. The reason for the differential in the figures arises, of course, from the fact that the Canadian participation clauses meant that some of the Americans who had established priorities did not pick them up and convert them into exploratory permits. As the hon. member knows, the policy of the government is to protect Canada's heritage for Canadians, and I think this has been demonstrated in the figures I have revealed to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister very much. Those figures are precisely the ones I had in mind and I am very grateful to him for them. As I gave the minister an indulgence a moment ago perhaps he would grant me an indulgence for one minute. This afternoon the minister did challenge the Leader of the Opposition, when he did not have a document here, about the statement of the

Prime Minister with respect to jobs in the north. I have here the Ottawa Journal for February 13, 1958. I will not attempt to read the whole article. Five or six headings are given with respect to projects in the north. The article is headed, "Jobs for Thousands" and reads in part as follows:
The program would mean jobs for "hundreds of thousands of Canadians" ...


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If I may add a coda to that theme, the program to which the Prime Minister was referring was the total program embracing the national development policy which included the north but certainly embraced much more than the north.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To say the least, that is ambiguous, but the minister and I can argue about that privately. It does not appear from the article.


Mr. Denis:: What part of the amount under this item goes to the province of Quebec to assist in promoting the tourist business? What part of the amount of over $3 million would apply to the province of Quebec or does it go into a consolidated fund of some kind?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Each province has its own tourist promotion program. The vote indicated in item 307 is devoted exclusively to the cultivation of the American tourist potential and ancillary activities of that kind. There is no cost sharing basis between the provinces and the federal government. We come together every fall in an annual federal-provincial tourist conference and we try to co-ordinate our respective promotional programs to be most effective. This amount is an advertising sum that is earmarked primarily for the American market.


Azellus Denis: As the minister said before, Quebec is a very interesting province for tourist purposes. I have heard him talk about attracting American tourists to Canada. I suppose the minister has thought of using the French language in advertising or publicity to induce Americans to come not. only to Ontario which is a very nice province although I would hate to say it is a better province than Quebec.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We discussed this subject the other day on the first item. Certainly what we try to do in our trans-Canada highway booklet, for example-if hon. members have seen it-is this. We try to give a distinctive Quebec flavour to the section of the trans-Canada highway involved in the province of Quebec. But as I pointed out the other day, the literature as such is designed for the United States market which is primarily an English speaking market.


John Richard Garland: I was interested in the minister's remarks. In the course of the evening he has referred to the regional aspect of these programs. I should like to ask him toy whom and by what means these decisions are arrived at?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: When I use that word "regional" I am referring to the natural regional divisions in Canada, namely the mari-times, central Canada, the prairies and the western coast. We have pamphlets which deal with the prairie parks, for example, or the western parks, the maritime attractions, features that are peculiar to central Canada and also special features of the province of Quebec. The trans-Canada highway booklet is divided on a provincial basis. Each province is represented in this publication.


Azellus Denis: In order to take advantage of the trans-Canada highway advertising you must have a trans-Canada highway. As the minister knows, Quebec always refused to participate in the trans-Canada highway project until the last election; therefore if you spend your money only on advertising the trans-Canada highway, to date Quebec has had nothing in the way of advertising.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am just referring to one bulletin. We have many other bulletins. Perhaps just as attractive is our "Invitation to Canada" bulletin which exposes all the charms of la belle province.


Azellus Denis: Unfortunately, it was the wrong bulletin that you have been talking about.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 307 carry?


Mr. Macdonnell:: I wish to add a word to what the hon. member for Fort William has said about the lake Superior area. I spent some time there when I was a student on a survey party. I think that area tends to be regarded as a blank between the east and the west. I notice that it is serviced from Chicago. I understand the reason for that or at least I think I do. After all, that is where the customers are. I hope those who are servicing it really know what it is like. I cannot imagine that the Creator ever made a finer place for tourists. It does not seem to be made for many other things but for tourists it is ideal. There is practically a lake apiece for anyone who wants to go there.


Mr. Taylor:: I should like to add a word or two with regard to this item. First of all, I should like to say how pleased I was to find that this year we would be voting some $3 million in this item for the Canadian government travel bureau. That is a substantial increase over the vote for 196061. I should also like to draw the attention
Supply-Northern Affairs of the minister to the Century 21 exposition to be held next year in Seattle, Washington, when that city will play host to the nations of the world. It is my understanding that this will be the first exposition to be held in the United States for 23 years. As I mentioned, people will be coming to Seattle from all parts of the world. Seattle is just 150 miles from us in Vancouver.
I should like to feel that the officials of the minister's department would do everything possible to encourage the people who travel to Seattle to come up to Vancouver in order to see us there and to travel through the province of British Columbia. While that exhibition is in progress there I should like to feel that we could send some major units -for example, the searchlight tattoo-to Seattle, Washington, It could do a fine job in that area. Thousands of people saw the searchlight tattoo when it was put on in British Columbia. I should like to feel that the officials of the Canadian government travel bureau would make an effort to see whether this really fine Canadian product could be sent to Seattle in order to entertain world visitors there. Because of the value of the tourist trade to us in British Columbia, I should also like to feel that the minister might encourage the Prime Minister to be in Seattle, Washington, at the time of the exposition. I understand that an invitation has already been extended to him to be there.
I do not want to pass this particular subject without drawing to the attention of the minister the fact that some 45,000 visitors a day are expected m Seattle, Washington and that there will be more accommodations there than were developed for the Brussels world fair. This will give you some idea of the size of this exposition being staged in Seattle which is a city much like Vancouver, of equal size and in the same location in the Pacific northwest. I therefore hope that the officials of the Canadian government travel bureau will do everything possible to send Canadian shows or Canadian spectacles to the Seattle area because such action will certainly help us in every way possible. It may well be also that special billboards could be put up in Seattle encouraging tourists to come north. It may well be that we could have an animated sign much like the one the travel bureau have erected in Times Square in New York.
May I also say how pleased I am that the government has decided to open up a travel office in the city of San Francisco. I know that at the present time the civil service are trying to secure a person to supervise that
4692	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs office. I should like to urge upon the minister that, if at all possible, the officer who will supervise that office be a person from western Canada. Most of the tourists will be from the Los Angeles and San Francisco bay area. We should like that officer to have an intimate knowledge of everything in the western provinces of Canada. That office will serve us well. It may well be that in the near future, in order to have a slightly more elegant office, the Canadian government could join forces with the provincial government because they are also setting up offices in San Francisco at an early date.
I therefore make two suggestions. One is that we join with the province of British Columbia in having a more elaborate set-up in San Francisco. The second is that we have managing the office in San Francisco an officer who will be from western Canada. I saw the animated sign in Times Square. I thought it was a sound effort. It must be doing a good job. Many people have commented upon it. However, that sign is in, the east. I hope that we can have a similar sign in the Los Angeles area or in the San Francisco area because of the tremendous value to us of the tourist trade in that area.
When you open up the travel bureau office in the bay area, I think it would be a reasonable suggestion that you have many Canadian government officials in that area and also that you take with you a contingent of the R.C.M.P. They put on a colourful show in that area but it would indicate to everyone that Canada is doing something in that area. That is one added suggestion. You will be opening your office, I presume, in July. If we did open it at that time surely we could fly in or take in by some manner or means a unit of the R.C.M.P., with horses if necessary, and other things of Canadian content.


Mr. Drysdale:: Vancouver Lions.


John Russell Taylor: We could try that also. There is one other matter I should like to draw to the minister's attention. I dealt with it at length yesterday. I refer to the matter of winter tourism. I now have the official report of the engineers who reported to the Canadian Olympic Association. On page 29 of that report they say this-and this is an unbiased report:
The present exodus of skiers from the Vancouver lower mainland to the U.S. for week end and vacation skiing results in the outflow of perhaps $1 million annually which is not counterbalanced by any return visits to British Columbia since there are no facilities available to attract U.S. tourist dollars.
The report goes on to say:
Provided the development required to satisfy the local lower mainland demand were supplied, then it is believed that the international exchange


of tourist dollars would, at least, be balanced, and it might even be possible to achieve a net inflow of tourist dollars to the lower mainland area for skiing purposes.
The report points out that on a typical week end, Seymour, which is a ski area very close to us in Vancouver, receives 6,000 skiers, whereas Mount Baker, a United States resort about 90 miles south of us in Vancouver, receives some 4,000 skiers. It was that situation to which I referred yesterday and it it is my earnest hope that in the foreseeable future something will be done to rectify this situation.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What about Garibaldi?


John Russell Taylor: In all fairness I must say that the Canadian government has done a fair job in encouraging tourists to come to our area in the summertime. However, I hope much more encouragement can be given, coupled with the building of a proper resort in our area to encourage people in the northwest area of the United States to come to Canada and British Columbia for the winter tourist season.
I was pleased to find that a year ago, for the first time to my knowledge, the Canadian government travel bureau sent pamphlets to an international winter show. I refer in this case to Squaw Valley. Thousands upon thousands of pamphlets were distributed to people who came from all over the world to follow the winter sports events at Squaw Valley.
This was a very good thing and I hope that in the future Canada will have on the grounds of these international sports areas a suitable warming area, if it is in the winter time, which could be called the Canadian area or Canada House. I know that at Squaw Valley the French had a typical and appropriate building, as did Austria and some other countries. We did not plan well enough in advance to have such a building.
We now know that other countries construct this type of building and I hope that at Innsbruck, where the next international winter show will be held, we will have an appropriate warming area so that people who gather at the show can go there, see Canadian wares and pick up Canadian literature.
I also hope we will have a small Canadian pin of very inexpensive construction available at this show. These pins are found everywhere at these international events. I do not think pins of this type would cost more than a cent or two apiece. I am not talking of the type of pin which must be screwed on or affixed to your lapel with other expensive gadgets; I am talking about a pin of simple design, certainly with the maple leaf and the word "Canada" on it which can be pinned

on to one's lapel in some appropriate and simple way. This is so important at these international events and I hope the minister will at an early date get in touch with some *companies or Canadian research institute and have them design an appropriate pin which can be handed out.
I have another point which ties in with government promotion of the tourist industry. British Columbia needs direct air services to southern California to tap the rich source of tourist dollars there. We have no direct carriers into the California area at the present time. If we had carriers, they could fly directly from San Francisco into Vancouver and we could do a better job in bringing tourists into British Columbia.
I feel that we could solve some of our other tourist problems by instituting the type of system the United States government has provided at their ports of entry and airports. One can go through United States customs on the Canadian side and when you de-plane, for example in New York, there are no further delays in the host country.
If we had carriers flying directly into Canada we could open Canadian customs and immigration offices, say in Seattle, and when the traveller arrived in Vancouver there would be no further delay. Delays are encountered at the present time.
If the officials of the Canadian government travel bureau could encourage their counterparts in some of the other government departments which are concerned with this problem, perhaps progress could be made. I know that Mr. Field and his officials are doing the very best job they possibly can. I know that as a member of parliament I call his office from time to time and every courtesy is extended to me. I know he is keen to help hon. members and if there is a reasonably good suggestion he will try and go along with it and help.
Limitations are placed upon him, but I hope some of these problems to which I have referred can be solved and that progress can be made because of the great importance of the travel business to us in British Columbia.
I should like to refer for a moment to an article which appeared in Time magazine, March 3 issue. It says this about the United States:
Playing the genial host, the U.S. senate last week laid out a huge welcome mat for foreign tourists anxious to visit the U.S. Passed by the senate and sent to the house of representatives for almost certain approval was a bill establishing a United States travel service, whose function will be to persuade more foreigners to visit the U.S. Provided with an initial budget of $5 million, the national tourist office will open branch offices abroad, work with private business to simplify
Supply-Northern Affairs tour arrangements and hotel accommodations, entice potential visitors with a "Tour the U.S.A." program.
The article goes on to say this:
An important task of the tourist service will be to speed up visa and entry procedures. A major irritant for foreign travellers is the U.S.'s visa requirement, a practice that all but disappeared in western Europe.
The article continues:
U.S. consulates abroad have done much to simplify visa applications.. .The whole process usually takes less than 20 minutes.
It also deals with the way in which the United States air lines have assisted the United States travel bureau in promoting this "tour United States" program. I hope we can adopt a program of this type here in Canada and even improve on it.
I have often wondered just what the Swiss people would do if we vacated this country, and what the Swiss travel people would do when they realized that they had living next to them 180 million of the world's richest people, all of them infected with the travel bug. They have developed their resources in a very fine way. We have not done so, as I indicated to the minister in my humble way yesterday and, I hope, to some degree today. I hope we can show a much greater increase in our tourist trade both in the wintertime and in the summertime in the very near future.


Mr. Smiih (Calgary Souih):: In past years I have been somewhat critical of the travel bureau on this vote, but I should like to acknowledge what I consider to be a great improvement in the attempt made by the bureau to present the Canadian image abroad in its true perspective I have suggested in past years that the material they have produced has been designed by and large to show Canada as a vast wilderness. In fact, I was getting concerned that so many Americans crossing the border found it surprising that we had indoor plumbing. We were being pictured abroad as a country which could only contribute cold weather, mounted policemen and ducks. I think the bureau has made considerable progress with regard to the nature of the material it has produced, not only in its publication but in the media of newspapers and television which it uses.
I should like to emphasize in all seriousness the need for a further advance in terms of showing the tourist, not only from the United States but from all the other countries, that we have a great deal more than fast running water for excellent fishing, and excellent hunting. All these things we accept as a fact in Canada. I suggest, however, that in addition to these natural resources tourists expect facilities and accommodation at least

Supply-Northern Affairs as good as those offered by competing areas. We tend to lose sight of this. We have drawn attention to our outdoor attractions without giving a clear indication that this country has many metropolitan areas where visitors can enjoy good shopping and pursue many cultural interests. I think that if we were to move even further along these lines it would further the policy of the minister and of his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I offer, as a suggestion, the proposal that we should advance still further in this direction. However, I believe that this year the bureau has shown something more of Canadian life than just the outdoor atmosphere and outdoor activities. I am sure, also, that all concerned with the activities of the bureau are encouraged by the fact that in the past two or three years they have been receiving a great deal of support from provincial bodies. All of a sudden the people of Canada have become conscious of the importance of what the activities of the bureau means to Canada and of what tourism in general means to Canada, and I think the majority of these people at their conventions are agreed that we must present a more balanced approach calling attention to all the facilities which this country has to offer rather than emphasizing one particular facet.
I close, as I began, by congratulating the bureau on what I consider to be a definite improvement and by hoping that the emphasis will continue to be on a broader Canadian picture and a wider approach to Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Lafreniere:: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to add a few words to the remarks just made by the distinguished members who preceded me.
I know that in all parts of my province, there are marvellous sites, but I should like to single out in particular the enchanting sites to be found in the constituency of Que-bec-Montmoreney, which I represent here. We find there several places worth-while visiting but I should like to draw your attention in particular to the Montmorency falls. Nothing has been done until now by any authority to improve the approaches to the Montmorency falls in order to facilitate their access to tourists. I know that, at present, there is in my constituency an organization of businessmen and important people who are trying to develop that historical and delightful spot.
That is why I take this opportunity of expressing the wish that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) pay special attention to that part of the country of which we are rightly proud.


I do not want to discredit other provinces, but simply to say that we have in our province a special atmosphere, because tourists who come once, feel that they want to return frequently.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern Canada power commission-
486. Advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with subsection (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $242,000.
Jacques Flynn: Shall this item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I asked the minister if he would be prepared for a question. I shall not even ask it if the minister has his answer ready.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the hon. member wishes to have information concerning the Atlantic provinces power development program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Specifically, I wanted to know what had been spent since May 10 of last year.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have not the expenditure figure broken down in that way but I can give the hon. member the total expenditures up to March 9, 1961. For New Brunswick, for transmission facilities, the total expenditure has been $6,458 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is ever since the
scheme started?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. Coal subventions to the end of March of the present year amounted to $1,784 million. That is a total of $8,242 million. Other figures are: Nova Scotia, transmission facilities up to the end of March 30, 1961, $4,222 million; thermal plant up to the same date, $2,865 million; coal subventions to the end of March, $3,260 million, making a total of $10,347 million or a total expenditure of $18,589 million.
I can give the anticipated expenditures for the current fiscal year if the hon. gentleman wishes to have that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be interesting to have it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In New Brunswick the expenditure for transmission facilities will be $4,751 million; in Nova Scotia for transmission facilities, $1,253 milion; for the thermal plant, $.363 million, and for coal subvention, $1,700 million making a total of $8,067 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell us where the thermal plant is?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The expenditure regarding the thermal plant represents a continuation of the Trenton thermal plant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Trenton plant is the only plant covered by this program so far?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no plant in New Brunswick covered by this program?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, there is no plant in New Brunswick covered by it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under this program there is no expenditure for either of the other two Atlantic provinces?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, but we are negotiating an agreement with the province of Newfoundland at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister inform us as to the project in regard to which these negotiations are taking place?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In Newfoundland the project is a transmission project in connection with transmission facilities from Whitbourne to St. Marys bay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is perhaps aware of the offer which was made some time ago in connection with possible developments at bay d'Espoir. I take it that offer is still open if the company concerned is able to go ahead with the project?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, of course all these projects are arranged on the basis of negotiations, and if a project of that kind was involved in an offer, we should be quite happy to discuss it with the province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not attempting to put the minister on the spot or criticize him in any way, but perhaps the minister does not recall that his predecessor, or the Prime Minister, came into the house and made an offer publicly. It was dependent, of course, on the power development project taking place at bay d'Espoir, and I take it that offer has no terminable date, and when this power development is under way that offer will still be open.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps, in view of the hon. member's interest in this matter, I should quote the record on the subject. On February 19, 1959, the premier of Newfoundland wrote the Prime Minister asking under what terms the federal government would agree to aid in providing transmission facilities for the proposed bay d'Espoir development of Southern Newfoundland Development and Power Company. The initial development of the power site would have cost about $25 million and the ultimate development would have
Supply-Northern Affairs cost about $60 million. The total cost of transmission facilities ultimately would have cost about $10 million to $12 million.
The Prime Minister replied on May 2, 1959 to the premier of Newfoundland. He offered aid under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act substantially in the form of the agreement with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. However, because of a change in circumstances, the premier did not accept this offer, and that is where the matter stands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the real situation is that the project itself, because it is a very big project, would require customers for the power before it could possibly be undertaken, and has not reached the point where it can be proceeded with. What I wished to make sure was that when this was possible the offer would still apply.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, perhaps as a
final word on this matter I should repeat that if the project qualifies under the act it will be considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not really what I am asking. I am asking, if the project goes ahead, and since the offer was made under these terms, will the offer still stand?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I understand that under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act the province concerned has to enter into an agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Such an agreement would have to be worked out under the terms laid down by the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that.
There was another rather celebrated matter connected with electricity which the minister may or may not be briefed about, but which I recall very well. There was a letter written by the premier of Newfoundland to the Prime Minister on the day the Prime Minister visited Newfoundland in the year 1958. I see that the Solicitor General remembers this occasion very well. The Prime Minister made a reply to that letter at a public meeting, and subsequently replied in writing, to the premier, that the proposal contained therein would receive consideration and that a reply would be sent in due course. Up to the last time I made inquiries, no reply had been received. I wonder whether the minister would look at that correspondence to see whether something could be done.
This is a very simple matter. It amounted to a proposal that, since transmission lines in the sense in which they were built as intercommunicating systems in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, were not really relevant to any existing situation in Newfoundland, but distribution-by that I do not mean
4696	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs detailed distribution within a community- lines interconnecting communities involved a great problem in speeding up the electrification of Newfoundland, that in order to provide something which would meet the local situation there on a scale comparable with what was being done in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, should be undertaken. The minister is obviously anxious to make a name for himself, and there is no doubt that if the federal government could do something in this field there could be some speed up in the program for rural electrification, which has made very great strides in Newfoundland in the last ten years. What I am suggesting to the minister is that he should put this program in his active consideration file, and I use the word "active" in perhaps a little more dynamic sense than it sometimes has been used.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I have no personal knowledge of the episode to which the hon. member refers. However, on looking back at the history of this project, I know that, due to the office of the former cabinet minister from Newfoundland, the name of this act was changed from the maritimes power development act to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act in order that Newfoundland could be brought under its terms. I assure the hon. member that every portion of that act, which has been applied to the other maritime provinces, will have the same application to Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I am asking the minister not to do. I am asking the minister to adopt a policy to meet the different conditions. The premier of Newfoundland, at a meeting of the Atlantic provinces economic council about a year ago in Halifax, pointed out that one of the difficulties-he was criticizing the previous government-not the present one-was that many of us here in Ottawa tried to force local conditions to fit some formula that was devised by some very well meaning public servants and put forward by the government in Ottawa, and that a lot of these things, for historical reasons, fit Newfoundland rather less than they fit other provinces, simply because Newfoundland has had only a very short history as a part of Canada.
What I am really suggesting is, that the minister with his fresh eyes, his zeal and his capacity to take shorter views rather than longer visions, would look at the situation as it is in Newfoundland in an attempt to fit his formula to the facts rather than trying to force the facts into the formula, or just saying that it cannot be done.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. member's comments I shall put this suggestion into my "active" suggestion file.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if I understood him correctly to say that exclusive of this year's estimates, $6.4 million would be spent on the thermal plant at Trenton in my constituency, and if so, is the amount of $3.6 million in this year's estimates the final amount to be spent on this plant?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: According to the information I have, Mr. Chairman, the cost of the thermal plant, up to the end of March 30, 1961, was $2,865,000, and there is a further expenditure this year of $363,000.


Erik Nielsen: This gives the minister an opportunity to reply to my query concerning the establishment of a public utilities commission to govern the rates of Northern Canada Power Commission and other power suppliers in the Yukon.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe this is a subject that has been under discussion by the Yukon territorial council and any decision that is made in respect of this matter would be on the basis of the recommendation from the territorial council.


Erik Nielsen: I believe they have already suggested the establishment of such a commission. I am wondering whether it would be considered by the minister?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall have to put this subject in my active consideration file as well.


Frank Howard: One further question of the minister. Does he have a file labelled "sympathetic consideration"? If so, how full is it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
487. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $6,367,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this item carries, Mr. Chairman, I think I would just like to say, since this is the first time the minister has gone through this experience and since I do not, because it is not my custom to take up the time of the committee in doing this kind of thing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just wait until the hon. gentleman hears what I am going to say. Since I did not congratulate the minister on his appointment I must say that I cannot forbear to express very limited but very genuine congratulations on the good temper and the good humour with which he has endured our questioning for a rather long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, after such a gracious speech I can only heartily reciprocate my personal sentiments. Perhaps I will also conclude this very interesting and beneficial discussion by thanking the hon. members for their extended interest in the various activities of this department. It would seem that, to quote a reference made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard just a moment ago, they have seen our sign in the east and have come to worship it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make to the rules committee through you, sir, and that is that next year we bring in the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources before the address in reply to the speech from the throne and perhaps the two can be combined.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: This completes the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


[Stage Direction]
131. Departmental administration, $473,500.
Jacques Flynn: This item may be found on page 29 of the blue book and the details on page 206.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, during the current session of parliament several members-perhaps I should say all members-representing fishing constituencies have made reference to some of the fishery problems in their areas. In order that the committee may see the whole picture, I shall attempt briefly to review progress during 1960-61, and to indicate some of the outstanding features of these estimates for the fiscal year 1961-62.
The role of the department is essentially one of conservation and utilization of Canadian fishery resources in the broadest sense. This role embraces everything from fundamental research in the biology of marine life to the work of our test kitchen in helping consumers to get the greatest possible benefit and enjoyment from eating fish. The various services of the department all have a part to play in this co-ordinated effort.
The department, of course, does not catch fish or market fish. We are, however, keenly interested in and concerned with the economic health of the industry. This over the long run justifies our efforts. I shall therefore refer briefly to the results achieved by the industry in 1960 and to the prospects for the current year as we see them now.
90205-6-297
Supply-Fisheries
As is so frequently the case in fisheries, the year 1960 had its successes and its disappointments. It so happens that much of the disappointment was felt in the fisheries of British Columbia. Normally, the year begins with an active herring fishery for the meal and oil markets. In recent years, whaling has commenced early in the spring. Last year, world markets for fish meal were seriously depressed following a sharp expansion in production in Peru and other countries. As a result neither the herring fishery nor the whaling operations were able to proceed in British Columbia except on a much reduced scale. The salmon fishery, while not affected by any market weakness, experienced a low phase in the cycle of production in almost all species. Total landings of salmon at some 74 million pounds were only 70 per cent of the preceding year. The halibut fishery produced an increased yield of 8 per cent but lower unit prices resulted in a 6 per cent decline in value. The depressed prices for meal and oil persisted throughout the year and it was not until late November that the fishermen and processors were able to work out a basis for production. Thus over-all landings of herring fell from 444 million pounds in 1959 to only 186 million pounds in 1960.
At this point perhaps I should say a word about the fish meal situation. In addition to the herring meal production on the Pacific coast, we produce about an equal quantity of meal on the Atlantic coast as a by-product of filleting and canning operations. Canada's total production, however, is less than 5 per cent of world production and prices to our producers are determined by an international market. For that reason, FAO's move to convene a meeting of all interested countries to examine the problems that have emerged recently in the fish meal trade was welcomed by the government. The meeting took place in Rome last month and the department, along with trade and commerce and the fishing industry, was represented. It is considered to have been a successful meeting. Substantial progress was made in analysis of the demand for fish meal and similar products, in knowledge of the alternative uses of the raw material and in the organization of intelligence services for the trade. We are hopeful that these advances may introduce a degree of stability into the market for this commodity.
Returning to the general economic health of the fishery, I am happy to report that, aside from British Columbia, our fisheries enjoyed a generally satisfactory year in 1960. The lobster fishery of the Atlantic provinces was especially productive, with over 50 million pounds landed bringing $18 million to fishermen. Good catches and improved

Supply-Fisheries
prices to the producers of salted cod brought Newfoundland fishermen as a whole their highest level of income since the union of Newfoundland with Canada. Results in the inland fisheries were also generally satisfactory.
On the market side, one of the most promising features has been the renewed strength now evident in the markets for fresh and frozen fish both in Canada and the United ago has eased. Continued expansion is evident in consumer demand, particularly for cooked and prepared fish products. The wide and attractive display of these items now in evidence in chain stores is a reflection of the rapidly improving presentation of fishery products in sales outlets. As I have indicated, prices received by fishermen for salted fish were exceptionally good during 1960. This was largely the result of low European production in 1959. Production was slightly higher in 1960 and some uncertainty now surrounds the market, in Cuba particularly. An excessive year-end carryover in the 1961 season and a consequent depression of prices are a distinct possibility. A near normal production of canned salmon in 1961 should find a ready demand both at home and in foreign markets.
In the field of research, I referred last year to the good work of the research vessel A. T. Cameron in Atlantic waters. We are now proceeding with the construction of a similar 177-foot research vessel for offshore work in the Pacific. Construction of this vessel should be completed during 1962. In addition, we are extending the facilities of the fisheries research board at Nanaimo in British Columbia, at Ellerslie in Prince Edward Island and at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia. All these new facilities will provide for more intensive work from these centres. Of particular interest in the field of exploratory fishing is the work being carried on off the Mackenzie delta in the western Arctic. Here substantial bodies of groundfish have been discovered which may have at least local commercial significance. In Hudson bay survey work off the Belcher islands has indicated that there are some Arctic char in waters hitherto considered barren.
Across the country important research projects are going forward as a basis for expansion and development of our fisheries. Some examples are the salmon behaviour studies in the open waters of the Pacific, further studies of lamprey destruction and trout rehabilitation in the great lakes, the important groundfish studies on the Atlantic banks as well as shellfish exploration and study on both coasts. Similarly, technological

research is going forward in all areas designed to improve existing fisheries and to develop new ones. In oceanography we are continuing to co-operate with other departments and agencies but with special emphasis on those factors affecting the productivity of the ocean as far as fisheries are concerned. To apply the results of scientific research is the expanding activity of the department's industrial development service. I think this is something that is of particular importance because if new knowledge gained is not applied it has limited usefulness. This service is concerned primarily with the application of new developments to fish catching and to the processing of fishery products. The service has a wide range of projects under way in all provinces. It works very closely with provincial departments of fisheries and industrial development. Working arrangements have been established with practically all provincial governments. During 1960-61 this cooperative approach was extended to Ontario and the three prairie provinces. In British Columbia projects are going forward in cooperation with the fishing industry with particular emphasis on the possibilities of developing an offshore tuna fishery and further development of the shellfish industry.
I cannot take time now to list all these projects which range from the introduction, together with the province of Nova Scotia, of plastic vessel construction to studies and recommendations for improved road transport of refrigerated fishery products. Another most important feature of the work of this service is the training courses which have been arranged for fishermen in Newfoundland, the maritime provinces, Quebec and Ontario. These courses cover a range of subjects with particular emphasis on the use of new types of fishing gear. By that I mean types of gear that may not actually be new but are new to a particular area for a particular use.
The conservation and development service of the department takes responsibility for the operation of fish hatcheries and related work in the field of fish culture. It is responsible for the biological and engineering aspects of stream clearance. It includes our efforts to combat pollution and other industrial developments which interfere with the life and growth of fish in our lakes and streams. This service of the department is also responsible for administration of regulations necessary to limit and control commercial fishery operations. A major current activity has been the expansion and strengthening of our fleet of patrol vessels. Construction has already commenced on a large 179-foot patrol vessel for Newfoundland waters and additional smaller vessels are under construction for both maritime and British Columbia

waters. I might add that the name that has been decided on for the new patrol vessel for Newfoundland is Cape Freels. Its construction has been held up a bit as the shipyard where it is being built is now on strike.
One of the highlights of 1960 was the completion and inauguration of the Robertson creek spawning channel on Vancouver island. Construction of this large scale spawning area where gravel conditions and water flow can be kept under constant control is expected to make a real contribution particularly to the production of pink salmon in this area. During the current year we will be proceeding with a somewhat similar major construction program on the Big Qualicum river, also on Vancouver island. Here control of the water flow and improvement of the spawning channel will expand the populations of pink, chum, cohoe and spring salmon. Also in British Columbia we have opened an experimental hatchery on the Nanika river designed to rehabilitate the runs of sockeye in the southern branch of the Skeena river.
In Newfoundland we have continued the transfer of salmon from Great Rattling brook to Little Rattling brook. A new fishway has been installed on the Lomond river and a survey of lakes has been made to determine fish populations and to check on industrial developments which may affect the fishery.
The transfer of disease resistant oysters from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has been completed with reasonably satisfactory results. The department's program of oyster seed collection in Prince Edward Island continues to show good results and gives promise of a sound commercial venture. Those responsible for lobster protection are gratified that the policy of careful protection coupled with education among fishermen is paying off through increased weight of catches.
The department is co-operating with the new Department of Forestry in joint efforts to minimize the adverse effects of d.d.t. spraying of forests where that is necessary. The use of half-strength spray in 1960 gave very encouraging results.
In the Northwest Territories arrangements have been made to open up many of the small lakes to commercial fishing on a group basis from year to year. Because of the slow growth in these lakes, they cannot withstand continuous fishing but through a rotation system it is believed an economic operation will be possible.
Last year I emphasized the work being done by the inspection service in certifying fish plants under Canadian government specifications board. During the past year, an additional 10 plants met the standard and now 41 plants have been certified. It is now 90205-6-297J
Supply-Fisheries
believed that at least 75 per cent of processed fish is being produced in accordance with this program. A number of additional plants are now making the necessary capital expenditures to meet the required specifications.
Market comments reaching the department indicate a very satisfactory level of quality both in the domestic and export markets but our goal is for still higher standards. It is obvious that if standards can be made even higher, the consumer acceptance of and desire for fish will become even greater as people recognize fish as an excellent source of food protein which is relatively economic to buy. Two new large mobile laboratories, one to service the Gaspe region and a second to be based at Winnipeg, have been acquired. As these mobile laboratories move throughout their respective areas "open house" educational programs are carried on. In addition, special courses have been put on in co-operation with provincial governments. In the current year we will be proceeding with construction of a new inspection laboratory at Halifax replacing and extending the present inadequate facilities in that area.
Courses are being arranged for fish cannery foremen in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and similar courses will be held in St. John's, Newfoundland and Halifax, Nova Scotia for the foremen of fish processing plants. We believe these training courses are particularly valuable and we welcome requests for them from the fish processing industry.
The department through its information service and its home economics section carries on a continuing campaign to create a greater awareness of the excellent dishes that can be made from fishery products. Every month consumer releases are forwarded to newspapers and magazines and radio and television stations. Much of the material sent out is being widely used by the Canadian daily and weekly press and other media.
Last year I referred to "The Canadian Fish Cookbook" issued by the department's information service. I am happy to report that this publication sold very well and that an additional 10,000 copies in English and 5,000 copies in French have now become available for further sales.
In the 1961-62 estimates provision is made for the production of posters and a filmstrip on Atlantic salmon. These will be used to carry the message of conservation to both anglers and commercial Atlantic salmon fishermen and the general public.
In Newfoundland the serious problem of inadequate bait supplies was relieved in 1960 by a sharp increase in the availability of squid. At the same time, improved facilities

Supply-Fisheries
have been made available to the Newfoundland bait service. I have referred on previous occasions to the bait holding units which have been introduced to supplement the original supply depots. We now have 20 of these additional units and further additional units are being provided. The estimates for this year make provision for eight additional units to be added in this fiscal year. Provision is also sought to cover plans and designs of a large refrigerated vessel to replace the M.V. Arctica which is now 42 years old.
The program of constructing community stages in Newfoundland is virtually completed. The twentieth one will be constructed in Labrador during this year. I might add that discussions are under way with the government of Newfoundland with the end in view of continuing this program- of course, at a slower speed but nevertheless continuing it

into the future.
Canada, as hon. members know, is signatory to seven international fisheries conventions. Three of them are in partnership with the United States. I refer to the international Pacific halibut fisheries convention, the international Pacific salmon fisheries convention and the great lakes fisheries convention. Several countries join with us in each of the others as well as the United States.
These international fisheries agreements are of significant importance to Canada, of course. They include continuing obligations, in Canada's fisheries interest, which have been assumed by the government. In all of these conventions provision has been made for the establishment of commissions composed of representatives from each of the signatory countries. The implementation of the conventions, in so far as Canada is concerned, comes under the authority and is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. The government is directly represented on all the commissions by senior officials of the Department of Fisheries. All Canadian commissioners are appointed by order in council.
It was decided by the government and other governments that are parties to the conventions, particularly the more recent conventions, that the scientific investigations recommended by the commissions under coordinated programs and accepted by the governments were to be undertaken by the national agencies of the countries involved. This provision permits each country to retain its identity in the field of the investigations which it undertakes. There is no question that the scientific investigations conducted by the Department of Fisheries research agency, the fisheries research board, represent advances in scientific knowledge which would not have been gained otherwise. >
*Mr. MacLean (Queens).]
The Canadian fishing industry is heavily dependent on the sea fisheries from which comes the bulk of the Canadian production. Because of the international character of some of the most important fisheries adjacent to our coasts it is imperative that the Canadian government have scientific knowledge on which to propose any necessary conservation measures. This knowledge must be supplied by its own research facilities.
I think it is well to bear in mind the fact that, for many years, Canada has played a leading role in the development of international co-operation in fisheries matters. It is true, of course, that Canada has a direct major interest in these conventions for its own purposes, but there is also the equally important fact that the government of Canada has taken the firm position that in all fields of international relations it is only by co-operation, understanding and mutual respect that problems can be resolved and solutions found for the benefit of all nations.
I hope that the general comments I have just made, Mr. Chairman, will serve the purpose of indicating the scope of the activities of the department. We will continue, of course, to work with other departments, with provincial governments and with all branches of the industry towards an expanding and prosperous fishing industry in the years ahead.


Mr. Robichaud:: Supp ly-Fisheries
of agreement under which it could limit its assistance to the same amount so that Newfoundland would be allowed its share, Nova Scotia so much, New Brunswick so much, Prince Edward Island so much and Quebec so much. The subsidy could be increased from $165 to $300 per gross ton without increasing by one penny the cost to the federal treasury while at the same time reaching the objective for which this program was introduced in 1946.
I well recall, during the campaign of 195758, when the Prime Minister, addressing large gatherings in certain fishing areas of the Atlantic provinces, offered fishermen a fixed minimum price for their fish. This statement was made in no uncertain terms, particularly in the town of Yarmouth on March 25, 1958. The Prime Minister insisted, on that occasion, on the need for fish price supports similar to those provided for farm products, and further stated that his government would relate prices to fishermens' costs of operations. No action has been taken in this field whatever.
In the present estimates there is an increase of $3,000 for the operation or administration of the Fisheries Prices Support Act. To my mind this $3,000 is probably included to pay the increases in salaries to the staff of the fisheries prices support board and for no other reason.
This board, which has been in operation since 1957, was instituted to support prices of fisheries products, and has the power to purchase any fisheries product at a prescribed price, or to make deficiency payments to producers of fisheries products equal to the difference between the prescribed price and the alleged price at which a certain product was sold during a specified period. It is the duty of that board to maintain a fair relationship between the returns from fisheries products, and those from products of other industries.
The accomplishments of this particular board in the last five or six years have been just about negligible. I realize that in the last 10 or 12 years the Canadian government has introduced a number of assistance programs for the fishing industry, particularly since the post-war period, and I wish to outline some of these programs to show what they cost the Canadian fishermen at the present time.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member tell the committee what his party's policy is in regard to floor prices for fisheries products?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The policy of the Liberal party regarding floor prices for fisheries products was made known in 1947 when the act was instituted, and has been used during certain periods since then to protect certain types of fisheries products. The fact is that in 1957-58 the Prime Minister exposed the policy of his party, which was that his government was prepared to submit a new prices support program for fisheries and, as I said before, we are still waiting for the application of this program.


Azellus Denis: Do not wait for nothing.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I intended to outline some of the measures which are included in the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. Such programs include assistance in the construction of draggers and long-liners on the Atlantic coast; the Newfoundland bait service operations; assistance in the construction of bait freezing facilities; certain minor assistance through the agency of the fisheries prices support board; assistance program to producers of dried salted fish; fishermen's indemnity fund providing fishing vessels insurance; a small bounty for the destruction of harbour and grey seals and for the destruction of certain predators. The list also provides some indirect assistance in educational work in producing and selling among fishermen. This appears to be quite a long list but the total cost of such assistance during any of the last fiscal years amounted to approximately $1,750,000 per year.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is
it the wish of the committee that the hon. member carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to thank hon. members for allowing me to carry on. As I said, the total cost of such assistance during any of the last few fiscal years amounted to approximately $1,750,000 per year. This cannot be considered at all exhorbitant for an industry which provides a livelihood for 60,000 to 75,000 primary producers and employment for another 100,000 employees engaged in the preparation of fish for market.
I am not against certain emergency measures which have to be taken care of by the federal treasury such as the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, for example, which will cost the treasury $11,800,000 during the coming fiscal year, and the subsidy

on the movement of coal amounting to $13,244,000; compensation for slaughtered animals amounting to $2,220,000, which is $750,000 more than all of the measures now in existence to assist the fishermen.
The time seems to have come for practical and definite action on the part of the De-parment of Fisheries for the benefit and the expansion of the industry. As was brought out at the fisheries council meeting held in Toronto a few weeks ago, prospects of the fishing industry in the immediate future are not too bright. When one realizes that the Canadian consumption of fish which had reached 13.7 pounds per capita in 1950 was down to 13.2 pounds in 1957, one must admit that something drastic should be done to increase the consumption of fish on the domestic market.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member repeat the figures he just gave.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I said that in 1950 the consumption of fish in Canada amounted to 13.7 pounds per capita. In 1957, seven years later, it was down to 13.2 pounds per capita.
It is most unfortunate that such an important industry, an industry which is so vital to our general economy, and particularly to the economy of the Atlantic provinces, must depend on the export market for the sale of over 80 per cent of its production. It is understandable that an organization like the fisheries council, which has spent $184,000 since 1953 in trying to promote the consumption of fish, particularly in our domestic market, is now reluctant to further support and assist such a promotion program. The efforts of the fisheries council of the past seven years must not be wasted, and the federal government should come to the assistance of the council in no uncertain way to promote and develop the consumption of fish in our domestic market.
The activities of the department in this particular field, in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Commerce, should not be limited to domestic consumption but should be diverted, and in no uncertain way, to the advertising of our Canadian fisheries products abroad.
The department should pay particular attention to the present situation of our salt fish market, which is going through a very critical time. The present position of our salt fish stocks in the Atlantic provinces could seriously affect the returns of our fishermen at the opening of the present fishing season.
Another important factor which should concern the federal government and which is strongly recommended by the fisheries council is the recognition of the same rights of Canadian fishermen as those enjoyed by foreign 90205-6-298
Supply-Fisheries
fishermen operating in eastern Canadian waters. The bill which was introduced in the house on May 2 does take care of the situation to a certain extent, but I suggest also that consideration should be given to protecting not only the fishermen operating the larger trawlers but also the owners of small vessels operating in what is commonly known as inshore water. I have in mind definite regulations which might be applied, not just on paper as they are often applied at the present time, prohibiting the operation of certain trawlers in certain portions of waters which should be limited to inshore fishermen. The minister is vested with all the authority required to apply such a regulation by section 7 of the otter trawler fishing regulations established by order in council on May 6, 1951.
Such regulations, for example, have been made to apply to operations of certain sizes of trawlers or draggers of limited length in certain portions of the Baie de Chaleur. Unfortunately, these regulations are being enforced by the department as they should be and consequently a number of fishermen on certain sections of the Baie de Chaleur operating small fishing boats are being interfered with by larger draggers from New Brunswick and the Quebec side of the bay. I urge the minister to take proper steps to have his officials enforce the existing regulations and, if need be, amend them in order to protect the inshore fishermen of that particular area of the bay.
In introducing his estimates on June 29 of last year, the minister referred to limited advertising on the part of his department which had met with very good consumer response, and he referred again tonight to this advertising program. I realize that in this instance he was making particular reference to the "Canada inspected" or "Canada approved" program which began on April 1, 1959, and which has been expanding ever since. I know we are all pleased to hear that the number of plants that have qualified under this program has increased from 10 to 40 in the last fiscal year. There is no doubt that the consumers of first quality products, as well as the fishing industry, cannot help but benefit from the sale of a product which bears the inscription "Canada inspected", or "Processed under government supervision". The work of the department in this field of action must be activated and its inspection personnel must be given the opportunity to qualify themselves for this very complicated and delicate job.
This does not mean, however, that the department must limit itself to the limited advertising of fishery products. The consumer service of the department must be

Supply-Fisheries
expanded in such a way as to show results which will aim at increased fish consumption in our domestic market. There is ample room for improvement in this field of advertising and I urge the minister to take meas-sures to improve and expand his department's participation in his general consumer advertising so that the consumption of fish may increase.


Ernest James Broome: Will the hon. member permit a question. How does he reconcile his recommendation to increase expenditures with the criticism he made at the beginning of his speech when he criticized increases in expenditures?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: At no time have I criticized increased expenditures by the department. I said that I welcomed increased expenditures provided results were achieved, provided there was an increase in catch and an increase in revenue for our fishermen, and provided we could show an increase in the marketing of our fish.
For the last two years, Mr. Chairman, we have had in my home town of Caraquet a fisheries school. A few weeks ago I attended the closing of a class of 30 fishermen and sons of fishermen who had completed their second year of a course in fisheries. The interest has been of such a wide magnitude that the facilities provided by the Caraquet school board are now inadequate and the need has been established for a new building which could provide the necessary classrooms and other facilities for the first school of its kind in the Atlantic provinces.
In fact, the government of the province of New Brunswick announced a few weeks ago its decision to proceed in co-operation with the federal government with the construction of this new school under the technical and vocational training assistance program. I wish to express at this time my full appreciation for the application of this vocational training program which, according to the Minister of Labour's own words, will include all training of all sorts and types below the university level.
I would express the hope that the new school when in operation will receive better co-operation from the Department of Fisheries than has been extended so far to the present school in its first two years of existence. The department has failed to give the present school the technical assistance which it was in a position to offer. It has reluctantly agreed, and this after all kinds of reservations and hesitation, to allow some members of its staff to take part in the kind of instruction which was required to provide the students with adequate information relating to the handling and preparation of fish.

I will admit that such educational work does not come within the immediate duties of departmental officials. I will also admit that the department and particularly the fisheries research board have provided some services which have been appreciated by the director of the school, the teaching staff and students alike. But it would have been much more profitable to all concerned if less hesitation and better understanding had existed on the part of the department, thus showing its full willingness to co-operate in the success of a new venture which had as its immediate goal the success and development of our fishing industry.
I would urge the minister to consider the possibility of increasing in next year's estimates the item covering educational work in fisheries techniques and co-operative producing and selling among fishermen. The present school of fisheries at Caraquet and particularly the new school which should open its doors in 1962 or early 1963 will be directly concerned with educational work in fisheries' techniques. I note with interest that in this year's estimates this item shows an additional $25,000 grant to Memorial university in St. John's, Newfoundland. I welcome this grant which will contribute to the further development of fisheries' knowledge or research in an area where fishing is of such vital importance. I hope the minister will keep in mind similar assistance measures for the new fisheries school which will be established in Caraquet next year.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in the three or four minutes at my disposal before the adjournment hour perhaps I should say first of all that we certainly appreciated the extent to which the minister went when introducing his estimates in outlining the activities of the department and of the various fisheries during the past year. I am sure the committee was also extremely interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester. What the minister and the hon. member for Gloucester have said will be of invaluable assistance to the committee in considering the various items in the estimates of the department. There may be disagreement on the interpretation of various statistics that have been introduced but nevertheless I am sure what they have said will be of great benefit to us.
Generally speaking, I find that the fishermen have a high degree of admiration for the activities of the Department of Fisheries. They may complain on occasion about specific phases of its operations but generally I think they have this feeling and in my view it is well justified. With regard to the minister's reference to increases respecting the fisheries

research board, these are most welcome, of course, because we feel that in the activities of the board we may find the solution to many of the problems confronting the various fisheries in Canada.
I should also like to pay my respects publicly to Dr. Kask and his staff of the research board for the outstanding work they have done with the somewhat limited resources at their disposal. Dr. Kask lived for a long period of time on the Queen Charlotte islands in the constituency I represent. He was well thought of and well liked while he was there and I am quite sure that those same feelings still exist and will continue to exist wherever he happens to be. I wonder whether I might call it ten thirty.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and Saturday, and perhaps he might give some indication of what it will be next week? I hesitate to stop the hon. gentleman from rising but may I say it has been the practice on Thursday to give some indication of the business for the following week.
Business of the House


Mr. Nowlan:: I am very happy to rise following a question from the opposition on this matter. Tomorrow we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and following that we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Transport. On Monday and Tuesday we will be dealing with legislation. Frankly I am not in a position at the moment to detail the legislation with which we will be dealing. I had thought that my colleague, the house leader, would be back tonight and I was leaving that problem to him. I had a wire from him late today saying he would not be back until some time later. I will announce to the house tomorrow night, and notify the hon. gentleman earlier if I am in a position so to do, what the legislation will be on Monday and Tuesday and perhaps on Wednesday of next week.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the wire my hon. friend has received, could he not send one to his colleague and ask him what the business will be for next week?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think my colleague will have to depend on my judgment and that of my colleagues here rather than his own with respect to that matter.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
90205-6-298J

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	surplus manpower areas-refusal



OF DESIGNATION

[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. Dupuis: Does Albert Vilandre, who occupies building 124 at R.C.A.F. base St. Jean, where he deals in soft drinks, ice cream, cigarettes, etc., also carry on the trade of the following items: watches and jewellery of all kinds, washing machines, frigi-daires, bicycles, record players, and furniture?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):
Mr. Albert Vilandre does not carry on trade in these items on station property.

Question No. 214-Mr. Argue:
1.	Have any municipalities requested classification as surplus manpower areas, and been refused designation as such?
2.	If so: (a) what are the names of each? (b) on what date did each make application? (c) for what reasons was each refused, and on what date?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) St. Jerome, Quebec.
(b)	Application from St. Jerome was dated March 16, 1961.
(c)	In a letter dated May 4, 1961, the municipal authorities were informed that St. Jerome did not qualify as a surplus manpower area or locality because it did not meet the criteria announced by the Minister of Labour on March 2, 1961.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
290.	Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $823,390.
Water resources branch-
291.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of lake of the Woods and lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $1,754,455.
292.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $201,950.
293.	Studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $47,310.
294.	Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Fraser river board, $322,500.
295.	Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $1,950,000.
296.	Nelson-Saskatchewan basin study-expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $204,000.
Northern administration branch-
297.	Branch administration including authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $1,133,935.
Education division-
298.	Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $5,309,805.
299. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $2,112,200.
Welfare and industrial divisions-
300.	Administration, operation and maintenance. $1,977,426.
301. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $555,050.
Supply-Items Passed Yukon Territory-
302.	Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,518,775.
303. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,342,400.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
304.	Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the government of the Northwest Territories, $6,332,049.
305. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as the governor in council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $9,261,140.
National museum of Canada-
306.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $855,972.
Canadian government travel bureau-
307.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $3,019,963.
Northern administration branch-
483.	To increase to $250,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the Eskimo loan fund, established by vote 546, Appropriation Act no. 3, 1953; additional amount required, $100,000.
484.	To authorize loans in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, not exceeding in the aggregate $145,300, to the government of the Yukon Territory to enable that government to purchase land at a cost of $17,800 and to loan to the city of Whitehorse an amount of $127,500 to enable the city to build roads and construct water and sewer systems in a new subdivision, $145,300.
485.	To authorize loans in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, not exceeding in the aggregate $75,000, to the government of the Yukon Territory for the development of low rental accommodation, and to authorize the commissioner in council to make ordinances for the borrowing and lending of such money by the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or by a housing authority established by an ordinance of the commissioner in council on behalf of the territory and for the repayment thereof out of the Yukon consolidated revenue fund, $75,000.
Northern Canada power commission-
486.	Advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with subsection (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $242,000.
487.	Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $6,367,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 12, 1961