1962-03-12

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it had been the hope of the government, in view of Canada's important international commitments in Indochina and the extremely delicate situation prevailing there at this time, that the allegations regarding smuggling activities by certain Canadians serving on the international control commissions there would not be made the subject of public debate. Meantime with regard to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and also by the Minister of National Defence matters that are under investigation are under ordinary circumstances not subject to discussion in parliament, and it has been regarded as a matter of public policy that they ought not to be. However, an hon. member of this house who is not present at the moment, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), has chosen not to accept the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the house and has made certain statements outside this house which are inaccurate. For that reason it becomes necessary in the national interest to set the record straight.
Late last year it was discovered that some of the military members of the Canadian delegation to the international supervisory commissions in Indo-China were engaged in smuggling activities within Indo-China. Immediate investigations by the military authorities in Indo-China indicated that one commissioned officer and one non-commissioned officer had engaged in gold smuggling, and five other ranks appeared to have engaged in either the smuggling of gold or opium. All of those involved who were still in Indo-China were recalled to Canada. Disciplinary action was taken in Indo-China against a number of these military personnel before their return to Canada. Investigations of the others are still continuing.
At first it was believed that only military members were involved, but subsequently it was learned that two members of the clerical staff of the Department of External Affairs serving in Indo-China had also been engaged
in smuggling. Administrative action to prevent a recurrence was taken immediately by the Department of External Affairs and by the Department of National Defence. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were apprised of this situation and were requested to take charge of the investigation in so far as it affected the civilian members of the Department of External Affairs. The two members of the Department of External Affairs engaged in these improper activities were returned to Canada and have been interviewed by the R.C.M.P. They have signed statements admitting that they acted together in smuggling a quantity of gold and a parcel of opium, on behalf of a Chinese person, from one city to another in Indo-China. Both men have been suspended from the public service of Canada with a view to subsequent dismissal.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has referred to ugly rumours and speculation in the press. Three rumours that caused the house most concern appear to have originated in what the hon. gentleman is reported to have said. Reports have appeared in the press that the persons concerned received large sums of money as a result of engaging in these activities. Certain of those concerned did receive sums of money in local currency, but the reports concerning the amounts have been very greatly exaggerated.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is quoted in the March 9 edition of the Ottawa Citizen as saying:
Viet Nam has been a major source of supply for narcotics coming into Canada.
There is no evidence whatever, Mr. Speaker, that narcotics have been smuggled into Canada by Canadians serving on the three truce commissions in Indo-China. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has linked this affair with what he describes as "mass arrests in British Columbia by Royal Canadian Mounted Police a few months ago." Again I must say that on the information I have- and I have personally looked into the matter in detail-that statement is completely mistaken. There has been nothing to indicate or suggest that this matter is in any way related to the arrests in British Columbia to which the hon. member referred. The drug involved in the matter which is before the house is opium, which the enforcement officers advise is rarely if ever handled by illegal narcotics dealers in Canada.

External Affairs
The statement I have made represents the results of an investigation made not only by the department of defence in respect of those who belong to the armed forces, but as well by the Department of External Affairs and the R.C.M.P. with respect to the civilian employees. If the hon. member, or any hon. member, is in possession of any information bearing on this case, the house may be sure that the information will be used, and used effectively if it is conveyed without delay to those responsible for these investigations. But as far as the government and the several departments are concerned, I have given a full and complete statement regarding this matter.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well that the Prime Minister should have made this statement. The details of the statement, which will certainly require consideration, seem to me to confirm our view that it would have been well if a statement of this kind had been made immediately after the original allegations were made, because in the very nature of things those allegations were bound1 to receive a great deal of publicity. That happened and that publicity grew, in the absence of information, over the week end in a way which was bound to result in unfortunate speculation and rumours which might have reacted unjustly and unfavourably on the services concerned.
I think the house welcomes the statement made by the Prime Minister, and it is to be hoped this statement will remove some of the more alarming rumours and will put this matter in perspective.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group appreciate the Prime Minister's frank statement on this very serious situation, which no doubt has caused great concern to the Canadian people. All I wish to say is that if after investigation these allegations prove to have some substance, the members of the armed forces or personnel of the Department of External Affairs should be dealt with under the Criminal Code and, if proven guilty, sentenced according to Canadian law. We hope there will be no shielding of anyone because of their position or because of the circumstances in which these alleged irregularities existed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestion made by the hon. member I might be allowed to answer. I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in this regard. He himself is fully aware of the fact that in 1956 similar difficulties arose, but they were dealt with at that

time by the government of the day in the manner which this government has followed.
With respect to the suggestion of the hon. member, in so far as civilians are concerned the hon. gentleman says they should be proceeded against under the Criminal Code. An examination of the Criminal Code and of the other pertinent acts, particularly the narcotics act, indicates that the offences, having been committed outside of Canada, are not subject to prosecution in Canada. That was one of the situations which was revealed during the course of the events of 1956.

On the orders of the day:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My
question arises out of the fact that I was surprised, almost shocked, to hear that Canadians in service overseas, whether in the defence forces or in various departments of government, are not subject to Canadian law. 1 ask my question because I believe it is the responsibility of parliament to the Canadian people to maintain a high standard of integrity in the public service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question to ask, perhaps he would ask it, but I doubt from his preamble whether he could ask a proper question, one which would not be inviting a legal opinion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a very proper question. I will ask the Minister of National Defence this question. If any commissioned officers are found guilty of a criminal offence outside Canada, will they be permitted to continue to hold Her Majesty's commission?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: That, of course, is a hypothetical question. However, perhaps I should point out to the hon. member that when the Prime Minister was dealing with this matter earlier, he spoke of civilian personnel. I should like to make it clear that military personnel, no matter where they may be serving, are subject to the code of military discipline.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to make a statement concerning the international wheat agreement.
In January of this year the Canadian government received an invitation from the secretary general of the United Nations to

participate in the United Nations wheat conference, commencing on January 31 in Geneva, for the renewal or replacement of the current international wheat agreement which came into effect on August 1, 1959, and which expires on July 31, 1962.
Mindful of the important part successive wheat agreements have played since the late 1940's in assuring supplies of wheat to importing countries and markets for wheat to exporting countries at equitable and stable prices, and aware of the wide support for the international wheat agreement among producers organizations in western Canada, the government authorized the dispatch of a strong delegation including government officials, Canadian wheat board representatives and members of the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board, who are at the same time leaders of the principal farm organizations in western Canada.
Nearly 60 countries took part in or were represented by observers at the six week conference. The negotiations have now come to a successful conclusion. Subject to ratification by the governments concerned, a new three year international wheat agreement, similar in structure to the 1959 agreement, will come into force next August 1, expiring on July 31, 1965. Should all the major exporters participating in the conference, including the U.S.S.R., ratify the agreement, all the important sources of wheat will be brought within the ambit of international wheat co-operation.
The new price range raises the minimum price, in U.S. dollars, for No. 1 Northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur and Vancouver from $1.50 to $1.62 and the maximum price from $1.90 to $2.02J. At the current rate of exchange this price range in Canada in dollars is $1.71J minimum and $2.13f maximum. It should be noted that selling prices for the next three years are to be within the price range, and that actual prices will depend on market conditions. It is worth pointing out in this connection that the actual selling price in Canadian dollars for No. 1 Northern at Fort William fell, during the course of the present agreement, to a low of $1.63f in November 1960. This is not only 50 cents lower than the new maximum of almost $2.14, but it is about 8 cents lower than the new minimum.
In view of these facts hon. members will appreciate the remarkable degree to which prices have recovered, due both to a changed market situation and to the current discount on the Canadian dollar. Members will also appreciate the significance of a higher minimum price, keeping in mind the extent to which prices did fall in recent years before
International Wheat Agreement surpluses began to diminish rapidly in the face of increased exports and reduced production.
The new agreement provides that so long as prices remain below the maximum price specified in the agreement, each member importing country undertakes to purchase from member exporting countries a specified percentage of its total commercial purchases of wheat. The exporting countries in turn agree, in association with one another, to supply all the commercial requirements of the importing countries so long as prices are lower than the maximum price. When prices reach the maximum, member exporting countries undertake to supply member importing countries with a definite quantity of wheat based on their average purchases over a recent period of years at a price not greater than the maximum, and importing countries are released from their obligation to make their purchases from member exporting countries.
The agreement also continues to provide for an annual review of the world wheat situation, which has been an important feature of the 1959 agreement. These reviews are carried out in the light of information obtainable in relation to national production, stocks, prices and trade including special transactions under government assistance programs.
In anticipation of a possible wider participation of exporters in the agreement, member importing countries have accepted a commitment to purchase a larger percentage of their commercial requirements from member exporting countries. Of particular importance is the strengthening of safeguards for the commercial marketings of the exporting countries by means of more precise definitions of what constitute commercial and concessional sales. Furthermore, consideration was also given by the conference to the effective utilization of excess supplies of wheat in raising levels of consumption and assisting in general economic and market development in developing countries with low levels of individual income. While it was recognized that programs to this end are provided for by individual governments and on a multilateral basis, it was agreed that the objectives of the agreement should reflect the concern of the conference for the problems of developing countries.
The new agreement represents a significant advance on the present agreement. With all the important sources of wheat covered by the new agreement, importers will enjoy, despite sharp reductions in wheat supplies, a greater assurance that they will be able to purchase their commercial supplies of wheat at equitable and stable prices. At the same time

International Wheat Agreement exporters benefit by reason of the increased price range, the increased obligations of importing countries and the improved safeguards for commercial marketings. I am glad to say that this new agreement carries the unanimous support of the producer advisers who were members of the Canadian delegation throughout the conference, and I am sure it will equally commend itself to all members of the house. The text of the new agreement will be submitted for ratification at the present session.
The members of the delegation deserve our thanks for the highly successful conclusion of these negotiations. The chief members of the delegation were J. H. Warren, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, C. F. Wilson, consul general for Canada at Chicago and W. C. McNamara, chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board.
The producer advisers who were in attendance were A. W. Runciman, president, united grain growers, Winnipeg; J. S. Stevens, director, united grain growers, Winnipeg; C. W. Gibbings, president, Saskatchewan wheat pool, Regina; A. P. Gleave, president, Saskatchewan farmers union; Saskatoon, Gordon L. Harrold, chairman, Alberta wheat pool, Calgary; W. J. Parker, president, Manitoba wheat pool, Winnipeg.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the terms of the new three year wheat agreement announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture indicate a rise of 12J cents a bushel in both minimum and maximum prices under the agreement it should, as the minister suggested, commend itself to all sections of the house. However, it must be remembered that the strengthening of the position of those who are exporting wheat has been largely due to the fact that new customers who were not buying wheat when the last agreement was formulated have appeared in the picture. Most of these are communist countries. In addition to that, the new customers have appeared coincidental with a falling off in the volume of crops of wheat in exporting countries in recent years.
The minister made reference to the exchange rate and the lower value of the Canadian dollar at this time vis-a-vis the United States dollar. I am sure that in this respect the farmers, being an important element in our export trade, will have noted that the Minister of Finance through the exchange fund within the last two months spent $309 million to prevent the Canadian dollar from going lower.
The minister made some reference to the possible entry into the agreement of the

U.S.S.R. It was not clear whether that is probable or merely possible. This, of course, would have a bearing in making the international agreement more secure. I join with the minister on behalf of those on this side of the house in commending the very strong delegation that was sent to this conference. It has always been Canada's practice to send a strong delegation to this important conference. Among the names I recognize many who have previously been delegates to international preparatory conferences.


Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will appreciate the statement the minister has made, and will wish to compliment the department for the leadership it has given in the signing of this new three year international agreement. The increase in price of 12J cents will go some of the way it is necessary to go to bring about equalization with the increased costs that western farmers, who are most interested in this problem, have to meet. It certainly must be gratifying to all Canadians to know that Canada has been able to play a larger part in arriving at an agreement with respect to an international regulated price, and also that some consideration has been given to the development of new grades for our wheat and that something has been accomplished in this field.
We also appreciate the fact that consideration has been given to new markets and that there is a guarantee that wheat will be available at between the maximum and minimum price to new purchasers. In addition, we appreciate the fact that there will be room within the new international wheat agreement to bring in those new countries that are now going into wheat production, and to assure them of an opportunity to establish themselves in the markets so far as the sale of their product is concerned. I think the fact that Canada has made a contribution to the international wheat agreement is a compliment to the farmers and farm organizations as well as to the department which has assisted in this regard.



ADOPTION OF REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the reports of the civil service commission concerning certain positions on the staffs of the parliamentary restaurant, the House of Commons, and the library of parliament, laid upon the table of the house, Thursday, March 8, 1962, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 8-The Prime Minister:
That a select committee, to be designated, be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, and, in particular, to consider the desirability of repealing standing order No. 33 (closure rule), with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Boulanger: 
claim for rental for the use of his property by


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, the Department of Transport since 1947; and, if
so, what are the terms of this settlement?	[Editor's note: The answer referred to above


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, settlement has not	^	'
been reached with Dr. D. B. Fowler of Leth- 1. Seven.
bridge in respect of his claim for compen-	Out of pocket
sation for the use of his property. Proceed- 2. Commissioners	Paid expenses
ings have been instituted in the exchequer Hon. C. P. McTague .. .$ 1,950.00	$ 1,133.71
court. The case was to have been heard at the	H.	Anscomb	
18,637.50	7,132.07March sittings of the court at Calgary and	A.	H. Balch	
18,875.00	1,450.62has been postponed at the request of Dr.	R.	Gobeil	
18,837.50	6,392.64Fowler for hearing at Lethbridge this autumn.	M.	A. MacPherson 
21,675.00	8,172.60
H. A. Mann	
11,737.50	4,869.72*ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION A. Platt	
26,075.00	9,876.05


Mr. McMillan: 1.	How many commissioners were appointed to the royal commission on transportation?
2.	How much was paid to each commissioner together with his out of pocket expenses?
3.	What personnel were employed by the royal commission on transportation in the course of its hearings and the preparation of its report?
4.	What was the total amount paid to them together with out of pocket expenses?
5.	What was the total cost to Canada of the royal commission on transportation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a rather lengthy one. I wonder if the house would agree to placing it on Hansard without being read.

3.	F. A. Angers (Institute of Applied Economics), Angus Stonehouse & Co., D. W. Carr & Associates, A. G. Cooper, Q.C., G. S. Cumming, A. W. Currie, Economic Research Corporation, Economist Intelligent Unit Ltd., D. Eldon, A. G. Heakes, A. K. Eaton, W. C. Hood, D. L. MacFarlane, J. A. Pilon, Riddell, Stead, Graham & Hutchinson.
Out of pocket
4.	Paid expenses F. A. Angers (Institute
of Applied Economics) $ 4,560.00	$	34.90
Angus Stonehouse
& Co	 2,411.65	17,369.84

	Out of pocket	
D. W. Carr &	Paid	expensesAssociates 	23,040.00	33.30A. G. Cooper, Q.C	30,560.00	3,908.25G. S. Cumming 	16,971.00	3,347.74A. W. Currie 	
Economic Research	2,730.00	510.84Corporation 	
Economist Intelligent	46,225.00	422.55Unit Ltd	3,000.00	D. Eldon 	3,000.00	A. G. Heakes	950.00	A. K. Eaton 	3,150.00	W. C. Hood	150.00	53.35D. L. MacFarlane 	3,775.00	282.50J. A. Pilon	
Riddell, Stead, Graham	1,012.00	-& Hutchinson 	11,760.00	180.81
5. Total cost to date $554,535.61.


*CLOSURE OF COLLIERY, NEW WATERFORD, N.S.
Mr. Batten: Has the Prime Minister received a petition signed by approximately 1,000 coal miners requesting the federal government to take action to prevent the closure of No. 16 colliery at New Waterford, Nova Scotia: and, if so, what action, if any, does the government propose to take on each of the specific proposals advanced by the petitioners?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. On March 7 a delegation headed by Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia, who was accompanied by the Nova Scotia minister of mines, Hon. Donald M. Smith, and the minister of municipal affairs, Hon. Layton Fergusson, and comprising members of the executive of the united mine workers and representatives of colliery No. 16 and of the municipalities affected, met with the Ministers of National Revenue, Labour, Mines and Technical Surveys and Forestry. The circumstances affecting the plans of the Dominion Coal Company to close colliery No. 16 on or about August 12 of this year were fully discussed. The delegation was assured by the representatives of the federal government that careful consideration would be given to its representations.
^NATIONAL LIBRARIAN


ABSENCE FROM OTTAWA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	With reference to the activities of the national librarian, in the period 1957-1961, inclusive, how many weeks has the incumbent been away from Ottawa on official duties?
2.	For each of these years, what places were visited, how long were the visits, and what were the purposes of the visits?
3.	What was the total cost by year of the travel expenses incurred?


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question takes a little better than a full page of foolscap. I wonder whether it could be printed in Hansard?

Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to accept the minister's suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	1957, 4 weeks and 1 day; 1958, 4 weeks and 4 days; 1959, 3 weeks and 4 days; 1960, 2 weeks; 1961, 3 weeks and 3 days.
2.	In 1957: Toronto (3 days), to consult with architects of the new national library building; Montreal (2 days) to speak to the Quebec library association and to visit libraries; Boston (4 days), to attend the convention of the special libraries association and speak there; Vancouver (10 days, including a day in Toronto on the way home), to speak at the opening of the new Vancouver public library, and to consult with architects of the new national library building; Toronto (2 days), to speak at dinner of the music publishers' association.
In 1958: Montreal (1 day), to lecture at McGill library school; Windsor (1 day), to receive degree from Assumption University and deliver convocation address; Quebec (4 days), to attend convention of the Canadian library association; Europe (15 days), to visit libraries and consult with librarians, including royal library at The Hague, the bibliotheque nationale in Paris, the British museum library in London, the national library of Scotland in Edinburgh, the Mitchell library in Glasgow and Cambridge University library; in addition, books were purchased for the national library in many of the cities visited, notably London, Edinburgh and Cambridge; Toronto (3 days), for consultations with librarian of Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and with architects of the national library building.
In 1959: Montreal (3 days), to chair round table at the conference of the Canadian national commission for UNESCO; Montreal (2 days), to lecture at McGill library school; Montreal (2 days), to attend opening of new Fraser-Hickson institute library; Edmonton (7 days), to attend convention of the Canadian library association; Toronto (2 days), to confer with publishers' and booksellers' councils; Toronto (1 day), to speak at opening of North York public library; Montreal (2 days), to speak at opening of Westmount public library.
In 1960: Toronto (2 days), to confer with librarians regarding plans for union catalogues in Toronto and Ottawa; New York (2 days), purchasing books for national library; Montreal (5 days), to attend joint conference of Canadian library association and the American library association; Kingston (1 day), to speak at opening of new Royal Military College library.

Questions
In 1961: Montreal (1 day), to lecture at McGill library school; Toronto (2 days), for meetings in connection with the Canadian library week council, of which the national librarian was chairman in 1961; St. Andrews (5 days), to attend conference of the Canadian library association; Toronto (3 days), to receive degree from Victoria University and attend opening of the new Victoria college library; Toronto (2 days), to speak to the book publishers' council; Halifax (2 days), to speak at the tenth anniversary of the Halifax memorial library; New York (3 days), to take part in opening of the Dag Hammarsk-jold library at the United Nations.
3.	In 1957, $29.55; in 1958, $495.78; in 1959, $267.50; in 1960, $126.05; in 1961, $232.30.


*R.C.A.F. RESERVE    INCOME TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF UNIFORM COSTS
Mr. Carter: Is the cost of uniforms deductible from taxable income by officers of the R.C.A.F. reserve?


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, there is no provision for such under the Income Tax Act.


* GRANTS TO CHEESE FACTORIES, EASTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Pigeon: From 1958 to 1962, what has been, for the eastern provinces of Canada (Ontario, Quebec, and the maritimes), the total amount of the grants paid by the federal Department of Agriculture to the cheese factories (extension, equipment, and premiums on cheese to suppliers) ?


Mr. Charlton:: The total amount of grants and premiums paid to cheese factories in the maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec for the amalgamation and improvement of cheese factories and equipment and for premiums on high quality cheese was $6,037,089 during the period April 1, 1957, to February 28, 1962.


*MRS. MAURICE SAUVE  TELEVISION PROGRAM &quot;OPINIONS&quot;
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is Mrs. Maurice Sauve, the moderator of the weekly program "Opinions", shown on the French television network of the C.B.C.?
2.	For how many years has she been the moderator of this weekly program?
3.	Since she has taken over this program, what total remuneration has she received?
4.	With respect to this weekly program, is Mrs. Maurice Sauve acting in her capacity of director of public relations for the Quebec Liberal federation?


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order in connection with this question, particularly part 4 thereof. I submit to you with deference that part 4 of this question should never have been allowed, because not only is it not within the departmental jurisdiction of the C.B.C. but it is also

contrary to the rules, I believe, to accept a question of this nature. Furthermore, the person whose name has been mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with the public relations of the Quebec Liberal federation, and under the circumstances I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to erase that part of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: In making his point of order the hon. member has rather answered the question himself. I am sorry that I did not notice the fourth section of this question when it was handed in; otherwise I should not have allowed it, because to ask a question of a minister of the crown about employees of the Quebec Liberal federation does seem to me to be going beyond the administrative capacity of the government. If the first three subsections make sense and the hon. member would wish them to stand alone, I think one alternative would be to strike out part 4 and let the first three parts be answered, or the question can be withdrawn and advanced again in another form.


Mr. Pigeon:: I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member in whose name the question stands would like the first three parts answered and the fourth part struck out as out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.
(Translation):


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Since October 18, 1958.
3.	It would not be in the public interest to disclose particulars of contracts entered into with individuals.
(Text):


*MR. YVES MICHAUD  TELEVISION PROGRAMS
Mr. Pigeon: Is Mr. Yves Michaud, moderator of the program "Commentaires'', also a member of the team producing "Edition spcciale" (shown on the French television network of the C.B.C.), acting in his capacity of chief editor of the newspaper he Clairon of St. Hyacinthe?
(Translation):


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. informs me that the answer is no.
(Text):


* JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE AGREEMENT, MONTREAL
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the federal government consider that either the province of Quebec and/or the city of Montreal have defaulted or failed to meet the terms of the original contract or agreement entered

Questions
Into on the Jacques Cartier bridge; and, if so, what steps to date has the federal government taken to see that the contract terms are met?
2.	What sums, if any, have the province of Quebec and/or the city of Montreal failed to contribute or give towards fulfilling the contract?
3.	If neither provincial nor city agency is in default, what term does the federal government apply to the relationship which came to exist regarding this bridge and the three authorities involved?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the national harbours board advises;
1.	In accordance with the terms of the tripartite agreement under which the bridge was constructed, the province and the city each paid $2,045,342 toward the deficits incurred in the years 1930 to 1934 inclusive. The city then discontinued its payments, alleging non-liability, and the province also withheld its payments in view of the position taken by the city. The national harbours board entered suit against the city and was successful in obtaining judgment in its favour. As a result, in March, 1953 the city discharged its indebtedness by the payment of $744,426, together with interest in the amount of $210,407. This covered the years 1944-1949 inclusive. No deficits payable by the province or the city, as defined by the agreement, have occurred since 1949. A petition of right was submitted to the province on August 19, 1953, but no action has been taken by the province to discharge its obligation. The present provincial government has also been approached by the board, but no settlement has yet been made.
2.	The province of Quebec is indebted to the board in the amount of $744,426, together with interest.
3.	See No. 1.


* LIBRARY EXPENDITURES, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	For the last three fiscal years, what has been the expenditure of the library in the Department of External Affairs on (a) monographs (b) periodicals?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the services in this library of people with (a) professional library training (b) clerical training and (c) any other services such as janitorial?


John George Diefenbaker: This reply consists of a large number of figures, and I suggest that the house might consent to having them printed as if read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1. (a)
Depart- mental Adminis- tration	Represen- tation Abroad	Total1958-	59 . 1959-	60 . 1960-	61 .	. $7,234.65 . 5,279.94 . 5,920.47	$17,642.55 13,184.57 22,101.49	$24,877.20 18,464.51 28,021.96(b)	Depart- mental Adminis- tration	Represen- tation Abroad	Total1958-	59 . 1959-	60 . 1960-	61 .	. $8,485.33 . 8,627.11 . 9,166.08	$41,490.62 46,631.02 48,467.18	$49,975.95 55,258.13 57,633.26
2. (a) $27,360 per annum; (b) $16,890 per annum; (c) Nil.


Mr. Fisher: Have there been recent changes in the facilities or privileges offered scholars who use the library at the public archives; and, if so, why were these changes made, what is their nature, and how long will they last?
Answer by: Mrs. Fairclough:
The library of the public archives has been moved to two rooms on the ground floor formerly used for museum purposes. In the old quarters, on the second floor, the library staff and most of the book stock were accommodated in the same area; in the new quarters, the staff, readers and a reference collection occupy one room, and the second room is a stock room. The move was made because it had become essential to provide more space on the second floor for manuscripts, and the library is expected to remain in its new quarters as long as the public archives remains in the Sussex drive building.


Mr. Howard: How many copies of volume II of the statutes of Canada for (a) 1960 (b) 1959 (c) 1958 (d) 1957-58 (e) 1957 (f) 1956 (g) 1955 (h) 1953-54 (i) 1952-53 (j) 1952, were printed in (i) English, and (ii) French; and what was the total cost of such work for each of the years mentioned above?


Léon Balcer: I have the answer to this question and I am prepared to give it orally. However, it consists of four columns of ten lines each of figures, and perhaps I may therefore be permitted to have it printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this question, which has been starred, be answered in writing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Questions


Léon Balcer: English French Cost
(a)	1960 	100	25	$3,447.65(b)	1959 	100	25	3,936.00(c)	1958 	100	25	3,129.68(d)	1957-58 	100	25	1,895.29(e)	1957 	100	25	3,383.93(f)	1956 	40	20	2,502.35(g)	1955 	40	20	2,531.13(h)	1953-54 	40	20	2,934.62(i)	1952-53 	40	20	3,067.60(j)	1952 	40	20	2,314.18^NATIONAL LIBRARIAN	AND	CHIEF	OF PUBLIC


Mr. Fisher: 1.	In the dual role of national librarian and chief of the public archives, what is the relative disposition of time given by the incumbent to each task?
2.	Does he carry out these tasks in one, or two or more offices? Where and/or which?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer to the first part of this question is that no exact figure can be given, as the relative time devoted to the national library and the public archives varies daily according to circumstances. On the whole, more time is devoted to the archives, because it is at present a considerably larger and more complicated organization.
The answer to question No. 2 is, the main office of the dominion archivist and national librarian is in the public archives building, Sussex drive, but another office is available in the records centre at Tunney's pasture, in which the national library is now housed. The office of the assistant national librarian is in the records centre. The national librarian or members of the staff travel back and forth between Sussex drive and Tunney's pasture as circumstances may require.
*	DEEPENING OP MIRAMICHI RIVER CHANNEL


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Have representations been made to the government for the deepening of the Miramichi river channel; and, if so, what action is contemplated by the government towards the completion of this project?
2.	If the project has been considered feasible and warranted, when will it be undertaken?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. No decision has yet been made regarding the economic and extensive engineering studies required.
The answer to No. 2 is answered by No. 1.
*	FEDERAL RIDINGS, JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE


Mr. Fisher: What federal ridings abut or are within two miles of the north and south ends of Jacques Cartier bridge?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the following eight federal electoral districts abut or are within two miles of the north end of the Jacques Cartier bridge; Sainte Marie, Saint Jacques, St. Ann, St. Lawrence-St. George, Cartier, Laurier, Lafontaine, and Hochelaga. As to the south end, there is one electoral district only, Longueuil.


Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What volume of butter stocks, or their equivalent in butter oil, was in storage on February 28, 1962?
2.	What is the age of the oldest butter now in storage?
3.	How many pounds of butter were lost in 1961 through spoilage?
Answer by: Mr. Hees:
1.	The volume of butter stocks including butter equivalent of butter oil in storage on January 31, 1962, is 190,874,000 pounds. (Information for February 28, 1962, not available).
2.	August, 1960.
3.	None.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Herridge: Has the Prime Minister received a request in a letter dated March 1st from the British Columbia federation of labour that the government immediately undertake a thorough examination of all aspects of the impact of automation and technical progress on employment; and, if so, what action does the government propose to take, and what was the nature of the reply?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
Yes, the letter in question was received. A letter of acknowledgement was sent under date of March 12, 1962 in which reference was made to the skilled manpower training research program, which was initiated in 1956 by the federal Department of Labour in cooperation with other interested federal and provincial departments and management and union organizations, and which has already produced several reports on various aspects of this problem.



* MARGARINE PRODUCTION, 1956-61

Mr. Boulanger: What has been the annual production of margarine for the years 1956 to 1961 inclusive?


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, the annual production of margarine for the years 1956 to 196.' inclusive is:
lbs.
1956		124,707,000
1957		130,645,000
1958		145,598,000
1959		152,173,000
1960		166,321,000
1961		183,980,000

grain storage and handling committee


Mr. Boulanger: How many members are there on the committee organization recently formed to study grain storage and handling facilities, what are their names, whom do they represent, and what part of the country are they from?


George Harris Hees: The interdepartmental committee formed to study grain storage and handling facilities consist of 10 members. These are as follows:
W. D. Porter, (chairman), dominion bureau of statistics; E. E. Baxter, board of grain commissioners, Winnipeg; J. W. Channon, Department of Agriculture; R. M. Esdale, Department of Trade and Commerce; G. G. McLeod, Department of Transport; C. H. Malcolm, national harbours board; M. W. Menzies, Department of Agriculture; E. A. Oestreicher, Department of Finance; W. L. Posthumus, Department of Trade and Commerce; G. M. Schuthe, Department of Trade and Commerce.
All these officials are employed by government departments and agencies in Ottawa, with exception of Mr. Baxter who is located in Winnipeg.
national butter advisory committee


Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Was a national butter advisory committee instituted; and, if so, when, and how many members are on this committee?
2.	What are their names, occupations, and what part of the country are they from?
3.	How many meetings were held, on what dates, and is this committee still functioning?


John Alpheus Charlton: The government of Canada did not appoint a butter advisory committee of Canada. However, in 1960 the government employed a public relations firm to conduct a butter promotional campaign. In the course of its work this firm named a butter advisory committee to assist them in an advisory capacity. This committee consisted of seven members.
The answer to part 2 is:
T. J. Wheeler, Toronto, Ontario, public relations counsellor.
Mrs. W. R. Walton, Jr., Toronto, Ontario, housewife.
Robert C. Smellie, Russell, Manitoba, retired creamery operator.
Dr. E. W. McHenry, Toronto, Ontario, professor of nutrition, school of hygiene, University of Toronto.
Frank E. Lutes, Berry Mills, N.B., dairy farmer.
J. B. Lemoine, Montreal, P.Q., president, L'Union Catholiques des Cultivateurs.
L. W. Pearsall, Ottawa, Ontario, assistant deputy minister, Department of Agriculture.
The answer to part 3 is that six meetings were held on the following dates: October
Questions
31, 1960; November 22, 1960; January 5, 1961; January 27, 1961; February 17, 1961; and March 23, 1961. The committee concluded its functions during May, 1961.
milk production, 1960-1961


Mr. Grills: What was the production of milk in Canada in
each of the provinces in	. 1960, and in	1961?
Answer by: Mr. Hees:		
Milk production in	Canada by	provinces,
1960 and 1961:		
	1960	1961
	'000 lb.	'000 lb.
Prince Edward Island	225,598	237,088Nova Scotia 	398,190	402,695New Brunswick ....	439,810	446,851Quebec 	6,178,848	6,541,248Ontario 	6,264,621	6,506,246Manitoba 	1,127,129	1,128,948Saskatchewan 	1,337,203	1,344,498Alberta 	1,636,137	1,720,390British Columbia ..	877,887	917,302Canada 	18,485,423	19,245,266
maritime superannuated civil servants



REQUEST FOR POLICY CHANGE

Mr. Robichaud: Has the maritimes federal superannuated civil servants association requested a change in the superannuation policy in order to bring superannuation payments in line with today's cost of living; and, if so, what reply, if any, has been made to this request by the government?
Answer by: Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):
Yes. The circular letter was acknowledged and attention drawn to misstatements in the circular.



COMPENSATION TO QUEBEC FARMERS

Mr. Mariel: 1.	Could the Minister of Agriculture inform the members of this house as to whether or not his department has kept a complete record of all cases of rabies infected animals in the province of Quebec since the inception of the immunization program undertaken by his department to control the spread of this disease which may be dangerous even for human beings?
2.	What is the amount of the compensation paid for rabies infected animals slaughtered under the terms of an agreement entered into with the Ontario provincial government, and what proportion thereof was paid by the federal government?
3.	Is the federal Department of Agriculture ready to extend to the farmers of Quebec-many of whom have suffered heavy losses due to this terrible disease-and more particularly of the counties of Pontiac-Temiscamingue, Villeneuve, and Chapleau in the northwest of the province, the benefits deriving from such an agreement inasmuch as the provincial authorities will apply therefor and be willing to co-operate with Ottawa in this respect?

Orders for Returns


John Alpheus Charlton: 1.	The Department of Agriculture has a record of all cases which have been reported to it and where it has been determined by departmental veterinarians that the animal died of rabies.
2.	The indemnities paid in Ontario are based on official valuation of the livestock, as related to a maximum of $100 for horses, $250 for cattle and $40 for swine and sheep. The federal government reimburses Ontario for 40 per cent of the indemnity payments made by the province.
3.	The present authority for federal participation applies only to Ontario, which is the only province having requested it. I feel sure that should the province of Quebec make a similar request it would be given favourable consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Herridge: 1.	What are the names, present positions, qualifications, degrees, and experience in the construction or operation of hydro plants, dams, etc., of the officials in the head office in Ottawa of the hydraulics division of the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	Have any of these officials ever been employed in any capacity with a foreign government, or with an agency of a foreign government, or in the water resources field in a foreign land, or with any private corporation at home or abroad; and, if so, what are the names of the officials concerned, and the details of their foreign employment?


* SALARIES AND DUTIES OF MESSENGERS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the difference in substance between the duties of a messenger and a confidential messenger?
2.	Why is the minimum and maximum rate for a messenger so much lower than that for a confidential messenger?
3.	Why is there a higher rate for a messenger who was appointed prior to April 1, 1955?
4.	How many people are there employed in Ottawa at this date under the three categories of messenger, messenger appointed prior to April 1, 1955, and confidential messenger?
5.	Has any consideration been given recently to rationalizing the salary rates of messengers in the government service in order to achieve equity amongst people doing the same or similar jobs?


* TRADE DELEGATION TO AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Boulanger: Has the Department of Trade and Commerce set up a delegation which is to proceed to New Zealand and Australia; and, if so, (a) when, and for what purpose was such a delegation formed (b) how

many members comprise the said delegation (c) what are their names, their respective provinces, and what organizations do they represent?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not it is the intention of the government to refer the annual report of the Bank of Canada for 1961, which I believe has now been tabled, to the standing committee on banking and commerce in order, among other things, that the governor of the Bank of Canada may be present to express his views to the members of that committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I tabled today, with the Clerk of the house, the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada for the year 1961. If it is the wish of the standing committee on banking and commerce that that report be referred to the committee, certainly there will be no objection whatever to that course. The governor of the bank will be available, I am informed, after the end of next week to appear before the committee if that is the wish of the committee.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I have been a bit disturbed since I read the press this morning. In view of press reports of a rather remarkable luncheon in Quebec city on Saturday which was attended by the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Defence Production, as well as by 10 Conservative M.P.'s, would the Prime Minister care to inform the house of the government's interest or involvement in the Sulphur Converting Corporation of Montreal?


John George Diefenbaker: I had no knowledge that such a company existed at all. So far as the government and members of it are concerned, they have no interest or involvement, directly or indirectly.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask him whether he is engaged in any discussions with the Sulphur Converting Corporation in

Montreal with regard to building branch lines in the province of Quebec for this company.


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker. What happened is that the officers of this company stopped in my office and told me they intended to get in touch with the C.N.R. to discuss with them the possible building of some branch lines. I have heard that they met with the C.N.R., but the information I got from the C.N.R. is that no decision whatsoever has been taken by that company.


Lionel Chevrier: Arising out of the answer the Prime Minister gave, namely that the first time he knew of the company was when he arrived in Quebec, my question is if that is so, as I take it it is, can the Prime Minister explain how it is that four of his ministers from the province of Quebec knew about it several months ago?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know how the hon. gentleman, knowledgeable as he is, knows what knowledge four ministers of the crown had several months ago. All I can say is that there is no basis for any ascription of knowledge respecting this company to the government.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a supplementary question, but before I put it I would refer the Prime Minister to the article appearing in today's Montreal Gazette which contains a statement made by the president of the company, who said he had discussed it with four ministers from the province of Quebec. From that I take it the Prime Minister should have known about it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know of several companies which the Prime Minister never heard of.


Lionel Chevrier: Apparently they knew about it, because the president said it had met with the approval of government ministers.
(Translation):
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he has any comment to make as regards the statement of Mr. J. A. Leclerc, president of the Sulphur Converting Corporation of Montreal, to the effect that the project was submitted last fall to four ministers-Mr. Leclerc gives the names of the ministers but I do not think it is necessary to repeat them- and that officials of the Department of Transport and of the national harbours board gave their approval to the project, the last words being in quotation marks?
26207-1-108
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said Saturday, that officials of my department did not in any way give their approval to the project.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the questions which were asked previously, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Has he asked the management of Sulphur Converting Corporation whether they intend to export part of their output to Ecuador and British Guiana?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Surely not through the national film board.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question? I thought the matter had been fairly completely dealt with in the original round.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of considerable interest shown by Canadians favouring the adoption by Canada of the metric system of measurement instead of the English system, has the government given any consideration to the proposal, or has the government any intention of doing so?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman, for whom I have a great respect, that his question be put on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the matter does not raise any point of urgency and could go on the order paper.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he report to the house on any recent correspondence with Premier Bennett concerning the Columbia river?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On Friday last, March 9, I wrote a letter to Premier Bennett which I shall be

Inquiries of the Ministry glad to table. It is quite short, and perhaps I might read it for the information of hon. members. It reads:
My dear Premier:
I understand that you plan to be in Ottawa on Monday, March 19, to attend the dominion-provincial conference on the federal proposals in regard to a national power grid.
If so, I should welcome an oportunity to resume our discussions on the financial aspects of the Columbia river power development. Could you arrange to arrive in Ottawa so that we might meet in advance of the dominion-provincial conference?
Yours sincerely,
I noticed in Saturday's press, Mr. Speaker, that Premier Bennett had made a statement some time on Friday indicating that he had applied to Ottawa for permission to start what is called immediate construction of the three dams envisaged in the Columbia river treaty. I do not know whether any such application has reached the office of the appropriate department in Ottawa. I only learned of this on reading the press report on Saturday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the minister that he has no right to volunteer any information of that kind except on motions. It is not an answer to the question.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister report whether any applications have been received from the province of British Columbia concerning the construction of dams on the Columbia river, and would the minister comment on press reports in this connection?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the receipt of any such application. It might conceivably have gone to the Department of Public Works, but I have not been made aware of that fact, if it be a fact.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the substantial decrease in U.S. dollars in the exchange fund, amounting to $175 million in February, and I infer that if you add January it is $309 million consecutively, is it now the intention of the government to support the value of the Canadian dollar and avoid further devaluation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government will continue to follow the very beneficial policy in this regard which it has been following.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it now to be taken as the policy of the government that it will encourage borrowings in the United States in order to prevent further declines in the holdings of United States dollars?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.
The government does not encourage borrowings in the United States. If the hon. member will read the budget speeches of June last and December 20, 1960, he will find clearly set forth the policy of the government, and there has been no departure from that policy.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Finance, having been referred to his last budget speech-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The last two.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the manipulation of the exchange fund, in order to prevent devaluation of the Canadian dollar, not to be regarded as a change in the policy announced in the last budget?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It certainly would be a departure from the policy of the government as announced in the last budget speech, if it ever occurred. But it has not occurred; there has been no manipulation. The hon. member is deliberately using an opprobrious and most inaccurate term.



CURLING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the minister to whom the national advisory council on sport reports, and as the minister by whom the act is administered. I should like to lay a short basis for my question.
On Saturday morning at Kitchener the Richardson rink of Saskatchewan won the Canadian curling championship. Other skips such as Matt Baldwin of Edmonton and Ken Watson of Winnipeg have skipped rinks that won the championship three times, but this is the first time in history that a rink with the same personnel has won the championship three times, and twice before won the Scottish cup. They leave today for Scotland to compete again for the world championship, and I am sure the minister and other hon. members will join with me in wishing them the very best of luck. My question is this. Is the

minister aware of these benefits to young Canadians, and will he advise the national advisory council of them?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would be delighted, and I would like to congratulate the Regina rink on this latest achievement.
(Translation):



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister or the government intend to announce the implementation of a port facilities project at Gros-Cacouna, as requested by the whole area, including the northern part of New Brunswick, and as recommended by Dr. Camu in his study entitled: "Transportation Problems in the Lower St. Lawrence Area"?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Minister of Public Works. I should like to say, however, that this government, through the public works department, is now making engineering surveys, that a reduced scale model is being built at the federal research centre, and that those engineering studies are proceeding in a very satisfactory way.


Lionel Chevrier: Is not the minister of the same opinion as the delegation which came to Ottawa today, that the time is now ripe for works rather than studies?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked me that question, thus allowing me to remind the house of all this government has achieved in these last four years, contrary to what was done by our predecessors, especially in the province of Quebec. Once again, I thank the hon. member for Laurier for giving me the opportunity of paying a tribute to this government.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister now in a position to report to the house on a meeting he and some of his colleagues had this morning with a delegation representing the citizens of Bell island?
26207-1-108i
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys): Mr. Speaker, after having met the Prime Minister and presenting him with a petition, a delegation from Bell island later met with my colleagues the Solicitor General, the Minister of Labour and myself, and for two hours we discussed the serious consequences that would flow from the lay-off of 700 men at the Wabana mines and the ways and means of averting it. My colleagues and I shall report to cabinet for whatever action shall be deemed appropriate at this time.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: would like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has noted the report in the Globe and Mail of March 10 under the heading "Survival training course repeaters have the army in a tizzy". If so, can the minister comment on the statement that the special militia training program is now finding a great many repeaters in the courses because there is no other place they can go in order to obtain employment or security?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question, but I can say in regard to the statements which have just been made by the hon. member that a very limited number of people have been discovered taking the course for the second time. In nearly all cases the reason they gave for this was that they enjoyed the first course so much that they wanted to get in on the second one. I think that is the explanation, in most cases at least, of the really quite limited number of people who have enlisted under a different name or in a different locality and have thus taken the course twice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I sent him notice earlier. Has the Prime Minister received a letter from Rev. Peter Kelly of Nanaimo mission, British Columbia, enclosing a copy of a resolution of the band members of Tsimpsean Indian reserve No. 2 respecting a timber licence bid won by Shorline Lumber Ltd. of Vancouver.
1698	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I think it only proper that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have the opportunity of saying something in reply to this question, either today or later this week.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this particular matter, after the award was made there were some objections to the award and some misunderstanding with reference to just what had been covered in the tender call. In order to avoid any misunderstandings I have given instructions that the commissioner for British Columbia will visit the Tsimpsean reserve tomorrow, at which time we expect that the Indians will have an opportunity to consult with him and he will be able to explain to them the terms of the tender. If any further action is required, the matter will be carefully considered by the department.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to comment on the statement contained in the resolution to this effect:
We feel that some members of the department of indian affairs are definitely not acting in the best interests of the members of this band and this council now unanimously agrees not to accept any such offer.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept any such statement. The officials of my department always act in the manner which they think is for the good of the Indian bands and the Indians themselves. If there were any question at all with respect to this contract it would have been referred to me. I must say that I did not hear about it until after the award had been made, and as soon as I heard there were differences of opinion I immediately asked for an investigation. But I can assure the hon. member that nothing will be done which will militate against any advantage to the Indians themselves.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister state whether the information is correct-as we also have been in receipt of telegrams-that the two bids were on entirely different bases and that one firm put in a tender for 8,000 more acres of timber than was actually being sold by the minister's department? Is that correct?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In general terms that is correct; there was one tender submitted which bore a very marked difference to the tender call. I might say that if any members of parliament are interested in examining these tenders, I invite them now to visit the department and have a look at the two tenders.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, in the light of what the minister has just said, is the minister prepared to table the letter, the resolution and the accepted bid referred to?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall take that matter into consideration.
(Translation):



FLAGS OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), so that he may relay it to him. I should like to know if the Secretary of State has received models of the two flags proposed by the Leader of the Opposition as well as the six flags proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the hon. member is putting his question seriously, but it seems to me it is not one which is readily dealt with on the orders of the day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is not a serious member.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence-St.
George): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the implications in a story published last Saturday by a Montreal French language newspaper, would the minister confirm that four senior officials of her department have recently resigned, and that one of them had been under suspension since last October.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I saw the story in the newspaper and I expected there would be a question on this matter. I would like to say now that the story was entirely inaccurate in its reference to our district superintendents Grant and Bird, who are in charge of our Atlantic and Pacific districts respectively. These officers are already past 65 years of age, which is

the normal age of retirement, and are completing their one year's extension before taking their retirement in the normal way.
Mr. McFarlane, our central district superintendent in Toronto, has not yet reached normal retirement age but does so at the end of 1962. He has not resigned, and I have no information to indicate that he will not continue in the service until his normal retirement age is reached.
Mr. McFaul, who was formerly our eastern district superintendent in Montreal, submitted his resignation more than a month ago, to take effect on February 1, 1962. At the time of submitting his resignation Mr. McFaul had been under suspension since last October for a personal transaction which the department did not consider proper for a civil servant in his position. The department took into account, in accepting Mr. McFaul's resignation, his 33 years of service with the government.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the practically unanimous agreement reached at last week's Canadian conference on education that federal aid to education has become an absolute necessity, is the government prepared to invite the provinces to actively explore, with the federal government, ways and means whereby federal aid to education can become a reality while at the same time not violating the intent of the British North America Act, whereby control of education is assigned to the provincial level of government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member has the subject matter here for a two day debate. If he expects to be answered on the orders of the day I do not share his optimism. Perhaps this question would be more appropriately brought up on the estimates, or at some time when it could be discussed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the necessity of hon. members of this house making transportation arrangements well in advance, could the Prime Minister give us some indication of the date of the Easter recess?
Canadian National Railways


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that the hon. gentleman is most anxious to find out when he may again have a vacation in Mexico, but I cannot give him any assistance.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the charge made on Saturday by labour leader Charles H. Millard, as reported in the Globe and Mail that the new immigration rules made Canada a poacher of human resources-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question to ask based on the regulations which were promulgated some weeks ago and wishes to present opinions about those regulations, he could find an opportunity to do so in debate and should not try to introduce the matter now.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Balcer for third reading of Bill No. C-67, to authorize the construction and operation on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: In
discussing this bill further on third reading, may I say I believe it is obvious that it is the intention of the government to make a grant in regard to construction of this proposed branch railway line, at least to the extent of the capital costs involved, and that it is the plan of the government to engage in the amortization of those capital costs. In addition, it is also obvious that the government fully understands and, indeed, expects to have to dip into the consolidated revenue fund of the nation for many years to come in order to make the operation of this proposed railway service possible.
I noticed that the minister, in what I considered a very weak defence of the government's position attempted to compare this branch line with the ferry service operated by such boats as the William Carson. To me these are two completely unrelated propositions. On the one hand we have established at public expense and, possibly, even at public subsidy, a ferry service connecting important areas of our Canadian nation. This has no resemblance whatever

Canadian National Railways to the building of a 57 mile long branch railway line in one of the oldest areas of settlement in our nation.
The minister also made a very weak effort to compare this branch railway line with the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. That is almost too fantastic to deserve comment. I am sure the minister must be deeply aware of the fact that at the present time the Hudson Bay Railway happens to serve an important national defence need. In addition, that railway was built for the purpose of establishing an outlet to the sea for a fairly large number of Canadian people. It cannot be compared with a railway branch line which, at best, can hope to serve only 100,000 people.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, the hon. member is engaging in a debate on third reading, and according to the rules the discussion on third readings is restricted. The subject matter of the discourse should be confined to the contents of the bill, as is clearly pointed out in May's sixteenth edition on page 578 where the words appear "As the debate on the third reading should be confined to the contents of the bill..." and so on. The hon. member is going far afield, making comparisons with other railway lines.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not stop the hon. member because I thought he was replying to a speech made by the minister on third reading, but perhaps I am mistaken in that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was no speech.


Mr. Speaker:: If I was mistaken, it would be out of order to go beyond the scope of the bill, because the minister has no right to reply in a debate of this kind. When the measure has gone through the committee stage and been reported for third reading, it is only what the committee has reported that is before the house. Really, debates on third reading should be kept strictly on the line because of the disability which is attached to replying.


Erhart Regier: I shall do my utmost to observe the intent of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, which I appreciate very deeply. However, I do believe that the minister has the right to speak on this bill on third reading on the basis of his earlier expressions-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: In view of what the hon. member has said, perhaps I should say that only by leave of the house can the minister speak on third reading, because he moved the third reading, which counts as a speech.


Erhart Regier: In that case I have to apologize to the house. I had assumed that the minister could reply. I can assure him on behalf of

this group that we would be happy to give unanimous consent should the minister wish to wind up this debate on third reading.
However, I must deeply disagree with the findings of the committee of this house in regard to this bill, because this bill asks for $14 million of the taxpayers' money now and for an unknown amount of money in the future. This represents a sum of between $140 and $200 for every man, woman and child living in this particular area of Canada. I would much prefer to see the government make a gift to each of the families there; for a family of five this would mean a grant in cash of anywhere from $700 to $1000. I would rather have the government do this than build a railway which we know ahead of time is going to be uneconomic, that for the people of this area will serve no useful purpose that has yet been proved, and that in the years to come will mean an additional burden to the Canadian taxpayer. This is a very serious matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member on my right who is interrupting will have an opportunity to speak if he wishes.


Erhart Regier: This is a serious matter indeed. We are asked to pay out $14 million of the taxpayer's money at this time and untold amounts in the years to come. This amount of money would build 140 new hundred thousand dollar industries in that community. I ask the sponsors of this bill whether this approach would not be more useful to the people in the area and receive a more favourable response. This bill represents no solution to our transportation problems. Canadian history is littered with examples of political consideration having taken precedence over national interests in the field of transportation. This is the most barefaced case of its kind in the annals of Canadian transportation development.
I believe the committee ought to have given more consideration to the offer of the truckers of the province of Quebec, to the effect that if the transportation costs that now prevail are a handicap to the people there they would be prepared to reduce their rates if the government would grant a subsidy to make a rate reduction possible. I believe this would be much less costly to the taxpayers of Canada than the proposed extension.
The interest alone on $14 million at even a 5 per cent rate-and in recent years this government has occasionally had to pay a higher rate on its borrowings-runs to $700,000 per annum; in other words $7 for every man, woman and child living in the area to be served. I am convinced they would rather receive $7 worth of aid in cash or in some other form.

I notice with regret that it was reported in the committee that the C.N.R. is only going to be the agent of the government. Neither the C.N.R. nor C.P.R. would touch the project with a ten foot pole. I ask the government who is demanding this railway? Only this morning as I entered the building I spoke to a large number of men from the Riviere du Loup area who were marching on parliament hill with placards. These are business and professional men and workers from other occupations who are requesting assistance in the field of transportation for the people residing south of the St. Lawrence river. I do not know all the facts involved, but their proposal appears to have more merit than the proposal now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is discussing a proposal now, I take it, that is not contained in the bill before us.


Erhart Regier: I hope when the government spokesman speaks at the conclusion of the debate on third reading we will be advised whether a certain Mr. Jules Brillant has expressed any opinions or made any representations with regard to the proposed branch line. I ask the government to reply to us before we give third reading to the bill. I wish to be informed whether the Sulphur Converting Company of Montreal has any ore bodies of any significance in the area that is intended to be served by the proposed railway line.
Before resuming my seat I wish to pay tribute to the integrity of the hon. member for Port Arthur, who is unwilling to remain silent while witnessing this government preparing to expend $7 million plus on an uneconomic project merely for the purpose of re-electing one member to the House of Commons. I feel this will go down in the annals-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have already asked Your Honour's opinion with regard to the restriction of debate on third reading. The hon. member is now going very far afield in making allegations and false accusations with respect to the motives of hon. members on this side of the house.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will agree that on third reading, in a final effort to block what I consider to be a most irresponsible measure of this government, I have every right to express my opinion as to what I think are the motives behind the bill. However, without further ado I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin):
That Bill No. C-67 be not now read the third time but that it be read this day six months hence.
Canadian National Railways (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of repeating what I said at the resolution stage about the bill now before the house.
As I said at that time, we are in favour of the act to authorize the construction and operation, on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
Over the week end, I tried to remember if similar projects had been discussed under the previous administration, where a crown corporation such as this one, the government owned railways, had decided to build a development railroad.
I know that we have built about ten railroads when we were on the other side of the house. The project which may be not similar but comparable to the one under consideration is the one for which the government had agreed to pay a subsidy for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. Of course, circumstances are not the same since that railroad belonged to the province. However, there is a parallel in this that both railroads were intended to serve inland mining developments. That part of British Columbia produces all kinds of minerals: iron, copper, zinc, gold and silver. Moreover the provincial government intended to extend the railroad by stages.
I do not know what the intentions of the present government are with respect to the line under discussion. Once it is built up to Ste. Anne des Monts, perhaps the government will decide to extend it to the copper mine in Murdochville or the mine owned by Federal Metal Corporation. These are matters, obviously, which the minister himself ought to decide.
I got up not only to repeat what I have said before and to indicate what attitude the opposition would take, but to point out that, in this as in so many other things, the government is proceeding without any general plan. The government has no general policy for the development of that region.
The whole lower St. Lawrence region and the adjacent areas such as northern New Brunswick are isolated from the home market because of an inadequate transportation system. Until a general plan, designed to bring a satisfactory solution to this problem, has been applied, that vast region will be in difficulties and have a limited economic development.

Canadian National Railways
It is precisely that basic point which I wanted to stress in my former speech on this measure, when quoting the conclusions and recommendations Dr. Camu had made in his report.
Indeed, it is easy to realize that the government refuses to see the situation as it is and to cope with it, if we consider the discontent which exists today, particularly in Riviere du Loup and the surrounding district.
The delegation which has called on parliament today is another obvious expression of that discontent. In this respect, I trust that hon. members will be very much interested to hear the views of the hon. member for Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Frechette). It is, indeed, interesting to find that several Conservative members from the province of Quebec took part in this debate and rose to make speeches, while the hon. member for Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata remained silent.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Laurier is not going beyond the bill. I am not sure there is any connection-perhaps he can inform me if there is- between what he is discussing now and the proposal to authorize the financing of this branch line.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Well, all I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, was that the government had no over-all plan for the transport system in the lower St. Lawrence area, and, as you called me to order, because I mentioned the delegation which came to parliament today, I shall comply with your decision and go on with my remarks.


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, certainly.


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) tell me when, during all the years he was minister of transport, he took some interest in the problem of Gros Cacouna, and whether he had any plans prepared for endowing the Riviere du Loup district, with a year-round sea port-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Never.


Léon Balcer: -and would he also give me a few instances of what he possibly did in that respect?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I thank the Minister of Transport for having asked me this question, for I am ready to give the answer and, in my comments, I was just coming to that point.


Yes, when we were in power, Mr. Speaker, we took a very special interest in the development of this area. It is under our government for instance that the Mont Joli airport was constructed-


Léon Balcer: You are not answering my question.


Lionel Chevrier: -that the airport was constructed and developed. You have put the question, let me answer it.


Léon Balcer: Tell us about Gros Cacouna. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erhart Regier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke I was prevented by the rules of the house from discussing alternative transportation remedies for the area in question, and I believe that the debate now taking place is also out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: May I speak on the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member on the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by the minister, I was proceeding to reply and I am being interrupted, first by the minister who asked the question and then by the hon. member who raised the point of order. The point of order raised by the hon. member was well taken, but having been asked the question by the minister I think I should at least be given the opportunity to reply.


Léon Balcer: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier is requesting the privilege of answering my question, but so far instead of answering the question I asked he has been talking about the airport at Mont Joli-


Lionel Chevrier: You did not give me a chance to finish.


Léon Balcer: -and it was precisely his government that killed the airport at Mont Joli.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Laurier proceeds, I might say that he has the floor and will be entitled to proceed, but I think it is only fair to say that I have every sympathy with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who was called to order for straying from the contents of the bill. Therefore I think it is only proper to say that the fact that the minister invites wider

discussion than the bill permits does not open the door to that discussion, so perhaps we have traced it all back to the minister's question and come back now to the bill itself.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it then, Mr. Speaker, that having been asked a question by the minister and having proceeded to reply in part-I had not completed the answer-and having been interrupted by the minister, I am not going to be allowed now to complete what I intended to put on the record?


Mr. Speaker:: The point having been taken, I think the hon. member for Laurier should return to the bill.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: I accept your ruling, as I always do, Mr. Speaker.
In the circumstances, I believe I should get back to what I was saying before in respect to an over-all plan. This is what I intended to deal with.
As far as the Liberal party is concerned, we have brought forward many times an over-all policy to assist the depressed areas. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has set forth this policy in ten points; and they attempted to laugh at us.
Anyway, upon our return to power, we shall discuss the actual carrying out of this over-all policy with the provinces and the areas concerned. We feel certain that, as a result of this decision, we shall be able to carry out a whole series of over-all plans on a regional basis. I am satisfied that one of the first to be carried out will benefit the lower St. Lawrence valley.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is in favour of this project but regrets that the government has not finally decided to approach the problem of transportation on the lower St. Lawrence with a comprehensive plan. The Liberal party undertakes to do it immediately after the next election.
(Text):


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, in moving his amendment the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made it quite clear and plain to the house that he did not know all the facts involved. Truer words were never spoken, Mr. Speaker. If he is so interested in the development of that part of the country, I suggest to him that rather than taking a trip abroad he would have been better advised to have gone to that region; because, with the mind of an economist that he is supposed to possess, I am sure he would have come back with different ideas.
He has referred to the unknown amounts of money which this railway may cost the government in the future.
Canadian National Railways
In view of the hon. member's economic assessment, I am less perturbed than ever that very soon this railway will be paying for itself. He suggested we should give to the people of that region, not the opportunity of earning their living and participating in the national economy, but rather that we should give gifts to these people who have been forgotten for 427 years, just as we did to the Indians, to try to keep the peace. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Gaspe peninsula will not accept gifts. They only want a means by which they can participate in the national economy and earn a just and honest living.
I have heard the hon. member for Peterborough trying to find a solution to this problem by suggesting the establishment of a development fund. The trouble in this area has always been that there have been no exits from it, so it was too expensive for people to transport their products to the Canadian or United States markets. What is the purpose of establishing a fund if no one can use it, if no one can partake of it? After hearing these two members of the N.D.P., I am sure that if they intend to use these arguments to try to solve the problems of this country they are in for a lot of headaches. The interest which we attach to this bill is not a political one but one of national interest.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words only concerning the views expressed by both the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Laurier in respect to Cacouna. Cacouna is about 100 miles from where this railway will start, that is about 100 miles from Matane. I am sure that any solution of the problem of Cacouna is not going to solve the problem of Matane or of the lower region of the Gaspe peninsula. Moreover, may I remind hon. members that although I am certainly hopeful something can be done for these people, a project is being developed near Riviere du Loup, which is about ten miles from Cacouna.
Before I commence speaking on the amendment, perhaps I should read a few words uttered by the Minister of Transport in the committee:
Among those familiar with the economy of the lower St. Lawrence region there is general agreement that the lack of railway facilities in the peninsula has so far been an obstacle to development of an area that has traditionally been deprived of ready access for markets. The economic future of the lower St. Lawrence region and more specifically of the Gaspe peninsula is, therefore, directly related to the improvement in its means of transportation. The government appreciates this problem and has decided to do something towards its solution.

Canadian National Railways
Farther along in the same report the minister stated:
Mr. Chairman, I will now give you a brief resume of the wider economic assets of the Gaspe north shore area since I feel that, in the long run, it is on the abundance of these assets rather than on the immediately available tonnages of freight waiting to be shipped that the success of this development will ultimately hinge.
Farther along in the same proceedings the hon. member for Peace River is reported as saying:
Mr. Chairman, possibly I might ask this question of Mr. Scott. Leaving out the economics of the situation vis-a-vis the railway itself, as a result of your examination of the situation, as a result of your discussions and conversations with the corporations in this area, and as a result of your economic evaluation, do you feel that the construction of this railway will, over the years, appreciably add to the gross national product?


Mr. Scott:: Yes. Mr. Fisher says, and quite
rightly, that the tonnage figures 1 gave him are quite small; but you must bear in mind that these tonnage figures do not include one ton of ore, concentrates, or anything of that nature, because we feel that is something that must develop after the railway. While we realize they are there, and hope they will soon be developed-and the quicker the better for the operation of the railway-yet the basic traffic is predicated on what we think is realizable now.
The lack of economic development, Mr. Speaker, is not peculiar to this one region about which we are speaking. There is not one province, Mr. Speaker, that does not have a region which is lacking in economic development. I am happy to see this bill reach third reading stage. It would, moreover, be a serious error to arrest the progress of this measure now and, therefore, arrest the steps being taken to put this project into being and accelerate the economic development of this area by linking the area of Mont Louis and Murdochville to Ste. Anne des Monts. This would give the area access to the industrial centres of Canada and the United States.
Railways have often been built on the basis of hypothetical developments rather than actual developments. I could cite the case of the Baraute railway in 1956, Mr. Speaker, in the Abitibi district. However, at that time it was not found appropriate to proceed with the Gaspe railway. Was it because the government of the day did not have faith in this sector of the country? I will not attempt to answer that question.
The royal commission on transportation do refer to the building of new railway lines. They say:
This is not to say that parliament should not, under certain circumstances, authorize construction of lines for development purposes when the immediate revenue cannot be expected to meet all costs. Under these circumstances, the government should be prepared to meet the deficit from public funds and not place the burden on other shippers.
[Mr. Keays.l
We have earlier recommended that the burden of existing uneconomic lines be removed from the shippers.
Moreover, this same commission recommends that we should look at other methods of transportation, such as road and air. The economy of Gaspe peninsula is based on three things, Mr. Speaker, fishing, farming and mining. I am sure no one has ever considered moving the products of these three industries by air from that area. In so far as highways are concerned, it is a well known fact that certain high revenue products can be moved cheaper by truck than by rail. However, when you consider the products of these three primary industries in the Gaspe peninsula, I am sure you will concede it would be uneconomic to move them by road. To sum up, therefore, it would seem that the government should take responsibility for the development of this project.
On Friday last the hon. member for Port Arthur, who I hope will not engage in too much solipsism, did not seem to concede that others may have a fair idea of the economy of these regions. In his speech he stated that neither the hon. member for Gaspe nor the hon. member Matapedia-Matane was worth $7 million each. The expenditures for economic development are not based on one human value but on a large population's desire to contribute further to national development and enhance further their own economic and social welfare. As I said before, Gaspe is not asking for handouts. It simply requests an opportunity to share in the national wealth and acquire the facilities to realize a higher standard by the labours of its people.
I could go on further and refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I would ask him to take his pencil and do a little figuring. When he speaks of 50,000 cords of pulpwood I am sure he will believe that this would amount to approximately 75,000 tons. When we speak of 85 million feet of lumber I am sure he will realize this would add up to 127,000 tons. When we speak of wood chips that could be shipped out of the area, I am sure he will realize this would amount to 35,000 tons.
Recently, in fact over the week end, I met a local lumberman from the area who had just received an order for 120 carloads of laths. It is true that at the moment there is a tremendous demand for laths, but a year from now if it is not laths it will be some other by-product of the forests. These 120 carloads, added to the remaining tonnage, would give roughly 250,000 tons of outgoing freight from forest products alone. Added to this would be 65,000 to 75,000 tons moving into the area. When I think of the revenue from this, and when I think of the original

investment of $14 million, based not on 7 per cent as the economic adviser of the N.D.P. wishes to suggest but based on a price of 3.5 per cent, then I am sure the forest products alone could justify the expenditure of this capital amount.
The hon. member for Port Arthur referred to the crown lands, and I think a correction should be made as it is possible that he misunderstood the statement made in the committee. The crown lands of the Gaspe peninsula on the south side of the peninsula, where there is already a railroad are available to all operators. I should say that on the north side of the peninsula the crown lands are there for the use of the lumbermen in the area, and on the south shore most of the land is taken up by large operators and the pulp and paper industry. Therefore there is no problem whatsoever in assuring hon. members of this house that the timber limits are available there to those who wish to use them.
I shall now deal with some of the reasons why shipments of lumber should not all go by water. Not too many regions of Canada and the United States enjoy a water frontage, and although a certain amount of the lumber from the peninsula goes to Montreal, there are in fact only two lumber buyers in that city who can use water facilities so that they may deposit this wood in their yards. Otherwise the lumber must be disembarked from ships and trucked to yards in the interior of the island of Montreal. A large quantity of the lumber produced in this area goes to the United States market but unfortunately there, as well as in the Montreal market, it is impossible to compete favourably with other sections of the country, especially when one realizes that to ship 1,000 feet of lumber from Ste. Anne des Monts to Matane requires an initial cost of roughly $5. That is why these people cannot put their product on the market at competitive prices; it is because of this additional $5 freight charge.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Port Arthur now understands clearly why there has to be other means of transportation than by water for the movement of these forestry products.
I now wish to speak about the mining development of the Gaspe peninsula. For years-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member goes on with what he suggests is his next topic I should remind him that there is nothing in this bill about the mining development of the Gaspe. This bill simply permits the payment of certain sums of money for the construction of a railway by the agency of the Canadian National Railways. We are not concerned with the purposes of the rail-
Canadian National Railways way at the moment. We are concerned with whether we should pass third reading of the bill which approves the voting of the money.


James Russell Keays: I was about to speak about the mining possibilities as well as the actual operation of mining in the area, in order to amplify the reasons for the railroad being built and to justify the expenditure of $14 million in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. member has in mind would have been relevant on the resolution and second reading, but I suggest to him that at this stage when the principle of the bill has been approved, nothing remains but to read the bill a third time, which is to confirm it in the form in which it came out of the committee. It is not relevant to go back to the whole substructure or substratum on which the bill rests.


James Russell Keays: May I be allowed to correct the statement made in this house on Friday concerning lack of co-operation between the provincial government and the federal government on this railroad?


Mr. Speaker:: If the statement referred to by the hon. member was made on third reading he would be in order in dealing with it, but if he goes back to statements made in committee he might or might not be in order.
(Translation):


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur asked the other day if the provincial authorities had been consulted. Let me say that my colleague from Gaspe (Mr. English) has always worked in close co-operation with the provincial member for Gaspe North, because both share the same desire, namely that of helping the Gaspe peninsula and making sure that its northern part is properly developed.
Thus, the Gaspe park has always been closed to mining exploration; now the provincial government intends to grant claims to 32 miles of that territory for mining exploration.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Port Arthur, I wish to read a telegram addressed to the hon. member for Gaspe by Mr. Claude Jourdain. I quote:
Sincere congratulations for decision by federal authorities to build railway Ste. Anne des Monts-Matane stop Carrying out this project immediately is essential and absolutely necessary to the economic and industrial development of the region stop Foresee gigantic mining development in Gaspe park starting this spring stop Agreements re immediate mining surveys will be concluded as soon as Bill C-67 is adopted by Canadian parliament stop Am convinced economic possibilities in near future of that project stop Economic expansion of region depends on it stop Can count on my entire support and am at your disposal for any necessary or useful representations to provincial authorities.

Canadian National Railways


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this amendment should be introduced by a group of opposition members, with a view to delaying the building of a railway which might bring about an extraordinary economic expansion in a part of our country, and more particularly in a part of the province of Quebec. In fact, that railway has been asked for, for about a century, as was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English), when he quoted an article from La Minerve, dating back to around 1881.
If, after confederation, we had adopted such a rigid attitude about railway building as we do today in regard to the building of this railway in the Gaspe peninsula, I doubt very much whether railways would have been built in other areas of this country.
The province of Quebec is in need of heavy industry. The lack of railways in the province is said to be one of the main reasons for this scarcity of heavy industry.
According to a bulletin of the Montreal chamber of commerce, although the province of Quebec accounts for 30 per cent of Canada's population, it accounts for only 11 per cent of Canada's railways.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) was talking about an over-all plan, and was saying that if ever his party came back to power, he would implement it. I wonder how it is that, having been minister of transport for so long, having received so many delegations from associations and county councils, he never did implement the logical representations made to him, at the time, for the building of that railway.
I am convinced that if that railway had been built 10, 15 or 20 years ago, the Gaspe peninsula would now know an unprecedented industrial, economic mining and forest development.
Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the members of the new party should have so little confidence in the economic future of that part of the province of Quebec. It is very unfortunate, and they will suffer the consequences of their shortsightedness. I think they are too rigid when it is a question of adopting a project which may contribute to the economic development of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will turn down this amendment by a majority vote, so that the building of that railway may start as soon as possible.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker I was interested in the remarks of the previous speaker in relation to this amendment. I think the amendment is an exceptionally good one. The hon. member


who just resumed his seat pointed to the New Democrats and said that perhaps we should be for progress in this particular matter. I would remind him that the Americans have a saying, "Remember Pearl Harbour", and we have one in our part of the country, "Remember Murdochville". I think many hon. members are forgetting one very simple fact, that the Union Nationale is no longer a major force; it is now a very small minority.
We have heard a number of people who have come here and disagreed entirely with the suggestion that this railway should be built. They have made other suggestions. Then we looked at it as an outsider. I admit that I do not know too much about the Gaspe area, but if one looks at a map he will find that here is a stretch of railway that does not belong to the Canadian National Railways. This is privately owned; it is owned by the Canada and Gulf Railway Terminal, whoever they may be. When it is being discussed, usually the man's name that comes to mind is Mr. Jules Brillant. He is the man who controls most of the sea shipping, railways, airways, telephone system, power system and communications system, including radio, press and parts of the television system.
I would therefore suggest that a very small minority of the people are interested in the development that is being suggested to us, and I think we have an obligation not only to the people to see that they get as much as they can for their money, but we must also take into consideration another very important factor in our economy today. I refer to the railway workers.
Over the week end I had the opportunity to talk to quite a number of them who were violently opposed to any railway which is not going to make money, which will have no chance of making money and which is going to be defunct before it ever begins being built under government auspices. They pointed out that labour is always blamed for asking for wage increases. For years the government has been asking to build railways that everybody has admitted could not in the foreseeable future be economic projects. The reason for this railway not being an economic project will be blamed upon the workers and increased wages.
There have been many such railways built and the royal commission on transportation decided many years ago that we had too many railways in the country, particularly branch line railways, many of which are better situated than this railway. The royal commission felt these branch line railways were causing a drain on the economy of the country and they felt that if eliminated it

would enable the central railway system to carry its own weight, or come closer to doing so.
Is this not a problem with which we have been faced for many years? I have no quarrel with those who support the Union Nationale to bring this matter forward. It is true, as the hon. member for Gaspe said, that this railway would have been a wonderful thing 100 years ago. However, it may not be a good thing now. Perhaps they wanted it for 100 years but they have become kind of lost in fact that other methods of transportation may have eliminated to some extent the system that is now proposed.
I think we would be less than honest in this parliament if we were to pass this bill today and not be assured by the government about what is going to happen to the independent railway. There is 50 miles of railway that is to be controlled by the Canadian National Railways or this extension cannot be built. What is the point of putting the tail about 10 feet from the dog? That is not very logical. I suggest that only the government can give us this assurance, and six months is probably the time necessary to make all the arrangements with the owners of this private railway. An arrangement has to be arrived at before the railway is started, and I would think it has to be arrived at before we can even consider how much the railway is going to cost. I would think you have to take into consideration the possibility of expropriation and the ownership of the section that we are going to add to the other 45 or 50 miles of railway that is already in existence and is the connecting link between the Canadian National Railways set up and the rest of the Gaspe peninsula. I think this is an essential. I would think the people of Gaspe would demand that this were done before we made this contribution. I would like to make it very clear that if these considerations are met, I have no objection to the railway being built.
We have listened to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine stating the resources that are going to be available and referring to the other assets of this railway. He referred to the possibility of the railway obtaining this large tonnage that he outlined. However, I am sure he will agree with me that we in this country are not one bit interested in supplying a transportation system that is not connecting and has no connection with the other railways under the control of Canadian National Railways. It would be quite possible for Mr. Jules Brillant to arrange it so that he were the only person in the area to obtain very much benefit out of this, because negotiations will have to take place with the Canada and Gulf Terminal Com-
Division
pany before the railway operates at all. I believe that for this reason it is absolutely essential that this type of agreement be arrived at. I do not think it is good enough to say that perhaps the possibilities will develop. Perhaps this agreement can be worked out; perhaps it will not be necessary to expropriate the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway, and perhaps this is good enough.
It may be that this is good enough, but for me it is not good enough, and for the Canadian people it is not good enough. We are not going to buy a pig in a poke. We want to be assured that this railway will be in continuous operation-that it is coming from somewhere and going some place, not just attached to somebody's private railway for a reason which is not particularly clear to me.
On these grounds I think the house might well express its opinion in a straightforward manner by supporting the amendment which is before us so that the committee might have another opportunity to examine the situation and give consideration to the views of other businessmen and interested persons, some of whom we had the opportunity of meeting this morning. These include people who believe that the expenditure of the $14 million is not in the best interests of the people of the Gaspe peninsula and that it will not necessarily bring a sizeable return to those who live in that area.
I think the government would be wise not to compare this proposition with another railway line which has nothing to do with the situation. I think the spokesmen for the government should stick strictly to the point. In addition, I think any such venture as this should be brought within the schedule of the Canadian National Railway Company. I do not see grounds upon which the minister can set up a separate company which would report to the house as an individual entity having no connection with the other railways of Canada. I do not see how the minister can bring forward a proposal of this kind and expect support either from hon. members or from the public of Canada. For all these reasons I believe the house should support the amendment which is before us at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house prepared to proceed with the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.

Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONTINENTAL SHELF DISPUTE  SUGGESTED METHOD OF SETTLEMENT

Harold Edward Winch: Be it resolved that the House of Commons notes the important issues of responsibility and jurisdiction over the issuance of leases, collection of royalties and control of the continental shelf, being the seaward borders of various provinces and the northern territories, and further recognizes that a federal-provincial dispute has already arisen in connection thereto as both federal and coastal provincial authorities claim sovereignty.
It is therefore recommended, as the opinion of this house, that the government take under advisement a settlement of the dispute in the following manner:	(1) that the issue of sovereignty over
the continental shelf shall be a matter of immediate negotiations between the parties concerned and; that failing an early agreement the matter shall be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, with an understanding that its decision shall be implemented by the introduction of required legislation and/or an amendment to the British North America Act.
(2)	That as the continental shelf issue Involves the federal government and several provincial governments, that in the interim period pending settlement, agreement be reached that the federal authority issue exploratory leases.
(3)	That all receipts from leases or royalties shall be held in escrow pending a decision on sovereignty either by dominion-provincial agreement or decision of the Supreme Court.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the continental shelf is one of serious, major and fundamental importance to all of Canada. I am sorry that I found it necessary to put forward such a lengthy resolution, but the question of the continental shelf is so difficult, so complex, so constitutional and so legalistic that I found that the only way by which I could present some of the more serious aspects of the problem and some proposals as to how to resolve the problem for consideration was by drafting the resolution as it now appears on the order paper. In view of the shortness of the time allowed each member in this debate, I am going to endeavour to keep my remarks comparatively brief and with the permission of hon. members I am going to follow very closely some notes I have prepared on the matter.
May I introduce the subject by saying that the seaward borders of the lands of the earth have been under discussion, dispute, exploration and exploitation in recent years. This is happening after nearly 400 years of comparative quiet and stability. However, in the

past few years a multitude of new problems have arisen, problems which are plaguing and have plagued many nations throughout the world and our own country as well.
I am sure that anyone who has followed the subject of the continental shelf will agree that it is obvious now that the same kind of federal-provincial dispute has arisen in Canada over the offshore mineral rights as has given rise to bitter controversy in the United States in the past 20 years. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that quite a few months ago the federal authorities in Ottawa issued exploration leases with respect to the continental shelf off the foreshore of the province of British Columbia and a few months after the federal government had issued these leases covering many hundreds of thousands of acres of the continental shelf the government of British Columbia threw down the gauntlet, shall I say, accepted the challenge and issued exploratory leases which in many cases overlap and serve the identical purpose of the leases issued by the federal authorities.
I am going to refer particularly to my own province of British Columbia because it is involved in a dispute with the federal authorities over the questions of sovereignty, the right to issue leases, royalties, control, everything having to do with matters pertaining to the continental shelf. Because this situation is now to the fore in Canada I think it is important to note what has been taking place in the United States.
There have been three important decisions by the United States supreme court holding in essence that the national or federal government, not the states, is possessed of paramount rights in and sovereignty and control over the continental shelf. However, because of the complexity of the agreements, relationships and treaties between various states in the United States and the federal government in that country all these matters have been held in abeyance as a result of the submerged lands act of that country of May 22, 1953.
It is very interesting to note that because the dispute in that country is still unresolved after 20 years and because there are many more cases involved, over $400 million of exploration money is being held in escrow by the federal government until the constitutional issue of sovereignty and control is resolved in that country. Although our constitutional set-up is somewhat different, without a doubt we are facing a similar problem and in some ways it is a larger problem because I do not think it is generally recognized that Canada has a greater continental shelf area than the United States, even if
Continental Shelf Dispute Hudson bay is excluded. In Canada we have a greater area of continental shelf and it is estimated that, with the discoveries of science and new technology, in the future it is going to be worth countless billions of dollars in natural resources and in turn royalties. That is why the question of sovereignty is of such importance to our country.
So far as I have been able to ascertain from all the reading I have done on the subject, the United Nations conference on the law of the sea, which met in Geneva in 1958 with representatives of some 86 countries present, made the first real attempt to establish some international understanding with regard to the continental shelf. It was decided at that conference on the continental shelf by a vote of 57 to three with only eight countries abstaining that the federal authority had sovereignty and control over the continental shelf. Although that was the viewpoint expressed internationally, to my knowledge nothing has been done in Canada to resolve the situation. As a matter of fact, in my opinion the situation is not only ludicrous but absolutely ridiculous. Here we have the federal government issuing leases granting exploration rights on the continental shelf in the territorial waters off British Columbia. Then, we have the province issuing leases covering exactly the same area to do exactly the same thing. What has been the result? The result has been that there is charge and countercharge, insult and counter-insult and abuse. The big companies will not proceed with the exploratory work; they are not moving at all. Why is this so? It is the result of the jurisdictional confusion about sovereignty, as to who has rights, who has control. They do not want to move ahead and perhaps spend millions of dollars, and then find themselves involved in lawsuits or intergovernmental disputes. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the interests of Canada to allow this condition to continue.
Surely, we do not want to have in our country a repetition of the 20-year battle that has taken place in the United States in the courts with the result that that country as well is being held up in attempts at exploration of the mineral and organic material on the continental shelf which, of course, borders every state and every province that has a waterway or an ocean adjacent to it.
Now, it would be unfair for me to raise the problem and at least not have some idea as to how I think it might be approached. I will admit it is most difficult. Perhaps what I suggest is not feasible, but I have included in the resolution at least my ideas of how the problem may be approached. You will find in the latter part of the resolution under 1, 2 and 3, procedures which I hope will be

Continental Shelf Dispute considered and which it might be possible to have followed. If the procedures set forth therein are not feasible, then at least let us have some kind of constructive action taken. For heaven's sake let us regard ourselves not as a sovereign state in Ottawa, a sovereign state in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia, but as Canadians. Instead of making charge and countercharge, let us sit down as though we were a united nation and try to solve our difficulties. Let us see how we are going to proceed in the interest of Canada.
It is my suggestion that an immediate endeavour be made to bring the federal government and the provinces concerned together to see if an agreement can be reached on sovereignty and on the leases. If that cannot be done, then we should not just let the matter drift. It is my understanding that the government has certain powers. I would say, refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada which is the highest body to which we can appeal because no provision is made for the granting of these leases under the British North America Act or other legislation. Let the court tell us what is the proper position to take. After that, let us proceed with this development by agreement, as Canadians, whether it is the provincial or federal government that has jurisdiction. Let us proceed by mutual agreement to introduce legislative amendments or changes in the constitution that would take care of the situation which, of course, was not one which was recognized at the time the terms of confederation were laid down.
However, all that takes time. Why should we wait? I suggest also that there should be an understanding, which I hope can be arrived at, so that we can proceed now, by means of which those who hold leases in British Columbia could proceed with their explorations. If, as I hope, in the not too distant future there is development, then it could be agreed that, until this problem is cleared away and all the disputes resolved, the federal government would issue the leases and hold the moneys received in escrow, the same as they are doing now in the United States. Then, whatever money is there will be distributed on the basis of this new clarification of natural resources power in our country.
This is a subject in which I am keenly interested. I could speak on it at length. I do hope that with these words I have at least outlined the problem and I hope members recognize how serious it is. I believe the suggestions I have made may lay some of the groundwork for a discussion as to how, in the interest of Canada, the potentials of our continental shelf may be developed so that our country can expand. I hope we can solve

this problem in a manner that will qualify us as sensible human beings and members of parliament.


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) for introducing this resolution. This is an issue that is of extreme importance, particularly in British Columbia. As the hon. member has pointed out to you, the possibility of oil exploration and the hoped for oil development in British Columbia has been slowed because of the failure to establish sovereignty over the resources of the continental shelf. I should like to quote from a publication called Oil-week, of October 9, 1961. This article carries the headline, "Calm Settles Over B.C. Offshore Acreage", and states:
Having made their initial grab of oil rights off British Columbia's coast line, exploration companies now appear content to sit back and wait to see if they filed for permits with the right government.
Even those who played safe and took out permits from both federal and provincial agencies are in no hurry to commence exploration.
Perhaps the companies are not in any hurry, but I think the people of British Columbia are most anxious that this exploration be expedited. For that reason, I can lend a good deal of support to this resolution. Now, the issue of the ownership of minerals, coal and other fossil fuels in the continental shelf extending from our shores is one that cannot be dismissed as unimportant. This is particularly so in British Columbia. There is something in the nature of 15,000 miles of shore line in British Columbia. Of course, this takes in a lot of the islands lying off the shores of British Columbia. We have thousands of miles of inlets or fjords, as some call them. We have a narrow stretch of water between Vancouver island and the mainland. Anyone who cares to take a look at the map of the coast of British Columbia will readily see that this is an extremely difficult problem along that coast.
In my opinion, the problem cannot be dismissed by stating that under the provisions of the British North America Act these rights are vested in the federal government because I have not found that is so. I do not believe it is necessarily so. One cannot say that the settlement of similar disputes in other areas of the world has set a precedent that applies in the case of our own continental shelf area. There is a difference between our constitution and the constitution of the United States, and any settlement that might be made concerning rights in the gulf of Mexico would not necessarily set a precedent for a settlement of a Canadian problem. There have been in the past some contradictions on the part of the federal government that do not bear out the

contention that the continental shelf regions are under the jurisdiction of the federal authority.
I believe it was in 1928 that the provincial government of British Columbia granted oil exploration rights in Hecate straits, lying between the British Columbia mainland and the Queen Charlotte islands. There was a very minor amount of exploratory work done at that time, but as the result of information gained then and as a result of further geological knowledge the oil companies have now taken a new interest in that particular area as well as in others around the coast. For a number of years they have been drilling test holes along the southern part of the Queen Charlotte islands, and have apparently come to the conclusion that the area extending under the sea from the Queen Charlotte islands holds a potential for the discovery of petroleum products.
About two years ago the former minister of northern affairs and national resoures asked me why the oil companies would be applying for exploration rights off the coast of the Queen Charlotte islands. He asked how could they possibly drill in that area. I pointed out to him that a very large part of Hecate straits is comparatively shallow. There is an area extending out some 20 miles which has a water depth of probably less than three fathoms, and after the experience in the gulf of Mexico such a depth of water poses a very minor problem for drilling and exploratory work done in connection with oil.
Now, as I said, there had been some contradictions in the past. I know I am not telling secrets when I say it has been a well known fact that coal operations have been carried out on the continental shelf in the maritimes for many years. I never heard any issue raised over that type of mine there, but I can foresee lots of complications if the federal government insist that continental shelf resources belong to them. In the case of the whole gulf of St. Lawrence and the lower St. Lawrence area, who has the rights to the resources? Who has the rights to the resources in the bay of Fundy?
The federal government does not dispute the right of Ontario to resources lying under the Canadian section of the great lakes. Somebody might say that is fresh water, but it is a huge inland sea and some comparison can be made. The water area of the great lakes exceeds the total continental shelf area lying off the coast of British Columbia. In fact the Ontario section of lake Huron is as large as the area in the region of the Queen Charlotte islands and Hecate straits in which the oil companies are so anxious to pursue exploration work.
Continental Shelf Dispute
I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that the issue , of sovereignty over the continental shelf "shall be a matter of immediate negotiation between the parties concerned". I do not see any reason to expect failure of these negotiations so far as those in British Columbia are concerned. I, as a British Columbian, feel that the mineral and fossil fuel resources of our continental shelf are rightly ours. If a reference is made to the supreme court, as I believe the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources suggested might be done on several occasions, and if the ruling is adverse to the interests of British Columbia, then I feel the law should be amended to redress what I consider is a wrong.
I shall quote again from Oilweek of October 9, 1961, which has a reference to the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, who is now Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) appearing before a committee of the other place. It reads:
Present, among others, were the then minister of northern affairs, the Hon. F. A. G. Hamilton and the minister of the Department of Justice, the Hon. E. Davie Fulton.
Apparently no subsequent discussion has taken place to up-date this debate, during which Mr. Hamilton made these comments in answer to questions:
"We seek no power to take over the land of any province or any area not described as being precisely within our power ... It is not the intention of the government to force anything on any person or any group that is unwilling to accept."
They were discussing a bill before the house at that time. Later, Mr. Fulton is quoted as saying:
The amendment which is now proposed has been drawn in the desire to make it clear that the operation of this act will not extend to the Pacific coast, in which the province of British Columbia is interested; will not extend to the gulf of St. Lawrence, in which the province of Quebec is interested: will not extend to a large portion of the coast of Labrador, in which that province is also interested; and will not extend to the great lakes, in which the province of Ontario is interested.
In other words, it will be confined to the areas where I understand the lands under territorial waters can be agreed now to be lands within the jurisdiction of the government at Ottawa-
Any suggestion that the federal government has considered itself on firm ground on claiming the resources under our continental shelves, particularly adjacent to the provinces, is not justified in view of the statements of these ministers.
I feel that everything possible should be done to expedite oil and gas exploration on the coast of British Columbia, and clauses (2) and (3) of this motion offer what in my opinion is an acceptable method of breaking the present impasse. I hope that the government of British Columbia will accept such

Continental Shelf Dispute a suggestion and will sit down with our federal officials in order to get this whole matter on the road. We have enough contentious issues between our various provinces and the federal government to weaken us as a nation. I say let us settle those we can, and I believe this is one we can settle. We have a great deal of difficulty in settling some others between the federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia, but I think this is one that can be settled without bad feeling.
I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that I have never been able to find any indication, nor do I believe it was ever the intention when confederation was conceived, that federal revenues should be drawn directly from the control of natural resources, and I say once again that in my view these natural resources lying off the coast of the provinces belong to the provinces. For the federal government to attempt to draw revenues from these resources might well be classed as nothing but greed and will certainly not encourage the development of our continental shelf resources.
Having said this, I want to impress upon the house and the ministers concerned with these questions that this is an extremely important matter to us in British Columbia. The discovery of oil or natural gas along the coast of British Columbia would give a tremendous impetus to our economy. At present most of our oil is transported long distances by pipe line and is brought in by ships. This results in a fairly high cost to the consumer.
We have our oil resources in the Peace River and we draw oil from Alberta, but the fact is that for one item alone, furnace oil, where I live we pay 20.6 cents a gallon and I believe it can be purchased for anything from 14 to 16 cents in the city of Montreal; and Montreal certainly draws its oil supplies from far distant countries.
I think this points up, Mr. Speaker, the urgent need for a settlement of this continental shelf resources issue and I hope that these oil companies will be able to proceed with their exploration work and a settlement will be reached at the earliest possible date.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker I wish to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) for bringing forward this resolution which is extremely well worded. Unlike my colleague from Comox-Alberni I find myself fundamentally in agreement with all the points raised. It seems to me that-


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said, "Unlike my colleague from Comox-Alberni I find myself in agreement with the points raised". I think I made it clear that I agreed with the resolution.


Ernest James Broome: I thought I said that I complimented the hon. member from Vancouver East, the same as my colleague from Comox-Alberni. I do not think there is any relationship between a continental shelf and such areas as the great lakes; these are simply depressions inside a continent. The continental shelf is the shallow area which stretches out into the ocean.
It seems to me that we could well have a condition of superior and inferior provinces in this connection. For instance, the provinces which joined confederation in 1867, and British Columbia which joined a little later, were crown colonies which came into confederation bringing with them certain rights guaranteed under the British North America Act. It is quite conceivable that if new provinces are set up in the Northwest Territories this parliament could, in its wisdom, take away from those new provinces any rights to any mineral wealth underneath the continental shelf in the Arctic ocean. We would perhaps then have the older provinces of Canada having certain rights which newer provinces might not have.
There is also the fact that the federal government is in charge of shipping and the fisheries, and it seems to me that by intent the federal government is supposed to look after those matters which are outside the actual land boundaries of the various provinces. I think it would be rather unfortunate if in continental shelf exploration we had varying laws and regulations enunciated by each province which happened to be concerned.
I think one of the factors which has caused the very intensive development in the Northwest Territories has been the fact that we have uniformity in our regulations and we have regulations which were designed for the benefit of Canada, because it is considered that these resources in the Northwest Territories at this particular time must be used for the benefit of all of Canada.
I do think there is a certain precedent in regard to the law of the sea. We do have our own constitution, but in these matters I think that any court of law would take into account the generally accepted international legal procedure, and this must have some bearing upon any decision that is handed down.

However, I think that the hon. member for Vancouver East has got himself into a little bit of a jackbox when he says in paragraph (1):
-implemented by the introduction of required legislation and/or an amendment to the British North America Act.
It is my understanding that the British North America Act can only be amended by unanimous agreement among all provinces. In fact this is one of the weaknesses of our constitution, that if any one province disagrees with something the other nine provinces want to see the federal government go ahead with, the federal government's hands are tied. It could well be that if we must have an amendment to the British North America Act we could never come to any sort of agreement. It would seem to me that if this question were referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, any decision of the supreme court must necessarily become binding on all parties.
I do not think the reference to coal mines being extended out from land areas in Nova Scotia underneath the sea is pertinent to this particular subject, because that resulted from a land development extending into the sea whereas the oil exploration envisaged on the continental shelf is from mobile rigs operating out on the water, in many cases scores of miles from land. We could have a balkanization of Canada; we could have various jurisdictions. This could result in the least advantageous development of our natural resources as far as those resources under the continental shelf are concerned.
It does seem to me that the proposals put forward in this resolution have merit. However, this is an extremely tricky legal problem. It is a problem upon which I think lawyers could spend quite a long time. Lawyers are very interested in the fine points of meaning of clauses and words. This resolution has been developed, I assume, by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has many admirable characteristics but I do not think he is a lawyer. Neither am I nor the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and therefore I think this matter would have to be looked at very, very carefully before this parliament committed itself to advising the government that this is the right kind of action. I think the ideas are right and the philosophy behind the resolution is right, but I do not know whether this is the only approach. I think this is a problem for the legal brains of the government to sort of dig into very, very thoroughly.
In regard to agreement and immediate negotiations among the provinces, of course, these can be started at any time, but in order
Continental Shelf Dispute to have negotiation you must have a willingness on both sides to negotiate. It may well be that this will come about; I certainly hope it will. However, knowing the conflict of interests which exists between the various provinces and the federal government, I am not sure. I wonder if it will be as easy as the hon. member for Vancouver East thinks it will.
To sum up, I would say that this resolution should be studied by the appropriate officials in the Department of Justice and by the departments of government concerned. They should understand that this is a problem which cannot be carried forward year after year without anything being done about it. They should realize that it is necessary to reach some sort of conclusion, and if these negotiations do not result in an agreement then the only solution which I can see is the one which the hon. member has suggested, namely to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: It is not possible for any hon. member from British Columbia to argue against the spirit or the intent of the motion which the hon. member for Vancouver East has submitted. All of us, regardless of party affiliation, are aware that the people of British Columbia require and demand the settlement of the dispute which now exists between the federal government and the provincial government in this matter of jurisdiction over the continental shelf with respect to such matters as the collection of royalties, leases and so on.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out, and as other members from British Columbia have indicated, this question of jurisdiction is one of extreme complexity. If one reads the various opinions which have been expressed since this dispute arose it is impossible not to realize that there are many points of view, both legal and otherwise. Even in the oil industry itself there is doubt where the responsibility lies. Further, as the resolution itself suggests, while the major dispute at this moment exists between the dominion government and the government of British Columbia, it is quite possible that any decision or agreement reached by those two authorities would have an impact on the other provinces, provinces which now have an agreed position in relation to their offshore rights on the continental shelf. The position of these provinces might be altered in any understanding or new agreement entered into between the government of British Columbia and the federal government. I do not feel, therefore, that a resolution as all-embracing as this one could be made to work at this stage.

Continental Shelf Dispute
In addition there appears to me to be a possibility that the second and third recommendations in the resolution contain the seeds of a further dispute which might be imposed on the existing one. As hon. members know, agreements between British Columbia and the dominion government have been entered into over many years. There is, for example, the six harbour agreement of 1924 which happened to provide British Columbia with a considerable part of its claim to jurisdiction over the shelf off the coast. But there is no common understanding as to what exactly that agreement provided. There are two interpretations. And so it goes. Throughout this whole discussion we find that the dispute is based on differing interpretations of existing legislation and agreements.
In the first instance, before consideration is given to bringing this matter before the courts, I think that in the interests of both the federal government and the province there should be a meeting between representatives of the departments directly concerned with this matter on both sides to find out if there is some common ground upon which the dispute might be resolved by negotiation outside the courts. At the present time discussions are being carried on at much too long a range. There does not seem to be any great desire on either side to enter upon negotiations in a spirit of conciliation, recognizing that the best interests of the people of British Columbia and, therefore, of the people of Canada, are not being served so long as this dispute continues unresolved. I believe it is necessary that the two governments should try to find some means of gathering together their experts from departments which have a particular interest in this question in an attempt to discover, in conference, whether there is not some ground for common understanding which could provide a basis upon which to proceed. I think that is the first requirement, and surely it is a reasonable one.
My next point is this: there is a good deal of danger that the relationship between the federal government and the government of British Columbia may become, in the public mind both inside and outside British Columbia, something like that which exists between India and Kashmir. We are not separate states. British Columbia is not a separate state; it is an integral part of confederation. The federal government is not, to the best of my knowledge, at war with the government of British Columbia at the moment, though at certain times one might get an impression that such a state almost existed; there are other disputes. I think it is time now to recognize that this is not a question of maintaining the prestige of either government. It is a question of resolving this dispute

to make certain that the people of British Columbia, and therefore the people of Canada, should get the benefit of a long delayed and most necessary resource development. These attempts to protect prestige so often lead to a curious situation where no interests are served, including the attempt to preserve prestige itself. By the time the dispute has dragged on month after month, the people have become tired of it and there is no prestige left for anyone; there is only acrimony, resentment and, on the part of the people, bewildered boredom.
The issue is clear-it is to obtain resource development; to get the economy of Canada further developed. By developing the economy of British Columbia we do develop the econ-nomy of Canada, despite certain suggestions to the contrary which emanate from the west coast from time to time. However, as I say,
I do think the first requirement is a meeting between the representatives of the two governments where the people concerned with resource development and the people who understand the law relating to the situation can meet to decide whether there is not some position which can be mutually agreed or some road which can be followed. It may be that the only agreement which would come out of such a meeting, or series of meetings, would be that the question should be submitted to the supreme court.
If it cannot be done by negotiation then I cannot see any other possible alternative. There would have to be an agreement that when the supreme court decision is made it will be binding on both parties. That is almost entirely what is incorporated in the first recommendation of this resolution.
When you look at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution you realize immediately that the provincial government would have to recognize the federal government's position as a caretaker position in which the federal government would issue exploratory leases during the period of negotiation or while the issue was before the courts and collect the revenues and royalties and hold them in escrow.
I do not think we can go that far in this resolution. I strongly suspect the present temper of the government of British Columbia to be such that it would not be willing to accept the suggestion that the federal government at this time should have even a caretaker authority over the shelf. But of course we cannot really know what the attitude will be unless a meeting is held at which representatives could meet and determine whether they could come to an agreement on points such as those raised by the resolution now before us, and on others

which may exist. While there is no agreement at the moment and no meeting of minds between the federal and provincial governments there is certainly not merely a hiatus in the consideration of this question. The issue is a live one here in Ottawa in the departments of the federal government concerned, as well as in British Columbia. The positions of the two governments and their arguments to support those positions must be clearly defined and established. Consequently it is time now to bring about a means by which a conference can be held. I would hope that from the conference would emerge the means by which there can be achieved settlement of the question whether merely by negotiation or by reference to the supreme court.
As to the points contained in paragraphs 2 and 3, they will perhaps come up. As a matter of fact I suppose those two points cannot be avoided in any negotiations; but I do not think the federal government should be bound to include them at this stage in view of the fact that there may be other approaches the federal government has assessed and is prepared to introduce in the negotiations, if they could be reopened.
I return to my original contention that it is impossible for a member of this house from British Columbia to oppose the spirit and intent of this resolution, but the only part of the resolution which strikes me as being entirely valid at this time is that contained in the first paragraph recommending that a meeting be held to deal with the problem and attempt to find a means of settlement which the people of British Columbia are now demanding be achieved.


Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate -very briefly, as I see by the clock-I wish to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver East on proposing this resolution, but I wish to state that it involves issues of such magnitude, both legal issues and others, that it can scarcely be discussed in the hour reserved for consideration of private members bills. I do not consider myself a constitutional expert nor do I appreciate all the ramifications of the British North America Act, but it appears to me that there are raised in this resolution matters of great magnitude and of vital importance, not only in relation to the development of Canada but to that of each individual province.
We are dealing here with the continental shelf which in my opinion has never been exactly defined. We do not know how far it goes seaward or where it starts landward.
Supply-Forestry
The maritime provinces, although not to the same extent as British Columbia, are interested in the development of the continental shelf. I believe it was in 1925 that the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia passed an act vesting the foreshore of the province in the provincial government. Nothing was said as to the ownership or rights in the territories beyond, in the land beyond the foreshore. The fact that over the years some of the collieries in Cape Breton have extended their operations out under the sea does not in my opinion establish any claim except possibly that of adverse possession, but certainly not any inherent right of sovereignty.
The province of New Brunswick on the other hand has not passed such an act. We have grants in the province of New Brunswick that came from the imperial government, the government of Great Britain, under which the grantee is given rights to low water mark. A former chief justice of the province of New Brunswick now deceased decided that the province owned the land under the ocean for many miles. Whether or not that decision was correct, I am not prepared to say. In my opinion the first thing that must be decided is what is the extent of the continental shelf.
As hon. members know under the British North America Act certain fields of jurisdiction were assigned to the federal and provincial governments. According to some constitutional experts a residual power is also vested in the federal government under which anything not assigned to the jurisdiction of the provincial governments is vested in the federal government altogether apart from the section dealing with peace, order and good government. It may be that as the continental shelf is not mentioned as coming within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, it remains vested in the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Before I call it six o'clock may I ask that the house give its consent to permit us to proceed to the next order of business. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
Forest research branch-
635. Operation and maintenance, further amount required, $80,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Forestry AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think we last dealt with this item on February 23. Before that time and since, I have had the opportunity of having a couple of conversations with the minister in connection with wood preserving. On behalf of the new industry in my riding, as well as four others which I believe were started elsewhere in Canada in 1961 and two additional ones which are expected in 1962, I have been suggesting to the minister that the forest products laboratory should endeavour to work in closer conjunction with the spending departments such as transport, public works and those other government departments which are perhaps the biggest purchasers of preserved wood in Canada.
I am speaking, of course, of a relatively new process so far as Canada is concerned, the waterborne preservative known as the Boliden salt process, whereas most of us are more familiar with oil treatments for wood preserving. So far as my riding is concerned, there seems to be quite a scope for the utilization of wood species such as poplar, which we have in great abundance, that are sometimes described as wood weeds. In our area we no longer have, of course, the wonderful white pine that made the early mills in northwestern Ontario so famous, and because of freight rates and so on the import of fir and other more popular products is sometimes prohibitive. The result is that products other than wood are being used in substitution.
I am told that a number of additional plants using this new process could be established if there was not quite so much rigidity in the acceptance of certain standards that have been traditional in this country. Those who have spoken to me seem to feel that, without adequate initiative and experimentation in Canada, we have been inclined simply to accept United States standards and have been ignoring the fact that while this particular process is new in Canada it has been well known for some time in European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries. I believe that this particular salt waterborne preservative has been utilized in Europe since 1935.
As I understand the situation, the minister's forest products laboratory is prepared to tell any possible purchaser of wood for which a preservative is required that a standard of .55 with respect to the Boliden salt process is adequate rather than the standard of .65 set by the Canadian standards association. The point I wish to make to the minister is that, first of all, the countries of Europe,
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown).]
New Zealand and others have accepted a standard of less than .55 but if in the opinion of our laboratory .55 is satisfactory it seems to me that information should be conveyed properly to such departments as the Department of Public Works, which establishes specifications for the purchase of wood that is required in many of its structures. I urge that the department go beyond that and establish whether a standard of .55 is not higher than necessary and whether there is not undue conservatism in this particular field.
I happened to listen to a farm broadcast on the radio at noon and the subject under discussion was the forest products laboratory and the preservatives that are available for treating farm fence posts and so on. There is a tremendous field here, of course, in so far as the weed woods are concerned and there would be tremendous industrial and economic advantage to our part of the country in the use of this process. I know the same thing is true in Manitoba because I know that a plant of this type has been established in the constituency of the hon. member for Dauphin. At first the plant had a hard time selling the product but now they are working to full capacity. I understand that the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have accepted this preservative with respect to such purchases as telephone poles. Hon. members know, of course, that in those provinces the telephone companies are government owned.
I suspect that there has perhaps been undue reliance on United States standards rather than doing our own experimenting independently. There is a feeling that, in relation to oil treatment preservatives, a standard of lower than .55 could properly be accepted with regard to this process. If this were done it would certainly generate a substantial cash flow that is not available at the present time in areas such as mine and other rural areas, particularly in western Canada, where there is this immense asset in the form of unused poplar wood.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I should like to speak on this item for two reasons, the first being an item that appeared in the newspapers across this country. The article to which I refer appeared in the Globe and Mail for Thursday, March 8, datelined Vancouver, B.C., and reads:
A major expansion of the Elk Falls pulp and paper mill on Vancouver island at a cost of $25 million was announced today by Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.
G. H. Gallaway, company president, said the expansion would mark the first production in Canada of bleached kraft pulp from sawdust.
The expansion will add 50,000 tons of sawdust pulp a year; increase the kraft pulp production to 1,000 tons from the present 520 tons a day and triple the Elk Falls bleach plant capacity to 600 tons a day from 200 tons.

The Elk Falls plant, just north of Campbell river, on Vancouver island's east coast, brought into production in 1952, cost $65 million. It is operated by the Elk Falls Company Limited, a division of Crown Zellerbach.
"This is the biggest single expansion our company has undertaken." said Mr. Gallaway. Completion is scheduled for 1964.
I believe, the article was in error in setting the capital cost of this expansion at $25 million because I understand the official press release stated it would be $35 million.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very important breakthrough in applied science. For many years it has been a dream to use sawdust as a raw material in the production of pulp. One often hears private business being castigated for its alleged failure to participate in research work. One also often hears, both in this house and outside, suggestions to the effect that United States industrial firms operate on a basis of cut out and get out in Canada. This development at Elk Falls was made possible because of the wealth of research knowledge the parent company, Crown Zellerbach, has gathered not only through its own research facilities but from all the sources available to it in the United States, Canada and indeed throughout the world. There may be a pulp plant in some other part of the world which is successfully using sawdust as a source of raw material, but I do not know of one. While I take an interest in forestry matters and forest products, I am not aware of another plant that is using sawdust for this purpose.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, what this development means from an economic and forestry point of view, particularly in British Columbia. It is of particular significance to our future economy. This development means that our pulp industry has available to it a low cost raw material that will help make it competitive in other parts of the world and still provide working conditions for the labour employed in pulp mills that are as good as any place in the world. I believe I can safely say that. I believe working conditions in our pulp and paper industry are as good as any in North America, and consequently any place in the world.
In the case of this one plant, our forest products production is increased by the equivalent of 40 million board feet of timber a year without cutting one additional tree. The value in dollars of this pulp I will not attempt to estimate, but it runs into many, many millions of dollars. The annual output of sawdust waste in British Columbia, if it were economically available, would supply the raw material requirements for upwards of 25 such plants as this one proposed at Elk Falls. I said if it were economically possible because
Supply-Forestry
I think that is getting into the realm of fantasy. Many of the saw mills are in remote areas and there would be a real transportation problem in getting the sawdust to the pulp mills. I doubt if, by any stretch of the imagination, the sawdust waste of all saw mills could be used in the pulp mills of British Columbia.
One important fact of this new pulp development is the fact that in British Columbia there is no question about whether timber should be converted into chemical use or sawn into lumber products in saw mills. Both types of plants are an integral part of the over-all forest industry. One is just as important as the other, and a healthy pulp and paper industry needs a healthy lumber industry and the latter needs every possible assistance from research in order to sell its products in competition with materials available from sources other than wood.
This consideration of materials other than wood brings me to a subject that is very much in the mind of anyone who has knowledge of our British Columbia forest industry. I have referred to this before on a number of occasions, and I am speaking of our cedar problem. I feel that a crash research program is needed to find a solution to this problem. About 25 per cent of our coastal stands of timber is western red cedar. This would probably amount to about 100 billion feet board measure of timber. I have not the figures for the interior, but I would estimate that about 10 per cent of the interior stands are western red cedar. They are primarily situated in the Kootenays, the Columbia river valley, the lower Thompson and some of the areas around Salmon Arm and Enderby. There is much of this cedar that is of high quality and produces a high grade product in the form of cedar siding, cedar panelling, shingles, shakes and other products.
We have run into very severe competition in recent years from substitute materials. We are finding it difficult to convert a large quantity of this cedar into sawn products that we can sell. In fact, a few weeks ago, within the last two weeks, I believe, there was an announcement from MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Company that they were closing the cedar mill operation at New Westminster. This plant has been known as the B.C. Manufacturing plant, and because of the difficulty in finding markets for the products from that mill, the plant is closing. I believe this factory employs approximately 265 men and it uses approximately 75 million board feet of cedar a year. Where is a market going to be found for these 75 million feet of logs? They are going to come out of the woods because the cedar is interspersed amongst the

Supply-Forestry
other species required for lumber, pulp and paper, and they will be produced whether or not there is a market for them. This is a problem that is increased year by year and I believe it has been brought to the attention of the minister and his officials by the forest industries association for British Columbia. I have a copy of the brief that was presented to the minister about one and a half or two years ago, shortly after he became Minister of Forestry. I should like to quote from this presentation which deals with the particular problem of the British Columbia forest industry and which shows how the Department of Forestry could best aid that industry. It states:
The percentage of cedar In the coastal forest inventory is very high, in fact more than four fifths of the total cedar inventory of North America is in B.C.'s forests. The actual percentage of cedar in our coastal inventory is about 24 per cent, yet, for many years, the percentage of cedar being cut annually is much lower than the percentage of that species in the total forest inventory, the percentage of cedar being cut being only about 17 per cent. This percentage has represented the maximum volume that existing or known commercial uses have been able to absorb. As a consequence of the low percentage being cut, the western cedar problem each year becomes more serious. A very high percentage of this cedar (which is known as "western red cedar") is suitable only for shingles and low grade lumber, for which there is a limited demand.
As a result of the combination of circumstances referred to in the preceding paragraph, you will appreciate that the utilization of cedar is one of our industry's most serious problems. Leading forest engineers and chemists, who have studied the problem are convinced that the only real solution to the problem of using low grade red cedar is partly in increased use in the manufacture of pulp but chiefly in finding, through research, a wider range of commercial uses for cedar, including chemical extractions thereof.
I should like to emphasize the importance of this problem to the minister and stress what it means to the economy of British Columbia. It is what I might refer to as one of the soft spots in our economy and I feel that most people who have a knowledge of the B.C. forest industry-I think I have some knowledge of it myself-believe that with a concentration on the part of the Department of Forestry, with its facilities for research, there is every reason to be confident that the department would come up with the anwer to this problem. I ask the minister to give it his personal attention at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Batten:: This is the first time I have had the opportunity to take part in discussions on the estimates of the new Department of Forestry, and it is a department which I believe will reach considerable prominence in service to Canadians in the future. The minister brings to his post a very wide and practical knowledge of the forests

of Canada in general, and of the forests of his own province of New Brunswick in particular. Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I say to him that I wish him well in his efforts.
During my years in this house I have always been particularly interested in matters pertaining to research. I have enjoyed many of the meetings of the House of Commons committee on research, of which I am a member, but to date we have not been able to get to the point of discussing research in forestry. I hope that some time in the near future we shall be able to do that.
I believe Canadians are becoming more aware of the value and the need for research. However, I think that over the years we have not had sufficient research in Canada, and viewing the estimates of expenditures by other countries on research I would say that we have allocated a smaller proportion of our gross national product to research than many other countries in the western world. We in this country have a great and varied storehouse of natural resources. In fact I believe it is fair to say there are few countries in the world in a better position to carve a great economic prosperity through research and technology than Canada. To no small degree our economic stature in the future will depend on the nature and degree of our research, and the manner in which research findings are utilized. I would point out that these general observations on research would apply not only to forestry but also to many other industries.
The industries and the national economies which put a premium on research will do the best in the years that lie ahead.
Dr. E. W. R. Steacie, president of the national research council, when speaking at the opening of the addition to the Imperial Oil research laboratories at Sarnia in January of this year said:
Any industrialized country that does not allocate to research a proportion of its national effort comparable to that of the most advanced nations will be unable to maintain its position in the world.
Later in his speech, when referring to the rate of growth of organized scientific activity, Dr. Steacie said:
As yet, however, there is no sign that the rate has started to decline, and one must conclude that any country which does not increase its expenditures on research at a comparable rate will ultimately face a deterioration in its world position.
This item for a further amount of $80,000 for forestry research is one with which I can agree. In a country where research needs increased attention, both on the part of government as well as industry, it is good to see a lead being taken by the federal government. We must have a greater emphasis on research and an increase in desirable jobs. Otherwise

this country will lose some of its best trained people. In this connection I would point out that in 1959, of the 90 science-trained doctors of philosophy who left the national research council, only 16 remained in Canada.
Research is not only for industries which are not as successful as they might be. It is also essential for industries that are successful today and hope to maintain their competitive position for tomorrow. In no case is this truer than in that of the forest industries.
There is no need to comment on the value of forest industries to the Canadian economy. In the newsprint industry alone 127 pulp, paper and paperboard mills across the country not only provide 47 per cent of the newsprint supply of the free world and account for 4.3 per cent of our gross national product, but they furnish the basic materials for almost another 450 mills providing employment for our people.
The importance of this industry to the economy of Canada was well expressed in a speech made last March by the minister to the Canadian forestry association in which he said that the aid which he expected his department to give to the forestry industry would include research relating to the utilization of forest products. Then he went on to say this:
"The public must be awakened", said Mr. Flemming, "to the realization that the forest resource is Canada's vital concern, without which the standard of living would be very drastically depressed, and without which the whole economy might well crumble".
The basis for the forest industries in
Canada-as of course it is everywhere else______
is the raw material which our forests are able to provide. Much research will be necessary if we are to ensure adequate supplies of present plant capacity and also for increased capacity in the future. This is true for Canada in general and I think it is particularly true for other regions of Canada, particularly the Atlantic provinces.
It has been estimated that the forest industries of Canada can provide another 125,000 jobs. To do this there will be need of research. There will be need of research to appraise our present capacity and how it can be used to meet future needs. There will be need of research to develop the most effective and efficient use of wood. Research will be needed to provide new and improved methods of protecting our forests from the ravages of fire, insects and disease. Again, research will be needed to acquire more knowledge and positive information regarding tree genetics, tree improvements and artificial tree generation.
In the Atlantic provinces there are 80 million acres of forest land, most of which is accessible. This is a tremendous benefit to the 26207-1-109
Supply-Forestry
Atlantic provinces because the forest industries play a major role in the regional economy. Over 20 per cent of the total production of the Atlantic provinces comes directly from forest industries. In the years ahead the economy of the eastern provinces will rest largely on the expansion of these industries, provided the supply of raw material can be maintained. In my view this will largely depend on the results of research by governments and by the industries concerned.
In my own province of Newfoundland the forest industries, particularly the newsprint industry, form the backbone of the economy of the province. They provide about 25 per cent of the total value of all production. The newsprint industry in Newfoundland is not only vital to the areas in which newsprint plants exist, but also to the whole province. Much research and careful implementation of resulting programs will be needed if wood supplies are to be sufficient for present capacity and proposed new capacity. I believe that only research can give the necessary directed activity.
In recent years there have been research projects to accumulate information necessary to any reforestation program. Tree planting and direct seeding projects have provided invaluable data regarding where reforestation is necessary and where it is likely to succeed. These projects, originating in 1950, have been directed in part to burned-over areas to determine the assistance required in different regions for the forests to reproduce in a satisfactory manner. In view of the abnormally large increase in burned-over areas, particularly in the last year, I would hope that both these projects would be given further consideration and attention.
Mr. Chairman, of particular importance at the present time is the need for research into the insect infested forest areas of Newfoundland. While we do have serious infestation in certain areas by the hemlock looper, the spruce budworm, the balsam fir sawfly and the larch sawfly, it is with the balsam woolly aphid that I would like to deal briefly. Insect surveys are not new to Newfoundland. In 1925 Dr. J. M. Swaine made an inspection trip across the island. It is interesting to note that at that particular time no mention was made of the woolly aphid in Newfoundland.
A few days ago when my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador was referring to this problem he too was concerned about infestation in the forests in his own area. Reading back over the history of research in Newfoundland I note that although there were some writings by Dr. Swaine in 1925 there were no further reports until 1937 following the Newfoundland insect survey of

Supply-Forestry
1936. I do not have the lull text of that report, but the information I do have leads me to believe that again there was no mention of the woolly aphid in the forests of Newfoundland. The purpose of this survey in 1936 was to get some idea as to where the outbreaks were and to identify the insects responsible. In 1934 Mr. C. C. Loughlin was appointed as the first insect officer, sponsored by Bowater (Newfoundland) Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and the Newfoundland forest protection association, an association, incidentally, which in 1960 celebrated its 50th year of commendable forest activity.
Following a survey made in 1949 by officials of the forest biology division at Fredericton, New Brunswick, Mr. W. J. Carroll recommended, in particular, the conducting of a special study of the infestation of the Newfoundland forests by the balsam woolly aphid. While this was the first occasion that this insect had been identified, it would appear that it had been introduced into the southwestern part of Newfoundland by about 1930. In 1955 a forest biology laboratory was constructed at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, and since that time a good deal of useful information has been compiled under the able direction of Mr. Carroll.
Today the woolly aphid poses a serious threat to the health of the Newfoundland forests. The woolly aphid attacks only true firs, but the balsam fir is particularly susceptible to damage. This particular species of tree comprises about 75 per cent of the softwood stands in western Newfoundland and about 60 per cent of those stands in central and eastern Newfoundland.
At the present time infestation on the Burin and Avalon peninsulas is not severe enough to be considered as an immediate threat. This infestation is spreading at an approximate rate of 10 miles per year, which I understand is double the rate in the maritime provinces, with the resulting danger of a spread into the wider areas of central Newfoundland. It is known from surveys that were made last year that there are now about 3,000 square miles of forest land in Newfoundland infested by the woolly aphid. Possibly I can best give the committee an idea of the rapid spread of this insect by quoting from a paper prepared by Mr. W. J. Carroll and presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian institute of forestry held in Corner Brook in November, 1961. The writer states on page four of his paper:
An indication of the rapid development of the Humber valley outbreak is shown in survey plot records from near Steady Brook. The plot is located in an immature stand of balsam fir and is fairly typical of stand conditions in most of the Humber valley. In 1959, 72 per cent of the trees showed no visible injury. In 1960, 5 per cent were uninjured

and in 1961 only 1 per cent. Trees in the moderate to severe damage class changed from 1 per cent in 1960 to 29 per cent in 1961.
This is a problem of increasing seriousness and one which merits the attention of the appropriate department of the provincial government and the pulp and paper companies on the island as well as the lumber companies concerned. I also hope that this program will receive priority in any forestry research undertaken by the federal government.


Mr. Granger:: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's. He has given an account which is quite clear and I hope the minister will show the interest in this problem that he has already shown with regard to our other difficulties. I remember that last summer when the fires were raging in Newfoundland the minister came to Gander and showed a personal and a knowledgeable interest in our problems there. At that time, as hon. members know, we had lost huge areas of timber through forest fires. The minister has first hand knowledge of these fire-blackened areas; he knows how difficult it is to grow trees again on areas which have been burned over.
Our two great problems at the moment are recurring forest fires and the threat of the woolly aphid. I should like to thank the minister for a copy of the paper entitled Reforestation and Research in Newfoundland. Among other interesting information in this paper is an account of how difficult it is for trees to be grown on areas which have been burnt over. I should like to suggest, if such a suggestion need be made, that research be conducted into the possibility of reseeding or re-afforesting these areas. It is my belief that the adverse effects of these fires will become more apparent within two or three years than they are at the present time, because the absence of this timber, which is the basis of the livelihood of so many people, when fire-killed wood has been cut, will then be felt severely. Here is a problem which I trust the minister and his department will attack with the zeal in research which is necessary if what is apparently, at the present time, a great tragedy is to be averted. The adverse effects on the economy could at least be mitigated if we could find a means of successfully replanting these devastated areas. Research into preventive measures is, I agree, of even greater importance, although a cure is important, too, in view of what happened last year and the destruction which occurred.
In relation to preventive measures, research into the best type of aircraft capable of being used for water bombing is a field of great importance. We should try to determine

whether land-based aircraft or water-based aircraft are most effective for dealing with fires. Actually, research in all its phases is important because we have outgrown what I might call the pioneering attitude toward our forests. Nature was good to Canada; nature was even prodigal in supplying Canada with resources, and I am afraid that in the early days our own attitude toward these resources was prodigal also. But we have reached a point where conservation and the replenishment of our resources is necessary if we are to maintain our supplies of wood products. In these circumstances, money spent on research is well spent.


Mr. McFarlane:: There are just one or two matters that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister while the committee is dealing with this vote. The first has to do with the compulsory grade marking of lumber. At the present time this is due to come into effect on April 1 of this year. I am in agreement that lumber should be graded and stamped accordingly, but at the present time the only recognized grade marking comes under the control of the interior lumbermen's manufacturing association of British Columbia. Even properly graded lumber is not acceptable to the national housing authority or to the C.M.H.C. if it has not been stamped by a stamp issued by the interior lumbermen's manufacturing association. This process is very expensive for the smaller mills of which there are a great number in British Columbia. They must either join this association or content themselves by selling rough lumber to the larger companies. At the present time there are just not enough men in British Columbia to undertake all this grading work. This is evident from the large number of advertisements appearing in papers throughout the province asking for men with the proper qualifications for this work. I have had considerable correspondence on this matter and I learn that even certain companies are not accepted by the I.L.M.A. They are not recognized and their grade stamping is not recognized. I have heard from one concern, the California lumber inspection service which applied some months ago for recognition by this lumber manufacturers' association, but even after volumes of correspondence and questionnaires they are still waiting for a reply to their request. Therefore, it appears that the interior lumbermen's manufacturing association has a monopoly over the grading of lumber in the province of British Columbia.
A great number of our smaller mills-and we have a large number of smaller mills in the province-are not members of these larger organizations. One reason for this is that it is very expensive to join and the smaller mills working on small tracts of timber are 26207-1-109J
Supply-Forestry
not able to afford to join these larger organizations. It is considerably more costly to obtain the services of one of these companies which perform grade stamping. It does not seem fair that any one association should be able to carry on a monopoly of grade stamping. The smaller organizations feel they should be able to choose how and by whom their lumber will be graded. The situation at present is that the smaller lumber concerns are being forced to join associations of which they do not wish to become members.
I bring this matter to the minister's attention and point out that I recognize that the grading of lumber is an art, but at the same time the grading is only as good as the eye of the man who grades the lumber. Therefore a stamp on the lumber is only as good as the grader who grades it. I feel some consideration should be given at this time to making some arrangements with the smaller concerns so that stamps can be made available to them either through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the government itself. The government could issue licences and stamps to the smaller mills so they would not be forced to go to the more expensive mills in British Columbia.


Mr. Flemming (Royal):: Mr. Chairman, in all the observations which have been made there are undoubtedly many useful suggestions and many proper inquiries, so I feel at this time it is fitting that I make some observations in connection with what has been said by various hon. members this evening. If I do not refer specifically to every point that has been raised I urge the various hon. members who raised the points not to be discouraged and not to hesitate to bring my oversight to my attention in a personal way.
I wish first of all to refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River with respect to the preservative to be used in connection with wood. In order to make a somewhat brief story of what could be rather extended remarks I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Boliden salt process -which I am sure is very well known to you, Mr. Chairman-has received a great deal of attention. It is something that is receiving more and more attention each day. The particular division of the department in charge will take under consideration the comments which have been made by the hon. member. Personally I am not an expert on penetration.
I do not know whether .55 is enough or whether it should be .65 or whether the United States standards should or should not be rigidly adhered to, but I do assure the hon. gentleman that the director of the forest products research branch in the department is an expert in this type of treatment and I assure

Supply-Forestry
the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that his representations will be brought to the attention of Dr. Jenkins.
I was interested in and I must say very pleased by the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni because in my opinion, as my hon. friend said, the utilization of sawdust does represent a definite breakthrough so far as up to the minute advance is concerned. The hon. gentleman referred to the utilization of a very large percentage of the total product of the forest as it is represented by what is ordinarily known as sawdust.
In my young days in connection with saw milling, sawdust and the disposal of sawdust were terrible problems. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned that a $50 million or $60 million extension of an existing plant will come into being which will be based on the use of sawdust as a raw material from which kraft pulp will be made. I think this is a tremendous step, and as the hon. gentleman said it will have the effect of preserving the forest and making us more competitive. I am sure this is extremely important news for the forest industry in general.
I remember very well the question of the use of cedar which was brought to our attention more than a year ago. We were asked to give it concentrated effort and this has been done. If I had been requested to make an observation or guess about which of the two problems was the more difficult to solve- that is, finding an answer to the question of the more extensive use of cedar and finding an answer to the question of what could be done with sawdust-I would have said that the use of sawdust represented the more difficult problem. Yet we find that a plant based on the utilization of sawdust is practically assured at this time. I can only say to the hon. gentleman that efforts will continue so far as the use of cedar is concerned. Perhaps there might be a little more co-operation between the province of British Columbia and private industry and perhaps the research directed toward that specific problem by the department could be intensified. Toward that end I assure my hon. friend that I will cause some more inquiries to be made with a view to seeing whether we can have a little more concentrated effort.
I visited Vancouver within the last year or so and was greatly impressed by the calibre of the men who are working in the forest products laboratories. I am sure they are excelled by none engaged in similar work anywhere in Canada. If we had similar people engaged in this work in the maritimes probably they would be, but we do not have people engaged in work of that nature down

there. In any event I have some understanding of the problem and my hon. friend may be sure we will continue to work toward accomplishing something more specific in connection with it.
I was keenly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's in connection with research. We in the maritimes are most interested in research because our trees are not large in size. I believe we have to look to research as a means of achieving more production per acre in the future. I recognize the value of what he has said about the problem of reforestation, to which problem the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador also directed our attention. Since the most disastrous fire of last year this problem has seriously occupied the attention of the department, as hon. gentlemen may have noted by the paper on the subject that has been released. That is a start.
I know something about the newsprint industry and I have some conception of its value to Newfoundland. I am not very conversant with the problems arising from the blight of the woolly aphid that has affected the balsam. I do know it is recognized by those in our department who are charged with that special responsibility as being a particularly difficult situation. Efforts are certainly being made toward improvement in that respect. I was very much impressed, though I must say not very favourably impressed, by the remarks that were made in connection with the steady progress that has been made by this particular pest or insect or call it what you like. I can quite understand the concern of my hon. friends opposite. We cannot promise any miracles because the days of miracles may be pretty well over as far as forests are concerned. Perhaps they are not; in any event, we will hope for the best. But I do assure hon. members that the department and those connected with it are very conscious of the importance of this matter and they are also very conscious of the difficulties in connection with it.
The hon. member for Kootenay East referred to grade marking. I can quite understand his concern in connection with this matter. A day or two ago I was at a luncheon where representatives of the lumber industry from the Atlantic to the Pacific were gathered. There were something like 50 or 60 present. Two of them were from the interior of British Columbia. I believe it was the interior lumbermen's association with headquarters at Penticton that was represented thereby two of the men who are specially charged with the responsibility of exercising some supervision over grade marking.

I mentioned the matter to them and they were both quite satisfied that the situation would be dealt with and would be dealt with in a way that would not cause any particular hardship to small mills. If my hon. friend will discuss the matter with me on some other occasion, we will try to get something a little more specific than that. I do know something about that situation with respect to the province of Newfoundland because, as hon. members perhaps recall, recently the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised the point in the house. I find that the government of Newfoundland has been communicated with in order to have some of their staff get in touch with the maritime lumber bureau to obtain the necessary knowledge, even though this does involve a trip to Fredericton or some other place where there are courses in grade marking. The purpose is to train a few of the representatives of the department of forests of the province of Newfoundland so that the inspection service will be readily available and at moderate cost.
I believe that concludes the remarks I wish to make in connection with the observations made by the various hon. members this evening. There will presumably be a time when the forestry estimates will come before the house again and I would expect to make somewhat more extended remarks then concerning our aims, hopes and expectations with regard to future forestry activities on the federal level. Tonight I will content myself with making these perhaps sketchy observations in connection with the points that have been raised, and I assure all hon. members that if it is their wish to pursue them further with me privately I will be very happy to see them at any time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian affairs branch-Indian agencies-
BIS. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $136,000.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, these six votes in the supplementary estimates total $1,685,430 and they are all for winter works projects. Of this amount, $500,000 is for the purpose of creating worth-while community employment projects on reserves and the balance of $1,185,430 is for an accelerated works program to speed up regular Indian affairs construction and repair programs so that many projects can be completed this winter, thereby creating much needed employment.
The community employment program of $500,000 will cover such projects as clearing and brushing of new or existing roads and
12,	1962	1723
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration rights of way in order to improve the transportation facilities. Other projects include cutting fuel wood for indigents, improved forestry stands, cutting sawlogs for housing, clearing and cleaning reserve sites, building docks, improving irrigation works and many others.
The accelerated works program of $1,185,430 will provide employment mainly in the construction and repair of schools, Indian houses, community halls, warehouses, sidewalks, docks, et cetera, the renovation of water, sewage and irrigation systems and the operation of sawmills and other worth-while projects. It is estimated that 5,811 Indians will be employed across Canada under the winter works program.
In addition, Indian bands with sufficient funds are participating in the winter works incentive program sponsored by the Department of Labour. As of January 12, 1962, 42 separate projects have been approved totalling an expenditure of $270,000 and employing approximately 780 Indians in addition to the 5,811 I mentioned previously.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, dealing with this item in particular I should like to talk about one aspect of the economic development of Indians and in particular the Indians on a certain reserve in British Columbia. It is part of the Skeena reserve. This afternoon I took the opportunity on the orders of the day to ask the Prime Minister a question which he referred to the hon. lady who then gave permission to any interested member of parliament to go to the Indian affairs branch and look at certain documents. I took advantage of her very kind offer and as a result I have certain information I should like to lay before the house which was obtained from that source, as well as other information obtained from other sources.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for a moment, while the matter which the hon. member wishes to discuss is, of course, extremely interesting it does not properly come under these estimates and, as I explained this afternoon, we are investigating the particular matter which was brought up. While the award was given it is not yet operative. There are certain matters to be completed before it can be operative. While I have no objection to the hon. member continuing with this matter, it seems to me that by the time the main estimates come up we will have much more information. Right now we are discussing something that has not even begun to operate yet. As I say, if the hon. member wishes to continue I have no particular objection but the matter certainly is not pertinent to the votes we are considering.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With respect to the hon. lady's remarks, may I say that the matter does concern Indian training in large part, and since the minister did indicate this afternoon that the matter will be looked into it may well be there is considerable information which is not in her possession and which if given at a later time on the main estimates might not be of as great assistance as it would be now. Therefore I should like to discuss the matter as it involves a situation which has been in existence for the past year.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Perhaps there is a certain responsibility resting on the Chair in connection with this problem. I find on reading the items in the estimates here that they relate to repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, and community employment projects. The difficulty I am going to have is that if I allow the hon. lady to continue discussing the subject she has chosen to introduce on these estimates, I am going to have a problem ruling against other hon. members who might wish to comment on the same subject, perhaps even the hon. member for Skeena to whom she has referred, although he is not in the house at the moment. If he were here, undoubtedly he would want to make a contribution to the debate.
I ask the hon. lady, therefore, to co-operate and see that she does not make my job too difficult, realizing that another opportunity will arise, perhaps more than one opportunity, to discuss this subject. For instance, the first item of the main estimates of the department would be one opportunity, and then orders of the day might be another. I would ask her to co-operate. I will listen very intently to what she has to say and if I can relate it to the item, I shall do so. If other hon. members of the committee do not interrupt, she may proceed.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is a point which you have raised, yourself, but which the minister has not seen fit to raise. Your Honour has referred to the fact that this matter could be discussed on another occasion, namely during consideration of the main estimates. The point is, and I submit this to you respectfully, that it can be raised under this item now.
The reason I make this statement is that the first item under discussion in these supplementary estimates concerns Indian agencies, operation and maintenance. It would seem to me that the hon. member for Niagara Falls is dealing now with a matter concerning an Indian agency, and concerning the operation and maintenance of one of these agencies. Next, the minister herself, when posed a question this afternoon, made it
[Mrs. Falrelough.l
quite clear she had no objection whatever to giving certain information to any hon. member in this house. The hon. member for Niagara Falls took advantage of that and got some information on the assumption, surely from what the minister said, that she would be able to discuss it tonight. Again, from what the minister said this evening, she indicated she had no objection to this matter being raised.
It seems to me, and I say this with respect, if there is a possibility, as I submit to you there is under this item, the hon. member should not have to wait until such time as the main estimates are up for discussion. As the committee knows, the main estimates might never be reached. This may be the only opportunity hon. members of the committee will have to deal with the matter. Since the minister has at her disposal two of the officers of her department, it would seem to me there should be no objection on the part of the minister and I do not believe there is. I submit there should be none on the part of the Chair to the discussion of this item.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, possibly I could clarify the situation by saying that the vote under which this particular matter should come is that which is noted in the estimates as "Reserves and Trusts". It is vote No. 58 in the main estimates. The votes which are affected by these supplementaries are votes 56, 57, 59, 60, 61 and 63. I hope that clarifies the matter.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I take it, Mr. Chairman, I may discuss the matter which I raised.
This matter arose, Mr. Chairman, from the fact that about a year ago, in May, 1961, certain individuals in the province of British Columbia were interested in ascertaining whether or not there was in this particular reserve, which has been called Tsimpsean Indian reserve No. 2, timber available for cutting. Certain companies, or a company at least, began to write to the Indian affairs branch on the west coast and to the Ottawa offices with respect to it. I am informed that the timber in question had been offered by public calls for tenders on two earlier occasions, in 1954 and 1956. I believe the offer covered all the timber which was located in this particular area. However, at that time no offers were received. The stand of timber in question is of various types, Mr. Chairman. It is partly hemlock, partly spruce, partly balsam, partly cedar and is of varying grades.
In 1956 a certain company known as F. J. G. Johnson and Associates Limited of Vancouver was employed by the Indian affairs branch to do certain work with respect to this reserve and other reserves in British Columbia. He

recommended to the department a rate of dues to be charged on all of the Indian lands in British Columbia. Subsequently, in 1958, the Indian affairs branch hired this same company for a period of three years, on a one-year contract annually renewed, to cruise timber held by the Indians and thereby held in trust by the department, throughout British Columbia.
One of the chief individuals of this company is a man named F. J. G. Johnson. One of his employees during the time when the timber was being cruised by F. J. G. Johnson and Associates Limited for the department was a man named Brett, a man who now is employed by the department as a forestry officer in the city of Vancouver. Mr. Johnson was employed, through his limited company, until March 31, 1961. The day following, April 1, 1961, Mr. Paul Brett his former employee, was employed by the branch as a forester in British Columbia. Within a matter of a few weeks, certain companies began writing to the department to inquire about the sale of this timber. On May 18, a company known as Beaufort Industries Limited, Vancouver, wrote to the department in Vancouver asking whether this timber might be purchased. This was on May 18, 1961.
Within a matter of two weeks, May 30, 1961, Mr. F. J. G. Johnson, on the letterhead of his company, was writing to a number of companies, in particular the Westport Export Company of Vancouver, offering to peddle the information that he had obtained as an employee of the department. He offered to sell this information and indeed offered to ask, on a minimum fee basis, to negotiate the purchase of this timber from the department. He suggested that negotiations be conducted directly with the superintendent and the bands and chiefs council, with regard to Tsimpsean Indian reserve No. 2, which had previously been advertised for sale. He suggested that the regional office of the department of Indian affairs in Vancouver be approached-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the hon. member from what document she is reading?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I read from a photostat of a letter signed by F. J. G. Johnson on his letterhead. It is directed to the Westport Export Company.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: To whom?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: To the Westport Export Company.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask further if this is a document which was gleaned from the files of the department?
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not see it in the files of the department, if there is one there.
This timber was offered for sale, as I said, by Mr. Johnson who had, within the two months previously, terminated his employment with the department, on the basis of information which he learned as an employee.
He concludes his letter with this phrase, that every effort will be made to bring all negotiations to a speedy and successful conclusion. In addition I am informed that Mr. Johnson attempted to raise money in the United States to purchase timber rights on this particular land. In any event the company to which he wrote, Westport, was not interested in such a peculiar transaction and therefore refused.
At the same time Beaufort Industries Limited, which had written originally to the department, asked whether this timber was for sale and was advised that there were approximately 1 million board feet for sale, being virgin timber, over mature and lying approximately one mile from the sea. It was indicated in a letter written at that time, dated May 24, 1961, that such timber had been advertised previously but no offers had been received. It was suggested by the Indian superintendent, and a copy was sent to this individual, that Beaufort Industries Limited consult Mr. Paul Brett, the forester attached to the British Columbia office.
Subsequently Beaufort Industries was in consultation with the department and received a letter dated June 7, 1961, from the acting Indian commissioner for British Columbia, in which a quotation was made that there were approximately 113 million board feet of hemlock, spruce, cedar and balsam which was over mature. It also pointed out that logging chances were fair and that road and transport routes were difficult. It was further pointed out, and I read from page 2 of the letter:
The Indian affairs branch is presently interested in receiving competitive proposals to cut and remove the timber using Indian labour wherever possible.
Accordingly Beaufort, on invitation to submit a proposal, did so in writing. Before doing so they wrote to the department and asked it the department had any set figure, and under letter June 9, 1961, they enclosed a number of documents setting out the prices which had been paid in the immediate area for timber in recent months.
At this point I might say that Beaufort Industries Limited is a company of all Canadian directors and shareholders, located in Vancouver, and has been cutting timber for a long time in the Tsimpsean I.R. No. 2 reserve, in the reserve area, and cutting it very successfully. It has been exporting this
1726	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration timber to Japan, particularly low grade timber tor the construction of such things as orange fruit boxes.
When the had written to the department asking for prices they received a letter back again from Mr. MacGregor, the acting superintendent for British Columbia, on June 9, 1961, and he advised as follows:
We regret to advise you that the branch may not offer timber in the above quantities to individual companies. Ordinarily such timber is sold by closed tender on advertisement as a general offer to the public.
As it was pointed out to you, however, the branch cognizant of the particular local problems of the area, is receiving all competitive proposals to cut and remove the timber using Indian labour wherever possible.
This will indicate that while the department's usual practice was to request sealed bids, in this particular case since the branch knew of the local problems of the area individual offers were requested. Accordingly, after the passage of some time, in August, 1961, Beaufort Industries in writing sent to the Indian affairs branch in Vancouver a firm offer of $7 per 1,000 board feet of measure for all merchantable species. They indicated as well that they had intended to do this logging with Indian labour in all possible phases. In addition they offered to replant at the cost of the company to the same state as the original stand, concurrent with logging operations, and this would be done by Indian labour. They also offered that operations were to begin within 12 months and were to be completed within 10 years. They also offered a $25,000 deposit, which was the largest deposit required for provincial timber sales in British Columbia.
Subsequent to that firm offer which had been sent to the department in which Mr. Brett was the forester, and after a representative of that company had visited Ottawa and talked to representatives of the Indian affairs branch, they were informed that the department was designing a contract and proposal for the removal of the timber and subsequently it was the intent of the department to discuss it with Beaufort Industries and other interested companies with a view to the operation.
Subsequently by letter dated September 12, 1961, Beaufort Industries Limited made an addition to their offer which was to provide to the branch a maximum sum of $200,000, being $10,000 per year for each of two employees employed by the department, a community planning officer and a forest supervisor and co-ordinator, each of which officials should be employed and under the direct control of the department.
One of the proposals made by Beaufort would require a logging road, some 10 miles


in length, to be constructed from Fort Simpson, which is one of the dwelling places of the Indians, to an inlet called Tuck Inlet, whereby for the first time the Indians of that reserve would have safe passage from the northernmost parts of their reserve to the south and to Prince Rupert. As at present, these Indians are unable to travel through the land and must travel only by the Chatham sound, in very rough water and sometimes in very bad weather. However the road which Beaufort Industries was prepared to build- admittedly for its own purposes it was a logging road-would be good for at least 10 years, would remain the property of the Indians and would provide them with complete access through their reserve.
The Indian affairs branch, however, said that such a road could not or should not be built, notwithstanding the fact that the amount intended to be used was $500,000 by the Beaufort company. Indeed any proposal to build such a road would be entirely at the expense of the tenderer, and at no expense to the Indian affairs branch. Accordingly such an offer was made and, as I said before, there was an offer made to replant whatever timber was cut. This was done for two purposes, one to provide for effective regrowth, and second, to provide psychologically for the Indians by showing satisfactory proof to them that there would be no raping of their forests and that their children and grandchildren would again have forests to sell.
There was considerable discussion between representatives of Beaufort Industries Limited, and Mr. Paul Brett, the district forester, and he said that he recommended against reforestation. I am further advised that Mr. Johnson, who made the original cruise under the employment of the department, also recommend against reforestation and said it would regenerate naturally. In that connection it was interesting to listen to the remarks made during the last vote and hear those hon. members interested in forestry talking about the necessity of replanting; yet here we have a departmental forester who says it is not necessary to replant.
I am informed by a representative of the branch that in addition the forest officer in Ottawa checked with the executives of other companies with respect to this question of reforestation, as it became important later. We are now at the point where this firm bid has been put in writing to the department and has gone through Mr. Paul Brett's hands. Then there was a call for tenders made on September 15, 1961. It was sent out to the Beaufort company and to another company, Shoreline Lumber Limited. Shoreline Lumber Limited was, according to the

records of the registrar of companies in British Columbia, incorporated only on July 14, 1961. Its directors are most interesting. They are John C. Cotton, an American of Ashland, Oregon; Frederick J. G. Johnson, of North Vancouver, the same man employed by the department and the man who prepared the cruise map which is part of the tender; and Thomas E. Ladner, also of Vancouver, who I am informed is the son of one Leon Ladner, who is probably known to many of my hon. friends opposite as the chief fund raiser of the Conservative party in Vancouver. These three individuals incorporated a company in July of 1961. In December of 1961 the department issued its call for tenders. The original advertisement for tenders, and that which was sent to those who had become interested, said that tenders were to be handed in on January 16, but at the request of the Vancouver office-I am informed, at the particular request of Mr. Paul Brett, who as I pointed out was formerly an associate and employee of Mr. Johnson-it was delayed and the advertisement was changed to read for February 13. No notification was given to the Beaufort company that there had been a change in the date called for tenders.
On February 13 Beaufort's representative appeared in Ottawa with a written offer, and at the same time the offer of Shoreline Lumber Limited was received. The agent of Beaufort company was present with the officials of the department and the tenders were opened in his presence. He was told by the senior official opening the tenders that Beaufort had won the tender. In Beaufort's tender certain figures are produced. The department has made a point of the fact that it was not in the exact form of their original tender. In Beaufort's tender the price to be paid was $2,237,925. This sum was in cash and in kind and is set out in a separate memorandum attached. With the offer sent in by Beaufort was their certified cheque for more than $59,000 as was required in the offer. The only other bid that was received was from Shoreline Lumber Limited, which totalled $792,000 plus some fringe benefits.
When one reduces the items to indicate exactly what was offered, one finds that Beaufort had offered certain upset prices plus other sums, $200,000 of which they were prepared to pay to the department for economic development for the Indians, plus the value of the $500,000 road which would be a permanent benefit to the Indians, plus the fact that they were bidding not on the timber which was shown only on the map prepared by Mr. Johnson at the behest of the department and upon which Mr. Johnson had bid, 26207-1-110
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration but in fact upon low grade timber as well, which would have brought an additional cash benefit to the Indians.
When the tender was first put out it contained an interesting provision, which was that it was the desire of the department that Indians on this reserve should gain maximum benefit from this sale, including the opportunity to acquire skill, and other permanent benefits. Under the Beaufort bid they would have obtained cash for the sale of considerably more timber than under the accepted bid. They would in addition have obtained a permanent road, two permanent employees for 10 years, and they would have had considerably more timber cut.
Not insignificant is the fact that with the road they would have had a certain safety factor which does not now exist. In addition to this they would have had employment and the additional benefit of having the forest replanted. However, notwithstanding the fact that on February 13, 1961, Beaufort was advised that it had won the contract as high tenderer, under the date of February 21, 1961, they received a telegram from the officer in charge of reserves and trusts in Ottawa saying that they were a low tenderer, that Shoreline Lumber Limited was high tenderer and had won the bid. On the same date their cheque was returned to them. This was confirmed by letter.
On the same date Mr. Boys, the Indian commissioner for British Columbia, wrote to Chief Sampson of the band and advised him that the department had accepted a conditional tender. In fact the tender which was accepted from Shoreline-this is the company with Johnson and Ladner and this American- contains the proviso that the tender is submitted on the understanding that logs removed from this Indian reserve would be allowed to be exported, and if to the contrary the bid was withdrawn.
This to me, and it must be to many hon. members in this house, is a considerable shock, that when two tenders are placed before the department, the department accepts a conditional tender. This was repeated, as I said, in the letter which was written by Mr. Boys to Chief Sampson, where the price which had been paid was indicated and also that the earliest start of logging activity would be the spring of 1963. This very important proviso was also contained in the tender:
In addition Shoreline Lumber Limited do not intend to execute the contract until such time as they secure a permit to export the timber, where approval of this matter will not unduly delay the project.
An interesting thing occurred. In so far as the Shoreline bid was concerned there was a very detailed plan with respect to the economic development of the Indians and it was

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the opinion of the Indian affairs branch that this company, which had never been in existence before last July, knew considerably more about the Indians on this reserve than anyone else. In fact it should be remembered that Mr. Johnson-and Mr. Brett had been associated with Mr. Johnson-the chief forester of the Vancouver office, had been sent by the department to the reserve in the fall of last year with another gentleman, Mr. Addison, who is the chief placement officer for British Columbia, where apparently they drew up an economic proposal. That economic proposal, being one which is solely within departmental jurisdiction, is not available. Therefore there can only be speculation as to how closely that proposal parallels the proposal which turned up in Johnson's bid which was accepted.
I should like to once more draw the attention of hon. members to the stunning regularity with which Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Brett's names come up again and again. Mr. Johnson had been Mr. Brett's employer. Mr. Johnson did the cruise in 1959 in this timber reserve. On March 31, 1961, Mr. Johnson left the department. The next day, April 1, Mr. Brett was hired. Mr. Johnson recommended the dues to be charged. Mr. Brett recommended the upset prices. Both recommended that there be no reforestation planning. Mr. Johnson tried to sell the timber to other individuals. Mr. Johnson was a member of the company which was incorporated. Mr. Brett was the one who at the tenderer's request delayed the job for call of tender. Mr. Brett went to the reserve to look up the economic problem, and Mr. Brett saw all the correspondence at all times.
This could be a matter of argument between businessmen, but it would appear that all of the gentlemen concerned are supporters of the party of the hon. lady opposite. There are no supporters of my party, or at least there were not until relatively recently, among these individuals. I would suggest, however, that this is not simply a matter of two individuals one, by virtue of honest bids one against the other, having won, and the other having lost. There is a definite pattern of collusion by an employee of the Indian affairs branch with a former employee. This government has from time to time made a great thing of the fact that-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have hesitated to interrupt the hon. lady although she has been out of order for half an hour, but I do say now that I cannot sit here and let her accuse members of my department of collusion. I ask her to withdraw that remark.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to withdraw. I believe that the hon. lady has no personal knowledge of this whatsoever, but I have photostats before me and in my legal training I have never before in my life seen such an obvious and barefaced collusion.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I regret to advise the hon. lady that her time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Let her carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to impress upon the minister in charge of this department the utmost importance of having this situation with regard to the selling of timber on the reserves in British Columbia clarified as speedily and as completely as possible. If that is not done almost immediately the effect in British Columbia will be most serious, not just upon the Indians on the reserve but as far as the native Indians of the entire province are concerned.
This matter was drawn emphatically to my attention this morning when at 9.00 o'clock a telegram was delivered to me signed by the chief of the council of the Indians of this particular reserve. I found it almost impossible to believe the information which was contained in that telegram, which stated that as between two tenders for certain timber limits there was a difference between them of almost $2 million in one instance and less than $1 million in the other, and that the bidder offering less than $1 million had been awarded the tender. The Indians, through their chief, had been unanimous in objecting to this type of operation and to this policy and had asked that the matter be investigated immediately. Having received a telegram of that nature I took what I thought was the correct procedure. I at once telephoned the Indian affairs branch to read the telegram to them and ask for whatever information could be given to me. It was about 9.20 this morning when the departmental official told me of the situation. I was asking for information because this telegram had to be answered. I was amazed to be told that the basic information contained in the telegram, was correct. Then the statement was made that the Indian affairs branch was only interested in one thing, namely, to ensure that in the long run as a result of the actions and policies of the department the greatest amount of money and benefit would accrue to the Indians concerned. It was stated that studies had led the branch to believe that in giving the tender to the applicant who had made the lower bid the Indians on this reserve would get the greater amount of money. That was very confusing to me, so I ask hon. members of this committee to

imagine how much more difficult still it would be for the Indians themselves to understand.
Then I was given additional information, and I appreciate the fact that I was given it. I was told that there were a number of differences or discrepancies in the way the tenders were handled. I was told that the tenderer putting in the highest bid-it happened to be the Beaufort people, I believe- had tendered on the basis of six or eight thousand acres of timber which was not to be sold. Without going into detail, I was given to understand that there were two or three other aspects having to do with reforestation. In addition, there was a question of roads. In all, there were a number of matters which were of such a nature that the Indian affairs branch had asked the forestry department for an analysis, and that on the basis of this analysis and the recommendation of a forestry official-I did not get his name, and I do not know it now-this particular decision was reached.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you will agree that at least on the surface this decision does not make sense. It has got to make sense, or there is something wrong. The Indians in British Columbia must have an answer, and they are entitled to that answer now. The only way they can get it is for a presentation to be made by the minister explaining this paradoxical situation and explaining how, according to this decision of the department, the Indians concerned are going to receive the greatest ultimate benefit in services or money.
I shall not continue to make any of the other observations I may have in mind at the present time. The minister knows about this matter; she knows there are some of us who are interested in it, and surely she expected it to be raised. I am going to sit down now, for a few minutes at least, in the hope that the minister will make a start, at least, toward clearing the air and telling the committee the facts behind this extraordinary situation in connection with this timber on the coast of British Columbia.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Before the minister replies I should like to address a few further questions to her on this subject. Perhaps the minister will advise the committee how it is that the offer made in writing by Beaufort last fall to the department in the amount of $791,000 is so peculiarly close to the offer made by the successful tenderer of $792,000. Perhaps the minister will also tell us how it is that such a conditional offer was accepted by the department. Perhaps she will tell us, as well, how it is that when the department in its tender call said it would not necessarily accept the highest or any bid it did not 26207-1-110J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration include certain timber, about 8,000 acres, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has just stated, which had been previously included in two sales offered in 1954 and 1956.
I was today informed by the department that this timber cannot be sold because it was not offered. Yet the same official admitted to me that if it was not sold as one parcel it would never be sold because it would be completely uneconomic to go in and cut low grade timber once the better timber had been taken out.
If this sale is allowed to stand, the birthright of the Indians on this one reserve is going to be reduced by over $1 million because this timber will never be sold. Further, the $500,000 which was to be spent to connect the Indian settlements by a safe passage by road will never be spent-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do hope the hon. member who said that has looked at the actual contract before crying "nonsense", very much as the Minister of Finance does when anyone stands up in this house. This is not nonsense. The successful bid means there will be three miles of haul road built in from the sea to the heart of the good timber; it goes nowhere near the Indian settlements; it will be of no permanent value at all.
Perhaps the minister can tell us why this is not a firm contract for ten years but only a contract for one year renewable for up to ten years under certain conditions. The successful bidder can get out of the contract if he chooses in certain circumstances, these too having been accepted by the government. All these people have to do is say: we cannot get an export permit. And they do not even have to apply for one. Why is it that the minister, having accepted this bid, has decided to wait and see. I suggest to the minister that if the department knows there is someone interested in purchasing all the timber-and if it has known this since last September-the bids should be recalled and the department should ask for the sale of all the timber on the reserve. I ask the minister to check the peculiar report prepared by the officials of her department in British Columbia against the particulars of the successful tender. I invite the minister to ask herself about the relationship between these two people unless, of course, the hon. lady is not prepared to ask herself because of the fact that there is an American at the head of this company and Mr. Ladner is on the board of directors.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. lady is entitled to smear a gentleman of her own

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration profession simply because he happens to be named to the board of directors of a company. I am sure the hon. lady in her career as a lawyer has frequently been named to the boards of directors of companies.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I did not say anything about him except that he happened to be one of the directors. If my hon. friend thinks it is a smear to be a director of a lumber company it may be because he has certain further information I do not have.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is one principle concerned. The hon. lady throughout her career has expressed a considerable interest in Indians. All hon. members realize that many of these people are in need of considerable help, that many of them in such isolated places must rely on the good faith of the department, the officers of which are trustees for them, in ensuring that these funds when received are put aside for their benefit. Any training program set up is established by the department for their good. They are used as labour and are trained as far as possible to be skilled labourers. The hon. lady must appreciate that in terms of the following resolution which came forward and which I wish to read to the committee that necessary confidence between this band and the Indian affairs branch is completely destroyed.
This resolution was unanimously passed by band members of the Tsimpsean Indian reserve No. 2 and is dated March 7, 1962. It reads as follows:
1.	Regarding the sale of our timber on Indian reserve No. 2 we hereby agree to accept the offer of the company that tendered on February 13, 1962 to build a road from Tuck inlet to Port Simpson as we regard this road as being of the utmost importance to the band's well-being.
2.	We further agree to accept this company's offer to replant the areas that are cut and we consider this most important as it will give additional work to members of this band now and to future generations.
3.	We further agree to accept this company's offer to remove all the merchantable timber from the reserve at the same price that was offered for the high grade timber and we know that this will substantially increase the cash amount paid to us over any other offer for high grade areas only.
4.	We understand that this company's offer is for a ten year period and we will not accept an offer for any lesser period.
In summary, we understand that a tender has been tentatively accepted by the department of Indian affairs in Ottawa that does not include all of the foregoing mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 and we are shocked to find that the offer tentatively accepted by the department of Indian affairs was binding for one year only and was for a much smaller amount of timber and had no provisions for replanting or building our vitally needed access and logging road. We feel that some members of the department of Indian affairs are definitely not acting in the best interests of the

members of this band and this council now unanimously agrees not to accept any offer that does not contain:
1.	Access road from Tuck inlet to Fort Simpson-
That is not in the successful tender.
2.	Replanting of areas cut-
That is not in the successful tender.
3.	Cutting the largest areas possible and removing the largest amount of timber which will return to the band the greatest amount of money.
That is not in the successful tender.
4.	A firm ten-year period.
That is also not in the successful tender. This resolution is signed by the chief and secretary of the band and by six other band members. It is critically important that the minister look into this matter now, that in fact she be able to satisfy herself that it is a proper tender, that she be able to satisfy herself that the Indians who are her charges are the ones who will be benefited and benefited most. I would suggest to the minister that notwithstanding what I am advised by the department it is not necessary to have a surrender with respect to such a one-year contract. I am further informed by the department that there is an old surrender on these lands and that it is not necessary to have the Indians' consent.
I do not know very much about the members of the band on this reserve but I am told that in earlier times they tore up stakes and went after white men who came on the reserve. It is extremely important that their trust be restored. It is also important that the best type of cutting operation possible, be carried out on this reserve and I suggest to the minister that this be done.
There is one small matter in which it appears that the department may or may not have been negligent and that is during the fall of last year. After Beaufort was in contact with the department a notice appeared in the British Columbia Gazette that another company-I am not positive of its name but I believe it is Prince Rupert Saw Mill-had applied for a licence on foreshore rights on the inlet called Tuck inlet which is the egress ultimately to the sea and which Beaufort intended and had advised the department they intended to use to take out timber, if they were successful in obtaining this bid. It was Beaufort that brought to the attention of the department the fact that anyone who obtained foreshore rights would in fact be giving the Indians access ultimately to the ocean.
There is another significant fact about which the hon. lady may wish to inquire. Why is it that the map prepared by Johnson and associates for the department at the department's expense, which expense, of

course, is reimbursed to the person who successfully tenders, had removed from it the legend showing Mr. Johnson's name? Why is it that when one examines the map one finds a raw edge and the place where the legend normally would appear does not show? It was only when I was able to obtain the original map today that I was able to ascertain that it was in fact the map prepared by Johnson.
Now, if the hon. lady is not alarmed by some of the facts brought out today, if she is quiescent and feels there is nothing to this, that it is simply a complaint taken to the opposition by individuals who unjustifiably feel themselves aggrieved, I can only say that the hon. lady has no business being the trustee for the Indians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, although it is almost ten o'clock perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in view of the fact that the hon. member has occupied almost an hour. My remarks will be very brief. I wish first of all to point out that this item is not one which is in the estimates for consideration today. The question comes under vote No. 58 relating to reserves and trusts and is not contained in these supplementary estimates.
Earlier in the day the hon. member addressed a question to the Prime Minister in reply to which I advised that I had already ordered an investigation into this matter. I might tell the hon- member and the committee that I ordered this investigation prior to March 7, the date of the resolution from the Indian band to which the hon. lady directed our attention. I also pointed out this afternoon that Mr. Boys, the commissioner for British Columbia, will be visiting the Tsimp-sean reserve to morrow. After his visit there when the report has been received I will make a report to this house. I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that this whole discussion thus far has been related to an item which is not even under consideration this evening.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
house leader what we will be doing tomorrow and Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope we will be able to complete the supplementary estimates tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and we could do so, I think, if we gave very close attention to the items that are called. If we do not complete them tomorrow, we will of course have to continue with the supplementary estimates on Wednesday because, as I pointed out to the house last week, certain projects will have to be discontinued for lack of money to carry them on and certain people will go without their pay because the money has not been voted by parliament. I think we have now spent about 10 days on these supplementary estimates and should get on expeditiously with the business tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point, Mr. Speaker, we have not spent anything like 10 days on these supplementary estimates-


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have. We had five days in January on them.


Lionel Chevrier: -as the minister has said. In any event, I do not think it is up to the minister to lecture the house on the manner in which these estimates are going to be dealt with by the opposition. We will deal with them in the manner in which we feel they should be dealt with in the best interests of the country.


An hon. Member:: Obstruction.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Forest research branch-
635. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $80,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 13, 1962