1963-11-07

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
7th November, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th of November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
1 have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Edmund Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to bring to the attention of the house a question of privilege affecting the independence of my position as a member of parliament. I think you and the house should be immediately advised that it has been suggested that I use my influence as a member of the house in a most improper way, and that I have been threatened that failure to do so would bring reprisals by way of personal attacks against me in the house.
I have to advise that I was approached yesterday evening in connection with certain questions which have been raised in the house during recent days affecting my personal position. A highly respected member of the press gallery, Mr. W. A. Wilson, chief of the Montreal Star parliamentary press bureau, advised me that he had been requested by Mr. Pascal Hayes, the Progressive Conservative candidate in the Montreal Notre Dame de Grace riding in the April 8 federal election, and presently employed I am advised in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, to convey to me the following message. Mr. Hayes indicated that if I would undertake to have quashed a conviction for common
assault which is now outstanding against him and which is presently under appeal in the Quebec courts, he would cause certain members of the opposition to cease making any further personal attacks or imputations against me in this house, and that there would be no further attacks from the Progressive Conservative party in this house. If I failed to take this action, I was given to understand that these attacks would be continued and that other Progressive Conservative members would be organized to take part. I was advised also that the Conservative members of the banking and commerce committee would walk out of the meeting tomorrow morning.
With respect to Mr. Hayes' conviction, I was advised to use any means possible to have the charge dropped or withdrawn or the conviction quashed, so as to leave his record completely clean. It was further suggested particularly that I should arrange for a key witness in the prosecution to say that it was not Mr. Hayes who had struck her but, in fact, was a certain Mr. Cameron who also was implicated in the case, who gave testimony at the original trial, and who was one of Mr. Hayes' election organizers. It was stated that I should see that Mr. Hayes came out of the case "clean".
As you can readily recognize, this involves a very serious question with possible far reaching effects. I considered it to be my duty as a member of this house and a citizen of this country to lay this matter before you and this house at the very first opportunity.


Mr. Bell:: Tell us Bermuda.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to say that if I heard the hon. member correctly he made an allegation that one Mr. Pascal Hayes was employed in my office. Let me make it very clear that he is not, under any circumstances. His wife is a secretary in my office. Beyond that I know nothing of this matter, and I want to make it quite clear that the person in question referred to by the hon. member has no connection, directly or indirectly, with my office.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: have misinformed the house on this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.

Question of Privilege


Edmund Tobin Asselin: -then I should like to withdraw that part of my remarks relating to the fact that Mr. Pascal Hayes was employed in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry if I have caused the Leader of the Opposition any embarrassment in this particular instance. However, I must state that I am bound to take his word for this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: -and
I withdraw that part of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point has been made clear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege, should there not be some ruling or understanding as to whether it is a point of privilege to raise in this house something which is obviously only hearsay? We are told a person outside the house has told the hon. member certain things, but he has produced no evidence. I am not trying to get into the argument, but I raise the question whether it is a point of privilege to recite in the house things which are obviously hearsay.


Mr. Siarr:: Probably the whole thing is false.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the banking and commerce committee I have no intention of walking out on my duties in that committee, and I have not heard of any intention on the part of any member of this party to walk out on those duties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a proper one. It is my duty to see if there is a prima facie case of privilege, and I do not see any prima facie case of privilege here.



MR. GREGOIRE-METHOD OF SALUTATION IN LISTS OF CONSULTANTS

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I rise on a question of privilege concerning relations between members of parliament and officers of certain government departments. Having consulted the lists which the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) tabled in the house yesterday, after he obtained unanimous consent to do so, I find that, according to the first one, that is the list prepared under the former Conservative regime, in letters addressed to me the salutation "Cher M. Gregoire" and the pronoun "vous" were to be used.

Then, according to the second list, this was changed to: "Mon cher Gregoire" and "tu".
I should like to know what changes could have brought about that loss of good manners between the party in office and the member for Lapointe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no hesitation in saying there is no point of privilege in this statement. There may be a complaint, but no point of privilege.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann) presented
the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Wahn.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to have addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence the Minister of Justice might answer it. Has the government of the United States made representations to the government of Canada as well as to other nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with a view to securing an agreement among those nations to refuse long term economic credits to the Soviet union? What has taken place in this connection, and what is the attitude of the Canadian government to the suggestion?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: I am afraid I shall have to take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of my colleague.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I had
intended to direct a question to the minister of external affairs but perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could answer it instead. A great number of Canadians, not to mention the families of Lippert and Milne, the two

men arrested by the Cuban government, are most concerned as to the well being and safety of these two men. Could any word be given to this house and to the families concerned regarding the present state of affairs surrounding their detention? Their situation has apparently dropped from sight.


Lionel Chevrier: I did have a word with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with this matter, and he informed me that our representatives in Cuba are in touch with these people and doing everything they can to assist them. Beyond that, and in the absence of my colleague, I am afraid that at the present time I can go no further.


Robert Norman Thompson: Does that answer refer to a current conversation or did it take place previously, at a time when the men were first arrested?


Lionel Chevrier: This was since my hon. friend made his statement in the house.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wanted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Have Canadian authorities been taken into consultation by United States authorities in respect of what appears today to be an unfortunate resumption of brinkmanship on the Berlin-Soviet autobahn?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to draw that question to the attention of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made an important speech in the United States in which he said Canada as a nation should endeavour to get along with the United States. Since there has been a deterioration in relations since the Hyannis Port conference, what steps are going to be taken by the Canadian government in an endeavour to get along with the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order because it is a statement, not a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question briefly is this-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If you are questioning the ruling I still think you are out of order, but if it is another question go ahead.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question was at the end, and I may have been interrupted and not heard. What steps is the Canadian government going to take in order to improve our relations with the United States, which have deteriorated?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the question should still be dry cleaned.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the hon. gentleman said he intended to make a statement on the price of sugar in Canada, particularly with reference to the high price in Canada as compared with the relatively low price in the United States. I wonder whether the minister would consider making his statement at a time when there could be a full scale debate on this question, rather than merely making it on motions which would not provide any opportunity for debate.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I did not say, if I recollect correctly, that I would be the one who would make the statement. I have spoken to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I think he will make the statement. I shall bring the suggestion made by the hon. member to the minister's attention when he returns to Ottawa.



RAYMOND RODGERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections. My question is based on a report that the chairman of the press gallery association, Mr. Connolley, was invited to attend a meeting of the committee held this morning. Was a similar courtesy extended to the other party concerned with the question of admission to the press gallery?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: They were both told we had a meeting this morning. The meeting was adjourned to the 25th.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections. In view of the fact that I have in my hand a note signed by Mr. R. S. Rodgers stating that he was not informed of the committee meeting, would the chairman of the committee inform me if he misunderstood the person to whom I was referring?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I have been told since that the only one seen was Mr. Connol-ley, and as he was requesting an extension to the 25th he had not seen the other parties because the meeting would be on the 25th.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The first answer was incorrect?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I made a mistake.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio.
Could he tell us whether he is the one who asked his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) to set up a marine industry in Causapscal, situated 50 miles from the St. Lawrence?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, there is no official in the Department of Transport by the name of Holden.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES EVALUATION OF PLANES UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport why Trans-Canada Air Lines has not sent an evaluation team to Sud Aviation to investigate the possibilities of the Caravelle, as it did with regard to the BAC-111 and the Douglas DC-9?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, but in taking it as notice I do not want that to be taken as an admission that the assertions made by the hon. member are correct, because I believe they are not correct.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice who is Acting Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to surrender to the ultimatum given by the Quebec government to have T.C.A. choose the Caravelle instead of the American DC-9 to provide work for T.C.A.?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the government has received no ultimatum in that connection. The newspaper that the hon. member is waving is no evidence. However, I might add after the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith), that the question will be given serious consideration.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he received any recommendations from the government of the province of Quebec concerning the choice of a carrier for T.C.A.? Is he in a position now to tell the house what the decision of the government is in regard to the choice between the DC-9 and the Caravelle?


George James McIlraith: As I said in the house in answer to a question a few days ago, Trans-Canada Air Lines have made a technical evaluation and report of the plane they propose to buy, and an evaluation of all the planes considered. This involves several planes, as well as the two named by the hon. member. The subject matter of this report has not yet been considered by the government. When it is, and a decision is announced by T.C.A., I shall be glad to advise the house exactly what is being done.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Transport let us know before a decision is taken what kind of plane T.C.A. is going to buy? If the minister will allow me, I should like to ask what the intention of the department is-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pickersgill:: You are making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman knows that in order to maintain order in this house, an hon. member should resume his seat as soon as the Speaker is on his feet. The first part of the question is in order, but in my

estimation the hon. gentleman was starting an argument in the second part. Let us keep our questions short and crisp.


Georges-J. Valade: What is the intention of the department with regard to the Vanguard, which has to be disposed of after the DC-9 is purchased?


George James McIlraith: A loaded question like that cannot be answered.


John George Diefenbaker: It is an unloaded one.


Léon Balcer: I should like to ask an unloaded question of the minister. When is the special committee on railways, air lines and shipping going to meet, and is it going to meet before a final decision is made on this very important matter?


George James McIlraith: I have repeatedly put before the house my view as to the importance of having that committee created. I hope it will be set up very shortly. I am sure the house leader will agree with me, and the record of Hansard will show, that he has tried to get this matter forward for a decision.


John George Diefenbaker: When?


An hon. Member:: Do it now.


George James McIlraith: Whether the committee is set up before or after this decision is taken will depend on the actions of the house itself.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choqueiie (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of health and welfare. In view of a story appearing in yesterday's Globe and Mail stating that the Y.W.C.A. wanted what they described as an adequate radiation testing program, could the minister give the house any information on the government's present testing program?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. As it happens I have a rather lengthy statement to make regarding the question of radiation, one which has been asked for by several hon. members in the past. However, considering the fact that the house is always so anxious to press on with the business, may I ask permission of the house to have this lengthy statement, which is two pages long, inserted in Hansard as though read?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is the type of question for the order paper.
[Editor's note: statement referred to above is as follows:]
Earlier this year the Voice of Women presented me with a brief entitled "Fall-out monitoring in Canada." It did not seem to be appropriate for me to comment on such a complex matter before it was thoroughly reviewed. This brief has now been reviewed by competent scientific officers and I also referred it to the dominion council of health. The dominion council of health is the senior advisory committee to the department and all of the provinces are represented on it by their deputy ministers of health or chief medical officers, as the case may be. The council reviewed the brief and prepared the following statement on October 25, 1963.
Ionizing radiation, its effect on health and the development of radiation protection services are matters which receive the regular and close attention of council. The present meeting was no exception and the dominion council of health received and discussed in detail the report of the radiation protection division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. In addition it dealt with the matters raised in the brief from the Voice of Women entitled "Fall-out monitoring in Canada", which had been referred to council by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Council recorded the following views which are pertinent to the points brought out in this brief.
Detection of fall-out is only one of five interrelated factors which must be considered in assessing the total effects of this source of ionizing radiation on health. The dominion council of health, after full consideration of all information available, found no indication for the implementation of additional detection measures recommended in the brief submitted by the Voice of Women nor does the dominion council of health consider that there is justification, at the present time for "the installation of milk decontamination equipment by the dairy industry". Fall-out must be kept in proper perspective with other forms of radiation exposure.
The dominion council of health is satisfied that the present radiation protection program of the department and plans for its further development are fully adequate to meet the needs of this country.
The dominion council of health supports the proposal of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the establishment of an expert committee on all aspects of radiation protection and furthermore recommends that the brief submitted by the Voice of Women be studied and reported upon by this committee.
I concur in this statement, and I would like to assure the members of this house that the department has been in regular consultation with experts in Canada and in other countries on matters of radiation protection since the program was set up in 1950. Every effort has been made to develop and maintain a highly competent service and at the same time to
28902-5-286
4484	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry make the best use of outside experts. In addition we have tried to keep the program of fall-out monitoring in proper perspective, but at the same time recognizing the fact that this has become the area of greatest concern to the public.
I am satisfied that the program of the department is adequate to meet our present needs but I would assure hon. members that if circumstances changed, the program would be modified to keep pace with changing circumstances.
In order to ensure that we continue to receive the best possible advice, the government is also setting up an advisory committee on radiation protection to advise me on all aspects of radiation exposure and acceptable standards. This committee will be composed of recognized authorities from universities and other non-governmental sources as well as government scientists. In addition, we will continue to maintain a close liaison with such agencies as the internationl commission on radiological protection, the United Nations scientific committee and the world health organization as well as individual experts.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO TERMINATION OF JOINT PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister or, in his absence, for the Acting Prime Minister.
At the gathering of the next federal-provincial conference, does the Acting Prime Minister intend to recommend the discarding of joint programs and their replacement by a tax compensation plan, as asked by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, when recently touring New Orleans?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether the hon. member was in the house yesterday when I tabled the correspondence pertaining to the federal-provincial conference, and its proposed agenda.
If the hon. member reads these documents, he will find the full list of the subjects that the federal and provincial governments have agreed to discuss.
As for the Liberal policy on joint programs, it is well and widely known.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, on that point, a supplementary question.
It is doubtless true that we are informed about the government's policy in the matter of joint programs; but I would like to be told


whether the Minister of Justice intends to discard these programs at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference?


Lionel Chevrier: The agenda and the procedure to be followed are matters which the conference decides for itself. If, with the agreement of the federal government, the provinces decide to modify the agenda which has already been tabled they are free to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice if the President of the Privy Council was speaking for the government when he stated in his address in Toronto earlier this week that the government should be prepared to withdraw from some of the joint federal-provincial programs?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thought the President of the Privy Council, at least from the press report I read, had made an excellent speech in Toronto, and I am sure he could explain what was meant by what he said. I have no difficulty in admitting at once that what he did say would certainly meet with my approval.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Sherbrooke addressed a question to me in connection with senior appointments at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. My colleague the Acting Prime Minister took the question as notice.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member for Sherbrooke that the short answer is, of course, that there was no pressure brought to bear on the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, since the question seems to reveal, if I may say so with great respect, a certain lack of understanding of the organizational structure of the corporation, perhaps I can say just a word in explanation.
The management group of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation consists of the president, one vice president and four executive directors. Following the retirement of the former vice president, Mr. P. S. Secord, the board of directors of the corporation unanimously recommended the appointment of Mr. H. W. Hignett as vice president, an appointment which culminates a long and distinguished career with the corporation.
Of the four executive directors I have mentioned, two are French speaking Canadians and two are English speaking Canadians.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Concerning the answer he has just given, does the minister intend to recommend or favour the appointment of a French Canadian on the executive committee of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, since now none sits on that committee on a permanent basis?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman did not hear my answer. Of four executive directors, two are French speaking Canadians.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. As reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, is it government policy to allow free access of pornographic literature and obscene books into Canada without checking at border entry points?


John Richard Garland: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Would the minister comment on the attitude of his department toward the spreading of pornographic and obscene literature in Canada and the importation thereof? More specifically, perhaps he would comment on the statement by a departmental official, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, that "the definition of obscenity is there but no one seems to care. Until the courts ban a book, there's no sense of our doing it." Would the minister indicate whether it will henceforth be necessary to go to court before an obscene book will be banned from entry into Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on a statement of that nature I think I would want an opportunity to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I had in mind the statement, not the book. However, I would have no objection to reading the book. I understand that my colleague would like to add something to my reply in connection with this matter.
28902-5-2864
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: One other supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. One question at a time.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, in response to the subject matter of this series of questions, etc., I should like to say this. Hon. members will recall that the Customs Tariff contains an item, 1201, which prohibits the importation of "books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character".
I should explain that the detention of a publication by customs should not be interpreted as prohibition of the publication, since any customs officer is duty bound to detain any work which in his judgment is immoral or indecent and submit it to the department for examination and a ruling as to its classification in the light of item 1201.
However, the department has not independently prohibited importation of any publication for almost two years. I want to emphasize this because the newspaper stories seemed to indicate there had been a change since this government came into office. Let me repeat; the department has not independently prohibited importation of any publication for almost two years, but has preferred to be guided by decisions of the courts under section 150 of the Criminal Code, of which there have been very few since the amendment of that section.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, and I apologize for taking the time to put it. I have repeatedly tried to get in touch with different branches concerned with the operation of the parliament buildings, but I have never been able to obtain any satisfaction with regard to the operation of the north side elevator in corridor C. I would ask the minister to exert whatever influence he can to get this elevator operating for the benefit of the Progressive Conservative, New Democrat and Social Credit members of the house.


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to look into this matter, as usual, today.
4486	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



QUEBEC-REPORTED REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Would the minister tell the house whether he has received from the Quebec government a request for a new bridge between the south and north shores at Quebec city, near the existing bridge?
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public
Works): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of an editorial in today's Ottawa Citizen, that great supporter of the Liberal party, I wonder whether the Prime Minister intends to follow the suggestion contained therein; and may we expect that the Prime Minister will be asking for the resignation of the Postmaster General?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the editorial or the news item to which the hon. member refers, but having regard to what has taken place in the house I am sure that is the last thing the Prime Minister would want to do in so far as the Postmaster General is concerned. I believe all those who sit on this side of the house believe that he is performing his task excellently.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a question?
Does the minister-even if he has to cut down his patronage list-consider opposing all measures tending to reduce the number of people who have part time employment in urban post offices, so that a greater number of


people might remain on the regular payroll and be able to look after the needs of their families?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by my hon. friend, I must inform him that next week I shall meet the executive members of the association of postal employees and we shall discuss the matter to see whether the allegations made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe are correct.
With regard to patronage, I did start solving the problem by deciding not to give exclusive consideration to Conservative recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I wanted to ask has been asked. All I can say now to the hon. gentleman, having received the news of his promotion to another place, is that we now know he is about to leave us.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to answer the question I asked yesterday with regard to the support price on tobacco.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to support all grades of flue cured tobacco, other than special factored and nondescript, marketed from the 1963 crop produced in Ontario at a prescribed price of 47 cents a pound, which is 90 per cent of the ten year average or base price. The board has also been authorized to make payments for the benefit of producers in other provinces on the sale of their 1963 crop of an amount per pound equal to any payments which may be made to producers in Ontario.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister now say how many provincial governments have indicated

to the federal government their willingness to share in the cost of increasing the pensions paid under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, I can not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether the province of Manitoba has so indicated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not with certainty.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the federal government is prepared to share with the provinces in increasing the pensions payable to the blind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: She is reading the newspaper.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. lady did not hear me, so I will repeat my question. Is the federal government prepared to share with the provinces in increasing pensions for the disabled and the blind?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: First, may I say I was not reading the newspaper but was answering departmental correspondence.
In answer to my hon. friend, may I say that I am sure he has been in the house and has heard this type of question asked a number of times. He knows what was introduced in the house yesterday by the Minister of Justice. This is one of the matters which will be under consideration at the dominion-provincial conference commencing on November 25. As such, it is not a matter within the realm of decision making, because it is open for discussion between the provinces and the federal government.
I should like to say that we are receiving many representations, many letters from those interested, both recipients of benefits under shared programs and those who are related to or otherwise interested in such programs. This has assumed rather large proportions. There is a study being undertaken to determine whether these programs should be continued in the same form or another form, transferred to the provinces, or what should happen to them. Because the matter is on the agenda, because it was discussed in the September conference, we expect the provincial governments will come with their minds made up or with suggestions which may be adopted. As a result of that free debate, we will be in a position to inform the house after the conference what steps we will take.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the federal government made
Inquiries of the Ministry a decision to participate with the provinces, if they are willing, in the increases to these people?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The federal government does participate already. We do not know in what way the proposals will be changed. The federal government has been studying them and has a number of alternative proposals. I cannot say at this time which of these may be satisfactory to the provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a question for the President of the Privy Council, which is of some importance in view of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister would care to amplify the statement he made in Toronto early this week, to the effect that the federal government should get out of certain joint programs and compensate the provinces so that they can carry on the programs themselves. Was this a statement of policy that the federal government get out of these programs and does this include such things as hospital insurance, old age assistance, pensions for the blind and pensions for the disabled?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: I do not believe I have anything to add to what I have already said. I have stated this week that when I made this speech I merely repeated the attitude taken by this government. I should not be expected to elaborate on this on orders of the day.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: May I ask a supplementary question. Was the minister referring to all joint programs or some of them? That is all we want to know.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I referred to well established existing programs.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In her previous answers she stated she had a great deal of correspondence and letters in connection with the matter under discussion. Has she tabulated these in accordance with the type of answer, and can she give us any idea of the general tenor of the letters she has received?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the minister replies may I quote Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 171(w) which says:
A question oral or written must not:
(w) raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.
It seems to me the minister has made long and detailed replies, and we are very rapidly descending into a debate. In spite of the importance of the matter, I put it to hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry members whether we have not gone far enough along this line at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say the minister has given long answers but they contained very little information. What I asked the president of the council was a simple question, as to whether it is now accepted government policy that the federal government intends to withdraw from joint programs and, if so, what are the programs?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I intend to abide by your ruling.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If the majority of provinces meeting here on November 25 indicate a desire to increase the old age assistance, and blind and disabled allowances to an amount equal to the present old age security payments, is the government prepared to go ahead and amend the acts accordingly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. gentleman, who is an experienced privy councillor, began with the word "if" and is therefore a hypothetical question, which is against the rules.
On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Could he tell the house whether he will be a member of the federal government's delegation at the federal-provincial conference that will convene on November 25?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the delegates have not yet been designated.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State?
On August 1, as reported on page 2879 of Hansard, the Secretary of State gave us the assurance that the civil service commission would provide all possible information about bilingualism in various government departments. On October 1, I asked the Secretary of State for information on this matter and he replied that he would submit a preliminary

report in the near future. The same thing happened on October 16, as reported on page 3630 of Hansard.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he is in a position to give us a preliminary report or to tell us what progress has been made in the investigation conducted by the civil service commission on the matter of bilingualism in the various departments of the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I cannot at the present moment. I understand the commission is working concurrently on its submission to the royal commission and a report to the house, and as the hon. member knows Mr. Pelletier, one of the members of the commission, recently became the deputy minister of veterans affairs. He was succeeded by a new commissioner, and I think we would all expect the new commissioner would need at least a week or two to familiarize himself with the work of the commission before we can expect such a document.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question?
Does this mean that we shall receive a preliminary report from the civil service commission within the next two weeks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not like to give any such undertaking. The civil service commission is an independent body set up by parliament, to which the government is not allowed to give any direction. It would be very improper for me to give any directions to them, but I will let them know the hon. member's desire to have this report.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-95, to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 16-Exemption of income from manufacturing or processing business in designated areas.
The Chairman:: Order. When we rose last night we were considering clause 16 of the bill with an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Wellington South. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Hales) negatived: yeas 56; nays 95.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask a question for clarification and information. At what point, during your putting of the question and from then on, would hon. members not have a right to vote?


Lucien Lamoureux: I would refer the hon. gentleman to standing order 12(2), which says:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
I assume this is the standing order which applies on the calling of a vote.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In committee also?


Lucien Lamoureux: In a committee also.


Lionel Chevrier: And there was lots of noise.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Rynard:: I want to make a few comments on the method of designation of areas, which provides that they must have less than 50 per cent of the national average employment over eight years, and have high summer unemployment. This is a very discriminatory method of designating areas, because there are many tourist areas which have high summer employment but still suffer severely from a high rate of winter unemployment.
I would like to ask the minister what research, if any, has been made with regard to the designated areas. I am sure some of them have been areas of full employment in the past, and what assurance is there that after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars, the same conditions will not exist which drove industry out of those areas previously? In other words, has any investigation been made into whether the climate in those areas is favourable or unfavourable for industrialization? Has any investigation been made into water and sewerage facilities, and the general conditions existing? Has it been determined whether an industry which goes into a particular area is likely to flourish in that area?
It is a strange situation that the designated areas in Ontario are ones which are represented by cabinet ministers. I could name some of them, but at the moment my strong objection is to the method of designation. To my mind it contravenes dominion-provincial relations and dominion-provincial-municipal relations. Surely the person on the ground, who lives in an area, collects taxes, and observes it over the years, knows whether it is an area that wants help.
As far as I can see, this government is staking a knowledge of statistics against the
Income Tax Act
knowledge of people. To my mind that is altogether wrong, and for these reasons I cannot support this bill.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks with regard to Bill C-95. We are now discussing clause 16, which says:
This new section provides a 36 months exemption from tax for income tax from a new manufacturing or processing business in a designated area. This clause implements paragraph 2 of the income tax resolution which reads as follows-
I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to this matter. I would like to defend small business: there are quite a number of small industries throughout Canada, and quite a few in the province of Quebec, which can barely operate. Many of those small industries would need some sort of help, but, according to this clause, only new industries will benefit from those income tax exemptions.
With regard to industries which have been operating for some time, I believe it will be rather difficult to have them move to other areas. For instance, industries that are in centralized areas, like Quebec, Montreal, or Sherbrooke, are not likely to go and settle in some other area without proper means of transportation, or where transportation is much more costly and markets inadequate. Let us, for instance, take an industry in the city of Montreal: according to statistics, it can sell almost 25 per cent of its production locally; but, if that industry settles elsewhere, it will lose this advantage of selling 25 per cent of its production locally, without having to pay for transportation.
And the larger centres offer many other advantages which do not exist elsewhere. In a centre like Montreal-to take that city again as an example-where there is an abundance of specialized labour, industry does not find it too difficult to obtain what it needs in that field.
On the other hand, while there is plenty of manpower in remote centres, there is no skilled labour force. The industry which will set up in those centres will have to train and organize a new manpower. Small industries have much difficulty in getting established and in maintaining their development, because of the many problems which the larger centralized industries do not have.
For instance, as regards the manpower problem, the small industry must organize it itself and train the young people of the area. There is practically no skilled labour in those areas. So, the small industry must train the workers.
According to the statistics I have here, the small industry must train some ten

Income Tax Act
people before it can keep one skilled worker who will be able to do the job. The small industry must train several persons because once they know their trade, there are always some who will go to work in the larger centres where skilled labour is in great demand and better paid. So, the small industry has to train about ten people in order to keep at least one trained worker, which means that its costs are that much higher and its profits, that much lower.
With regard to the financing of small industries in remote centres, where can they find the help they need? In the first place, the various governments, federal, provincial, municipal, the school boards, the church councils collect taxes and sell debentures on a year round basis. The governments undertake campaigns to sell debentures, and consequently all the money goes to them.
The federal government, for instance, sells a lot of debentures; the provincial governments, the school boards and the municipalities do the same. In the meantime, the small industries also try to sell debentures to raise capital but they get only what is left. Sometimes they are unable to find the money needed for expansion, which means they have to spend years barely managing to survive.
I know personally several small industries, and am apprised of the difficulties they are up against, in that field. Some of them have been operating their plants or their businesses for ten or 15 years practically without profit. I even know industries which have been in operation for ten years, and have suffered yearly losses of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000, those losses being made good by the income of some more profitable ventures. On the eleventh year, there is profit at last. But, then it has to pay income tax, whereas it should be granted an exemption to make up for the losses of the previous years.
Now, that is the matter upon which I call the attention of the Minister of Finance. I feel that it would be a good thing to grant small industries the same tax exemption the new industries are getting under the policy the Minister of Finance has set out in Bill C-95.
These small industries, which can barely make ends meet, cannot find the capital they need, except through banks which lend at an interest rate of about 10 per cent. However, some municipalities have begun to help out industry.
There is the industrial development bank whose function we all know. But an industry must have been in operation for three years and earned profits. If an industry cannot meet those conditions, the industrial development bank is not interested.

As the small industry cannot get a loan from the industrial development bank, nor from other sources, because all the money goes for the purchase of all sorts of debentures issued by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, I believe that it is in real need of tangible assistance in order to develop.
The expansion and development of small industries, I believe, would be less expensive than to establish new ones because, as I said before, new industries are not interested in settling in new areas which are located far from the larger centres. Furthermore, only the local folks, who like to live there, who have their relatives there, would agree to remain there and work for those industries.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on account of all the factors involved, the Minister of Finance will have to show more concern for the problems of the small industry, because its requirements are basic. It is essential to help small industries, if we are to provide for the development of the whole country.
It is recognized that industry is the basis of capital, the basis of social economy. It is recognized that industry puts into circulation the money of the employees, to provide a living for the professionals, who live from workers' salary. The professionals live on the money they draw from those who earn it in industry. In general, almost all the professionals live on what the worker gives them. In turn, the worker takes his money in industry. However it is to industry that the less attention is paid. Our attention should be directed towards the smaller industries which will grow one day.
A three years or 36 months tax exemption is not so much to give assistance to industry. To really help industry, the larger industries should be encouraged to move to the various centres, and the government should do something entirely different, for instance, pay 50 per cent of the cost of the removal and of the construction of plants. The government should pay grants on transportation. Otherwise, industry will not be encouraged to resettle, and the government will then have to do something else.
I therefore do not believe that the amendment to Bill C-95 brought forward by the Minister of Finance will be of great help to the people and to Canada. I am of the opinion that the best service the minister could render would be to take an already existing industry and set it on its feet again, to see to it that it can at least survive, by granting it the tax exemption granted new industries.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to submit to the Minister of Finance so that he may clarify his bill as

much as possible. I know that the minister will look into the problem and will try to find solutions.
The amendment which I propose reads as follows:
I move, seconded by Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger, that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding section 16 A which reads as follows:
This section will also apply to small industries already set up in the said designated areas, in addition to industries which will improve their plants or buy new equipment.
This is the amendment which I submit to the house, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is moved by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latu-lippe):
That section 16 be amended by adding section 16(a), which reads as follows: 16(a) This section will also apply to small industries already set up in the said designated areas, in addition to industries which will improve their plants or buy new equipment.
I would point out to the hon. member that I have some doubt as to whether this amendment is valid and in order. I will now be pleased to hear the committee's views in this connection.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Chairman, you expressed some doubts as to the validity of the amendment. You might make a ruling on its validity before putting the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, as to the validity of the amendment, I feel that it supplements the proposals made by the minister.
The purpose of the bill is to help certain areas known as designated areas. Exemptions are granted to new industries in order to help the designated areas.
The purpose of our amendment is to provide further assistance to designated areas, and this is entirely in keeping with the meaning of section 16.
I fail to see why this amendment is not valid and completely in order.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not the amendment is in order, I would just say that the proposal in the bill to provide incentive to new businesses to locate in designated areas is a very generous one. The purpose is to encourage new enterprises to locate in these designated areas and to provide the productive base for future development and additional employment.
I suggest with respect that this amendment goes much further than was contemplated in the bill. While I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech, which I thought was a good one, and while I agree with him 28902-5-287
Income Tax Act
that we should encourage small businesses all through Canada, I should not like to restrict that situation only to small businesses in these areas. I respectfully suggest that this proposed amendment goes much further than is contemplated in the bill, and that therefore it is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised at the position taken by the government about this particular section of the bill.
We hear at every turn the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) making speeches here and there and state that the government will try-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order. [Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member will make his point of order I will sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member speaking on the point of order? At present, we are listening to arguments concerning the point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order-


Mr. Belanger:: In my opinion, the proposed amendment does not widen the general scope of the bill.
Now, in the section under consideration, the minister proposes to reduce unemployment by helping the development of industry.
We claim that with our amendment, it would be easier and cheaper for the government to look after small industries which are in financial difficulties and which could be profitable if they were given the same advantages as the new industries.
We sincerely feel that this bill will be useless in many cases as we showed a while ago. It is not advantageous for an established industry to move to an underdeveloped and depressed area.
In our opinion, the amendment does not go any further than the bill and we claim that it would be cheaper to help existing industries than to set up new ones.


Lucien Lamoureux: The amendment proposed by the hon. member is, of course, imaginative and very interesting, but I am afraid that in the light of the arguments which have been submitted for the guidance of the Chair and the research I have quickly made in relation to this amendment, I do not hesitate to say that it is out of order.

Division
The amendment introduces an entirely new proposal, which no amendment should do at this time, I should like to refer the hon. member to May's sixteenth edition, page 793, where it is said that an amendment must relate to the matter under consideration, and is governed by the rule of relevancy. On this basis I think the amendment, which goes beyond the particular scope of this clause, is out of order. I also think, in spite of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Charlevoix, that this amendment would tend to bring in a new class of industries which would benefit from the tax incentive, and which would thus indirectly be a charge on the treasury. For these reasons I submit that the amendment is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I appeal against your ruling.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member appealing from the ruling of the Chair?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when clause 16 of Bill C-95, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, was being considered, the hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac proposed in amendment the following:
That clause 16 of this bill be amended by adding clause 16A, which would read as follows:
16A. This section will also apply to small industries already set up in the said designated areas, in addition to industries which will improve their plants or buy new equipment.
The Chair decided that the effect of the proposed amendment would be to introduce an additional group of industries not covered in the main proposal and in consequence thereof the amendment was not relevant to the clause. Whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the ruling confirmed.


Mr. Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker,
I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of your ruling.


Mr. Beer:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Turner:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


William Heward Grafftey: Before we proceed any further I would like to note that the other day the hon. member for Renfrew South indicated in an article that there was not enough polarization of debate and the people of Canada did not see enough difference in principle between the two major parties. What I wish to underline this afternoon is that in our discussion of designated areas there is a definite difference in principle regarding our approaches to this problem.
One of the main principles of the party I support in this house goes back to the time of Burke when the idea of local self-agency was promoted. It simply means that municipalities often know what is best for themselves and how best to govern their own affairs. This is a major difference in approach as between the two major parties.
We consulted the municipalities:	You
designated without consultation. When we brought in the notion of surplus manpower areas we never went forward unless the municipalities were consulted in advance, and this is a principle that is written right into the heart of my party's approach. A treasury bench, one third of which is made up of exsenior bureaucrats, has adopted this attitude of designation without consultation, and that is what we are fighting against this afternoon.
I fully realize that the government of the day has a great responsibility in the field of stimulating the economy and employment, but I ask members of the government, have you not learned your lesson yet? Have you not learned your lesson that your whole economic problem has floundered because of lack of consultation? You never consulted the provinces in relation to your pension scheme or in relation to the municipal loans fund question. Lack of consultation keynotes the whole reason why the government is floundering in relation to its economic program; and in relation to the first area it designated I ask, is not the proof of the pudding in the making?
28902-5-287J
Income Tax Act
I do not want to underrate the importance of statistics. Of course in a plan such as the government has in mind, statistics and centralized control here in Ottawa, play an important part in determinations before designating an area; but what we would like to know either from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, or the Minister of Labour, is whether in future the municipalities are going to be consulted before they are designated. If the hon. member for Renfrew South really wants polarization in debate, this notion of consultation is one that separates the two major parties in the house.
The party I support was the party which fathered confederation. Today we are fathering, again and again, this notion of co-operative federalism. Through our ARDA program and in the field of natural resources we went forward in good will, in co-operation and in a spirit of consultation with the provinces. We are the ones who have pioneered this whole area of co-operative federalism. Hon. members opposite talked about co-operative federalism in their speech from the throne, but their whole performance since then has been keynoted by a retreat from that spirit of cooperative federalism. Unless they accept our warning today, and assure us they will consult the municipalities in future before designating areas, then in a very short time we shall witness in this house-and mark my words-another retreat.
In a by-election in a constituency across the water somebody recently made the remark-and I think the remark was based on Conservative principles-that Westminster does not necessarily know what is good for Scotland. I think, underlining Conservative principle in this house, and especially in a nation with a large land area and sparse-population, that Ottawa, no matter how wise the ex-bureaucrats are, does not always know what is best for the municipalities.
If you really believe in centralization across there, and I believe you do-you are the centralizers-you need have no fears by simply extending to municipalities, local governments and provinces the courtesy of consultation, because you will not necessarily be delegating your powers away forever. Before this debate is over I hope either the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Minister of Labour, or all of them together, will assure us that this spirit of co-operative federalism, inspired and pioneered by the government I supported prior to the last election, will be put into effect. I mention our approach to ARDA and the resources field, and hon. members opposite must realize, no matter what they say or think, that municipalities are still creatures of the provinces.

Income Tax Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member aware the address in reply to the speech from the throne was adopted a long time ago?


William Heward Grafftey: It might have been adopted by a vote, but it was not adopted in spirit by hon. members opposite. If you adopted the speech from the throne which contained this notion of co-operative federalism, far be it from me to suggest in reply to the Secretary of State that for one minute you have practised the spirit you meant to adopt. In fact you have turned your back on the municipalities-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am going to raise a serious point of order. It was agreed that on clause 1 of the bill there would be a general debate, and there was no effort made in any way on the part of the government to restrict the general debate on that clause, but we are now on clause 16, and there is a rule of the house that argument on a clause of a bill should be relevant to the clause. I was seeking by my earlier question, in a gentle way, to draw the hon. member's attention to this rule of the house, but since I do not seem to have succeeded perhaps I should ask Your Honour if it is in order to make these wide-ranging speeches on clause 16 of the bill?


William Heward Grafftey: In reply to the point of order I simply say I am not entering a general debate, I am talking about the specific principle of consultation, and all I ask before I take my seat is that one of the ministers concerned with this clause should guarantee to us that the courtesy of consultation will be invoked before any further areas are designated. This is hot a general debate, but I repeat that this principle separates the major parties in the house in relation to their approach to this and similar problems.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the government should think again and change its mind about this clause which infringes upon provincial autonomy, since municipalities are under the provinces' jurisdiction.
Now, I wonder why the government did not ask the provinces to designate the areas where unemployment and economic stagnation were more serious than elsewhere. Surely, it would have been easy and more in keeping with the autonomy of the provinces to have the provinces themselves designate those areas and submit the required recommendations to the federal government.

I fail to understand the government's attitude. We hear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) speak often enough of handing back to the provinces their taxation rights. He is an advocate of the new federalism.
What does he mean by this new federalism, when certain measures are being forced upon municipalities without the provinces being consulted?
I am of the opinion that this is not the way to get better co-operation between the federal government and the provinces; on the contrary, I believe that the government's position is to ignore the provinces, and this prompts me to ask the minister a question.
Why does the government decline to ask the provinces to designate those areas? We shall know from the minister's answer what the position is.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to answer the hon. member. I think that question would be more properly put to the Minister of Industry when his estimates are up for consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not think so.

I think that the minister is afraid to answer, because he realizes that his government has made an error by refusing to ask the agreement of the provinces. In my opinion, the government is unwise in refusing to revise its attitude in that regard.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Last Friday I spoke briefly on this bill and pointed out the problems experienced by small businesses which might wish to establish a new business or a subsidiary in a designated area.
The other day I noticed in the Ottawa Journal that the Minister of Industry, addressing the Ottawa Rotary Club, said that, although the government was concerned with industry, its interests did not lie in directing it or running it but, rather, in aiding it to expand and provide employment. When one looks at this particular subclause of clause 16 he wonders who had what in mind when this provision was drawn up. I refer specifically to subclause 3. May I read it briefly and explain how I interpret it. It says:
For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed not to have been carrying on a business in a designated area in a fiscal period unless
(a) throughout the fiscal period the aggregate of the capital cost of all machinery, equipment (other than delivery equipment) and buildings situated in the designated area that were owned by the person-
Subclause A deals with owned machinery, and it goes on under B to deal with leased

machinery. Then it says, in line 17, that the aggregate amount must be at least 95 per cent of the aggregate of the capital cost of machinery, equipment-other than delivery equipment-and buildings wherever situated.
I would be very interested to have the minister's interpretation of what the words "wherever situated" mean. My interpretation is that the parliament of Canada cannot legislate with regard to business outside the country. Therefore, I must assume that the word "wherever" means "wherever in Canada". If this is the case, a Canadian business does not qualify because 95 per cent of the new machinery and equipment acquired must represent 95 per cent of the total assets of the company.
Let us take, as an example, a firm in the city of Ottawa which has buildings, equipment and machinery to the value of $10 million. If it wishes to establish in a designated area, whether it be in Brantford or in Blair-more it could do so, but its total assets in the city of Ottawa must represent 5 per cent of its total holdings when the new plant is built. I say that what we have really done by bringing this legislation before parliament is to open the door for foreign capital to enter this country, while closing it to our own corporations. If I am wrong in this contention, I hope the minister will explain to me, later on, what this means. My interpretation of this subclause is that it amounts to an economic boycott of Canadian industry. What is the partial solution, then? I intend to move an amendment to this clause-and I hope it will be accepted-to reduce the 95 per cent requirement. Though the fixing of any specified amount may result in a burden being imposed on certain business, a less stringent requirement would certainly be of some assistance. A partial solution, then, might be to amend the requirement from 95 per cent to 25 per cent, thus allowing smaller businesses to establish themselves, and permitting larger firms to establish subsidiaries or branch plants in the designated areas. I do not think the figure of 25 per cent is unreasonable, even if General Motors were to build a plant in one of the designated areas of the size and volume which would make the Oshawa plant representative of 5 per cent of their holdings here. I think some consideration should be given to this proposal, and I hope an explanation will be forthcoming.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the committee than is necessary, but I should like to summarize my views on this subject. I think the legislation as it stands precludes Canadian business from establishing subsidiary plants in designated areas, though it allows foreign companies to move
Income Tax Act
into those areas and take advantage of the income tax holiday and the accelerated capital cost allowances. This purports to be legislation to encourage businesses to establish themselves in designated areas, but it appears to me to be ill-conceived and completely unworkable. In particular, I believe line 21 of subclause 3 should be withdrawn, or reworded to eliminate its present discriminatory character. This is the line which reads "and buildings wherever situated". In view of the declared intention behind this measure, the 95 per cent requirement is unworkable and amounts to economic boycott of Canadian industry. The entire clause 16, which enacts section 71A is, in my opinion, drawn in such a way as to encourage foreign investment while at the same time denying the incentive so necessary to Canadian business.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Regina City (Mr. More):
That clause 16 section 71A. subclause (3) be amended by substituting 25 per cent in place of 95 per cent in line 17 and by substituting 25 per cent in place of 95 per cent in line 45.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, before we vote on this question I should like to point out that the hon. member is absolutely wrong in stating that this in any way favours foreign-owned businesses moving into an area. The reason for using 95 per cent is to ensure that industries which get advantage of the generous provisions provided under this clause, depreciation allowances, and so on, are new businesses. The reason 95 per cent is used is to ensure that new machinery, equipment and new buildings are constructed by these particular businesses.


William Skoreyko: May I ask the minister one question. I pointed out the other day that I had a delegation in my office who were prepared to build a boiler manufacturing plant in the city of Brantford. By reason of the fact that new boiler manufacturing equipment in the United States costs a lot of money-in fact it is prohibitive-they were able to buy from a company in the United States who were enlarging their facilities second hand equipment at almost one tenth the cost of new. These people would be able to put 45 people to work the day they opened, but the law precludes their doing this at all. I say again that if you do not want to accept the figure of 25 per cent let us make it 50 per cent; but let us give these smaller people some kind of break.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. More:: I do not want to prolong the debate, but am I to take it that the government's position is adamant, that there should be no change at this stage?


Alexis Pierre Caron: No change in plans.

Income Tax Act


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Does the minister think that he will accomplish his purpose with this restriction in the clause?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought we were on the amendment, but if I may answer the question I would be glad to. The whole purpose of this section is to concentrate on new businesses. If you include a provision which would allow these businesses to bring in second hand machinery, you are going to be competing with somebody else, which is the thing we do not want to happen.


Mr. Pugh:: Surely where the business qualifies and meets the other requirements of the clause, taking the minister's words, what he is trying to do is to get new businesses, so surely the fact that new equipment may be necessary or may not should not make any difference. Does a new business need to have everything new? I think it is most unreasonable to say that they would have to get new equipment, that they would have to buy new equipment whether they are starting a new business or not. In other words, the cost of new equipment might preclude the starting of a new business. It seems to me most unreasonable that that should be the case. In other words, the minister says: "You are a new business, but look out, boys, we want to have no competition, or do not want you to compete with others". I do not want to use the word "ridiculous", but it is really a ridiculous assumption that this would preclude a new business from starting operations.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Just in answer to that, if we went along with the suggestion made by the hon. member-and I must say I sympathize with him when he gets down to that specific case-if we did open it up like this, it would be an invitation to all sorts of businesses just to sell their present machinery to somebody else. This machinery would then become second hand and we would find we were trying to deal with something which we would not be able to handle.


William Skoreyko: I may not have pointed this out to the minister, but the equipment which these people are buying from the United States is not procurable in Canada. Cannot that sort of restriction be put on it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sure there will be the odd case like that, but I do not think there will be very many. When this was being considered we attempted to find a broad definition which would not be subject to wide abuses, and that is why it is provided in this way.


Mr. Hales:: I think the minister is at cross purposes with the principle of this business of designated areas. As I understand it, an area is designated to produce new jobs and

raise the economic growth of the community.
I think that is the principle, and we are all agreed about that. Does it make any difference to the minister whether a man works on an old lathe or a new lathe? His purpose is to create employment, and whether a man works on an old lathe or a new lathe, or any kind of machinery, should make no difference. I think the minister is out to create jobs, but the clause of the bill which my hon. friend just mentioned prohibits this very thing the minister is trying to promote.


Mr. Drury:: Some representations were
made to me about designated areas by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. One of the things which was worrying him considerably was the prospect, of which I think we have had warning, that industries now operating in a non-designated area would merely pick up their machinery and equipment and move into a designated area, thus depriving the designated area of the advantages of such an area. I suggest this is what is most likely to happen if the present legislation is amended so as to allow the advantages of accelerated depreciation and income tax incentives in respect of second hand or used machinery. It is precisely to avoid the likelihood of businesses which, rather than expanding and creating new operations, merely shift their scene of operation from one area to another that we need this provision.


David Vaughan Pugh: The amendment calls for the substitution of 25 per cent instead of 95 per cent. The thing I am trying to figure out is how the figure of 95 per cent was picked. Following along the statement of the Minister of Industry, it seems to me there is a lot of suspicion about Canadian business, that there is a sort of bureaucratic suspicion about Canadian businessmen. I cannot see any industry just packing up and moving to another town. That sort of thing is not undertaken quickly, and the minister has said that a business would have to erect a new building. Surely to goodness this would prevent any quick interchange of business. If a business is started in one place, I have yet to see where you can put it on a golf cart and walk across to the next tee or hole, as it were, and start it again in another place. You just cannot do it; it is a costly and time consuming business. So I come back to this word "suspicion", and I think this is wrong.


William Skoreyko: The Minister of Industry a moment ago said that this legislation was designed to prevent movement of one industry from one place to another place or to a designated area. Not too long ago the Minister of Finance was being interviewed in Windsor, and I have a newspaper heading here which

says: "A wonderful opportunity for Windsor". He was asked at that time by a Dr. Phillips:
Could you give me a quick clarification of the significance of "new" in this context? If I just change the name of my business but I continue to do the same as before, does this mean it is new?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, but if you form a subsidiary and you build a great big plant next door, it is new.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: With new equipment.


William Skoreyko: That is the minister's word. Then may I ask the minister to explain line 21, which refers to "wherever the building, machinery and equipment is situated". Is that in Canada or abroad?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are no designated areas abroad so it would have to be Canada.


William Skoreyko: So that what I said about this being an economic boycott-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sorry, I think I am incorrect in my answer there. This particular paragraph means "wherever they are situated".


William Skoreyko: Does that mean anywhere in the world, then?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, this whole clause, as well as the bill, is so ambiguously worded, so confused-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have leave of the house, before we go on with private members' business, to say a word about the estimates for tonight and tomorrow night, which I omitted to say before. If by any chance the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources should be completed tonight, and I would hope they might be, the Minister of Transport would be glad to go on with those items of his department that have not yet been taken. If the estimates of the Department of Labour should be completed during the sitting tomorrow night the Minister of Fisheries would be glad to go on and complete his department.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of Motions (Papers)-Mr. Howard-That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports received by the government or any agency or branch thereof dealing with the grain elevator at Prince Rupert, B.C., since January 1, 1959.
Motions for Papers
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I might have permission of the house to discharge the order and withdraw this motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROLAND COMTOIS, REPENTIGNY, QUE.

Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, between the Minister of Public Works or officers of the Department of Public Works, on one hand, and Mr. Roland Comtois, of Repentigny, constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, on the other hand.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, I should not want to be too long, but I am most surprised that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschate-lets) for whom I have some consideration, has not yet tabled the documents I requested. He is taking refuge behind the word "official".
I wonder if the correspondence between the Department of Public Works and a candidate who was defeated at the last election truly constitutes official correspondence. That is why I should like to have that correspondence tabled, Mr. Speaker, to prove that, for all practical purposes, it is not your humble servant who was elected at the last election but the man I defeated?


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is he, Mr. Speaker, who makes the decisions in the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. It is he who makes suggestions to the government and to crown ministers, including the Minister of Public Works up to now. If this is not true, I would like the minister to table this correspondence so that we will know what is going on.
I do not consider the stand taken by the minister as normal. It is improper to refuse to provide such correspondence to an elected member of parliament.
I shall give you an example among many, Mr. Speaker, of what has been going on in the constituency of Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm since the government came into power.
I learned some time ago that a painting job was being carried out at the post office of L'Assomption.
Mr. Speaker, the work is being done by a painting contractor who is not a resident of that locality.

Motions for Papers
I have heard it said that the Department of Public Works-not the minister himself, but perhaps one of his four assistants in Montreal-had got in touch with Mr. Roland Comtois to ask him the name of two or three persons who might be interested in submitting tenders concerning the painting to be done at the L'Assomption post office. It seems Mr. Roland Comtois contacted two or three persons and told them: "Get together and see that one of you puts in the lowest tender." So that the person who got those contracts-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, on a point order, it is my understanding that according to the rules of the house we should only discuss whether or not these documents should and must be produced, and not any substantive matters regarding the contents of the documents themselves. I respectfully submit to Your Honour that my hon. friend is discussing the substantive merits of what is or may be in the documents if they are produced and is not limiting his remarks, as they should be limited, to arguments whether or not the documents should be produced.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Renfrew South, it is obvious that the hon. member quotes these examples to illustrate how important it is that these papers be tabled so that the house be thoroughly informed on the stewardship of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order, which is very important and very relevant? We are now discussing the production of papers and the question relates to the nature of the correspondence involved.
I do not think that my hon. friend is able, with his well known imagination, to go beyond this matter, which is basically a matter of principle.
As my hon. friend can see, the answer I gave on October 30 is mentioned tonight in the discussion. I think he himself will admit that it is no time tonight to go beyond that discussion.
My hon. friend is well aware that we studied twice the estimates of the department, and that they will soon come again before the house, perhaps next week. Then he will have

the opportunity to speak a lot as he is wont to do in and out of season; he will be entirely free to do so.
Consequently, I would ask him to postpone the discussion, because the question is completely out of order.


Mr. Paul:: As to the remarks made by the Minister of Justice, pardon me, of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets)-patronage is so rampant that one no longer knows which one of the ministers is the largest dispenser, which explains why I mentioned the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier).
If the hon. member for Mercier wishes to speak, perhaps he could take his seat, since he has one in the front row. He is a bit premature in his endeavours and it would possibly be wiser for him to be in the back row where he could make his observations to the Speaker.
In his remarks, the hon. member for Pon-tiac-Temiscamingue indicated that the mover of the motion explains the reasons why he wants the documents to be produced. And it is in the light of the information given by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) that we will be able to decide on the validity of the arguments invoked by the Minister of Public Works who tells us about the official nature of that correspondence.
As long as we remain in the dark about the reasons why the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm moved that motion, we will be unable to decide whether or not the documents requested are of an official nature.
I submit that the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm are relevant to the motion he moved.


Mr. Macdonald:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that basically the debate at this time should really be limited to the question of whether or not documents which have been refused by the crown can be refused for the reasons stated by the minister. I submit that if a minister comes into the house and states that by reason of the prerogative of the crown it would not be in the public interest to make documents available or alternatively, if he comes in here and says that the documents are private correspondence and the private property of some individual subject of the crown and for that reason should not be disclosed to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and to the world at large, hon. members are in the position of having to accept the minister's word. Therefore it would not be in order to go into the character of the documents or the type of correspondence it might

be, because for that very reason the private interests of an individual citizen would be disclosed in public, and I would submit this would be against the proper order of the house.
If I may, I should like to refer to Bouri-not's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 249, where I find the following:
Occasions may arise when the government will feel constrained to refuse certain papers on the ground that their production would be inconvenient or injurious to the public interests. A high authority writes on this point: "Considerations of public policy and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers."


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the
hon. member is now going away beyond the point of order. He is actually debating the substance of the motion now before the house. The argument he is making now could very well be submitted to the house in the course of the debate.
The point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Renfrew South is well taken. I am sure that the rules of the house are well known to every hon. member here. Indeed, all the comments made in connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Renfrew South indicate that members are substantially in agreement. If it is necessary to do so, I might again refer hon. members to a ruling made by His Honour, Mr. Speaker Michener, on February 8, 1962, which is reported in Hansard of that day at page 682. This is one of the classic references on this particular subject. I quote:
The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion. The question in issue is whether or not they should be produced. Production of them has been objected to. It would be relevant to debate whether or not the grounds of objection were sufficient but in my view it would not be relevant to debate what the government should be doing about the breadth of international waters. That is another issue. The hon. member recognizes that the matter before the house is a narrow one. I hope we shall not turn this discussion into a debate as to what should be the course of the government in these international negotiations-[DOT]
In other words, the point before the house is a very narrow one, whether these documents should be produced and whether the reasons invoked by the government for not producing them are valid. I am sure the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) will bear this restrictive statement in mind when he makes his comments.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give concrete evidence of the fact that there has been correspondence between the Minister of
Motions for Papers
Public Works or his department and Mr. Roland Comtois of Repentigny. That is what I had in mind. A typical case happened in the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the present situation is an insult to the people of the city of L'Assomption. Mr. Roland Comtois is given more importance than your humble servant.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member is continuing to do the same thing he was doing before Your Honour made a ruling. He is now discussing what correspondence he alleges there was, which is contrary to the letter of this motion. The only thing he can debate, as Your Honour quite properly ruled, is whether or not the correspondence should be produced. He cannot allege, as he was alleging, that the contents of such correspondence was of such a nature. He can only debate the question of whether or not the correspondence should be produced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a repetition of a point of order which was raised earlier. Is the hon. member rising on the point of order?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, on the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I may say that I had made a ruling on it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: This is another point of order arising from the remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). He submitted to Your Honour that if a member of the government resists the production of these documents, then that becomes law. In other words, it puts the supremacy in the hands of-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We are on a point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We cannot be on two points of order at the same time. Perhaps we should hear out the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member will have a chance to answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My point of privilege is that Your Honour interrupted me in the course of my argument. I feel that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue should not be permitted to reply to an argument which I was not in a position to complete. Either I should be allowed to complete the argument, or the hon. member should be called to order.

Motions for Papers


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. I must say that I was just awaiting a favourable moment to intervene. Certainly, it seems to me the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is referring to the argument which the hon. member for Rose-dale started. I interrupted him because I thought that this was part of the debate. I believe the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is also introducing an argument which should be submitted in the course of the debate.
We are, perhaps, being a little bit unfair to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who is trying to submit to the Chair and to the chamber the very arguments, I am sure, that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is trying to put forward.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I will be very brief on the point of order. I submit that because a member of the ministry refuses to produce a document, there is no reason-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: This is pertinent to the point of order. It is up to the house to decide whether or not these documents should be produced. It is not for a minister to decide; that is why we are having a debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We all appreciate what the hon. member is saying now. It is for this reason we should allow the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to submit his argument.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your decision and will try to remain as close as possible to the motion now before us.
I only wanted to mention concrete cases. Actually, I mentioned one, and it is for this reason that I asked the minister to table the correspondence between Mr. Roland Comtois, of Repentigny, and the minister or the officials of the Department of Public Works. As a member of parliament, I am entitled to have that correspondence.
Mr. Speaker, when a member of the opposition asks, for instance, that the correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the provinces be produced, the government agrees in most cases. Therefore, I do not see why I should not have the right to ask the Minister of Public Works to table the correspondence with that "dispenser of patronage", with a man whom he encourages to engage in patronage. I have the right to have those documents, and I wonder why the minister refuses to produce them.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I remember well, a point 
of order was raised at the beginning of the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. You then rendered your decision to the effect that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should confine himself to the question before us.
However, on two or three occasions, the hon. member swerved from the topic, thus forcing us to rise on a point of order, with the resulting loss of much valuable time which would perhaps make it possible for us to conclude the matter this evening.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about an exchange of correspondence, and in my opinion, that is a most important matter.
It happens fairly often that some members on this side of the house ask for the tabling of correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the premier of a province, and the government then agrees to do so. Why does the Minister of Public Works object to the tabling of the correspondence exchanged between himself, his departmental officials and Mr. Roland Comtois?
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Comtois was defeated by an overwhelming majority in the last general election. Does the minister attach more importance to a defeated candidate than to the premier of a province? Nonsense!
I feel that this is the very essence of democratic principles. As a representative of the people and in keeping with democratic principles, I have a right to obtain those papers even though the letters are marked "Personal" or "Confidential".
The minister refuses to table those letters. I actually know that correspondence was exchanged between Mr. Roland Comtois and officials of the Department of Public Works. What is the reason for the refusal to produce those documents? It is because a shameless system of patronage, the like of which has never been seen in Canada, is being concealed.
That is the only reason.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. Your Honour has ruled twice that the hon. member could not go into the substance of what he alleges is contained in these documents. If this house is to operate in any efficient and proper fashion, then the rules must be followed. There has been a great deal of criticism in the press of late about this house being a shambles. It is a shambles, and will continue to be a shambles if hon. members continue to ignore the rulings made by Your Honour. Not two or three days ago, but three minutes ago, Your Honour made a ruling, and in spite of that fact

the hon. member continues to deal with what he alleges is in the documents, and not whether they should be produced.
I often think, Mr. Speaker, that the rules were made and conceived in this house in the knowledge that hon. members were gentlemen and would abide by the rules. Instead of that, it appears that some hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the hon. member for Renfrew South imply that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is not a gentleman. We all know that he is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Renfrew South is going away beyond the point of order he was raising at the start. I feel that up to this point the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has not strayed too far from the subject matter. It is so limited that I suggest if he were to limit himself strictly to the point that the rules allow, he probably would not have anything to say. I think some degree of leniency should be allowed. I will try to remind the hon. member, in the course of his speech, if I feel he is not abiding by the ruling which was made earlier today.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling and before concluding my remarks, I wish to ask the minister, in the name of fairness and justice, of the respect for democratic principles, to let me have photocopies of the correspondence between Mr. Roland Comtois and the Minister of Public Works or some of his officials. There can be no reason for not tabling that correspondence, unless we are to be prevented from making known to the public the shameless system of patronage now going on and which I expose in the name of democratic principles.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed at the way things are shaping up, because as far as I am concerned, I always considered the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) as one of the most perfect gentlemen in the house. Indeed, if there is one member of the cabinet whose sincerity and honesty I would not doubt, it is precisely the Minister of Public Works, and please believe that this is said in all frankness and sincerity.


Azellus Denis: I am jealous.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) say that he is jealous, but I can tell him that I have confidence in his integrity, even if certain circumstances might have called some suspicion
Motions for Papers
to be aroused concerning certain patronage within his department.
Mr. Speaker, if I rise in this debate, it is because some words lack precision.
If my memory serves me right about recent events, several notices of motions for the production of papers have been put on the order paper; while these motions were being submitted, the Minister of Public Works used an expression that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) had himself used a few moments before when he made some reservation by mentioning "all official documents," at the very moment when the Minister of Public Works was about to table the official documents, these words being thus invested with the same meaning the Minister of Justice had intended to give them.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the words "official documents" are of a specious character; that is why I would like to know what is meant by "official".
We have ourselves submitted several notices of motion for the production of papers. The Postmaster General stated he was ready to table all the official correspondence.
I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General, who must submit documents to the house, what they mean by the term "official"?
Suppose, for instance, that my former political opponent-I take this as an example-the former candidate in the riding of Lapointe who, needless to say, lost by a very large majority, writes to the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) in those terms: "My dear Azellus,..."


Azellus Denis: Very good.


Gilles Grégoire: I find it in the list I have here. "... I am very pleased to inform you that my third daughter is expecting a child in three months."
And in the following paragraph, my former opponent adds: "With regard to the problem I mentioned about the job given to so-and-so, will you do something about it, will something happen?"
Then, Mr. Speaker, because of the paragraph about the third daughter's or fourth son's coming baby-I am not sure-will the Postmaster General consider that letter as official correspondence? We should know what to think. A man may very well write to a minister, calling him by his first name, saying "tu" instead of "vous", that is write a letter of a personal nature, although part of its contents might deal with the department concerned. In that case does the minister consider that, because the letter comes from a friend, it can be of an official character?

Motions for Papers
That is exactly what I would like to hear explained by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets), the Postmaster General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), all three having used the word "official".
Does this sort of correspondence exist in the post office and the public works departments.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have not been aware of any correspondence in my riding, which might have given rise to some patronage.
In regard to the Post Office Department, I requested the production of papers. I have copies of letters with me but I am waiting for the tabling of these papers to see whether all the correspondence will be tabled. I want to warn the Post Office Department that I have copies of the letters.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member for Lapointe is somewhat departing from the subject of the motion. I would ask him to come back to it.


Mr. Moreau:: He is also moving away from his seat.


Gilles Grégoire: There is nothing in the standing orders that forbids a member from taking the most comfortable position to speak, and if we are at the far end of the house-I make this remark because of the interruption of the Liberal member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau)-it is precisely because of the unfairness of the hon. members sitting on that side of the house.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are fed up with the vacuous speeches of the Caouettists. The hon. member for Lapointe should stick to the subject under study. We are discussing the advisability of tabling the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Public Works and a Mr. Roland Comtois.
We are fed up with vacuous and frivolous speeches. This has to stop, and I ask the hon. member for Lapointe to deal with the matter in an appropriate and relevant way.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that as far as insignificance is concerned-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is once more departing from the subject.


Gilles Grégoire: I am dealing with a point of order. There cannot be two points of order at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be better if the hon. member for Lapointe would sit when the Speaker is standing. In my opinion, this type of intervention in our debates is perhaps

useless. It would be better if the hon. member would revert to the subject matter of the present debate.


Auguste Choquette: Indeed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for calling the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) useless, and in that sense, useless is sensibly equivalent to insignificant.
Well, to continue-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say to the hon. member for Lapointe: you are not in a Creditiste suburb, but in the house, where respect and dignity are imperative.
Mr. Speaker, by the way he interprets your ruling, the hon. member for Lapointe departs from the dignity of this house. Let him deal with the matter in a pertinent way, that is all we want. He credits you with words you never uttered.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would point out to you that I have let the hon. member for Lotbiniere call my speech insignificant, but it was following interruptions which are not at all justified. I would ask the hon. member to take due note of that fact.
Mr. Speaker, I continue on a matter which is before us.


John James Greene: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Lapointe are fighting for the heavyweight championship of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I resume my statement. In concluding, I wish to point out that some of the papers retained by the Minister of Public Works and which are supposedly official documents are related to transactions which took place between his own department and certain people who, in most cases, are former political candidates. We have the proof that things went very much the same way when the hon. members on this side of the house were sitting opposite.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We were never guilty of anything like that.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am not without proof. When my hon. friend's party was on the other side of the house, Dr. Henri Vaillancourt, who lived in my county and knew next to nothing about postal service had the advantage of being a post office consultant.


Mr. Speaker:: Once more, I must remind the hon. member for Lapointe to stay within the limits of the subject.


Gilles Grégoire: I would be glad to do so, if I were not interrupted from every side; I would ask the Chair to see that I am not interrupted any more. I am sure that the Chair realizes that those interruptions carry us beyond the limits of the subject under discussion.
Had I not been interrupted a few minutes ago by my hon. friend from Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm, I would already have said that I am quite willing to help him in the matter of these papers, by asking the Minister of Public Works to submit to the house all official correspondence. I feel that it would help maintain the democratic spirit of our parliament.
If there is any patronage, I should not want to cast any reflection on the minister since only the officials of his department are responsible. I trust that whatever its feelings may be, the government will throw some light on the situation by tabling the requested correspondence.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, when this order for return, which is No. 126, was called last October 30, I stated that the arguments put forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) concerning order No. 125 also applied to this order for return.
On page 4178 of Hansard for October 30 last, the Minister of Justice is reported as saying:
Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion being agreed to. There is no official correspondence.
A question was then directed to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who agreed to withdraw the motion because of the reasons given by the Minister of Justice, to wit that there was no official correspondence.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the minister permit a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am quite willing to do that but I should like to remind the hon. member that when he was speaking about unemployment, the other night, I rose twice to ask him very politely whether he would allow me to ask a question and he turned me down. However, I will let him ask his question this time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I must agree that the Minister of Public Works is always extremely polite, but I must say that if I did not allow him to ask his question, it is only
Motions for Papers
because I did not have enough time to answer him. Otherwise, I would have been very happy to oblige.
This is my question. Does the Minister of Public Works feel that correspondence dealing with matters under his jurisdiction or with matters of public interest may not be official correspondence?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Mar-tineau) so wishes, I shall answer him and at the same time I shall reply to the hon. member for Lapointe, who asked for the definition of official correspondence. I think that here we are getting at-


Gilles Grégoire: The nub.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -the nub of the whole question. I am happy to see the leader of the official opposition is here. I feel sure he will agree with the stand I am taking on this matter because, in the last six years, his own position has been the one I am taking tonight as regards motions for the production of papers.
Mr. Speaker, when I receive-


John George Diefenbaker: Has the hon. member any evidence of that, or is it just his own statement?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is what we call, in French, "commune venommee". Everyone knows it and there is no need to prove what everyone knows.

Mr. Speaker, when I receive a document marked "personal and confidential", I file it in my personal records. According to parliamentary authorities, tradition and practice, this is a document that I should not be called upon to table.
I shall give an example that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will understand, I am sure. If one of my colleagues introduced a motion for the production of papers, letters and correspondence exchanged between the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the previous minister for public works, I am convinced that the hon. member would be reluctant to have those personal and confidential letters produced.
So, there is a matter of principle that goes far beyond the few documents that the hon. member would like us to produce.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct merely one question to the Minister of Public Works.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Certainly.

Motions for Papers


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When some correspondence between the minister or the Department ol Public Works, tor instance, and Mr. Comtois entails expenditures on the government's part and when these expenses are paid, after all, by the people of Canada, have I not the right, as a representative of the Canadian people, of a portion of the Canadian people, to know about the documents that have led to those government expenditures?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, by notice of motion No. 126, the hon. member is asking two things. First, he is asking whether there has been correspondence between a certain Roland Comtois and the Minister of Public Works. In the second place, he is asking whether some correspondence has been exchanged between that Mr. Comtois and the Department of Public Works.
I answer that there has been no correspondence between that Mr. Comtois and the Department of Public Works. Moreover, if there had been correspondence marked "personal and confidential" exchanged between Mr. Comtois and the Minister of Public Works, which correspondence would have been filed in the personal records of the Minister of Public Works, I maintain that I should not be compelled to table it.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the minister permit a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: At that rate, any correspondence addressed to a minister by a former candidate or by a man who would like to extend his patronage to a riding could be stamped "personal and confidential" and would become untouchable since we could not ask to have it produced. And the sender could thus try to secure all kinds of information and, even though it would entail public expenditures, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and even though it would give rise to the awarding of contracts without tenders or other things of the kind by the mere fact of being stamped "personal and confidential", such documents would not be official?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the case in point now submitted by the member for Lapointe, it deals with letters bearing the words "personal and confidential" and addressed to the minister, which would be placed in the personal file of the minister in his office or in his department; I must say that according to parliamentary experts and in compliance with the tradition followed down through the years, we should not be obliged, I do not say "not to table", but we should not be obliged to table that correspondence.


Gilles Grégoire: It is an unsound principle.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the principle was laid down and all the experts made observations on it.
I have here May's book and at page 273 of the sixteenth edition, he comments as follows:

The papers and correspondence sought from government departments should be of a public and official character and not private or confidential.

That author clearly said that documents between an individual and the department, or the officials of a department, can very well be tabled, but that it is different for a private and confidential document.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who was a member of a government which, during six years, consistently agreed to that recognized principle does not expect that I can be obliged to table personal and confidential documents which might be in my personal file. He has enough experience not to expect that.


Gilles Grégoire: What could be done in such circumstances?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, to reply to the observation by the hon. member for Lapointe, I must say that we are dealing here with a matter of principle.
The hon. member for Lapointe has enough imagination to go far beyond the matter with which we are dealing at the moment; but I feel quite sure that there must be in a minister's files some private file, with correspondence of a personal and confidential nature, that the minister should not be compelled to produce.
If the hon. members would think matters over, they might see things in that light.


Gilles Grégoire: Could I direct another question to the minister?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: You have not answered the question asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. For the sake of argument, my hon. friend spoke of a private person who might write a personal and confidential letter containing a request entailing government expenditure. The letter is clearly indicated as being personal and confidential and it entails public expenses; if the letter of request is marked as personal and confidential by the sender, is the submission of that document to the house left to the discretion of the minister?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: My contention, Mr. Speaker, is that no minister should be compelled to produce a private and confidential paper which is in his own file, and not in the files of his department.
Now, I said a while ago that on October 30, 1963, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm admitted that my statement rested on solid grounds; the Minister of Justice had also expressed such a view. The hon. member agreed to withdraw his motion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on a particular point, just one word-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I do not refuse to produce any correspondence between the man Comtois and some government official in the Department of Public Works. I have no correspondence, it does not exist. But I say that if there were a document, whatever it might be, with the mention "personal and confidential" in my personal file, the general and parliamentary jurisprudence as well as the customary practice-


Gilles Grégoire: It cannot be personal, it is a public matter.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -should not compel me to produce such document.
Thinking the matter over, I believe that after considering the possible effect of such a motion, the hon. member would probably want to withdraw it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Certainly.
Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere): Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a basic principle of law which by far exceeds the comments of the Minister of Public Works. I always keep the remarks of the Minister of Justice in mind, because the Minister of Public Works bases his argument on them. And it is incorrect to maintain that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm recognized the remarks of the Minister of Justice as justified, because the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm realized with some delay, it is true that he should not accept the suggestion or the declaration of principle of the Minister of Justice. As a matter of fact, we see in today's order paper that motion No. 151 has been brought back for discussion at a later date.
The minister raises-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member.
Supply-Northern Affairs



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major Alfred Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house, went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act respecting an Order of His Excellency the Governor in Council entitled the Surcharge on Imports Order, and to restore certain rates of customs duties and tariff benefits expressed to be withdrawn thereby.
Mr. Speaker:: Since the business for tonight is the consideration of estimates I wonder whether the house will agree to go into committee of supply before we see the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including federal share of the expenses of the secretariat for the resource ministers council, $1,018,600.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, in making this, my first attempt, at explaining the estimates of the department and defending my management, I do so with some diffidence for a variety of causes. In the first place, I have been the minister of the department for only six months, and the estimates we are discussing tonight are estimates with which I had nothing to do. Indeed, most of them have already been spent. I think most hon. members will agree that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources probably has a wider range of responsibilities than any other government department. I have limitations as to those things I can usefully say at this stage. However, I shall be happy later to discuss specific programs and areas of work when the relevant votes come before the house.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I think hon. members are aware of the tremendous diffusion of the department. There is the administration of northern Canada, with all that that entails in the development of both human and material resources; research into water resources and advice on the management of water supply; the great national parks of Canada; and then, the cradle of our history which we call national historic sites and monuments; the management of wildlife in Canada, the national museum and a number of other related resource topics that all come within this department.
Last summer during the recess, Mr. Chairman, it was my good fortune to make an extensive tour of northern Canada. I must take note at this time that the hon. member for Northwest Territories did not like my proceeding to northern Canada. I can only assure him that I am going to do it again and again in the future. Like most hon. members, I had not previously had the opportunity of seeing northern Canada. I rather doubt if any great number of members in this house have been in what we call northern Canada, including the Arctic. Some of them have. I think they will agree with me that when you first see that country you change your predetermined concepts concerning it.
I do not propose to repeat a lot of platitudes about the north

and there have been platitudes. The north has subsisted, in part, upon reputation. There has been the romance of the north. I have nothing against romanticism. As a matter of fact I think the red shadow, for a period of a generation, kept alive a great stretch of sandy desert in north Africa. The stories that are coming out of our north country are giving a tremendous reputation to this part of the country, to the gratification of those who want to see it as a tourist paradise. I do not object in any way to the considerable writings about northern Canada at the present time. But it is a very difficult thing to understand any part of the country through second hand information.
The immediate problem which has been recognized by successive governments, and this is not a partisan matter, is how to make a reality of the human and material potential that is existing there. I think my predecessor in this post would agree with me that the fundamental problem of the north is economic. This is not entirely a problem for governments, though certainly they have a role to play in co-operation with soundly based private enterprise. What can be done to help broaden the economic base of the region so it can provide a satisfactory standard of living for its growing population and contribute
[Mr. Laing.l
to the economy as a whole? This is the question with which we are confronted in dealing with northern Canada. Let there be no mistake that the economic base must be broadened, or any doubt that the population is growing very quickly.
Historically, we would say that the important residents of the north, the Eskimo population, were able to depend on hunting and fishing to maintain their traditional way of living. These traditions are gone and will not return. With southern medicine and medical care, the population in most areas has grown far beyond the capacity of the local resources of game and fish to support it. The people in the south are no longer prepared to see disease and starvation hold the northern population to the limits set by the local food supply. The Eskimo people themselves have become aware of our southern comforts and conveniences and are no longer prepared to live in the way their forefathers did.
I found it very significant on my northern trip that virtually all the Eskimos with whom I spoke accorded first priority to the education of their children. At this point I should like to say that I sincerely hope, indeed I know, that every member of this house is prepared to take the stand that there are no longer any generically inferior people anywhere. This applies with a special emphasis to our northern people. I found the Eskimo people, pushed off on ice and rock, extremely able people. Those who have been given some education in our schools are shortly going to present themselves to Canadians, probably in other parts of Canada, as well informed, well integrated, well balanced people who want to take part in the future of this Canada, which is theirs as much as ours. This means education in the ways and techniques of the south, in schools based essentially on a southern pattern modified to meet northern needs.
As hon. members know, the schools are there. Most northern children, of whatever racial origin, can now go to school; and within about five years this opportunity will be open to all of them. Well qualified students will soon be graduating in substantial numbers and will be looking for work. However the jobs are not there now, and they will have to be provided. The economic base must expand.
With particular reference to the western Arctic, beginning at what I would describe as Hay River and going up the Mackenzie river, I find great promise at the present time. The projected railway to Hay River, with its branch line to Pine Point, is going to have the effect of moving freight up to about

latitude 62. At Hay River, where a devastating flood took place in May of this year, the town has recovered, and in the shipping period from about June 8 until October 25 freight going up the Mackenzie rose 50 per cent over last year.
There is abundant evidence that mining companies, and resource companies, are going into the area, staking out properties, finding new minerals, and developing new mines. I want to pay my compliment to those companies, some of them giant Canadian companies, that are putting their money into an area where risk capital is needed. The tremendous mine at Pine Point, where investment is under way totalling $30 million, with a townsite that will be capable in the next four or five years of supporting 2,000 people, is one of the bright spots in Canada. Further north than that United Keno Hill, and other mines such as Giant Yellowknife, are doing exceptionally well, and by their actions are persuading an increasing amount of risk capital to go into the north country. On the western side of the Arctic, then particularly in the Mackenzie area, the outlook is extremely good.
In order to achieve these objectives, however, government must be as efficient as possible, and must reflect closely the needs of the area served. In my judgment, and I know my predecessor in the former administration agrees, this means that administration as far as possible be decentralized to the north.
The need to get government closer to the people most immediately concerned has been recognized in the bills respecting Mackenzie and Nunassiaq territories which are now awaiting second reading in this house. It is not my purpose at the moment, nor would it be in order, to discuss these bills. I would, however, like to underline the very great importance of giving them prompt and sympathetic consideration.
This urgency arises partly from the fact that the bills envisage the establishment of the new territories on April 1, 1964. This provides very little time for the federal and territorial governments and the Northwest Territories council to make the final arrangements which must await passage of the bills. A more immediate source of urgency arises from the fact that the life of the present Northwest Territories council will expire this month, on November 21 to be exact.
If the Mackenzie bill is not passed, the territories will be left without a legislature, and in that part of the world it is desirable for obvious reasons to avoid a winter election if possible. If these bills had not been before the house, an election would have been called probably for September last. As things have
Supply-Northern Affairs worked out, the territories will be without a legislature until an election can be held, or until the Mackenzie bill goes through.
This may not seem a serious matter, since the territorial council normally meets for only three or four weeks a year. However, the next meeting is scheduled for January when the annual territorial estimates will come up for consideration. The territorial council has the same authority over estimates as this house, although there is a difference in practice. Unlike our parliament, the territorial council normally considers its government's estimates before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they refer. In short, if there is no council meeting in January there will be no money available in the normal course for territorial expenditures in April.
Hon. members will be aware of the quick action of the council in passing legislation needed following the flooding of last spring. Let me say the time has now arrived when it is in the interests of the people there that they have more government on the ground and less government from Ottawa. I think the people who are there and are developing that country, are exercising and enjoying a greater confidence in their own ability to stay there and to prosper, and it behoves this parliament to extend to them as rapidly as we can further major conduct in control of their affairs at site.
As indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, northern administration is not a partisan matter. The federal government first took an active interest in northern development during a Liberal regime. The succeeding Conservative government, to their credit, carried on and expanded these programs, and added to them to meet changing conditions. The present government does not foresee a radical departure from the broad lines established earlier, although of course conditions are not static and policies must be flexible to support them.
My predecessors used the word "vision" to describe their attitude to northern development. They have a certain moral copyright on that word, if not on the ideas that it represents. I would describe our approach to northern policy as one of imaginative realism, and I want to be realistic in respect of the north, as I am sure the people who live there also want to be.
At the present time it is an enormous deficit area. We are putting somewhere between $40 million and $50 million a year, in moneys collected from taxpayers in southern Canada, into the north country, and those people who live in the north country should not be ashamed of those circumstances, because this is the history of pioneer areas in all parts of Canada. As Canada moved west

Supply-Northern Affairs the same situation existed then, but we want as early as we possibly can, as do the people who live there, to see that they be selfsupporting, and it would seem to me to be the responsibility of the government here to adopt things and do acts in respect of assisting private enterprise to go in there, build up that country, employ people, and ultimately stand on their own feet. That is going to be our policy.
Whatever word is used, I think we would all agree that the north is an important part of the country that has been neglected for most of our history and that now deserves the best efforts and sympathetic attention of the government of Canada. To maintain, and retain our national sovereignty, because of defence and because of the resource development, it is imperative that we give continuing and even expanding attention to that country, and I was particularly relieved to note the vast new interest that is obvious in most of the Arctic, and particularly in the western Arctic, by people with private investment capital.
Now I want to deal with one or two other matters. I am quite certain my predecessor will agree with me that we have in our 19 national parks a very fine representation of the original Canada in its wilderness state, that we have preserved our national parks well, that we want to continue them for the enjoyment of the people of Canada, but at the same time we realize they have come to have a commercial aspect to the extent that they are one of the great magnets drawing an increasing number of people from other parts of the world, to visit Canada and spend their money here.
Due to the improvement of a considerable network of roads in Canada, and particularly with the imminent finalization of the trans-Canada highway, we seem to have repatriated a great amount of Canadian traffic that formerly used highways in the United States. I am aware that assisting in the repatriation has been the 92 cents condition of the Canadian dollar, but it must be admitted that our great national parks system is one of those tremendous magnets which are drawing a greater number of visitors to Canada annually, and that situation in turn is one of the bright spots in our balance of payments situation. I believe in recent years we have turned a deficit of $250 million annually into a favourable balance of some $50 million.
Historically our parks were set aside to be wilderness areas. This was the original concept, it is still the concept, and the traditionalist today who wants to go into a national park would prefer to find very few people there beside himself. He wants the great outdoors, but the traditionalist is being


confronted by hard facts at this time. A generation ago most of those who visited our national parks, particularly those in the western parks system were relatively wealthy Canadians or very wealthy Americans who came by rail bringing their families with them, and who stayed in the great hotels- hotels which provided all the services needed. During the time of their holiday in Canada they spent a considerable amount of money.
All this has changed, and the automobile has changed it. The crowds today are on rubber tires and they are really crowds. Because of statutory holidays with pay, because of a good and always improving roads system, because of the fact that cars are owned by almost everyone, most Canadian families are today throwing the kids in the back of the car and saying: "Let us see Canada; let us go to the national parks". For one reason or another, in the case of our western parks, when they get on the highway they say: "We shall drive right through to Banff", or "We shall drive right through to Jasper". I am certain my predecessor is aware of the situation. We face a crisis in our national parks. It is a crisis of plenty, not one of paucity; thank goodness for that. But here is a situation where the traditionalist is in conflict with the situation as it exists. We are faced with the necessity of providing a new type of service in our parks for these people who come in on rubber tires.
I think it is a splendid thing that the ordinary Canadian can take his family to the national parks. But, as I have indicated, we must provide as far as we can the type of service he demands. These visitors want tenting facilities; they want a place to park the trailer and they want the kind of service which makes allowance for the fact that a considerable proportion of the money allocated for the holiday is already allocated to the gas tank. We have this situation to meet. We must meet it, and at the same time retain as far as we possibly can the traditional outlook toward our national parks. That is not going to be easy. As I have said, we have undertaken to divide the administration of the parks system. We are setting up at once a station for western Canada located at Calgary, a station for central Canada at Cornwall and a station at Sydney, Nova Scotia, for eastern Canada. So hon. members will see we are decentralizing the administration. When an organization does a substantial part of its business in two months of the year it has to make decisions quickly; it is not always practicable to wire to Ottawa and wait for a reply. We are putting responsibility for purchasing and for making decisions upon

those divisional officials who will be responsible in those areas. We found last summer, particularly in the case of the western parks where a tremendous increase in visitors was experienced, that it was very difficult to take decisions in time to relieve the congested situation-a situation which was really something to behold. In Banff last year we had over a million visitors and in our parks across Canada we experienced a 24 per cent increase compared with the previous year. This was not foreseen by the department or by myself, and I am certain my predecessor would agree that an increase of such magnitude presents a startling situation. This demand for tenting facilities and parking space for trailers should not be regarded as short term in its nature. I think we must realize it is here to stay and we must make preparations to meet it.
Before I close I should like to say something about one or two of the other aspects of the work of this department. We Canadians often console our frustration over the problems of the day by reflecting that our land is a rich land, that its waters and rocks, its woods and its soils are an estate that provides a solid basis for our sovereign existence. We are not wrong in laying claim to bountiful natural resources, but we have heavier blinkers than those of the legendary Seraphim if we believe that simply having is enjoying. Our resources exist, but they are often hidden by more than physical barriers. Ignorance as to location and development techniques, well meaning parochialism as to the use of benefits, are two of the major problem areas, common of course to all states but of particular concern to resource management in a country where the interests of many governments are involved.
As in the days of the "voyageurs", although now for different reasons, waterways speak with a loud voice to dictate where the country may grow. Water is basic to human civilization; its purity and availability are taken for granted. We have come to feel this way precisely because of the scientific research which in past years has very unobtrusively supported the tapping of fairly extensive supplies. The drain grows day by day, uses multiply, the countryside is remodelled and so century old water patterns are disrupted. In the fact of this dilemma, antiquated water knowledge cannot be tolerated and for this reason I am proud of the team of water resource professional and technical people which has been built up in my department.
Their professional work falls under three headings:	(1) hydrometric measurements;
(2) sediment surveys and (3) studies of special current interest to the federal government. The hydrometric work relies on 1,750 stations through the country, 100 of which were
Supply-Northern Affairs established during the current year. The sediment work is relatively new-it is in its third year-but its value has proven itself. Indeed the life of costly reservoir works and navigation facilities cannot be divorced from the evolutionary processes that are constantly affecting any stream. Our sediment studies are bearing down on this area of ignorance. But pride in what is being done must not delude us into believing that all the answers to the problems of water usages in a complex society will be available without a constant vigilance to keep our research on top of the facts. It seems inevitable that our activity and our expenditure in this area will increase.
As I have mentioned, the department also conducts special studies in connection with current water development interest. In this connection I should like to make a passing reference to the Columbia river. I should like to say, parenthetically, that our involvement in the Columbia development project was, and is, under this heading of special studies. Extensive studies have, indeed, been undertaken by the department on this topic but since the current negotiations relative to the treaty are the concern of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would suggest that discussion of this matter may be more appropriate during the consideration of his estimates. These special studies inevitably lead to the question of the respective roles to be played by the federal and provincial governments not only in the realm of water but in the wider relationship of natural resources.
At this stage, let me say I think our government has done all in its power to make the writing of a treaty in respect of Columbia water with the United States a practical thing as well as a valuable thing to Canada. While it is true that questions on the treaty itself must be directed to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I do take pride in the fact that the technical men from my department have constantly supplied our negotiators with all the relevant facts necessary to the determination of a treaty which will be of benefit to Canada if and when it can be reached.
Current literature abounds in stressing the need for a multiple-use approach to any hydro development. This approach is the threshold to the concept of thinking in terms of regional economic units, and by the same token opens the way to a field of inter-government cooperative possibilities, as well as pitfalls. To co-operate with purpose on major resource projects, not only entails investing a gigantic share of the national wealth we of this age legitimately feel is a heritage to be handed to our children, but also requires sound technical knowledge. There must be no hesitancy in

Supply-Northern Affairs providing the professional machinery to keep all those who have an interest in Canada's resources technically well informed. But this is not all that is required. Co-operation is paramount.
True co-operation depends on a spirit of trust and optimism. I can think of no better area where this can be fostered than the area of resource management. And for this reason I am particularly happy about the growth of a child, born a few years ago though conceived much earlier, and rapidly becoming a firm institution of modern federalism. Indeed the resource ministers council is now a living fact and there is no doubt in my mind that the meeting of minds that it will give rise to, will be a solution source for Canadian resource problems. It will also make the often bandied about word, "dialogue", a working concept. I am confident that under its dynamic chairman, the Hon. Rene Levesque, the council will do much more than its terms of reference may indicate.
At this stage I should like to repeat what I said yesterday to a group of people interested in our natural resources. I said the position taken by the federal government had to be an extremely cautious one. I have tremendous hope and great confidence that when the provinces, through the resource ministers council, discuss resources beyond the confines of the individual provinces concerned, remembering always that though it is the responsibility of the province to develop the resources within its own borders it is possible to develop those resources in such a manner as to do harm to its neighbours, a stage will have been reached which could result in economic achievements of great value to all Canada. As far as the federal government is concerned we shall attempt to act as catalysts, but I think the government of Canada should stand ready at all times to assist the provinces as they discuss their resource possibilities among themselves, in any way possible, financial and otherwise.
I wish to say in closing that had I been consulted by the Prime Minister with respect to any department that I might have wished for, after six months of experience of the work of this extremely varied department, I would have chosen the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. There is a tremendous challenge in it because we are dealing with resources, not only of material but resources of people as well. I can only say I shall endeavour to make a study of all branches of the department to do the best I can to use the fund voted to this department by this parliament, and to bring along and extend the borders of Canada; because we are dealing principally in this department with the only great remaining

frontier of Canada. It is extremely promising at the present time. It still has its problems, but the outlook is extremely bright. When I found the great mine at latitude 62, when I went on my trip to latitude 75, which I think is about 890 or 900 miles from the North Pole, to find them drilling for oil in an area where the geologists say the geology is such that oil must be there, and that when they find it it is going to be another Arabia-these are the terms being used-then I think there is tremendous hope for the north country. There are very few people in it at the present time, and in my view it is not a country which will support a great number of people. But it will support more than are there are the present time, and I am quite certain that the extended pursuit and search for resources is going to end in success. I am quite certain that these social capital advances we are making to the north country will in time be repaid, and if the pursuit goes on at the present rate I think they will be returned relatively early.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, on occasions of this kind it is customary to exchange the usual courtesies, especially when a new minister is introducing his estimates for the first time. I am aware that we have had an opportunity earlier to exchange these compliments, but I do want to repeat tonight that I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. He has stressed that what we are discussing tonight are estimates in which I had some part when I carried the responsibility for this department. I think the sincerest form of flattery-this is a well known phrase-is imitation. Because of the fact that the minister has expressed so much unanimity as to the policies and programs of the former administration, it seems to me that there will be no purpose served tonight in extending this discussion to an undue length.
I was also pleased to hear the minister refer to the fact that we have important legislation pending concerning a major forward step in northern development; that is the legislation to deal with the granting of greater political autonomy to the Northwest Territories. As he indicated, this is not the occasion to discuss these matters, but I would seize the opportunity provided by his observations to suggest that, even though there is some pressure of time by reason of the fact that there has been delay, in proceeding with this legislation we should not try to foreshorten the discussion that I am sure will arise once this legislation is introduced.
I would hope that as soon as possible we could have set up in this house a committee to which the legislation could be referred. As the minister has already indicated in his observations, so very few members in this

house have any personal knowledge of the north, and only those who have actually travelled north of 60 have an appreciation of the problems and the tremendous potential of this great, undeveloped and unexploited, area of Canada. I should think that the setting up of a suitable committee would make it possible for hon. members of this house who have the good fortune to serve on the committee to travel into the north. In this day of air transportation travel is no problem. We have the facilities, and within a few hours we can reach the farthermost points of northern Canada. I think it would make an outstanding contribution to an understanding of the problems and the potentials of the north were such a committee established. In addition to discussing the problems in detail, the committee could have the opportunity to meet with officials who are familiar with the problems; and hear some of the northerners themselves. This would be a big step forward in the understanding of this last frontier of Canadian geography.
My final remark on this point, Mr. Chairman, is to say that the reference of legislation before second reading to a committee is not without precedent. In this regard I mention one reference recorded in Hansard for May 14, 1946, where the house leader of that day, the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, referred the bill on reinstatement in civil employment to a standing committee before it reached the second reading stage. I think this step would obviate a lot of discussion which is bound to take place when this proposed legislation comes before the house, as well as provide an excellent educational experience for hon. members.
The minister has intimated that the north is still very much an unknown country. It has become much better known within recent years. When we have outstanding historians and political scientists of the day using the expression that Canada is a northern country with a northern heritage and destiny, I think that is indicative of just how far in recent years we have reached a new appreciation of this important part of Canada. This should not be new, of course, because the whole history of Canada has been that of a gradual movement into the northwest frontier. I am surprised as I travel around Canada to see how many communities there are, regardless of their location, who refer to themselves as a sort of gateway to the north. For example, Halifax regards itself as the guardian of the north, as does Fort William and Port Arthur. These cities refer to themselves as the gateway to the northwest, and they sit right on the United States boundary. But in the area north of 60 we have all the problems of geography, of climate, of distance, which
Supply-Northern Affairs have been peculiar to development in Canada right from the earliest moment of our history when Cartier, I believe it was, referred to the lush area along the St. Lawrence river as the land God must have given to Cain, as the country God had forgotten. We are a very rugged northern half of the North American continent.
When the minister referred to the deficit situation of the northern economy I was reminded of some of the statements made about another part of the Northwest Territories back in the 1880's when that part of Canada was regarded as an economic deficit area. In fact, people in responsible positions referred to the prairies as having no economic significance whatsoever. When the government of that day was building a railway through the prairies the critics said that this was a railway which would go from wigwam to wigwam and would not pay for its own oil. That was not long ago in Canadian history, a little over half a century. Now, with wheat pouring from the granaries of the prairies, from this part of the country which was a deficit economy and was not supposed to have much economic future, and with all the political pundits and fiscal experts saying that the wheat sales of the past few months and of the last couple of years are going to have a tremendous impact on the total economy of Canada, I am even a little more optimistic than is the minister. I would say that the same development could take place north of 60, once we have one of the great mineral resources brought into production. For example, the minister referred to oil. The Quirin report of three years ago exhaustively and carefully studied the oil potential. There had been a lot of romantic ideas and hazy notions about the oil bonanza that existed in the north, particularly in the Arctic islands. All these were confirmed by an outstanding oil geologist, Dr. Quirin in the Quirin report. He came up with phrases almost as ecstatic as the romanticists. When the first gusher comes in in the Northwest Territories I am sure it will have an impact on the economy much the same as in the case of the rapid growth and development of the wheat economy of the prairies in the early part of the present century.
It would appear that the new administration has accepted uncritically the policies that were enunciated and carried out over recent years by the former Conservative administration. This is a matter of satisfaction to me personally as well as to all members of the former administration. The department was organized in 1953. At that time prime minister St. Laurent used the phrase that over the
4512	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs years Canadians had administered the northern regions in a state of absentmindedness. That situation prevailed right up to the recent historical past.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And until today.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What was that comment?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I said until today. They are still absentminded about the natives.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In 1956-57 total expenditures for this department were more than $39 million and this year total expenditures will be approximately $83 million. If the size of the estimates is any criterion it indicates that some rather aggressive policies have been under way during recent years with respect to all the diverse responsibilities of this most interesting department. I am not going to enumerate, because these details are in the estimates. The program was one of national development in the best traditions of the Conservative party's national development philosophy.


An hon. Member:: You have ruined the whole speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not intend to go back in history and point out that the Conservative party has always been identified with the development of new frontiers. This is a matter of record and requires no debate. However, I wish the minister would speak to his colleague, the Secretary of State and house leader, because I feel he has not quite caught the vision yet. I know the problems. It is not only the backbenchers in the House of Commons who fail to understand the great potentialities of this huge area in our northland. It is also the members on the treasury benches.


George James McIlraith: Be careful.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: From time to time the Secretary of State has indicated that he is one who has not quite caught the vision or, in terms of the new phrase, imaginative realism, he is not even imaginatively realistic about the north. When speaking in the maritimes just a few months ago he referred to the maritimes as the last frontier and rather downgraded what has been taking place in northern Canada.
To refer to this matter in passing, this is a program that was carried out by my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, in the first instance and more recently it became my responsibility. I could talk about roads, airfields, mineral discoveries and the railroad to Great Slave lake. This latter project was not entirely welcomed with open arms by hon. gentlemen opposite when it was introduced in the house some three years ago. I am not going to dwell on this fact because


the minister embraces it just as enthusiastically as I and the others associated with me did, when we had the responsibility of government.
I see that my colleague from Peace River is in the house tonight. I hope he will take the opportunity afforded by the consideration of these estimates to make some remarks. If any member of the house more than any other can take credit for the launching of this realistically imaginative program it is my colleague from Peace River.


George James McIlraith: What about the late Mr. Hardie?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The resource side of the north is most important, and I am optimistic in this regard. One comment I should like to make is that the members of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources who have been closely identified with this program over the past few years are all excellent and dedicated men. They seem to be caught up in the enthusiasm for this task of pioneering on this new frontier. I know that most of the men and women working in the department are enthusiastic and optimistic about the prospects of the north. This was the impression I always received in working closely with them.
Some reference has been made to the human resource aspect by way of an interjection by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I want to dwell on the human resource aspect of the north. While the population is not large I think one of the saddest periods of neglect in Canadian history is to be found in the long period of time it took for the government of Canada to assume responsibility and take an interest in the welfare of its northern citizens. When we remember that the residents of the eastern Arctic, for example, only received the franchise two years ago I do not think we have much to boast about with regard to our record in dealing with these Canadians-they are and always have been Canadians-north of 60, particularly in the high Arctic, in providing them with the normal amenities and services that are provided for Canadians elsewhere.
Two years ago they received the vote. They have now exercised their franchise in two federal elections. One of the reasons for the delay in granting the Eskimos the vote was the repeated argument, that they did not have the intelligence or the capacity to understand the issues that would be involved in a national election. In fact, I have even heard the phrase used-I will attribute it to no one-which is sometimes used by segregationists in the southern part of the United States, that the Eskimos would be voted rather than voting. They were given the vote

and I would say they have exercised this right with an intelligence and responsibility equal to that of Canadians in any part of Canada and perhaps with a greater degree of intelligence. I see that the hon. member for Northwest Territories agrees with me.
But there is a strange anomaly here involving a matter of great importance. The Eskimos in the eastern Arctic have the vote federally and they do not have it territorially. No wonder there is a demand for a greater degree of self-government and autonomy in the Northwest Territories. This is why it is so important that adequate time and provision be made in the house for a thorough discussion of the pending legislation. We do not want to be pressured, which seems to be the tactic that the house leader is adopting. He is going to hold up the legislation until the last moment, and then say: You must pass it because if you do not there will be no territorial government for the Northwest Territories.
I would remind hon. members opposite that the last important piece of legislation which gave greater autonomy was debated for a period of almost four years. I refer to the autonomy bill that was finally passed in 1905 and gave provincial status to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We do not want to be pressured on this matter, because there is a great vacuum of knowledge and hon. members must have complete freedom to discuss these important matters.
So far as human resources are concerned, the educational program has moved forward apace. I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West agrees. There are now educational facilities for about 75 per cent of the young people of the north. There has been a tremendous increase in the past six or seven years. Then there is the welfare program. I hope that we might get some details of the housing program from the minister later on in this discussion. The Eskimo people are not primitive people. They have a complex culture. They are an intelligent people. This has been demonstrated by some of the northerners who have come to work in the department. I had an Eskimo secretary for several months, and she was one of the finest young ladies that you would wish to meet, capable in all respects. I could make reference to other northerners who have even outdistanced southern Canadians in competing in our complex society.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make on northern affairs. The minister referred to the new concept that has emerged in recent years on national resources. I want to pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Prince Albert, because
Supply-Northern Affairs it was his initiative, and no amount of carping criticism can ever gainsay this fact, that gave rise to the resources for tomorrow conference in 1961. It was out of that conference that this new concept emerged of wise management and multiple use of our renewable resources, as well as the new formula for resolving the problems of provincial-federal jurisdiction in this area. I know the hon. member for Kootenay West will confirm the fact that the log-rolling technique used to be used in dealing with the questions he asked in connection with conservation. The answer he invariably got was that this came under provincial jurisdiction and depended upon provincial initiative. This was no answer to the problem. The old buck-passing technique delayed action in the resources field far too long.
In 1961, after a period of very careful consultation, the federal resources minister and the ten provincial ministers meeting on a co-equal basis were able to come forth with this highly significant development, the resource ministers council with a supporting secretariat independent of the federal authority, independent of the provincial authority, and yet acting as the co-ordinating body between these two areas of administration. I recall one moment of inspiration that resolved a serious impasse. I recall that the resource ministers council was no longer willing to accept the chairmanship of the federal minister, which happened to be myself at the time. They said that the federal minister actually had no business on this council at all because the federal government had no resources. They condescended to allow him to remain on the council because of his responsibility in northern affairs where resources did come under his jurisdiction.
I know that suggestion was put forward with tongue in cheek, but the way we resolved the impasse was to conceive a rotating chairmanship. The first minister to assume this responsibility after the federal minister was the Hon. Mr. Spooner of Ontario, and now the Hon. Rene Levesque of Quebec is chairman. Then, it will be the turn of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Mr. Rossiter, and so on through the whole resource ministers council. This is a major breakthrough in federal-provincial relations in the field of resources. It has been said in this house before that this formula might well be applied in other areas. As a matter of fact, it was applied in other areas by the former administration which practised, not only in word but also in deed, the vital policy of co-operative federalism.
Other examples were the roads to resources program; the Atlantic provinces power

Supply-Northern Affairs development, and the joint studies that are now under way on the national power grid; the Nelson river study; the use of the Canada Water Conservation Act on a co-operative basis by the three levels of government for the first time; the metro Toronto basin water development program, a multi-million dollar program which has the full support of the federal government; the upper Thames program; the Winnipeg flood way; all of these things came about because of the enthusiastic support of the idea of co-operative federalism by the former administration.
Then, of course, I should like to refer to ARDA, which is a development and a breakthrough of perhaps even more significance than the resource ministers council. If used intelligently and supported enthusiastically by all levels of government in this country, it will transform the face of our agricultural community over the next few years. There is just one point I should like to make in regard to this matter and that is the importance of a recreational parks program. This is a matter for federal-provincial co-operation. We had a discussion on this subject a few months ago. The parliamentary assistant to the minister, speaking on behalf of the department, accepted the idea of the urgent necessity for action in this recreational parks area. I only hope that the minister will be able to move forward as quickly as possible. I trust that this subject will come under discussion at the parks conference which will take place, I understand, on the 18th of this month. Here is another example of co-operative federalism that was initiated last year which, I am sure, is going to go a long way towards resolving a very critical problem that has emerged in the recreational park development area.
I could speak for a long time about parks tonight. The minister has referred to the pressure that is being felt year after year on our national parks system. I should like to add this little thought, that we did anticipate this tremendous increase in park population. We were referring to it three or four years ago. However, I would say that the current upsurge is larger than anyone could have anticipated and it arises in substantial part from the impact of the devalued dollar. This poor devalued dollar, which was supposed to lead Canada into bankruptcy, according to the critics of the policy at the time, has been one of the main contributors to the current buoyant state of the economy.
In the parks area there had been neglect for many years. Some of the things that were done in recent years were, first of all, the setting up of a planning division. Recommendations came out of the planning division

of the parks department, and the first one concerned a western supervisor because it was early realized we had to decentralize the responsibility in this area. Then, new policies began to emerge. We have had many discussions of the problems that arose in connection with preserving the wilderness. We came to the conclusion the only way this could be done was to have clearcut zoned areas with a service centre area, a fringe of semideveloped areas and then a section of the park which was retained in its pristine purity. There would be no equivocation about it at all. No amount of pressure would separate the parks from the original intent of the legislation. I trust that this zoning policy is moving apace under the leadership of the new minister.
The Oberlander report was another development. I hope the minister might later on indicate just what progress is being made in the implementation of the Oberlander report, and what progress is being made in a similar study that is proceeding in Jasper national park. Then, I wonder if there is any further information on the new national parks association which was organized in Toronto last March, under the leadership of Mr. William Baker, who had been closely identified with the resources for tomorrow conference. This national parks association, I feel, has a large role to play in the future park program.
Then, there were the representations of the Audubon society who wanted a park development program to go forward in connection with the centennial celebration. This is a program that had the sympathetic support of the former administration. I trust that it is also receiving the support of the new administration.
All of these ideas have emerged within recent years, and I was pleased to hear the minister indicate that he is carrying them forward to the best of his ability.


Lucien Lamoureux: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee, he cannot continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With regard to wild life conservation measures, the international joint committee on migratory water fowl had been meeting regularly to deal with the problem of declining population in respect to our migratory water fowl, and I trust that this work is proceeding apace. There would seem to be some indication of activity in this regard, because in my own constituency I notice where lands have been leased for a period of 20 years in order to preserve the wet land area, or potholes, to ensure proper breeding facilities for the duck population.

Finally, in addition to inter-governmental co-operation, in addition to the planning I have outlined, I would like to suggest that there is urgent need for intra-governmental co-operation. There are several departments of government that have responsibility in the renewable resources-the departments of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, as well as national resources. I would hope that in addition to encouraging co-operation among the governments, the various federal government departments would move together on a co-ordinated basis in order to carry out the spirit of this new concept of wise management of renewable resources, and the multiple use of renewable resources. I think this is one way in which Canada can guard her national heritage.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting for me to take part in this debate, because this party has always been particularly interested in the conservation of human resources, and in the conservation and development of natural resources. I have no hesitation in saying that, from my experience in this house over a period of 18 years, with my pretty close knowledge of the internal workings of this department-and I have friends in each branch-and from my conversations with a lot of people closely connected with these subjects, the record of this department with respect to its treatment of human beings and natural resources is the worst of any department of government.
Having got that off my chest, I want to say I give the former minister, who has just taken his seat, full marks for what he did in his administration, particularly in his attempt to improve education for the natives in the north, to improve housing for them, and for his hard work in connection with the establishment of the resources for tomorrow conference and the principle of federal-provincial co-operation in that field. However, I do think that in certain respects he was too nice a person to deal effectively with some of the bureaucrats that exist in this department, some of these people whom you cannot mellow by ringing gospel bells. You have got to take a little tougher line.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A soft answer turneth away wrath.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My one criticism of the former minister is that he was a bit too nice.
Mr. Chairman, I notice the present minister is so interested in what I have to say that he has moved down opposite me and is listening attentively. I want to congratulate him on his appointment as minister of this department. Knowing his experience and achievements in the past, I presume he accepted this post because there are many 28902-5-288
Supply-Northern Affairs problems to meet and it represents the major challenge of his life. I am sure that is what it will be, and I wish him every success in all he undertakes.
He faces a very heavy task and, as he mentioned, this department has wider responsibilities than any other department of government. I think that is generally recognized. In fact one must realize this department is an empire within which have grown several smaller empires. This is somewhat natural owing to its historical development, how it has evolved, and the fact that a great many people in the administration of it were living in Ottawa and not in the north.
I wish the minister every success in all he undertakes to decentralize this administration. I was very pleased with what he had to say this evening, that he is hoping decentralization will occur, and that government will be handed over to the local people directly concerned as soon as possible. This is a step which has been advocated by members of this group for many years. When it was first mentioned some years ago I had a chat with one of these centralizing administrators in this department, and he simply pooh-poohed the idea that the people in the north were capable of governing themselves, and said that to think of including the Eskimos and natives in the proposition was out of all reason. I am glad this atmosphere has commenced to change, and I am pleased the minister is going to work in that direction.
There is another great need which the former minister mentioned. It is the need for more co-ordination and consultation within the department, and also between the department and other departments. You get this world famous water resources branch with its own computing machines adding up a mass of figures and getting one result, and you have the wildlife branch getting another result, with very little consultation as to the sociological effects of what they may undertake. You have one group looking at a matter purely from an economic point of view, and another group looking at it from the point of view of wildlife preservation for generations to come. There is need for a great deal more consultation within the department, and with other departments.
On a question like this members of this group take a strictly non-partisan approach. We try to be constructive, and I have some remarks to make with regard to administration generally, national parks and wildlife. Colleagues of mine will deal with other particular facets of this department later on in the debate.
As I said before, I firmly believe that for many years some of the administrators of various branches of this department have

Supply-Northern Affairs lacked vision. Some ol them, I know from personal experience, from conversations and correspondence, have had no understanding or appreciation of the need for evolution of democratic institutions under the conditions that have existed in the north in the last 50 years. They have had little concern for the improvement of the lives of human beings in those areas, and little concern for the development of resources.
I remember on one occasion when Mr. Winters was the minister for this department, that the deputy minister, without consulting the minister, gave a permit to the American Aluminum Corporation to deal with the investigations concerning water resources in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This is the type of administrators we had. But when the minister heard of it he called Mr. Wilson from the United States, they had a dinner in Ottawa and he cancelled the permit himself. Mr. Wilson was very upset indeed, but the deputy minister went off and got himself a job in a welfare agency in the United Nations. There is a big improvement since then.
I have found in conversations, particularly in recent weeks, there is an increasing interest among members in the house in this department. Tuere is an increasing interest on the part of the informed public, those persons who concern themselves with these problems regardless of their parties. There has also been an increasing interest on the part of the press and of certain well known writers in this country. These people have all become generally critical of the policies of the senior administrators of the department.
Now I want to deal with just a few quotations from various reports to show how the department has responded to recommendations from committees, and so on. I cannot take the time of the committee at length, but in 1960 the estimates of this department were referred to the committee on mines, forests and waters. That committee had various officials of the department come before it who read nice little essays in some cases, and answered a few questions. However, in the report of the committee to the house, on Tuesday, June 28, 1960, in paragraph 4 it stated:
Water is one of Canada's most important resources. Carefully planned use of this resource is of the utmost importance not only to the present generation but to all those to come-
6.	The committee notes that the development of our nation is, to a marked extent, dependent on the orderly development of our water resources and that as our population and industry increase there is an increased need for careful planning of the use of water supplies.
[Mr. Herridge.l
7.	With the increased growth of the nation there is increased need for the type of investigations which are basic to the orderly development of water resources.
8.	Your committee, therefore, recommends that: the minister of northern affairs and national resources take the initiative in offering to the several provinces of Canada to undertake studies, in co-operation with the provinces, of multi-purpose river basin developments. This will require an expanded program of engineering and economic investigations designed to show the possibilities for the development of the water resources of this nation.
Having in mind the needs of the nation as a whole, not just of one province, I should like to ask the minister how the department has responded to that recommendation. I happen to know that some of his officials are pooh-poohing certain suggestions made with respect to the need for greater supplies of water in future in the prairie provinces, and the possibility of getting them from a very appropriate source.
Then the committee went on to make certain recommendations with respect to the power resources of this country. It said vigorous research was required to study long distance power transmission. It spoke of the necessity for establishing a national grid and for the economic use of the power resources of the nation. I should like to ask the minister if the officials of his department have carried on any studies in this field, having in mind the development of the power resources of this country in relation to the needs of Canada as a whole.
The committee dealt, also, with the important question of pollution. Paragraph 10 of the recommendations states:
Your committee recommends that the federal government accelerate investigations of pollution problems in Canada, particularly in those areas where it has legislative responsibility. In addition, at the request of the provinces, it should provide information which would be useful in establishing objectives of water quality control.
The committee then goes on to recommend certain procedures in this regard. I should like to know what has been done by the appropriate branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to give effect to these recommendations on pollution control made by the committee on mines, forests and waters in 1960.
When I get an opportunity I take home one of the books containing the observations and recommendations of the royal commission on government organization, and use it as bedtime literature. Recently, I was using one of these books and I noticed a paragraph which reads:
Research In the north of Canada Is carried on by several departments and agencies of the federal government and by private organizations and individuals.

Later, it says:
While all scientific departments have some interest in the north, northern affairs and national resources has general and special interests and its responsibilities must be borne in mind in any assessment of the research roles of government departments in the north.
The report goes on to complain of overlapping of research work being done by a number of departments. Paragraph 31 of volume 4 of the report states:
Co-ordination of the multifarious northern scientific programs is in theory the responsibility of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The advisory committee on northern development has the following terms of reference:
To advise the government on questions of policy relating to civilian and military undertakings in northern Canada and to provide for the effective co-ordination of all government activities in that area.
The report goes on to imply that this is only the case in theory. According to the report, the officials are more concerned with building up their own little spheres of influence and things of that sort. Further on, conclusions are reached.
The present system is wasteful of money and personnel and does little to ensure that necessary research is being carried out. Certain conclusions are evident. Co-ordination of scientific work in the north and the determination of priority should be the concern of the proposed central scientific bureau.
The report goes on to deal with the way in which research might be carried on. Then the commissioner recommends, in paragraph 46:
1.	That the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources meet its northern research needs by contracting with other federal departments or private groups, and
2.	That facilities and services for research in the north be provided by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
There we find a definite criticism of the efficiency of the department in this respect. I should like to know what the department has done to remedy this situation since the report of the royal commission was tabled in this house.
Then, again, as will be found on page 162 of volume 3, the commissioner recommends with respect to the administration of the department of northern affairs:
That the operation of the northern school system be transferred as rapidly as possible from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Ottawa to the several territorial administrations.
I should like to ask the minister if he has that suggestion in mind.
2. That the curricula used in northern schools be co-ordinated as closely as possible with those of the provinces immediately to the south of the several administrative districts.
I think that is a good suggestion and one which, if followed, would make sure that 28902-5-288J
Supply-Northern Affairs these children are getting a type of education similar to that received by the children to the south.
3.	That the northern adult education program be revised on more practical lines and administered within the several northern districts.
The commissioner goes on to make several recommendations as a result of what he terms the inefficiency of the department in dealing with this question.
In his fifth book-this was my second night of reading-the commissioner has this to say:
1.	The national parks be administered by a commission of members chosen from outside the public service, appointed for specific terms and remunerated for their services.
I am not suggesting I agree with that. But it is recommended because of the inefficiency the commissioner found in the administration of the national parks. He recommends:
2.	The national parks commission be organized on essentially departmental lines but under a board of full time commissioners appointed for fixed terms and removeable only for cause.
I do not say I agree with that, either. Nevertheless, the recommendation is made in an attempt to improve the present situation.
3.	The operation of the northern school system be transferred as rapidly as possible from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Ottawa to the several territorial administrations.
I would agree with that. Then follows the recommendation:
4.	The responsibilities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration relating to Indians in the north be transferred to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
I do not know the reason for that recommendation. But the commissioner goes on to make several recommendations, and this is because he is critical of the administration of the department in these fields.
Now we come to the national parks. What does the commissioner have to say about them? I have been interested in national parks. I happen to know the Revelstoke national park fairly well indeed, and I know a large number of people who live in Revelstoke. I have some questions on the order paper with respect to the administration of that park and I am looking forward to getting answers to those questions. I would say this to the minister: the administration of the Revelstoke national park requires his closest scrutiny. I have talked to a couple of dozen well known citizens of Revelstoke, not necessarily members of our party, who are highly critical of what they claim is very wasteful expenditure in the administration of the national park in Revelstoke. I will deal with that subject in greater detail when I have had a reply to the other questions I have raised. The commissioner has this to say as will be found on page 38 of volume 2 of the report:

Supply-Northern Affairs
An undue involvement of park managers in detailed problems on a day to day basis compounded by delegation to them of insufficient authority to make decisions on the spot.
These are the unsatisfactory conditions he found. I judge from what the minister said tonight that he intends to remedy this situation by providing reforms which are long overdue. They have been delayed for years because there were administrators in Ottawa who would not let the reins of power go to provide for decentralization.
The commissioner goes on to say:
Financial records showing expenditures for local services and facilities not used to establish the basis of charges to residents for utilities, garbage collection and other municipal-type services.
Finally, he calls attention to:
An illogical and inconsistent pattern of rentals for land used for residential and commercial purposes.
He recommends that-
A complete review of national park policy should be undertaken.
I think that is a good suggestion. There is a tendency to give in to certain interests which would like to exploit the natural resources of the parks, either for mining, or for lumbering, or for some other enterprise. I think we have to be very careful not to trespass on the beauty and natural wealth of our parks in this respect.
The recommendations read, in full, that-
1.	A review be made of national park policy and a comprehensive statement of future goals be incorporated in the relevant legislation.
2.	The national parks be administered by a commission with members chosen from outside the public service, appointed for specific terms and remunerated for their services.
I have brought these things forward as reflecting the opinions of the commissioner. I am not saying I agree with all of them. However, he has found examples of inefficiency and maladministration in certain branches of this department. I have also referred briefly to the recommendations of the committee in 1960. I believe this department requires a thorough investigation and review of its activities. I believe such a review should be undertaken by the committee on mines, forests and waters next session-I am not suggesting there is adequate time in which to do it this session. I do think we should have a thorough investigation into the activities of the department carried out in a constructive manner in an effort to support the minister in his campaign for reform, progress and improvement. Let us hear the officials of the department. Let us hear witnesses from organizations which are interested in the work of all the various branches of the department. I think z thorough review along these lines would
[Mr. Herridge.l
lay the foundation of information and knowledge which would enable the minister to develop policy and reorganize on lines to meet the needs of the present day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that on this question of the Northwest Territories and as regards the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, there are several matters to discuss.
Today, I should like to bring up another point concerning the Department of Northern Affairs an National Resources and the Northwest Territories. It has to do with a whole section of the coast line-and I feel the debate on these estimates provides a good opportunity to deal with it-which surrounds the provinces of Quebec and which is hers by natural and constitutional rights.
If we take the maps published by the Canadian government and look at map No. 10, in the Canada Atlas, entitled "Bathymetry and Orography-Eastern Canada", we see among other things the whole area of Quebec, including new Quebec, James bay and Hudson bay.
In the middle of Hudson bay, there is an inscription in very small type that says: All islands in Hudson bay and James bay are included in the Northwest Territories. It is written in very small type and may seem unimportant; it is somewhat inconspicuous from a typographic point of view, but it implies all the same very important and far reaching consequences for the province of Quebec.
When the Canadian government in 1912, turned over this part of the Northwest Territories, that is new Quebec, to the province of Quebec, the protocol of this transfer provided that the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec-and this is where the transfer becomes important-over the new territories would extend as far as the high-water mark exclusively, that is up to the limit of James bay and Hudson bay.
It means, in practice, that the area washed by the tides, high and low, and you know that in that part of the country the tides are often several miles wide on the shores of Ungava bay and all along the new Quebec shore line, that all that land, between high and low tide, lies outside the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.
It means, in practice, that the province of Quebec does not have the right to build a wharf or a quay along the coast line of the province, from the Ontario border to the north, without the authorization of the federal

government. Therefore the province of Quebec cannot have any outlet to the sea, any bridge or quay without Ottawa's authorization.
It means also that all the islands near the shore, even if they are only a few miles or a few hundred yards from the mainland, are considered thereby to be outside the province of Quebec.
In this respect, one might mention that a particularly serious case is to be found at Port Burwell, a post inhabited by 80 Eskimos and with no permanent white resident. Not so long ago, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources set up there a co-operative cold storage warehouse with a capacity of several thousand pounds. That post is located on Killinek island, which is separated from the mainland and, therefore, from the territory of the province of Quebec, by the strait of Forbes, which is only two and a half miles wide.
As illogical as it may seem, that post, located on an island of the province of Quebec, comes under the Northwest Territories administration, eastern Arctic region, with headquarters at Frobisher, south of Baffin island, which is quite a distance away.
To show what absurd consequences those limits that were imposed may bring, even as far as law enforcement is concerned, let us take for instance the case of an Eskimo residing in the province of Quebec. Should he have committed an infraction or a crime punishable before the courts of that province, he could escape from the Quebec police simply by taking refuge on an island located a few hundred yards offshore. The province of Quebec would then have to apply to Ottawa for permission to pursue a person subject to arrest or the mounties from Frobisher or Cape Dorset would have to travel a very long distance to come and arrest that person and then hand him over to the Quebec authorities for prosecution.
We must not forget also-and that is another of the very important consequences of the present boundaries of these islands and frontiers between the Northwest Territories and the province of Quebec-that commercial, industrial and mining corporations wanting to evade the laws of Quebec in fiscal, labour or social matters, might establish themselves on the very shores of new Quebec, but below the limits at high tide; consequently, those industries would be located on the shores but on the other side of the point reached at high tide; those industries, although on the normal territory of the province of Quebec, but because the tide goes a little higher, would be located in the Northwest Territories.
Supply[DOT]-Northern Affairs
The same thing would happen if an industry or a plant were to locate on an island lying a few hundred yards from the province of Quebec, or even immediately adjacent to the shore. Then those establishments would be considered as part of the Northwest Territories and would not have to account to the province of Quebec for anything.
Those are obviously matters that must be put right to avoid Quebec being faced one day with precedents that might prove extremely dangerous to its territorial sovereignty.
That natural boundary, passing above the high water mark, as it is today, may moreover, result in a serious restriction of the rights of the province of Quebec in matters of toponymy. Indeed, the government of Quebec experienced some difficulties in this respect hardly a year and a half ago.
Actually, the government of Canada could refuse Quebec the right to name or change the names of any coast inlets: fjords, bays, creeks-as it happened indeed in late 1961, and, again, in February 1962-under the pretext that those geographical features are within the limits of the Northwest Territories.
I think, Mr. Chairman, it will be easily realized that the whole situation is really nonsensical, because the Canadian territorial waters limit off the Canadian coast is set at three miles. Consequently, the law should apply to the whole country, and also to each part of this country. At any rate, it should be pointed out that all the islands in the St. Lawrence and its estuary belong to Quebec, whatever their distance from the coast.
The foregoing remarks prove that it is absolutely essential to consider, with the briefest possible delay, the following rectification of the Quebec boundaries:
1.	Awarding to Quebec of the whole coast lying at low tide-and I repeat low tide- from the Ontario boundary, at the end of James bay, to the eastern entrance to the Hudson strait.
2.	Awarding to Quebec all islands within the territorial waters limit, according to the Canadian concept of that term, that is up to three miles off the limit at low tide, whereas today, the Northwest Territories extend to the limits at high tide.
We would like the whole boundary to be based on that three mile limit at low tide. Such a provision would imply among other things, that the province of Quebec take back the Button islands at the eastern entrance of Hudson strait, as well as the Diana Bay islands, the Digges islands, which are located immediately to the west of cape Iberville, at the western entrance of the Hudson strait, Smith island with Cap-d'Youville (cape Smith), the Jemmeraie or Hopewell islands,

Supply-Northern Affairs the isles of Nastapoka and Manitouc as well as Grande He (or Great island) on the Hudson bay coast.
3.	We should also consider the annexation of various islands situated off the territorial waters limits of Quebec, which appears particularly appropriate: Akpatok island in Ungava bay, Charles and Wales islands, in Hudson strait, Mansel island at the western entrance of Hudson strait, the Ottawa isles, the King George and Sleeper islands, the Bakers Dozen and the Belcher, all in Hudson bay, and finally, Charlton island and the Twin isles, in James bay.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that if you study the map of the Northwest Territories and of their islands, which surround the province of Quebec, you will readily admit that Quebec is entitled to consider these islands as part of its territory.
All these islands are situated directly in the normal zone of influence of the province of Quebec, just as the island of Anticosti and Hes-de-la-Madeleine, though situated much beyond Quebec territorial waters, are very much within the zone of economic and maritime influence of Quebec; that is why they fall quite naturally within the jurisdiction of that province.
Moreover, most of the islands I mentioned are made of calcareous or crystalline rocks, as is the case for Charles island or for the Belcher islands which are used as hunting grounds by the Eskimos of the various posts in new Quebec.
It must be said that as a general rule, those islands do not seem to contain very promising mineral resources, although some contain limestone which could be developed for construction purposes. By the way, the Eskimos use them and bring out some chips.
It must be mentioned also that in the Belcher islands, are found some iron ore deposits which are said to be quite interesting.
The annexation to the province of Quebec of all those islands with a surface larger than that of all the islands located in the St. Lawrence river and in its estuary is an imperative and urgent need in order to put a stop to the present territorial nonsense, and especially to see to it that the province of Quebec is not completely surrounded by all that series of islands later on, should another province be constituted out of that part of the Northwest Territories.
In any case, it would be illogical to annex those islands and archipelagos to any influence zone other than that of the province of Quebec.
This revision of the natural boundaries will permit, moreover, to establish the undisputable sovereignty of Quebec on Killinec
[Mr. Gregoire.l
island, where is situated the Port Burwell post, and also on the whole zone of the movement of the tides, which is, for Quebec, of capital importance.
Mr. Chairman, now that I have dealt to the best of my knowledge with this question of the boundaries of the province of Quebec and the surrounding islands, I would like to touch on another subject which is particularly close to our hearts.
When we look at the official maps of the province of Quebec, and even at those of the federal government-I have one which has been published by the "Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources", we may read:
The boundaries between Labrador and Quebec are not indicated, and for good reasons.
That is why those boundaries are not mentioned or marked on the geographic maps of the province of Quebec.
That simple note which appears on the maps of the province of Quebec sums up the whole problem of the boundaries between Quebec and Labrador.
In fact, the province of Quebec has never recognized, and rightly so, the principle of the decisions which were imposed by a judgment of the privy council, in London, in 1927, at the time of the trial that opposed Canada and Quebec to Newfoundland.
It is therefore the interpretation of the judgment and not the judgment itself which resulted in the fact that Canada and the province of Quebec never agreed on the new boundaries as they are shown in some instances.
In certain areas of that imposed boundary, the province of Quebec is facing an unbearable de facto situation.
According to reliable sources, it seems that mining concerns have assumed the right to draw the boundaries inside mining claims. Since those companies enjoy important material privileges in Newfoundland, such as lower royalties and provincial taxes, they have an obvious interest to settle on the so-called Newfoundland side and to push the boundary back to the Quebec territory, for the benefit of Newfoundland, and, of course, their own one.
They sort of play at see-saw, and they settle on the side where taxes are lower. This is prejudicial to both Newfoundland and the province of Quebec.
For instance., the Iron Ore company has installed at Labrador city, in the so-called Newfoundland territory an ore concentrator for which they pay operation taxes to Newfoundland.

Furthermore, Newfoundland demands that the majority of workers employed by that company, in that so-called Newfoundland territory, be Newfoundlanders.
Thus the province of Quebec is deprived of its due in many fields.
In view of such provocations, I am afraid that Quebec's empty protests are no longer sufficient because the mining companies are taking advantage of the Quebec government's present inaction.
Yet, the province of Quebec would have to make only one move to stop the shipment to Seven Islands, by railroad, of the iron which comes from the so-called Newfoundland territory. It would be so simple.
That is how, in our opinion, the question of boundaries should be settled.
The province of Quebec can obviously not remain idle in the presence of those facts.
We hope that action will be taken following the revealing statements concerning the frontiers of Labrador which were made by the Quebec minister of natural resources, Mr. Rene Levesque, when he made a tour of New Quebec, in July 1961.
This is how we disagree with the interpretation of the judgment which was handed down in 1927.


Mr. Canlin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-


Gilles Grégoire: This judgment of 1927 concerning the frontiers of Labrador___


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I see that the hon. member for Quebec South wishes to rise on a point of order.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lapointe has been dealing for the past five minutes with a matter which is completely irrelevant to the present discussion. It is true that there is a dispute between the province of Quebec and Newfoundland regarding their boundaries, but I wonder by what authority the federal government can settle this problem. Therefore, I ask that the hon. member be called to order and that he restrict his remarks to the responsibilities of the federal government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, allow me to say a few words on this point of order.
This is a question of principle, as far as we are concerned. The boundaries have not been recognized. Therefore, according to us, the territory in question does not belong to Newfoundland nor, as a principle, to the province of Quebec so long as the problem is not settled.
That means that so long as a new interpretation of the judgment delivered in 1927, is not given, we believe that this territory
Supply-Northern Affairs does not belong to any province and that it rests with the discretion, the good judgment and the authority of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to make a decision on the matter.
That is why we are bringing the problem to the minister's attention today, since we are considering the estimates of his department. We want to entrust this responsibility to the Department of Northern Affairs and of National Resources.
I feel, therefore, that I should be allowed to refer to this problem and to call the minister's attention to it, because we do not accept the boundaries that are being imposed on us at present. This is reason enough to raise this matter.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. member for Lapointe has just recognized that the point is well founded. It is obvious that the territory in question belongs to one province or the other. However, it is not up to the federal government to decide the boundaries of that territory, especially since there is already a judgment on the matter. It is up to the courts, not to the minister, to decide the matter.


An hon. Member:: Good. Neither one nor the other.


Mr. Olson:: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member for Lapointe a question? We have heard him make a number of requests about extending the frontiers of Quebec both to the north and the east. I am wondering if he is satisfied with the present boundaries to the south and the west?


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to answer the hon. member for Medicine Hat by saying that he will have to wait and see.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion my remarks are in order, because this question has not yet been settled and does not come under any particular jurisdiction, except that it rests with the federal government to take a decision in that respect as soon as possible. Among all federal departments, I think that the matter comes under the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and this is why I take this opportunity today to point out this matter to the house. I am asking the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) to let us deal with a problem which is so important for the province of Quebec and to which he should himself give more consideration.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain a judgment delivered in 1927 and I will thus

Supply-Northern Affairs prove that my remarks are in order. Anyway,
I will not take more than three or tour minutes.
It will be recalled that the 1927 judgment essentially dealt with an interpretation of the term Labrador coast. This interpretation, Quebec has the right to reconsider it, because it is a real geographic aberration. The proof is that there is probably not a single geographer in the world who would apply to the word "coast" the description given by those who were responsible for the enforcement of the judgment.
In fact, on the strength of such an argument based on the interpretation of those who delivered the judgment, the coast of Brazil, through the Amazon basin, would extend to the Andes; the Mediterranean coast up to Ethiopia, through the White Nile and the Blue Nile; and the shores of the Black sea, through the Danube, would extend up to Austria, Hungary and even up to Switzerland, Germany and Czechoslovakia.
It is therefore because of such nonsense that the frontiers of the Newfoundland section of Labrador have been pushed back a distance of 450 miles or more within the province of Quebec, when they should have been set near the coast, as was recommended by representatives from Canada and Quebec.
A frontier established from the watershed is unacceptable to the province of Quebec; and it seems that the only reasonable and acceptable solution would consist in the determination or the setting of a frontier parallel to the coast, which would correspond, at a distance of from six to twelve miles within the mainland, to the outline of the present lay out, from the limits of the low waters on the coast, the low tide limits.
Thus, the unquestionable Newfoundland rights on the whole Labrador seashore would be fully respected and recognized. Such a solution would permit Newfoundland to maintain full and entire "jurisdiction"- which it exercises just the same nowadays- over the settlements at Forteau, Anse Eclair, Pointe Amour, Anse a Loup, St. Modeste, Carol Cove, on Simpson straits, St. Lewis Bay, Hawke Island, Cartwright Harbour, Northwest River, Goose Bay, Makkovic, Hopedale, Nain, Ford Harbour, Hebron and Saglec on the Atlantic Coast.
Such a solution would moreover represent a definite improvement over the proposal made by Canada in 1927, whereby Newfoundland was to be given a coastal belt of one mile only.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks on Labrador by saying that because of the serious prejudices the present anomalies and lack of precision in the natural and political

frontiers of new Quebec represent for Quebec's sovereignty, the finding of an overall and final solution, consonant with the higher interests of the province in its new Quebec territory, has become an imperative and even an urgent matter.


Mr. Guay:: What knowledge do you have
of that?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I hear the
voice of an hon. member who does not seem to be at all interested in the question. Maybe he should start studying this problem, if he wants to represent his voters adequately, especially those of the province of Quebec. If some of his colleagues wish to find out about this, the hon. member should not spend his time criticizing them, but should imitate them, otherwise he will always remain seated. Moreover, I do not know him, I never heard him speak. In fact, I do not know what riding he represents.


An hon. Member:: Levis.


Gilles Grégoire: It is the member for Levis?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is surely the very first time the hon. member for Levis has spoken in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that he should take into consideration the few remarks we just made about fixing new boundaries between the Northwest Territories and the province of Quebec.
The minister will soon introduce two bills concerning the division of the Northwest Territories. We anticipate that this concerns the establishment of two new provinces, but before it is too late and while it can still be done, we urge him to seriously consider these points and to submit amendments himself concerning the islands surrounding the province of Quebec.
He can do so by convening a conference between the federal government and the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec with a view to studying the fixing of new boundaries between the province of Quebec and Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, I made these few suggestions in good faith, without any bias, without political partisanship, in an effort to co-operate with the present government for the solution of this problem before it is too late.


Mr. Addison:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe caused me to wonder if the premier of Newfoundland would be concerned, in view of the fact the

hon. member seemed to be looking eastward towards the province of Newfoundland.
I should like to speak this evening, Mr. Chairman, about Canada's bid for the 1968 winter Olympic games. I am sure hon. members are aware of the fact that recently, in Baden-Baden, Mexico was awarded the 1968 summer Olympics. At that time there were a number of applicants, of which one was the United States and in particular the state of Michigan. The governor of Michigan attended the international Olympic committee and showed a film made by President Kennedy and various other officials. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, Mexico was awarded the games. It was stated at that time by the international Olympic committee that wherever it was possible countries who had not hosted the Olympics before would be given preference when decisions were made. This was the announced policy of the international Olympic committee.
In January of 1964, Canada's application will be placed before the Olympic committee at Innsbruck. It is expected that France, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, the United States, Japan and Canada will all bid for the 1968 games. All of these countries, with the exception of Canada, by 1968 will have been host to the Olympics. Unquestionably, Canada wants these games. A great deal of work has been done by private individuals, particularly in the Banff-Calgary area, in making a presentation to the Olympic committee.
As we all know in this house, Canada has produced outstanding gold medalists, particularly in the winter Olympics. We need only remember Barbara Ann Scott, Anne Heggtveit and Lucille Wheeler, as well as many others. We do have an excellent chance, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to bring this to the attention of the minister, to be awarded the 1968 games at Banff. If we are awarded these games I would suggest to him and to his department that we go first class, because Canada will be watched by every other nation in the world.
The Banff area is ideally situated for the winter Olympics. Of course many things will have to be done, but things can be done in this area that will prove to be great assets to the tourist industry and to the province of Alberta. Some of the things which have to be tackled are housing facilities for the athletes and providing food for them, corresponding to the fare in their native lands.
All this means financing, and this is the point I am stressing this evening-that each area of government, federal, provincial and municipal, must be 100 per cent behind Canada's bid. I suggest to the minister that these fiscal arrangements be settled at the federal-provincial conference on November 25, whereby the federal government, Alberta and 28902-5-289
Supply-Northern Affairs the city of Calgary will participate; and I know that the city of Calgary, represented by its former mayor, now Minister of Agriculture in the cabinet, will give a very sympathetic hearing to such proposals. The Olympic games will be a lasting benefit, not only to the Calgary area but to all Canadians in encouraging them to participate in such sports.
In closing I would like to comment on the fact that, despite his professed interest in northern affairs the hon. member for Yukon has not found time this evening to be present when the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources are under consideration, and I would draw to the attention of the committee that an hon. member who has been on his feet so many times should be in attendance this evening.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I am as anxious as any hon. member on the government side of the house to see the estimates of this department passed tonight, because more so than with any other department it is essential that the minister and his staff have parliamentary approval for their plans. The reason is that it takes considerably more effort in planning a northern development program, with all the problems involved of transportation and communication in the Northwest Territories, than it does in planning a program in any other federal department of government.
In brief answer to the previous speaker, I would point out that the hon. member for Yukon is not here tonight, not through any frivolous activity on his own part, but because he has a great deal of constituency business to do, including attending an annual meeting, which this house recognized by agreeing to pay his transportation costs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What annual meeting?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Since I am asked, the annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative party of the Yukon territory. Apparently it is the only political organization in the Yukon territory that is active, so he must attend that meeting.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of recent interest shown in northern Canada, and an awakening and awareness of unprecedented proportions, all resulting from the policies of the former government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker. I know, and I feel very keenly, the fact that laughs and jibes have been directed at the Canadian north, and northern development, not just by members of any one political party but by a great many southern Canadian- southern Canadians who neither know nor understand what it means to breathe fresh air, and who have forgotten how to pioneer,

Supply-Northern Affairs the people who crowd the 49th parallel, and whose ideas of adventure is to sit on winter nights like great puddings with the sauce of television pouring over them.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, by any yardstick you care to use, be it miles of road, school classrooms, hospital beds, welfare houses, nursing stations, or that great old yardstick, dollars, more was done in the Canadian Northwest Territories during the period 1958 to 1962 than in all the years from confederation onward put together. In those four years there was massive extension of necessary administration, health, welfare and educational services.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: When they had a Liberal member.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: The hon. member for Toron-to-Rosedale insists on interrupting me tonight as he did the other night, but this will not prevent me from laying the record, concerning the Northwest Territories, before the committee. One development of special local, national and international significance occurred during this period. By virtue of the Nielsen bill the federal franchise was extended for the first time to the thousands of Canadian citizens living in the eastern and central Arctic, and in the Keewatin district of northern Canada.
It had local significance because this is the first time the Eskimo people had been consulted in any meaningful manner. It had national significance because it showed that the bill of rights was in fact a viable and dynamic document guaranteeing to every Canadian citizen the right to vote. It had international significance because it showed that in Canada at least, and at last, we were a country that understood that the ballot, the right to vote, is the foundation of democratic government.
I want to deal now with a phase of northern development that has just begun. I speak of the greatest resource which the northern territories have: their human resource. We must never be fooled into thinking that schools, hospitals and roads by themselves constitute the human development program. It is not enough for northern schools to produce graduates if the potential resources to provide jobs for those graduates lie dormant. It is not enough for our multi-million dollar hospitals in the north to repair diseased lungs if hunger and cold await the discharged patients from those hospitals. Surely the immediate task that faces the government in the Canadian north is to tie in a physical resource development program with its human resources, to stamp out the double curse of pov-
[Mr. Rheaume.l
erty and disease that still afflicts almost every non-white resident of the Canadian Northwest Territories.
Surely a country that has the courage, foresight and the money to build highways, railways and schools can now focus its energies on the shacks, tents and igloos that still exist in the Northwest Territories to blight the mind and heart of everyone who has the eyes to see them. Surely the government can now devote greater energy to providing jobs for all our northern people, not just for the swarms of graduates starting to come out of our northern schools but for the older people in the Northwest Territories who are now dependent on meagre welfare handouts when they cannot eke out a precarious existence in 55 degrees below zero weather.
I for one cannot feel happy when confronted, as I have been on numerous occasions in my travels throughout the Northwest Territories, with the anomaly of superheated, fresh-vegetable-filled D.E.W. line sites put there at fantastic cost to the Canadian government, in the very presence of our Eskimo people who spill their tattered and ragged lives digging in D.E.W. line garbage heaps, attempting to survive under the worst living conditions on earth.
I have had the opportunity to hold private conversations with the minister of northern affairs and with his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I agree with the statement the minister made to the press in relation to housing. While he and I may not agree on many things, as has been obvious from my grievance, we do agree that there is no point in attempting to rehabilitate an Eskimo or an Indian who is cold, who is hungry or who is in rags. In the last five years in the Canadian Northwest Territories some 400 housing units were built for these people. I merely wish to say this: The job has just begun. On the basis of my conversations with the minister I am sure that neither he nor his parliamentary secretary will be happy until every person living in the Canadian north has a decent house and an opportunity to preserve the health and decency of his family. We will not be happy until we know that no Canadian citizen must attempt, in 1963 or in some future year, to chase scarce caribou in 55 degree below zero weather in the hope of finding something for himself and his family to eat.
The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has a large staff in the Northwest Territories as a result of a decentralizing process which began about three years ago. There are now field officers in many parts of the Canadian north, and the

minister, together with his parliamentary secretary, visited many of these men on his recent trip. I, for one, approve completely of the program whereby services in the remote parts of Canada were decentralized. I also wish to say that, with one or two startling exceptions, the staff of the department is excellent. I think the time has come when the minister, his deputy and his senior officers must see to it that these staff members are given greater authority. This is the only way in which they will be able to make their maximum contribution to the development of the Canadian north.
The myth is widespread in the Northwest Territories that the federal government has a monopoly on idiots. However, these officers are, for the most part, competent and dedicated men who are anxious to carry out programs which are in the best interests of the people of the north. They are capable of carrying out these programs. The reason they are capable of doing so is that, not only do they possess the qualifications which took them into a pioneer country, but they have the experience of living there. I myself lived for five years in the Canadian Arctic hundreds of miles from medical services. I know what it is to have children born two hundred miles north of the Arctic circle, with all the anxiety this places on an officer serving the crown and on the members of his family. I know that in many instances the competent and dedicated efforts of those officers who choose to go into the Canadian Arctic are hampered by a lack of authority. By this I mean that the staff of the department in the field must not be relegated to the role of message carriers. Too often this happens. I could give the committee an example. A field officer 200 miles north of the Arctic circle was not able, because of existing procedures, to approve a program whereby a young Eskimo girl could go to Edmonton to take a hairdressing course. The matter had to be referred to a committee composed of the heads of the department of northern affairs in Ottawa. It would have involved only $160 to settle this particular problem, yet the time alone of those senior officials who had to consider it was worth some $1,000. I will not take the time of the committee by giving further examples of this kind. I will merely say to the minister, now that he has decentralized responsibility in the Canadian north: For God's sake give these officers authority to act.
The Northern Canada Power Commission is also an agency for which the minister is responsible. I would ask that in his review of the department the hon. gentleman should take a close look at the cost of electricity to 28902-5-289J
Supply-Northern Affairs private consumers in the Canadian Northwest Territories. For the most part, those who use electricity in the north are civil servants or officers of the crown, and they do not pay directly for the cost of electrical services. But those people who are seeking to set up homes of their own and who are not employed by the crown, those who are seeking to establish businesses and develop the country, do have to pay their own bills. I do not exaggerate when I say that a typical light bill in the Northwest Territories for a private consumer will amount to over $100 a month for normal services. Somehow or other, the Northern Canada Power Commission must be convinced that, as a crown agency, it has a special responsibility to see to it that private citizens and private businessmen in the territories are not prevented from operating successfully or inhibited against entering the region because of the exorbitant cost of power.
I should like the minister in his dealings with the commission to consider the fact that in every Canadian northern community electrical services are provided only to those who are there as civil servants or as employees of the Hudson's Bay company, as members of the R.C.M.P. or of some other government agency. In every case when the commission installs a power plant in the territories, the people who benefit from the electricity and from all the things it can mean include everybody except the Indians and the Eskimos. I have asked questions about this, both of the minister and of the power commission and I am usually told: "The Indians did not ask for it"; or, "the Eskimos have failed to ask us for such a service."
Well, there are many things for which the Indians and the Eskimos in the Canadian Northwest Territories did not ask. But they got them. They got our Criminal Code. They got our regulations on trapping, hunting and fishing. They got our health standards which are now enforced. Surely, the Canadian government does not want to say that, until such time as the Indians and Eskimos come to them and fill out the necessary forms asking for electricity, electricity cannot be given to them. Surely, the time has passed when we should run a power line right over the roofs of the houses of the Indian and Eskimo people on its way to an R.C.M.P. station for example, without seeing that those people derive some share of its benefits? Surely if we can send our children in the north to million dollar schools-and I approve of this-we should not expect the same children to come home to study by coal oil or gasoline lamps if, indeed, they have such lamps. In many cases the only light available is candlelight.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I hope, indeed I am certain, that the minister will make a careful review of job opportunities for the Indians and the Eskimo people in the territories. For many years those of us who have worked in the department said to private enterprise: We have hundreds of Indians and Eskimos who are out of work; for goodness sake employ them in your projects. This has been going on for many years. The government of Canada has been the worst offender in the territories in making use of local labour, yet it is the major employer in the Northwest Territories.
We have made a promise to the Indian and Eskimo people of the north. Speaking on behalf of the people of Canada, we have said: Give up your children; give up your culture; give up your traditional methods of hunting, trapping and fishing; these things can no longer serve you; if you do, there is a new life for you. The minister of northern affairs must see to it that we do not let these people down after they have sent their children thousands of miles at six years of age to attend residential schools. Often they do not see their youngsters from one year to the next. They have done these things and, surely, we now have a special responsibility to see to it that the Eskimo and Indian children of the Northwest Territories who decide to throw in their lot, somehow or other with the people of southern Canada, are not betrayed in the trust they have shown. In this regard there have been some excellent examples of private enterprise and private industry in the Canadian north which have made extensive use of local labour. I think for example, of the Peter Bawden Drilling Company of Calgary, which went out of their way to make sure that, when they put down the first wildcat drill at Winter Harbour, on Melville island in the high Arctic, the men who operated the drill were Eskimos. I do not want to suggest for a second that Peter Bawden, who is a good friend of mine, does not know the value of a dollar; I merely want to suggest that he went out of his way to see to it, long before he commenced his operations, that Eskimo men were brought from the Canadian north, in co-operation with the department of northern affairs, trained in the work of a drilling rig, and taken back to carry out the job which he knew needed special men, men peculiarly adapted to the rather difficult climatic conditions of the Canadian north.
I think also of the Hudson's Bay Company; and believe you me, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the Canadian north who would like to knock the Hudson's Bay Company. One thing about the Hudson's Bay Company-I have suggested this before in this house and I say it again-is that they
[Mr. Rheaume.l
made extensive use of local labour, the Eskimo and Indian people, in their operations in the Canadian north. They used them-and I use the verb in its best sense- extensively, to be sure that those people who were there had an opportunity to lead a decent life and receive a fair wage. I think of the mine at North Rankin inlet which made a point of using Eskimo labour when it opened up some 500 miles north of Churchill, a step which has now been followed by some of the mines in Yellowknife.
The Canadian government, which has the primary responsibility to see to it that this vast labour pool in the Canadian north is utilized, must start showing some leadership in this regard. It is not enough to go to a construction company and to say: "For goodness sakes hire Eskimo and Indian people", when at the same time the Canadian government, with its many departments-the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Public Works-is importing men from the Canadian south to fill jobs which too easily could be filled by Eskimos and Indians. You need look no further than the crown corporation, Northern Transportation Company, which this summer imported some 200 workers from the south, even for unskilled positions, to an Arctic community when there was a labour pool there of 120 Eskimo men trained in Arctic work, trained in navigation on the coast, and not one of them was hired.
I think it is time that before the Canadian government starts lecturing private businessmen in the north they had better set the pace themselves.
There are other areas of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman, which I hope the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will examine very carefully, with the whole of the government of Canada, through this department, carrying out func- _ tions which could better be carried out by private enterprise on the spot. I think, for example, of such things as the maintenance of the new Mackenzie highway to the Canadian north. Let me say that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources now maintains several hundred miles of road into the Canadian north as a result of a decision made by the former government. The department of northern affairs owns the machinery and hires the staff to do it.
I also wish to go on record at this point as categorically saying that the decision to allow the government to do this in competition with the private companies which were able and willing to do it was a mistake. It was, I say categorically, a mistake. We should not allow the government of Canada to do this when

other private enterprise companies are there. That was one of the mistakes which I hope will not be repeated by the minister.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and his parliamentary secretary that they can count on full cooperation from both the hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories, as well as all hon. members interested in the north, to help them convince other hon. members that the Canadian Northwest Territories is an area of special importance both now and in the future. More than anyone else, perhaps, I realize that the minister has many other responsibilities apart from the Canadian Northwest Territories. His department is a complex one. My great hope is that the door to the Canadian north will not be closed, and I am satisfied from my dealings with the minister that this will not be the case, that he has his main interest in the north, as had any other previous minister of the crown.
I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that there are many other responsibilities which the minister of northern affairs has. One of these is the national museum, and knowing that the hon. member for New Westminster has a few things to say in this regard, at this point I will take my seat.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join for a moment the hon. member for York North in urging upon this house the policy of supporting Canada's application for the winter Olympiad. It is perhaps unfortunate that the convenors of the Olympic games, in their wisdom, have encompassed within the Olympiad many sports, everything from volleyball to water skiing to bobsledding. Unfortunately they have not taken in that very popular sport of the talking marathon. If they had, we might get much more support from the great athletes of this house in that regard, and might have in fact a gold medal winner in the hon. member for Lapointe. Nevertheless, I urge upon the house to support the hon. member for York North in his endeavours in this regard.
I commend the last speaker from the Northwest Territories for the sincerity of his appeal, although I was in a quandary at one stage when he told us that things were never so good as they were in the last five years in the Northwest Territories, and subsequently told us of the ravages and ills which exist in that unfortunate part of the country today. So I am not quite sure which was the case. But whichever it was-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member quoted me as
Supply-Northern Affairs saying, on the one hand, that things were wonderful initially, and that subsequently they were terrible. If he had been listening he would have found out that I said a massive effort had been made in the Canadian north, but that we had just begun, that there were still many tasks facing the minister of northern affairs, and I said I hoped he would continue with the maddeningly slow job of raising the living standards of the Canadian north. I said that only a start had been made.


John James Greene: I thank the hon. member for clarifying that point. I would point out it would thus appear that, in spite of whatever efforts they may have made, the last administration did not succeed in rectifying the great problems which exist. I believe the department under the present administration will take giant steps in this direction and undoubtedly exceed any efforts made by the past administration.
In this regard I should like also to join the hon. member for Kootenay West in commending the minister on his appointment, and in wishing him well. I feel, as the hon. member for Kootenay West stated, that this department has a challenge facing it second to none. There may be other departments upon which the spotlight of today, in the economic crises of the present, is focused more brightly from day to day; but I think there is no department upon which the tomorrow of Canada, and the day after tomorrow of Canada, depends more than upon his department. I believe in this minister and in this department we have great hopes for our tomorrow.
I think it is a fair criticism that posterity will have to level at our generation and at those who came before us, and it is one of the tragedies of this nation, that undoubtedly over the years we have prostituted our national resources. We have used them for today as we saw fit. We have been spoiling them, eating them and generally using them up for today's purposes without any thought of tomorrow. In this regard I suggest that one thing which is needed very badly, and has been needed very badly in the past, which comes within the compass of this department, is a national conservation policy whereby there may be some planning in the use of our resources, so that there may be some direction as to the use of those resources, their preservation and rehabilitation, to the end that we may leave something of the great yesterday for those who come tomorrow. I think this applies not only to water resources but also to timber resources, wildlife and other natural resources. I hope the minister and the department will have the ability, the great courage and the perseverance which it

Supply-Northern Affairs will take to conceive such a national conservation policy, to bring it to fruition and to fight tooth and nail against the many vested interests that would undoubtedly oppose such a policy. This is something that has been very badly needed and I suggest that, irrespective of the hurrahs of today in the newspapers, the mark of history will be great for whatever minister of northern affairs and national resources has the political acumen, the foresight and the courage to bring in a truly important national conservation policy. I hope this will be done during the tenure of the present minister, and in the not too distant future under the present administration.
If I may move for a minute to the more parochial area of and adjacent to my own riding, I would point out that within 50 miles of the great capital of this country we have areas which are still undeveloped, great areas bordering the Ottawa river which might be used as a national bird sanctuary. In this land of ours we do not have too many such sanctuaries. It is possible that the United States has left us behind in this regard. I suggest it would be a great thing for Canada to have such a sanctuary within 40 or 50 miles of the capital. Right on the great Ottawa river, in the riding of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue actually, there is a great undeveloped marshland where such a sanctuary could well be founded. I think it shows something of the impartiality of hon. members on this side of the house that I suggest that such a sanctuary be placed in the riding of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, because that part of the area is the best suited. If we were striving for industries I might not be so munificent, but I would be very pleased to let the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue have the ducks.
With regard to my own riding of Renfrew South may I suggest that in this very large riding there are great tracts of largely undeveloped land, land that has only been used to despoil it in some degree of its timber resources some generations ago, and which is now in the process of second growth. In this area there are great expanses of lakes which are as yet unopened because not even roads penetrate into some of these areas. These vast miles of undeveloped land are located some 75 to 100 miles from the capital of this country.
It is singular that we do not have a national park of stature in its pristine state, as the former minister said, within close proximity of the capital of the nation. I suggest to the minister that the lands in question are gradually being taken out of the public domain. They are being taken up for private use, and quite often by our friends and neighbours from the United States whom we are very

pleased to have there in the summertime as campers. Nevertheless, in this area within 75 to 100 miles of the city of Ottawa it will not be too long before the land is used for private purposes to such an extent that it would be too costly to bring it back into the public domain for use as a national park. Unless the department takes action within the next few years the opportunity will have been lost forever.
May I urge upon the minister that he consider this possibility. I know that in so doing he will consider all areas in close proximity to the city of Ottawa, but I think the principle of having a national park close to the capital city of Ottawa is surely something worth striving for at the present time. Certainly with the centennial of confederation approaching it would be a monument that would be well worth while. May I urge the minister to consider this matter. It is my submission that in considering it he will find no area so well suited as the large area of lakeland and wild and undeveloped land in the great riding of Renfrew South. If the minister will do this, I believe he will win a place for himself in the hearts of the people of Renfrew South and in the legend and history of that riding. If at the same time he brings forth a truly worth while, comprehensive, universal, national conservation policy he will also win for himself and his department a very great and enviable place in the history of Canada.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to note the lateness of the hour and to observe the shortness of the time left to speak on the subject of Canada's northern affairs and national resources. However, I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to this wonderful and important portfolio. I hope he will fill the appointment to the satisfaction of the people of Canada and will honour the position he now occupies.
Last summer I was very pleased to have the opportunity of meeting the new minister in Elk Island national park, which lies entirely within my constituency, on the occasion of the unveiling of the memorial to the pioneers of Ukrainian origin who settled in western Canada at the turn of the century. I might say that the people who were there at the unveiling were a little disappointed that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the former minister, was not there to unveil the memorial, because he was the one who authorized it to be placed in Elk Island national park.
I also want to say that the memorial is a memorial for people like Mr. Wasyl Eleniak who was the first Canadian settler from the Ukraine. He settled in the district close to Elk Island national park in 1891. He came

there some years after my people came to that district and the descendants of his family, his relations and the people he brought with him are my neighbours and friends today. He settled in what is now known as the Chipman area which is very close to Elk Island national park.
Up until about six years ago, I believe, Elk Island national park was the Cinderella park of Canada. It was originally started as a farm for the last herd of buffalo left in Canada after the great massacre of the 1880's. It was established as a reserve for the buffalo that were left. There are three phases to the operations of the park. It covers between 50 and 60 square miles and houses perhaps 500 buffalo. Many people in the area believe that the park should be able to provide plenty of food and pasture for 1,000 buffalo all the time. However, the wildlife experts think the number should be less.
This is one of the few parts that is comprised of the three phases. It has a wildlife phase, which embraces as I said about 1,000 buffalo, a great many moose, elk and deer; a recreation phase, composed of picnic areas, a swimming pool and other recreational facilities; and a farm where the food for the buffalo and other animals is raised so that they will not suffer in the wintertime. As I have said, many people around the area believe the basic herd should be approximately 1,000 instead of 500.
This park may seem like a local affair to some people, but it is not. There are approximately 200,000 visitors to this park each year and they come from every province in Canada as well as from the United States. As a matter of fact, they come from all over the world. It is truly, therefore, a national park. In addition to the recreational facilities which I mentioned, there is a nine hole golf course which is said to be one of the finest in the country. I would not know about that because I have never had a golf club in my hand. Some six years ago, as I said, this park was the Cinderella park of Canada. However, today there are two water purification plants, one for the use of the staff and one to serve the recreational area.
Since I do not wish to take up too much time of the committee, I want to say to the minister in conclusion that there are at least three things urgently required by this park. The first is a museum area. This area now contains only a replica of one of the original Ukrainian houses in our territory and a memorial to the Ukrainian pioneers. We wish that this museum area could be enlarged and a building erected that would house all the relics of the pioneers of western Canada. We also require a swimming pool, because at times the lake does not provide the best water
Supply-Northern Affairs for swimming. I have been told, too, that the recreational facilities would be improved with the addition of another nine hole golf course. If possible, it should be on a par with the one that is already there.
It may be that you think, as I said, this is a very local issue. It is not, because it concerns the people of Canada and the people who come from all countries to visit our national parks.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a remarkable combination of history and geography that sees my friend, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, presiding over an empire of some 1,500,000 square miles in extent. This is an area roughly half the size of the continental United States. So far as I can understand from the Canada Year Book, the total population of that area could be placed in the Empire stadium in Vancouver for one of the larger football games. This disparity and lack of population probably only adds to the problems the minister has. This northern half of the nation is pretty well under an administration form of rule, and the problem of administering this great area rests on the shoulders of the minister and his administrative officers.
I think it is a fair comparison to say that the minister is responsible for problems in an area about the same of, or rather larger in extent than that which is operated at the present time by Mr. Ben Bella, who is running an area called Algeria. This vast territory includes the Yukon, Northwest Territories and national parks. As you know, the national parks themselves occupy an area larger than several of the states of Europe. This department extends its activities and interests from the drilling of oil in the Arctic to luring tourists from San Francisco. It includes in its operations many museums. It has no less than 40,000 square miles of bird sanctuaries, an area especially for the birds. This department, with its responsibilities, its spheres of interest, has come to us as a sort of catch-all or northern upstairs attic in which a vast accumulation of things has been stored, or perhaps left in corners over the years. In our opinion in this party, this situation has prevailed for too long. It should be changed. We think the time is now for us to take, as a nation, a new look at the department of northern affairs and to bring under a more realistic arrangement some of its functions and responsibilities.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we should put it this way. We should go up in the attic of the northern affairs department to see what we have there after all these years, and certainly bring down what we can handle to better advantage or put in a better place. In a brief talk on this immense subject, one can

Supply-Northern Affairs do no more than to pick up, let us say, one small trunk out of the attic of northern affairs.
It seems surprising to me, and to many other Canadians, that this large department of northern affairs still has over-all responsibility for the national museum of Canada. Surely, with all its other officers and responsibilities, the department should be freed of the responsibility it has for the museum of Canada, the natural history branch and the human history branch. We say that these facilities should be made a separate entity. We think that they should be placed in the same category as the national film board and the national gallery, under a separate authority of their own. In time I hope to see developed in Canada what might well be called a national ministry of culture, which would bear responsibility for all these cultural activities.
I think that part of the dissatisfaction and trouble through which the national museum has gone, and is still going, has emanated from the fact it remains as a sort of leaf on the end of a branch on the end of a tree. In my view, it should be re-examined, strengthened and given a new foundation. It should have more scope to develop its own policies and resources. There is no use, Mr. Chairman, belabouring the present minister or the former minister of this department for the reported unhappy conditions in the national museum of Canada. Neither of them had the time or, I think, the energy to do all the other things they had to do and at the same time take up and solve the problems of the national museum to put it on a modern footing in 1963.
It is not my intention to belabour the unfortunate museum tonight any more than I can help. However, it will be fresh in the minds of many members that earlier this year, less than two months ago I believe, four prominent officials of the museum resigned. They were Dr. Russell, director of the natural history branch; Dr. McFeat, chief ethnologist; Dr. Larry Oschinsky, physical anthropologist, and Dr. MacNeish, chief archaeologist. When the government was asked why this happened they said, in effect, that it was too bad.
There was no connection between these resignations taking place at roughly the same time; it was sort of a coincidence. Perhaps these men had better jobs to which to go. This is hard to credit, particularly when I am told that over the last two years there have been no less than 30 resignations from the museum staff. I feel it is obvious there is a lack in the national museum of Canada in its present relationship to the northern affairs

department. There should be scope for leadership. It is hindered by being kept tied to the apron strings of the department. It should be given new foundations, and its functions should be expanded and extended so that it can play a much more realistic part in our Canadian culture.
In conclusion I would ask that the minister and the government consider, first, taking the museum out of its present outmoded context as a corner in the department of northern affairs; second, that they make it a separate branch or entity, such as the national film board and, third, I would ask that they consider appointing a director general for the national museum system of Canada which we hope to see evolved in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks here on the basis of what had been under consideration in the department, under the previous administration. It may be that what I have to say might have been taken up privately with the minister, but after listening to the hon. member for Renfrew South I think I too should have the opportunity of stating my case for the area in which I live. Some time ago I had the privilege of putting a case forward for the extension of the small park that exists north of the Bruce peninsula at Georgian bay. This is a natural area for the extension of a park site, and includes Flower Pot island off the northeastern tip of the peninsula.
I listened to the minister saying how valuable our national parks were, and how our people, and many thousands from the United States, spend their vacations on the highways rather than going to specific sites, as was the custom previously. He told how they spend so much time on the roads travelling from one point to another, and this was exactly why I made my presentation to the department some time ago, and convinced the minister of that day that consideration should be given to this development.
I have before me a proposal for a national park on Bruce peninsula in the province of Ontario. Ontario does not have much of this type of institution, and this I believe is because of the farsighted programs of the provincial authorities. These programs are to their credit, but I believe that the provision of a national park would be valuable in this particular area.
We sometimes speak of the natural things we lose as the result of commercialization of an area. We speak of the loss to the country

of certain types of growth, of certain aspects of natural beauty lost through commercialization. There are specific types of flora and fauna on the Bruce peninsula which will disappear in the not too distant future, if the investigation that was carried on with regard to a national park is not continued.
I also have a letter before me which I received earlier this year when I discussed the situation with one of the residents of that area. They are extremely enthused and interested in the project. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that this is not in my constituency, and therefore I feel I have the right to be very frank about my presentation. I have here an outline of all those things which would be of advantage to Canada, and in particular to the advantage of Canadians who visit that part of the country.
I agree with the minister when he says there is a trend on the part of vacationers to travel from site to site, using parks facilities and that sort of thing. Within about 90 or 100 miles of this area there are other provincial parks, and I believe this area would be an ideal link in the chain of great lakes parks. It would be valuable not only for highway travellers but for those who use the waters of the great lakes, and at present tremendous numbers of Americans enter Canadian waters at Georgian bay.
I think I can impose upon the good will and honesty of the minister to follow this up in the vein in which it was first thought of and presented. I hope he will allow me to discuss it on a personal basis with him in an effort to further this worthy project on the tip of the Bruce peninsula.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say a word on the general item, and pay numerous compliments to the minister, but that would be now out of order. I appreciate his comments about the use of the parks, and his rather gracious tribute to the prosperity which the country has enjoyed for the last six years, as indicated in the use of our national parks by the motor owning public.
Specifically I would like to direct his attention to the park in Prince Edward Island which, as his figures show, has the second highest attendance of all. I may say I have often quarrelled with the figures of his department, because they do a little process of cooking them with regard to a lot of people who go into the park several times a day. I know that when I entered Banff I was counted as a visitor, whereas I was going to British Columbia and should not have been called a visitor. Perhaps I will have to carry on the argument I had with the former minister, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris about the figures which the department uses-and I may
Supply-Northern Affairs add that the former minister was one of the best ministers in the government I supported. A certain part of Canada has been described as the land God had given to Cain, but I would like to quote Jacques Cartier, the first tourist to Prince Edward Island who in 1534 described it as:
-the fairest land that might possibly be seen... full of beautiful trees and plains.
There is a fine national park in this area. It is very important to our economy, to our burgeoning and expanding tourist industry, and I would urge the minister most strongly to appoint a permanent superintendent for it. We have had two acting superintendents there since the departure of Mr. Kipping, who was one of the most outstanding men in the national parks field. To indicate the type of man Mr. Kipping was, he was a born Cape Bretoner, who became a Prince Edward Islander, and it is a man with judgment and experience like that whom we would like to have as superintendent of the park.
I mention this to the minister at this time, because next year is centennial year in Prince Edward Island, and I am sure the figures for attendance at the park will be greater than ever before. In my opinion it is of the utmost urgency that he do not revert to the earlier practice of having acting superintendents, but that he appoint a full time man to knuckle down to the important job of developing this park.
I would also like to say we are hopeful for a little more rapid development of the site at Fort Amherst, with which so much of our history is bound up, both of the French occupation and the English occupation. I would also commend to the minister a most careful study of the suggestions which have come from the provincial government regarding recreational areas in the provinces. A very pleasing thing about national parks attendance is that more of the native peoples are making use of these beautiful areas, and we also find this in Prince Edward Island. It is for these reasons I urge him to do these two things. I think the minister has, indeed, started out to be what one might call a good minister. I will make no comparisons with anyone else. I do wish him well and I hope he will earn a place of esteem and regard in his ministry comparable to that of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before we leave the question of parks, I should like to ask the minister about the prospects of developing Garibaldi park. There has been tremendous interest in the lower mainland of British Columbia in the possibility of developing that park. As the minister knows, there is a lack of park facilities in that area of the province. This

Supply-Northern Affairs park comprises one of the most beautiful locations in Canada. I know the minister is interested in this and I believe he has made statements publicly regarding his willingness to undertake such a project if he could reach an understanding with the government of British Columbia. I think it would be helpful to the committee to have something on record as to what the minister is prepared to do, what offer he has made, and what response he has received from the government of British Columbia.


Arthur Laing: I think I would be on happier ground talking about the Bruce peninsula park or about the Prince Edward Island park, which I have not seen, than I would be talking about the Garibaldi park. The so-called offer was, in fact, the renewal of an offer made by the Hon. Mr. Lesage when he was in charge of the department, and renewed, in 1958 I think, by my immediate predecessor, I think there is wide agreement that, of all the areas of Canada, both for summer and winter recreation, Garibaldi park is the outstanding place. I have talked with people who are very conversant with Europe and they say the Alps in no way compare with Garibaldi park. All I did was to renew the offer made by my predecessor suggesting that if the area were turned over by the province to the federal government, free of all encumbrances, as the National Parks Act requires, the federal government would develop it as a national park.
I am sure most hon. members would agree we do need development there. Instead of a great stream of tourists coming up from the south, pausing briefly at Vancouver and then going on to Banff and the other national parks, they would be retained for a time in British Columbia and would unquestionably spend more money there. We would also get back a great deal of money spent by our own people each winter in Washington on skiing.
I have hopes, though they may be growing fainter day by day, that the premier of our province will change his mind and decide to turn this great area over to the national government for development. I am certain it would be in the interests of our economy in British Columbia to do so. We are at the present time developing intermediate parks along the Pacific west of Jasper and Banff in order to hold some of the traffic which now is determined to get into the national parks, overcrowding them, requiring tenting facilities, and so on.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and the hon. member for Queens on the comments they have made. They have spoken of a common desire on

the part of Canadians, a growing desire, I think, in the light of the fact that we are approaching the centenary of our confederation, that we should set aside amply and in good time those remaining great areas which may be required in the next 50 years as national parks. I am certain that in parts of Ontario today, when people look back, they are sorry a greater provision was not made for the spaces which today are required by our people and which are, also, a great magnet for visitors from abroad.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the offer was made to the province of British Columbia to develop Garibaldi park, was an estimate made as to what the cost would be and how much the federal government was prepared to spend on the development of that area?


Arthur Laing: The government's attitude has been that when an area is turned over free of encumbrances by the province, an inspection is made. The area is laid out then according to the best views of our planners, and anything that is required to make a job of it is done. In Fundy park, New Brunswick, which is a relatively small park, we expended something of the order of $8.5 million. The principal requirement in many of these places is roads, and where large areas of rock are encountered this can be an expensive item. Our total capital expenditure in all the parks is of the order of $200 million. I did ask the premier of the province if he would agree to letting our planning officials into the area to suggest what might be done with it. I have a letter from him agreeing to that proposal, with the condition that the resources by way of minerals and timber would be retained as the property of the provincial government and be subject to its exploitation. This, of course, is a condition which makes it impossible for us to establish the area as a national park.


An hon. Member:: It is 10.30, Mr. Chairman.


Arthur Laing: I think there are not many more speakers who may wish to take part in this discussion. May I suggest that we continue for some time, in which case we would probably finish these estimates tonight?


Mr. Churchill:: We are prepared to go on for another half hour.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreed?


An hon. Member:: No, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Might we have from the acting leader of the house another of his concise outlines of business for tomorrow?


Mr. MacNaught:: I will be as concise as possible. Tomorrow, we will continue with our consideration of the Income Tax Act, committee stage and third reading. Then we will take the resolution relating to the consumer credit committee; and if that is finished in time we shall take up the bills relating to the Northwest Territories. In the evening we will consider the estimates of the Department of Labour backed by those of the Department of Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty five minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including federal share of the expenses of the secretariat for the resource ministers council, $1,018,600.
5. Northern co-ordination and research including an amount of $70,000 for grants for northern re-
Supply-Items Passed
search and for northern scientific research expeditions, $241,100.
10. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for campground and picnic area developments, $250,000.
15. Contributions to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $9,250,000.
National parks branch-
20. Branch administration, $308,900.
National parks and historic sites and monuments-
25. Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,875,700.
25a. Administration, operation and maintenance,
[Stage Direction]
30. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,295,000.
30a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 30 of the main estimates, 1963-64 to authorize expenditures on works on other than federal property, $1.
35. Grant to Jack Miner migratory bird foundation, $5,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 8, 1963