1963-07-08

Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-82, to amend the act respecting Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct an anomaly-as far as bilingualism is concerned-which has existed within this crown corporation since its incorporation. The object in view is to translate the name of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited into Energie atomique du Canada Limitee, and I would be most happy if the leader of the house would see to it that this bill be given priority over all other bills in order that it may be passed as soon as possible.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just noticed that this corporation has been incorporated under part I of the Companies Act. Therefore, it can change its name in accordance with its charter. As a matter of fact, I am informed that it has requested supplementary letters patent empowering it to adopt a bilingual name. Therefore, I feel that the bill is unnecessary.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point of order raised by the minister is interesting, but I am afraid I cannot admit it.
I have nothing in front of me except this (Translation):
"introduction of bills". So the house should be asked if it agrees to allow the hon. member to introduce the said bill.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the minister provided that he tells the house that the translation has been done at my suggestion, because I moved the said bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What are the technical difficulties encountered in displaying the words "Air-Canada" on the fuselage of the aircraft operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines?
2.	What are the legal difficulties encountered in displaying bilingual markings on these aircraft?


Mr. Mctlraith:: Answered.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. To question 363 you said "Answered" when it was a question requiring an oral answer. To question 363, you-


An hon. Member:: You said "Answered".


Gérard Girouard: Question 363 is a question requiring an oral answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not understand. The hon. member is talking about question 363. (Text):


Gérard Girouard: I thought the minister said "answered", and it is a question to be answered orally.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member is referring to question No. 363, I must apologize. I did not know it was a starred question when I called "answered", and handed in the answer. However, the answer is as follows:
1 and 2. The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act establishes as the official name of the company "Trans-Canada Air Lines" in English and "Lignes Aeriennes Trans-Canada" in French. Without amendment to this statute there is some doubt as to the legal position if another name is displayed on the fuselage of aircraft.
Furthermore, the availability of fuselage space being at a premium, the display of both these names on aircraft fuselages might create problems of safety as it would be difficult for control officers to identify or direct aircraft bearing more than one name.
There would also be considerable costs involved in a change of name, i.e. publicity expenses already incurred under the present name, the taking of aircraft out of service for repainting, the monogramming of cutlery and linen, the use of the additional name on forms,

Questions
stationery, ticket stocks, etc. This whole matter does not lend itself to a simple solution. It is, however, receiving serious consideration.


ELLIOT LAKE
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving consideration to cooperating with a committee formed to investigate the economic status of Elliot Lake and. if so (a) what are the names of all officials and companies belonging to the committee (b) what sums of money will be made available for stockpiling uranium ore from Elliot Lake during the next four years?


Mr. Slewart:: The government has been cooperating with a special committee formed to investigate the economic status of Elliot Lake. The names of the individuals who served on this committee are:
Hon. W. Benidickson, P.C., M.P.; Mr. Jack Davis, M.P.; Hon. R. W. Macaulay, M.L.A.; Hon. J. W. Spooner, M.L.A.; Dr. E. B. Gillanders, executive vice president, Rio Algom Mines Ltd.; Mr. W. P. Arnold, general manager, Rio Algom Mines Ltd.; Mr. John Kostuik, vice president and general manager, Denison Mines Limited; Mr. M. J. deBastiani, mine manager, Denison Mines Limited; Mr. John Metz, Stanrock Uranium Mines Ltd.; Mr. J. T. Gauthier; Mr. Jack Wellard; Mr. J. S. McLaren.
Following several meetings of this committee, and as a result of market investigations at home and abroad, the Prime Minister was able to announce on June 26, 1963 that:
The government, strictly as a short term measure, is prepared to buy, and to stockpile, the quantities of uranium that will enable certain mines to maintain present employment until July 1, 1964, at prices which will cover the operating costs of the mines to that date.
The companies concerned have been informed of this offer and the government believes that satisfactory arrangements can be negotiated with them. When this has been done, the proposal will be put before parliament for approval.
The three mines affected are Milliken and Denison mines at Elliot Lake and Faraday mine at Bancroft. These are the mines which could continue to operate economically but which, under present contracts, will close at dates between next month and the end of the winter.
The communities concerned will therefore be able to rely on the continuation of present employment until the end of the next school year.
This decision is an expression of the government's declared general policy for facilitating industrial adjustments.
The government is meantime vigorously exploring the opportunities for alternative employment that may be developed in these communities during the next twelve months. To attempt to bring this search to a satisfactory conclusion will be a priority activity for the department of industry, and its area development agency, whose establishment the government has proposed to parliament.

Further reference was made to the mine coverage and possible cost of this program by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in parliament on July 2, 1963. His remarks appear on pages 1729-1730 of Hansard for that date.
Please note the minister's statement to the effect that:
The government... is prepared to buy and stockpile . .. uranium ... until July 1, 1964, at prices that will cover the operating costs of the mines.
The outlay involved will "be of the order of $20 million".


PRESS RELEASES, RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1956, has there been any change in the style, content or amount of information contained in press releases from or about the restrictive trade practices commission relating to reports of that commission and, if so, what are the details about such changes, and the dates upon which each such change took effect, and the source of instruction, if any, to put the said changes into effect?


John B. Stewart: Yes. The form of press release issued when making public reports of the restrictive trade practices commission was changed at the time of the report concerning the manufacture, distribution and sale of metal culverts and related products which was made public on August 16, 1957. Press releases issued on and subsequent to that date, generally speaking, have set out the title of the report, how the inquiry was instituted, date of argument before the commission at which representations were made on behalf of the parties and the director, date of report and a statement concerning consideration of what further steps should be taken. Press releases prior to the above date, in addition to the foregoing material, generally speaking, included a summary of the report, the findings and recommendations of the commission and the names of the persons or companies found to have participated in activities which were the subject of the report. The press releases are releases of, and issued by, the Minister of Justice.
I should like to inform the house that having reviewed this matter it is my intention, in releasing future reports, to return to the more detailed form of press release used prior to August 1957.
(Translation):


WORLD FAIR SITE
Mr. Valade: Has the Minister of Public Works definitely accepted St. Helen island as the official site for the world's fair?


Mr. Deschatelets:: Yes.

(Text):


C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the C.B.C. applied to establish a T.V. station in Newfoundland and, if so, on what date was the application (a) heard by the C.B.C. (b) approved by the B.B.G. (c) sent to D.O.T. (d) approved by D.O.T. (e) presented to the government by the C.B.C. to get funds for the project (f) approved by treasury board?
2.	Has the C.B.C. (a) property in hand or under option for this T.V. project and, if so, what, and at what cost (b) a plan for the buildings and, if so, what is the estimated cost of buildings, and of transmitter facilities?


Mr. Dupuis:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the board of broadcast governors, and the Department of Transport, as applicable, as follows:
1.	Yes; (a) heard by the board of broadcast governors at public hearing commencing January 15, 1963; (b) recommended by the board of broadcast governors to Department of Transport for approval April 5, 1963; (c) April 5, 1963; (d) not dealt with by Department of Transport, further information being awaited from the board of broadcast governors; (e) included in main 1963-64 estimates submitted to treasury board in November, 1962; (f) main estimates approved January 8,
1963.
2.	(a) The corporation has an agreement with the parties concerned, by exchange of correspondence, for the acquisition of property for this project. No payment has yet been made in regard to the acquisition of property. The transmitter site of approximately 10 acres will be acquired in part from the C.N.R., by a long term lease for a nominal sum and in part from the province of Newfoundland, by transfer of title. The cost of the studio property of approximately 6 acres is estimated at $45,000.
(b)	Yes. The estimated total cost of studio and transmitter buildings is $892,150. The transmitter facilities, including tower, antenna and equipment has an estimated total of $420,250.


PREVENTION OR SURVIVAL OF NUCLEAR ATTACK
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the government consider a nuclear attack which would affect Canada to be a possibility?
2.	H so, in simple outline, what steps has the government taken to (a) prevent such attack through military measures (b) ensure survival and some continuity for the population at large aside from military measures?
3.	What sums by year have been spent, in rough estimate, for the development of government objectives as described in 2(a) and 2(b)?
4.	What is the estimated spending in these two categories for the next fiscal year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
Questions
2 (a) Canada is a member of the NATO alliance and has entered into agreement with the United States for the joint defence of the North American continent, and supports the peace preserving missions of the United Nations.
(b) The following are some of the more important measures to assist the population in surviving nuclear attack:
(i)	A warning system has been developed to warn the public of the likelihood of attack or fall-out;
(ii)	A continuing program of public information is operating in co-operation with provincial and local authorities to inform the public of the hazards of nuclear war and the measures they should take to protect themselves;
(iii)	An emergency broadcasting system is organized whereby the public, during an emergency, will be given information, advice and instructions;
(iv)	The Canadian army has prepared itself to carry out rescue operations in areas damaged or seriously contaminated;
(v)	Since 1962 radiation detection equipment has been made available to provinces so that radiation hazards can be detected and measured;
(vi)	Governments have been making plans and the required preparations to be able to do what will be needed of them at the time of emergency;
(vii)	The federal authorities have provided guidance and financial assistance to provinces by means of which many municipalities have developed plans whereby they can furnish essential services such as those with regard to fire, police and emergency welfare, even in the event of nuclear war;
(viii)	A war supplies agency is being organized to be responsible, among other matters, for mobilizing and equitably distributing stocks of food, fuel and clothing that survive attack;
(ix)	Many millions of dollars' worth of emergency health supplies have been stockpiled throughout Canada;
(x)	Since 1953, the federal government has maintained at Arnprior, Ontario, a civil defence college at which training has been provided for members of the military services and for federal, provincial and municipal employees and other persons nominated by the provinces and municipalities. This has been done wholly at federal cost.
3(a). The annual defence budget, as a rough estimate, although this includes some elements of support to (b) but does not include expenditures of other government departments related to defence.
(b). The approximate expenditures over the last six years are as follows:

Questions
1957-58	$ 4.1	million58-59	4.1	ti59-60	15.6	il60-61	26.2	it61-62	69.8	H62-63	40.8	itTotal	160.6	"
These figures cover all federal expenditures including those of D.N.D. for programs of civilian survival.
4(a) $1,590,006,537.
(b) $40,000,000. This figure covers all federal expenditures including those of D.N.D. for programs of civilian survival.
(Translation):


NATIONAL FLAG
Mr. Valade: 1.	Which official flag does Canada intend to display on her pavilion during the 1967 world exhibition in Montreal?
2.	Will it be a distinctive national flag?
3.	Will it contain the union jack or the red ensign?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. My hon. friend will appreciate the fact that it is not possible to answer that question today because a bill about a distinctive national flag will be submitted to the house within two years, and we hope that all the opposition parties will then support such an undertaking by the present government.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.
(Text):


BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES IN POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Perron: How many employees are there in the Post Office Department and, of these (a) how many are bilingual (b) how many speak English only (c) how many speak French only (d) how many are French Canadians?


Mr. Pickersgill:: May I ask that questions Nos. 506 to 566 stand?
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A series of questions is allowed to stand when an answer could be provided much more quickly to some of them. For example, in the case of question No. 513, it has been asked how many persons earn more than $20,000 per year. Now, as there is only one in the Post Office Department, I think in this case at least, the question having been put on the order paper on June 13, it should not have taken four weeks to find out whether he is bilingual. Likewise, as far as question No. 514 is concerned, which asks about the number of persons earning between $15,000 and $20,000 per year, the answer could have been given by now.

I think that there is some unwillingness on the part of the Secretary of State and that answers could be provided more quickly than at the present time.
Therefore, I would ask Mr. Speaker, if replies cannot be given immediately to this series of questions and that those which can be answered immediately be dealt with, so that the information be obtained as soon as possible.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I did not quite hear what the Secretary of State said. He asked that questions Nos. 506 to 566, should stand; was that it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I asked to have those questions stand. The other day I explained to the hon. gentleman, incidentally in whose name they do not happen to stand, that the government was giving the most careful consideration to the best way of answering these questions satisfactorily. There are some technical difficulties about giving the answers, and it was thought it would be preferable to consider all of them together, and just as soon as it is possible to give answers that will really be satisfactory, then the answers will be given.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The rule applies to all of us.
Questions stand.


GRANTS FOR STUDENT RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Cowan: 1.	How much money has been allocated, year by year, to hospitals throughout Canada as grants toward residence accommodation for students of nursing?
2.	Have any funds been allocated as grants toward residence accommodation for students of the teaching profession attending teachers' colleges and, if so, what has been the total of such assistance?
3.	Have any funds been allocated as grants toward residence accommodation for students of business colleges for secretaries and stenographers during the same time and, if so, what has been the total of such assistance?
4.	What is the basis of government policy with respect to the payment of grants if any in each of the aforementioned classes?


Yvon Dupuis: 1. Under the hospital construction grant, federal assistance has been provided annually, on the basis of projects submitted by the provinces, for the construction of residence accommodation for graduate and undergraduate nurses in those hospitals with schools for the instruction of students of nursing, in the following amounts:

2. and 3. No grants coming within the scope of this question have been made by the Department of Finance.
4.	Assistance under the federal hospital construction grant currently provides, on the basis of projects submitted by the provinces, $750 per bed toward the cost of constructing new nurses' accommodation, or up to one third of the cost of renovation of obsolete accommodation. The provinces undertake in each case to at least match the federal contribution.


C.S. COMPETITION 60-P-1D-133
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many applications did the civil service commission receive for competition No. 60-P-1D-133?
2.	What were the names, the posts held, and the qualifications required for the posts then held, by those applicants who were interviewed by a selection board?
3.	Who was the successful applicant?
4.	Had this successful applicant ever had (a) any purchasing experience before this appointment (b) any experience at product research (c) any experience at conducting surveys?
5.	Was the previous chief purchasing agent bilingual and, if not, why was the decision taken to make this a bilingual post, and who made the decision?
6.	Was a bilingual ability a factor in determining the successful applicant from among those interviewed?


Yvon Dupuis: I have been given the following answers by the civil service commission:
1.	18.
2.	It is not customary to release the names of unsuccessful candidates in civil service competitions.
3.	Mr. J. Lucien Harper.
4.	(a) Yes, a number of years experience in purchasing or procurement or related work, as required in the advertisement for this position, (b) No-not required under the advertised qualifications, (c) Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	The advertisement for this competition called for a knowledge of both the English and French languages sufficient for the duties involved.


SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO GOVERNMENT LEADER IN SENATE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister without Portfolio and leader of the government in the senate taken an executive assistant or a special assistant on staff and, if so, what is this person's name, age, place of birth, institutions of education and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm) and initial and present salary with the government?
Questions
2.	What length of time has this assistant undertaken to serve the minister and/or what engagement in length of time was given to the assistant by the minister?
3.	In brief, what particular qualities of this assistant led the minister to engage him?


Mr. Davis:: 1. Yes; executive assistant: Mr. Torrance J. Wylie, age 24.
Place of birth: Hawkesbury, Ontario.
Educational institutions:	primary and
secondary education in Hawkesbury schools. University studies at Carleton University, Ottawa.
Educational qualifications: B.A. and 2 years of graduate study in political science.
Business experience: research assistant with the Canadian universities foundation, Ottawa for a period of one year.
Initial and present salary with the government: $8,000.
2.	No engagement in length of time undertaken and none given.
3.	Educational qualification, ability and interest in the parliamentary process.


SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO LABOUR MINISTER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour taken an executive assistant or a special assistant on staff and, if so, what is this person's name, age, place of birth, institutions of education and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm) and initial and present salary with the government?
2.	What length of time has this assistant undertaken to serve the minister and/or what engagement in length of time was given to the assistant by the minister?
3.	In brief, what particular qualities of this assistant led the minister to engage him?


Mr. Byrne:: 1. Yes. An executive assistant, Patrick Joseph Lavelle. Age 24. Place of birth, Toronto. Institutions of education, St. Michael's College and University of Western Ontario. Experience, journalist and public relations executive, MacLaren Advertising Limited. Initial and present salary $9,500.
2.	No length of time specified.
3.	Ability.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) The act should provide for a term of office for band councils of not more than three years with one third of the members elected each year.
(b)	All band members, who are otherwise qualified, should be allowed to vote at band elections and on any other matter affecting the band if present on the reserve when the election is held.
(c)	The chief should be elected by the band members rather than from the elected council.

Questions
(d)	An oath of office for hand council members should be required.
(e)	The Indian Act should set out specific duties and authorities of the chief.
(f)	The act should provide for filling a vacancy in a band council as soon as possible after the vacancy occurs.
(g)	There should be an extensive educational program to acquaint band councils with the Indian Act and regulations and with council authority.
(h)	It should be the definite policy of government to move toward more self governing bands and to this end more bands should be given control of their revenue funds.
(i)	There should be a decrease in ministerial and governmental authority with a concomitant increase in band council authority.
(j)	Bylaw authority under the act should be combined and additional powers granted.
(k)	To assist elected band councils in local selfgovernment, per capita grants on an unconditional basis should be made"?


Mr. Munro:: (a) (b) (d) (e) (i) (j) (k) The implementation of these recommendations involves legislation and is being considered in connection with a review of the Indian Act for possible amendment.
(c) To restrict the election of a chief to a majority vote of the electors would require changes in the Indian Act, as it now provides under section 73(3) for the election of the chief by a majority vote of the electors, or by a vote of the elected councillors from among themselves.
(f)	In accordance with the provisions of section 77(4) of the Indian Act, a special election may be held to fill a vacancy when such vacancy occurs in a band council more than three months before the date when another election would ordinarily be held. The general practice is to hold such special elections in consultation with the band council concerned.
(g)	Leadership training courses for Indians sponsored by the department numbered 12 in 1961-62 and 15 in 1962-63. These courses included instruction in such subjects as community development, band administration, the provisions of the Indian Act, and the conduct of meetings, which are of direct interest to band council members and potential candidates for council attending the courses. In addition a handbook describing their powers and duties under the Indian Act is available to band chiefs and councillors upon their taking of office. Agency superintendents who have a continuing educative role in their relations with the band councils are asked to discuss the handbook with the band councils, explaining its contents in detail and provide continuing assistance and information in day to day administration of band affairs.
(h)	The department is already moving ahead in this field. Progress is dependant upon the readiness and ability of Indian bands to assume the additional authority and responsibility which may be conferred under the Indian Act. Since 1959, 51 bands have been

granted permission to control, manage and expend in whole or in part their revenue moneys.



Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) Special depreciation allowances should be allowed Indian commercial fishermen.
(b)	All existing liquor restrictions should be deleted from the Indian Act; and the same rights extended to non-Indian citizens of the various provinces be applicable to Indians, except that the right of possession and consumption on the reserve be granted only after approval by a majority vote of the band.
(c)	Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Act relating to the sale or barter of produce from reserves in the three prairies provinces should be deleted.
(d)	Provincial courts should have jurisdiction to deal with Indian estates."?


John Carr Munro: (a) (b) (c) The implementation of these recommendations involves legislative changes and will be considered when the Indian Act is reviewed for possible amendment.
(d)	Steps are being taken to implement this recommendation. Present practice is to consent or direct that the administration of Indian estates of substantial value be referred to the provincial courts pursuant to section 44 of the Indian Act. This will be gradually extended in scope as individual land holdings on reserves and other problems are resolved.



Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
" (a) Indian affairs should be the subject of a dominion-provincial conference in order that such matters may be transferred to provincial jurisdiction as may be mutually acceptable to the Indian people, provincial and federal authorities.
(b)	Another special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons should be appointed within a period of seven years to review Indian affairs.
(c)	A program of research into the economic, cultural and social concepts of the Indian people should be undertaken in conjunction with the provinces and universities.
(d)	Community planning and development studies should be continued."?


John Carr Munro: (a) This matter is under consideration and when a conclusion is reached an announcement will be made.
(b) No action is being taken to recommend another special committee of the Senate and House of Commons to review Indian affairs at this time as the seven year period referred to in this recommendation will not be reached

until 1968. The establishing of such a joint committee will be a matter for parliament to decide.
(c)	The question of Indian research is under active consideration at the present time and it is expected an announcement regarding this matter will be made in the near future.
(d)	Community planning and development studies, which the committee noted with satisfaction were being engaged in by the Indian affairs branch, have been continued and expanded.


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY, LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How much was spent in each of the calendar years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962 on the survey being carried out on lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, by the Canadian hydrographic service?
2.	How much is estimated to be spent in 1963?
3.	When is it expected that the survey will be completed and the charts available?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. 1957, $30,783; 1958, $35,766; 1959, $35,100; 1960, $38,096; 1961, $42,210; 1962, $29,791.
2.	Approximately $1,600.
3.	1976 and 1977 respectively.


AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED AND IMPORTED
Mr. Maiher: 1.	How many automobiles were manufactured in Canada in 1962, and what was the value of same?
2.	How many automobiles were imported into Canada in 1962?
3.	From what countries were they imported, and what was the value of the cars imported from each such country?
4.	How much was collected in customs duties on the cars so imported?
5.	How much in taxes was collected on the cars manufactured in Canada in 1962?


Yvon Dupuis: 1. The number of automobiles produced in Canada in 1961 was 322,000 valued at $656,156,000. The number produced in 1962 is estimated at 429,000, the value of which is not available.
2. and 3. Imports of new passenger automobiles and chassis (classes 5642, 5643 and
5644), by countries, in	1962, were	as follows:-Country	No.	ValueUnited Kingdom	37,089	$53,087,624France	4,955	4,947,418Germany West	32,256	35,171,413Italy	482	523,871Czechoslovakia	275	222,146Sweden	1,657	2,917,589Japan	63	61,496United States	17,878	54,313,823Totals	94,655	$151,245,3804.	Customs duties collected on the imports of above cars in 1962 amounted to $21,656,289.5.	$124,327,179.57 (federal sales tax, including tax on trucks).
Questions


TENDERS FOR R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, PUGWASH, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many tenders were received for the construction of the R.C.M.P. detachment quarters in Pugwash, Nova Scotia?
2.	What were the names of the firms submitting tenders?
3.	What were the amounts of the bids submitted?


John (Jack) Davis: 1. Seven tenders were received in 1962 but a contract was not awarded due to the reduction in government expenditures. In 1963 the three lowest bidders were invited to tender again and one tender was received as a result.
2.	Tenders were submitted in 1962 by the following firms: Leonard Construction Co. Ltd., Sydney, N.S.; A. N. Bayers Contracting Limited, Halifax, N.S.; C. K. Venoit & Son, Ltd., Kingston, N.S.; Wm. A. Halverson, Truro, N.S.; Donald H. Ryan, Springhill, N.S.; Albert E. Whidden, Antigonish, N.S.;
K.	P. Allen Limited, Amherst, N.S.
A tender was submitted in 1963 by the undermentioned firm: A. N. Bayers Contracting Limited, Halifax, N.S.
3.	The amounts of the bids submitted in 1962 are as follows: $37,888; $38,780; $38,835; $41,220; $43,750; $45,495; $48,965.
The one bid submitted in 1963 is as follows: $42,630.


FOREST ACCESS ROADS
Mr. Doucetl: 1.	How many forestry access roads did the government contribute to in 1962-63?
2.	What was the mileage of such In each province?
3.	What was the amount of money spent in each province?
4.	What are the planned contributions for 196364 in each province?
5. What is the estimated cost l 1963-64?	for each province


Mr. Nicholson:: 1. 172.	
2. Province	Mileage
Prince Edward Island	1
Nova Scotia	53
New Brunswick	57
Quebec	290
Ontario	150
Manitoba	163
Saskatchewan	80
Alberta	238
British Columbia	141
3. Province	Federal Contribution
(1962-63)
$	978
61,355 106,335 954,709 620,884 304,551 172,895 391,285 790,111
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia

Questions
4.	Province	Planned Contributions
(1963-64)

Estimated Cost $	4,000
125.000
194.000 2,000,000 1,289,300
594,400
448.000 693,350
1,580,222


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROBATION OFFICERS
Mr. Orlikow: What were the names, locations, lengths of government service, academic qualifications, and case loads of the probation officers employed in the Department of Justice in 1952, 1957, and
1962?


John (Jack) Davis: The Department of Justice does not employ probation officers. However, field parole officers make arrangements for supervision by after care agencies and/or provincial probation officers. A list of the field parole officers is attached for the years 1952, 1957 and 1962, with the information requested with the exception of that regarding case loads. It is not possible to answer this question as the field parole officers are mostly interviewing parole applicants and making arrangements for the above mentioned after care.
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
5. Province
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Parole Service Officers (Field) 1952, 1957, 1962
Year
1957
Name	Locale	Qualifications	Govt. ServiceHobden, J. D.	Vancouver	D.D.	1949Tremblay, G.	Montreal	B.A.; L.L.B.	1940Constantineau, I.	Montreal	R.N.	1948Cook, F. W.	Vancouver	B.A.; B.S.W.	1947Rempel, D.	Winnipeg	B.A.; B.S.W.	1957Beames, R. S.	Toronto	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Wallace, R. G.	Toronto	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Edwards, C. A. M.	Kingston	B.A.	1948Tremblay, G.	Montreal	B.A.; L.L.B.	1940Constantineau, I.	Montreal	R.N.	1948Caron, M.	Montreal	B.A.; M.S.W.	1956Genest, G.	Montreal	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Rowcliffe, R. G.	Moncton	B.A.	1947Stevenson, B. K.	Vancouver	B.A.; B.S.W.	1956Jones, F.	Vancouver	B.A.; M.S.W.	1960Selkirk, J.	Vancouver	Non-professional	1960Humphreys, G.	Vancouver	Non-professional	1960Howarth, L. D.	Edmonton	B.A.; M.S.W.	1958Wallace, R. G.	Prince Albert	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Rempel, D.	Winnipeg	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Gillies, R.	Winnipeg	B.A.; B.S.W.	1960Beames, R. S.	Toronto	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Haney, J.	Toronto	Non-professional	1962Edwards, C. A. M.	Kingston	B.A.	1948Sullivan, J.	Kingston	Non-professional	1948Brooks, C.	Kingston	Non-professional	1946Hunt, L.	Kingston	Non-professional	1948Tremblay, G.	Montreal	B.A.; L.L.B.	1940Genest, G.	Montreal	B.A.; M.S.W.	1957Trottier, D.	Montreal	Non-professional	1952Asselin, P.	Montreal	B.A.; B.S.W.	1960Desehenes, J.	Montreal	B.A.; B.S.W.	1962Therrien, A.	Montreal	M.A. (Litt.)	1959Constantineau, I.	Montreal	R.N.	1948Caron, M.	Quebec	B.A.; M.S.W.	1956Rowcliffe, R. G.	Moncton	B.A.	1957Puddester, R.	Moncton	B.A. (psych.)	1960MacDonald, S. M.	Halifax	B.A.; M.S.W.	1961Nicholson.]


INDIAN AFFAIRS WELFARE PAYMENTS
Mr. Howard: 1.	What, in detail, is the scale of welfare payments followed by the Indian affairs branch?
2.	How does this scale, in detail, and by provinces, compare with the scale of welfare payments in effect in provinces?
Questions


John Carr Munro: 1. See attached table.
2. Provincial relief food scales are attached. However, comparisons are impossible by reason of the differing age group components upon which the various scales are based. Moreover, in one province, allowances for male and female dependants differ.
Indian Affairs Branch Maximum Scales of Relief Food Assistance
	Standard scale	Supplementary relief food allowance scale*		
A	Category B C	DSingle adult Each additional adult or child over 12 years	$22	$25	$28 $33	$38of age	15	17	19 22	26Each child 12 years of age or under	12	15	16 18	21
(* Based upon food prices in isolated settlements)
Provincial Relief Food Allowance Scales Newfoundland:
(Regulations under the social assistance act published in the Newfoundland Gazette, January 17, 1962)
1.	The following are maximum rates for food for incapacitated persons and for mothers with dependant children (mother's allowances);
Food: husband, $25; wife, $20; each additional member of the family over the age of 16 years, $12; each additional member of the family under the age of 16 years, $10.
2.	For persons who are unemployed and do not fall into one of the above categories, aid is given in kind as follows:
Food: first adult, $20; each additional adult, $10; each child over the age of 16 years, $10; each child under the age of 16 years, $8.
Monthly relief allowances (Prince Edward Island) (as at October 31, 1962):
In Prince Edward Island relief is handled by the province. There is no determined rate except that, in practice, the maximum of $75.00 per family, available under mother's allowance, is never exceeded in authorizing relief food assistance.
Monthly relief food allowances (New
Brunswick, Nova		Scotia, British	Columbia)
(as at October 31,		1962):	
New	Nova	BritishNo. of	Brunswick	Scotia	ColumbiaPersons	Amounts	Amounts	Amounts1	$21.50	$21.50	$34.002	34.40	30.10	58.003	45.15	38.70	70.004	53.75	47.30	82.005	62.35	55.90	94.006	68.80	62.35	106.007	75.25	68.80	118.008	81.70	73.10	130.009	88.15	77.40	10	94.60	81.70	11	101.05	86.00	12	107.50	90.30	13	113.95	94.60	14	120.40	98.90	15	126.85	103.20	Monthly relief food allowances	(Quebec)
(as at October 31, 1962):
Adult outside family, $25; adult in family, $22; child 14 to 18 years of age, $22; child 10 to 14 years of age, $15; child 5 to 10 years of age, $8; child 0 to 5 years of age, $5.
Monthly relief	food allowances	(Ontario)	(as at October	31, 1962):	Food other	Vitamin	Monthlythan milk	Quarts	Milk*	D	TotalAdult-	-single, unattached	$22.10	(15)	$3.75	-	$25.85Adult	in family of 2	19.65	(15)	3.75	-	23.40Adult	in family of 3	14.75	(15)	3.75	-	18.50Child	(10-15)	13.65	(22)	5.50	.85	20.00Child	(4-9)	11.20	(22)	5.50	.85	17.55Child	(0-3)	7.75	(26)	6.50	.85	15.10
*Milk-at 25 cents per quart

Questions
Monthly relief food allowances (Manitoba) (as at October 31, 1962).
(a) Food: a single adult or the first adult in family of two beneficiaries, $23; the second adult in a family of two beneficiaries, $20; each adult in a family of more than two beneficiaries, $20; each child 12 to 17 years of age, $21; each child 7 to 11 years of age, $17; each child 4 to 6 years of age, $13; each child from birth to three years of age, $11.
Note: Where the family consists of five or more beneficiaries the following deductions shall be made: For each of the first five persons, $1; for each person over five $2.
N.B.-In remote areas, cost may be increased up to 25 per cent.
Monthly relief food allowances (Saskatchewan) (as at October 31, 1962).
Adults each, $21.50; child, pre-school, each, $12; child, 6-11 years, each, $17; child, 12-15 years, each, $21; child, 16-18 years, each, $23.
(a) adjustments for the following family units:
Unit of 1 person, increase the allowance by $2 per month.
Unit of 2 persons, increase the allowance for the family unit by $1 per month.
Unit of 4 persons, reduce the allowance for the family unit by $5 per month.
Unit of 5 persons, reduce the allowance for the family unit by $8 per month.
Unit of 6 persons, reduce the allowance for the family unit by $11 per month.
For each person over 6 reduce the allowance for the family unit by a further $3 per month.
Monthly relief food allowances (Alberta) (as at October 31, 1962).
	Male	Female
Adult living with others	$23.80	$20.90Adult living alone	28.60	25.10Adult living alone-inadequate cooking and refrigeration facilities	31.70	27.85Married couple	49.20	Married couple-inadequate cooking and refrigeration facilities	51.40	Children-0- 3 years	11.40	11.404- 6 years	12.55	12.557-9 years	16.70	16.7010-12 years	17.90	17.9013-15 years	22.35	21.5016-18 years	27.20	23.45
Notes: 1. Adult and one child, increase by 10 per cent. 2. Family of three, increase by 10 per cent. 3. Family of four, five or six, calculate according to table. 4. Family of seven or more, deduct 5 per cent.
[Mr. MunroJ


PARKING SPACE, ST. CLAIR AVE., TORONTO
Mr. Winkler: 1.	In its recent reallocation of parking spaces available in the regional garage at 25 St. Clair avenue east, Toronto, has the parking accommodation been restricted to only branch heads and those employees whose salary range minimum is $9,000 per annum?
2.	If this reallocation has not yet taken effect, will the Minister of Public Works reconsider the department's directive in order to provide for employees of lower salary than $9,000 per annum?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. No. Most of the spaces are reserved for government owned vehicles and provision is also made for parking for disabled persons.
2. No. The present situation was caused by a recent increase in the number of parking spaces required for government owned vehicles, and no reallocation is considered practicable at the present time.


BOUNDARY BAY AIRPORT, B.C.
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the condition of available runways and taxiways at Boundary Bay airport, B.C.?
2.	Is the airport readily accessible from Vancouver, Richmond and New Westminster by high speed highways?
3.	Is this airport close to Canadian and U.S. customs offices at Boundary Bay?
4.	Are hangars and tie-down facilities at the airport ready for use?
5.	Weather-wise, is the Boundary Bay airport more fog and rain free than others in the lower
mainland?
6.	Can the Boundary Bay airport be reopened as an airport without moving the Department of National Defence wireless station from that area?


George James McIlraith: 1. Poor.
2.	Yes.
3.	The nearest Canadian and U.S. customs office is near Point Roberts approximately five miles distant.
4.	No.
5.	Boundary bay has less precipitation and better ceilings but more fog than other airports in the lower mainland.
6.	No.


REACTIVATION OF BOUNDARY BAY AIRPORT, B.C.
Mr. Prittie: Has the government received a brief from the aircraft owners and pilots association of British Columbia concerning the reactivation of the Boundary bay airport, and, if so, is the government giving this brief favourable consideration?


George James McIlraith: A brief from the aircraft owners and pilots association of British Columbia concerning the reactivation of the Boundary Bay airport was received on June 27, 1963. This site is owned and operated by the Department of National Defence. Officials of that department have stated that Boundary bay could not be reactivated as

they are unable to find another area acceptable as a replacement for their existing establishment.


PROPOSED GASPE RAILWAY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	With reference to the projected Gaspe railway from Ste. Anne des Monts to Matane, does the government consider that it must proceed with its construction despite higher estimated construction costs than originally estimated?
2.	If so, will it be necessary to amend the act passed by parliament regarding this railway line?
3.	Has the government received any representations, pro or con, on the Gaspe railway since April 8, 1963, and, if so, from whom and, in brief, to what effect?


George James McIlraith: 1. and 2. These relate to matters of government policy on which any announcement will be made in the usual appropriate way.
3. Yes. From the municipal corporation of the village of Cap Chat in support of the project and from the trucking association of Quebec in opposition to the project.


POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, FORT SMITH, N. W. T.
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Do the 1963-64 estimates contain a provision for the construction of a new post office at Fort Smith, N.W.T. or the enlargement of the existing facilities and, if so, when will this work be started?
2.	If not, will the department take steps to look into the immediate need for adequate postal facilities for this community?


Hubert Badanai: 1. No.
2. Yes.


BRIDGEWATER, N.S., DREDGING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works taken any action to prevent cargo ships having a 21 foot draft from grounding at Bridgewater, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What dredging surveys are contemplated in the LaHave river, especially near the federal government wharf at Bridgewater?
3.	What is the amount of the fund that will be made available for additional dredging at Bridgewater?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Consideration is being given to enlarging the turning area at Bridgewater to permit 375 foot vessels drawing 21 feet to turn using the high stages of the tide.
2.	Sounding surveys in the LaHave river between Bridgewater and Conquerall bank will be carried out this summer.
3.	This cannot be determined at the present time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE TESTING STATION, NICOLET, QUE.
Mr. Vincent: 1. Does the federal government pay the cost of transportation of certain employees of the national defence testing station at Nicolet and, if so (a)
Questions
what is the cost of this service (b) in what county do those who benefit from these facilities reside
(c)	for what reasons does the government provide
this service?
2.	Is the government considering the granting of a special allowance to all the other employees who do not benefit from this service, and in particular to those who reside in the constituency of Nicolet-
Yamaska?
3.	With regard to hiring and promotions, are the residents of the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska given preference?


Mr. Cardin:: 1. Yes.
(a)	Two 35 passenger buses chartered by contracts placed by the Department of Defence Production for transportation of 60 employees from Drummondville to Nicolet and return at $40 per day for each bus. One of these buses is used for transporting employees (27 in number) from main gate to small arms section (within the base) four times daily at an additional $100 per month.
(b)	Drummond county.
(c)	For the reason that an adequate design for living was required to accommodate the specialists and skilled technicians coming from other centres of population who would be employed at Nicolet. The city of Drummondville was selected as the nearest community of sufficient size and diversity to provide suitable accommodation, schooling and other amenities. No public transportation existed between Drummondville and the proof establishment at Nicolet. Accordingly, free transportation by bus to the proof establishment was provided for those employees who settled in Drummondville.
2.	No.
3.	Prevailing rate employees are hired through the national employment service, thus local preference would be considered. Promotion of prevailing rate employees is open to employees of the establishment regardless of place of residence. The hiring of classified civil servants is under the control of the civil service commission who by regulations give residence preference as the deciding factor for appointment. The promotion of classified civil servants is open to employees of the establishment regardless of place of residence.
(Translation):


* ANNUAL COST OF CERTAIN POSTAL SERVICES
Mr. Ricard: As of June 15, 1963, what was the annual cost in the cities of Montreal, Lachine and Ottawa of the following services (a) sub post office collections (b) parcel post deliveries (c) express deliveries
(d) mobile mail delivery?


Mr. Denis:: Montreal	Lachine	Ottawa(a)	$412,221.66	$32,076.59	$108,335.88(b)	$770,194.05	$62,616.32	$198,230.70(c)	$230,231.25	$15,339.60	$ 50,142.90(d)	None	$13,611.00	$ 1,812.60
Questions

(Text):


CANADIAN DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE
Mr. Valade: 1.	Has the devaluation of the Canadian dollar contributed to the improvement of Canada's trade with other countries?
2.	Does the government intend to bring about changes in the rate of exchange of the Canadian dollar?


Mr. Benson:: 1. Yes.
2. No.


JET TRAINING CENTRE, PENHOLD, ALTA.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is there under consideration at the present time a proposal to locate a jet training centre at R.C.A.F. station, Penhold, Alberta?
2.	If so, have consultations been held with the Department of Transport to determine whether such a jet training centre for the R.C.A.F. would in any way affect flights by civilian and commercial aircraft along the Edmonton-Calgary flight path?
3.	Have any land expropriations taken place with respect to such a new training centre?


Mr. Hellyer:: 1, 2 and 3. Yes.


RAILROAD WHARF EXTENSION, STJMMERSIDE, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Does the government plan an extension to the railroad wharf in Summerside and, if so, when is it intended to commence construction, and will this extension be ready for this year's potato crop?
2.	Will public tenders be called?
3.	What is the estimated cost of this extension?


Hubert Badanai: 1. No, not at the present time.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


IMPORTS OF BEET SUGAR MACHINERY
Mr. McCuicheon: What is the total value of (a) machinery (b) apparatus and parts (c) structural iron and steel, imported for use by sugar factories engaged in beet-sugar manufacture for the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962?


Mr. Pepin:: (a and b) The total value of imports of "sugar manufacturing machinery- machinery and complete parts, of a class not made in Canada, for the construction and equipment of factories for the manufacture of sugar from beet root or for receiving sugar beets" (import class 5570) for the years 1958 to 1962, was as follows:
Year	Value
1958	$ 290,179
1959	620,147
1960	164,859
1961	301,968
1962	352,607
(c) Not separately classified.


VANCOUVER PORT PLANNING COMMITTEE
Mr. Mather: 1. In 1960, did the Department of Transport establish a Vancouver port planning committee and, if so, what was the function of that committee?

2. Did the committee report to the Department of Transport and, if so, what action is planned by the department in respect to planning the development of Burrard inlet?


George James McIlraith: 1. The Vancouver harbour planning committee was established by the national harbours board on December 3, 1959; its purpose being to review the areas, including land and waterlots, on the foreshores of municipalities bordering the harbour for development of future industrial sites, and for other purposes such as wharves, piers, etc.; to analyse the gravel resources to determine the extent to which present gravel resources would provide fill for contemplated port developments, and to consider the matter of dredging for the deepening and widening of the main channel.
2. The committee, comprised of representatives of the board, the departments of public works, transport, and citizenship and immigration, has submitted its report to the board. This report is of an interdepartmental nature, and is, therefore, a privileged document. However, important proposals submitted by the various organizations have been given extended study, and many of these are finding their way progressively into the estimates of the national harbours board, and others are in the forward planning stage.


WHEAT AND BARLEY SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the total of wheat and barley shipments from Canada to Japan in 1961 and 1962?
2.	What are the prospects for increased wheat and barley shipments from Canada to Japan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Exports of wheat and barley to Japan, 1961 and 1962.
Calendar Year Wheat	Barley

bushels

1961	53,472,366	479,201
1962	43,787,303	

2. Prospects for increased wheat and barley shipments from Canada to Japan appear favourable. The Japanese ministry of agriculture recently estimated that the 1963 wheat crop would be 903,300 tons compared to last year's crop of 1,630,000 tons. The 1963 barley crop was estimated at 501,100 tons compared to 697,000 tons last year. The cause of the decline in production was protracted and excessive rainfall since April. The Canadian wheat board continues to be active in the Japanese market. Two commissioners of the board recently visited the food agency and grain industry officials in Japan and a continuing liaison with this important market is maintained through the Canadian wheat board office in Tokyo.
On the basis of Japanese crop reports the board is hopeful that the quantity of wheat and barley Japan imports on a commercial

basis this coming crop year will increase and the board is confident that Canada will supply a substantial portion of any increased imports.


PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is Hansard printed in both the English and French languages simultaneously and, if not, will steps be taken to effect this policy?
2.	Is Hansard prepared for distribution and distributed in both the English and French languages simultaneously and, if not, will steps be taken to effect this policy?


Yvon Dupuis: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.


HARD SURFACING OF ROAD TO AIR STATION, GIMLI, MAN.
Mr. Siefanson: Did the federal government receive a request from the government of Manitoba to share in the hard surfacing of the road from the town of Gimli to R.C.A.F. station, Gimli, and, if so, in view of the traffic count on this section of the road in comparison with the section leading west from the R.C.A.F. station, what action has been taken on this request?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, in May 1962 the province of Manitoba invited a contribution for rebuilding and surfacing of the Gimli access road but the department was unable to make such a contribution at that time.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, HODGSON, MAN.
Mr. Siefanson: Is it the intention of the government to build a post office this year at Hodgson, Manitoba?


Azellus Denis: No.


SALE OF CANADIAN COMPANIES TO FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
Mr. Winkler: Since April 22, 1963, how many Canadian companies (a) federally incorporated (b) provincially incorporated, have been sold or disposed of in whole or in part to foreign interests or ownership?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Information is not available for period specified.


EXPENDITURES ON BLUEBERRY FARM, CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: Has any amount been expended under ARDA in connection with a blueberry farm at Villebois in the constituency of Chapleau and, if so (a) on what dates were payments made (b) for what purpose were the payments made?


Mr. Beer:: The conduct of the work on this project, under the ARDA general agreement, is the responsibility of the province of Quebec
Questions
No claims have been made by the province, nor any payments made to date by Canada regarding this project.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 824
Mr. Mather:: 1.	When did the Government Annuities Act become effective?
2.	What is the purpose of the act?
3.	What was the total of annuities in force at January 1, 1963?
4.	What is the maximum annuity purchasable by an individual?
5.	Is consideration being given to increasing the maximum amount of an annuity?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The Government Annuities Act became effective in 1908.
2.	The purpose of the act is to promote habits of thrift, and, by providing facilities for the purpose, to encourage systematic voluntary savings for old age. The preamble to the act reads as follows:
Whereas it is in the public interest that habits of thrift be promoted and that the people of Canada be encouraged and aided thereto so that provision be made for old age; and whereas it is expedient that further facilities be afforded for the attaining of the said objectives.
3.	Precise figures as of January 1, 1963, not available. As at March 31, 1963, there were in force 89,616 individual deferred annuity contracts, and 203,742 employees registered under group pension plans. In addition, annuities were being paid under 88,379 matured contracts-total of 381,737 persons covered.
4.	$1,200.
5.	No.


LABOUR TIME LOST
Mr. Maiher: What was the amount of labour time lost due to (a) strikes in Canada during 1962 and (b) accidents or ill health in Canada during the same period?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: (a) There were 311 strikes and lockouts in Canada during 1962. These work stoppages involved 74,332 workers for a total of 1,417,900 man days.
(b) This information is not available.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, WESTVILLE, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Does the government intend to construct a new post offfce at Westville, Nova Scotia, during the fiscal year 1963-64 and, if so, when is it expected that tenders will be called?


Hubert Badanai: No. While the present federal building is over 50 years old, it is still functional and satisfactory to the Post Office Department.

Questions
(Translation):


N.H.A. LOANS, CONSTITUENCY OF VILLENEUVE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 836
Mr. Caouelle:: What is the total amount of the loans made by
C.M.H.C. in the constituency of Villeneuve during the past year, and how many houses was it possible to build as a result of these loans?


Mr. Garland:: 
Mr. Muir Lisgar): What is the estimated amount that will be paid to the farmers in each of the provinces during the fiscal year 1953-64 as a result of the 141 cent subsidy per pound of butter fat?


Bruce Silas Beer: The estimated amount that will be paid to farmers in each of the provinces during the fiscal year 1963-64 as a result of the 14i cent subsidy per pound of butter fat is as follows:
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia


$ 600,000 300.000 700.000 16,000,000 12,000,000 2.900.000 3,000,000 4.200.000 300.000 SALE OF OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, PETROLIA, ONT.
Mr. McCulcheon: 1.	Has the government received any offers to purchase the old post office in Petrolia, Ontario?
2.	Are any negotiations under way at the present time for sale of the building?
3.	Does the government have an asking price and, if so, how much?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Crown Assets Disposal Corporation proposes to accept the highest offer received amounting to $3,150.


* FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT OF TERENCE A. REID
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	Is the Terence A. Reid referred to in the Ottawa Citizen of July 4, 1963, as "the executive assistant to former forestry minister Martial Asselin" still in the employ of the government of Canada and, if not, when were his services terminated, and for what reason?
2.	What was his background and experience prior to employment by the government?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. No. His services were terminated by the government on June 10, 1963. One reason for termination of his services on June 10 was the appointment by me of a new executive assistant on June 7. There were other reasons.
2. Background and experience, Terence A. Reid:
(1)	Education:	Pickering College, Newmarket, Ont., Matriculation, 1944. University of Wisconsin-journalism, 1 year certificate course 1946-47.(2)	Service:	Canadian merchant navy,
1944-45; Canadian army, 1949-52, honourable discharge.
(3)	Experience: Prior to 1949, Bank of Nova Scotia, Vancouver. 1952-56: Reid and Associates (public relations), Edmonton, Alta.
1959-	62: Executive assistant to Hon. Allan Grossman, chairman, Ontario liquor control board. Information officer with department of highways (Ontario), and assistant to Hon. F. M. Cass, minister of highways. 1962-63: October 1, 1962, executive assistant to Hon. Hugh John Flemming, minister of forestry. March 18 to April 21, 1963, executive assistant to Hon. Martial Asselin, minister of forestry.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	What was the total amount spent in public works for the constituency of Pontiac-Temisca-mingue for each of the fiscal years 1958-59, 1959-60,
1960-	61, 1961-62, and 1962-63?
2.	For what public works were these sums expended, giving for each fiscal year the amount spent on each individual project?
3.	What is the total amount to be spent for public works within the said constituency for the fiscal year 1963-64, giving for each project the nature of same and the sum to be spent thereupon?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader ol
the Opposition): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him if he has anything to advise the house with regard to the prospective date upon which the report of Mr. Justice Norris with regard to union activities may be received.
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: On several occasions I have indicated to the house that I expected to receive the report within a short time. My forecasts proved to be inaccurate. However, I do expect that this report will be available next week, and I hope this forecast will prove accurate.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the importance which broadcasting has assumed in our national life, will the government give favourable consideration to setting up at this session of parliament a special select committee of the House of Commons on broadcasting?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: I am grateful to the hon. member for having sent me notice of this question. I am sure that he, as well as other hon. members will realize that this is a question of great importance, and I would not like to reply to it without consultation with the Prime Minister.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister? Following the information given last Friday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the effect that there are in his department 319 French Canadian employees out of a total of 3,690, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if he feels that is enough to enable the French Canadians to become interested and take part in the administration of public affairs?
(Text):


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall not attempt to answer the question asked by the hon. member, but I 28902-5-122
Inquiries of the Ministry would draw his attention to the correction I made in Hansard on Friday, reported at page 1905.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? I find, on the said page, that there are 318 employees out of a total of 1,860. When the figures are corrected the ratio is 15 per cent; therefore, I want to ask the same question of the Acting Prime Minister. Does he feel that it is an adequate proportion to enable the French Canadians to take part in public affairs and to become really interested?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the great importance of the question but not its extreme urgency. May I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have already put questions on the order paper but they remain unanswered.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. It has to do with yesterday's statement by the President of the Privy Council. The latter stated that the delays noted during this session apparently prevented the government from submitting legislation with regard to loans to municipalities. I am now asking the Acting Prime Minister whether we should infer that, as a concession to Mr. Lesage, the government agreed not to introduce the municipal aid bill during the current session, but to wait until after the interprovincial conference scheduled for August in Halifax?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers concerns a televised statement. I did not hear the minister's speech and 1 should consult him before replying. At any rate, I think that what he implied-i.e. that more frequent consultations with the provinces were necessary-if that is the meaning of that statement-is quite commendable.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the President of the Privy Council the same question, inasmuch as he is the one who made that statement? Could he tell us
1922	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether the government agreed to Mr. Lesage's suggestion to defer discussing the legislation.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to my hon. friend that if he is patient for a few more days, he will receive a very clear answer to his question.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister whether he made this statement or not?


Maurice Lamontagne: Which one, Mr. Speaker?


Léon Balcer: The statement I just read out.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting into certain qualifications with regard to debating a question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A question of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation):


Mr.   L.-J. Pigeon@Jolieile-L'Assompfion-Montcalm: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion, the question of the hon. member for Three Rivers is very clear and, moreover, Mr. Lesage has not yet received a reply to the letter he sent several days ago.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the minister may or may not wish to answer.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the newspapers reported a few weeks ago that Mr. Lesage was to meet the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) some time soon, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the meeting has been put off because of the refusal of the Prime Minister to postpone the study of the proposal concerning assistance to municipalities, the refusal of the Minister of Finance to withdraw his 11 per cent tax on building materials and the refusal of the federal government to defer the legislation concerning pensions?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is completely out of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my question should be addressed to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State. However, I think I would choose the Secretary of State. In the light of the fact that the speech from the throne proposed that the standing committee on privileges and elections review the Canada Elections Act, and in view of the fact that this committee has now been constituted, is it proposed to make a motion referring this matter to the committee at an early date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I received the hon. gentleman's notice of his question at the moment I was revising a draft of a motion to put on the order paper today precisely for that purpose. If I could have unanimous agreement to take it up at the opening of the day tomorrow and be assured that it would go through without debate, I would be only too happy to get the committee started tomorrow, because the matter is urgent.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether, in view of the meeting held on Friday, May 24 in Washington between himself and the United States secretary of labour, with Mr. Jodoin and Mr. Meany also present, when it was decided that another meeting might be convened to delve into the great lakes labour dispute, the minister could tell us now if such a meeting has been found necessary.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by my hon. friend I should like to tell him that last week I had the chance to meet the secretary of labour, Mr. Wirtz, in Chicago, and at that time we reviewed the continuing difficult situation. It was agreed that following the delivery of the Norris report we would consider the possibility of convening the meeting which recessed on the date mentioned by my hon. friend.

(Translation):



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TOWARD WAGES OF OLDER UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any application in connection with the government's announcement that it would pay up to 50 per cent of the salary of people of 45 and over who have been out of work for six months during the past nine months? Has any Canadian employer submitted an application in that respect?
(Text):


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have received no applications directly. I do not believe the Department of Labour has received applications, but I will make inquiries.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question of current and consequential national importance to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Acting Prime Minister received a telegram from the secretary of the Columbia river conference held in the Hotel Vancouver on June 26-this was a conference of numerous trade unions-urging the government to make it possible for Canadians who so desire to present their views on the Columbia river development to a parliamentary committee before renegotiations commence with the government of the United States? If so, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the house of his response to this request?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this telegram has just been brought to my attention. It is signed by two individuals who have given no address, and the office of the Prime Minister is trying to locate the address in order to prepare a suitable reply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am willing to assist.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will send me their address it may be that we can submit a reply, but I should not like to give the reply until such time as I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the Prime Minister.
28902-5-1224
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the order effective today cancelling shipping orders for wheat from a large number of country elevators in Saskatchewan. I realize that this action may help to put other elevators on a 12 bushel quota, but does it also indicate that elevators denied shipping orders will be left with their bins full of wheat when harvesting of the new crop starts next month? Does this mean that with a record harvest in prospect farmers will have to farm store their wheat-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Ernest Pascoe: -by building more granaries on which they will have to pay the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials imposed by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely that is a question for the order paper.


James Ernest Pascoe: This question concerns an order effective today, with all respect.


An hon. Member:: It is urgent, very urgent. (Translation):



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-
Monlcalm): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Since the session is now several weeks old, has the minister found time to examine the voluminous file on lotteries? Could he tell the house whether the government has decided to amend the Criminal Code to enable the provinces which would like to have lotteries, to hold them?
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed examined the voluminous file on lotteries of which my hon. friend is speaking about and I noticed that during the six years that the hon. member's party was in power, it did not take any decision on that issue. I hope it will be possible for me to make certain representations in due time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? During the last election campaign, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) promised, on behalf of his party, that should the latter come to power, the
1924	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Criminal Code would be amended, does the hon. member for Dollard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Public Works said last week that any statement concerning the world fair would be made to this house rather than to the press I wonder if, because of the week-end events, the minister might follow up the news published by the press with an announcement directed to the House of Commons?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, circumstances have not allowed us to postpone until today that announcement which was made inside the parliament buildings last Saturday, and which was broadcast on television and published in Canadian newspapers.
On the other hand, if the hon. member is not quite familiar with the situation, I shall be pleased to supply him with detailed information.
He remembers no doubt that we received only on Thursday and Friday, June 27 and 28, 1963, the reports from the engineers of the city of Montreal, as well as the official request from the Montreal authorities to proceed with the work. This means that we were able to study the voluminous reports within a week and to arrive at a decision, which was no easy task. That is why we had arranged to meet with the parties concerned in Montreal on Saturday, July 6.
Following the statement of the mayor of Montreal that, in his opinion, such a meeting would serve no useful purpose, we decided that this meeting was not only useful but also urgent, and I feel that the events justified our position in that respect.
Therefore, we invited the mayor of Montreal to come to Ottawa on Friday, July 5, with his engineers, and he complied with our request. The engineers discussed some of the difficulties among themselves and, at the end of those meetings, we found out that we could come to an understanding.
The hon. member gives me an opportunity at this stage to say that we succeeded on two very important points.
First, our engineers had opposed the construction of a breakwater as suggested by the authorities of the city of Montreal, because they thought that such works were not adequate to withstand the pressure exerted by the ice in the Laprairie basin. And since that


construction was necessary to prevent flooding in the Montreal harbour, the federal government judged proper to assume the responsibility of the construction of a breakwater of the type and nature suggested by our engineers.
The second important point we won and which was not mentioned in the city of Montreal engineers' report, is the fact that the engineers from four departments of the federal government, namely the public works department, the transport department, the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and the national harbours board, will assist the engineers of the city of Montreal and, if necessary, will revise their plans, exactly as was done with much success for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I hope that my hon. friends of the official opposition will share our satisfaction to see that this world exhibition has now been launched and that it will be a great success, not only for the city of Montreal, but for the country as a whole because that venture is of interest to the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, let me tell my hon. friends that the events have shown that this meeting was not only useful but also urgent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us why Mr. Bienvenu did not attend this meeting?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I had invited the provincial secretary, Mr. Gerard Levesque, as well as Mr. Bienvenu and Mr. Carsley to the meeting which was to be held in Montreal on Saturday and was convened for the purpose of trying to assess the difficulties facing the two engineering groups. At the end of the Friday meeting, we found that an agreement could be reached and I can say to my hon. friends that the provincial minister and Mr. Bienvenu have been informed of what took place on Friday and Saturday. I do hope that they will be as pleased as we are with the results achieved.
(Text):



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the increasing concentration of the control of news

gathering and news disseminating media, will the government give favourable consideration to the establishment of a royal commission to investigate where this control lies and whether it is being exercised in the public interest?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having sent me notice of this question but I must say in response, as I said in reply to his earlier question, that this is a matter about which I would have to consult the Prime Minister. Royal commissions are established on his recommendation, and I cannot give a reply until I have discussed the matter with him.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the government in its revamping of the budget take into due consideration the taxation of components and building materials used by manufacturers building truck and van bodies, in order that this important Canadian industry may maintain its present national and continental competitive position?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO EMPLOYMENT OF OUTSIDE ASSISTANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre:) Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he say whether Mr. Stanley, Dr. O'Connell and Mr. Conway are still attached in any way to the Department of Finance?
Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker. I should perhaps add that Mr. Conway is working for the royal commission on taxation.



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FURTHER BUDGETARY STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder if I may be permitted a question of an anticipatory nature to the Secretary of State in his capacity as house leader. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance will be making a statement this evening
Inquiries of the Ministry of a budgetary nature, can he tell us whether he has investigated the constitutional aspects of the proposed statement in order to assure us that the statement contains no affront to parliament which has already voted on the original budget proposals and which has not authorized or been consulted in regard to any deviation therefrom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I can say is there was an order of the house made by unanimous consent to permit this, and I presume that the house having made a decision, no hon. member can open that decision again.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. My question does not deal with permission to make the statement; it deals with the constitutional and legal aspects. I want to know if the minister can give any assurance that there will be no affront to parliament in the statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe it is a rule of this house that a point of order must be raised at the time something occurs, and not in anticipation. The hon. gentleman will simply have to wait and see whether in his opinion there is anything that he wants to call into question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question relates to the pay increases that have not yet been received by postmen and other employees in the public service, and employees of the House of Commons. My question is very simple. When, oh when will these pay increases come through?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I was working on that problem this morning and I expect the cabinet will be working on it during the week. I am not in a position to give an exact date when an announcement will be made.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the conflicting reports now prevalent throughout the country, can the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry advise the house what the target date is for the $10 increase to old age pensioners as promised in the last election?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this being a matter of government policy my friend will appreciate that it will be announced at the instance of the government when it is decided that the announcement should be made public.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalullipe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell the house at what stage are the negotiations respecting Canadians working in the states of Maine and Vermont, in the United States? We should like to know if they will soon benefit from unemployment insurance in Canada?
(Text) :


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend realizes that these negotiations between Canada and the state of Maine with respect to unemployment insurance benefits for a certain category of Canadian workmen have been going on for about 20 years. I have looked into this matter and have found that negotiations still prove to be difficult, but we are now considering whether there may be another way that can be advanced to resolve the problem and thereby bring these benefits to this class of Canadian workers.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the $500 payment on houses built during the winter months, which was announced by the Minister of Labour on June 10, apply to homes built under the terms of the Veterans Land Act?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sending me a copy of his question.


An hon. Member:: A staged question.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: You know about stages. I am pleased to inform the hon. member and the house that homes built under the Veterans Land Act do qualify for the $500 winter


bonus when their construction conforms to the requirements of the program.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Can the minister inform the house if the 11 per cent tax also applies to veterans houses?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries. A week or so ago the minister announced his intention of convening a federal-provincial conference on fishing industry welfare. At that time he said he was not sure or he did not know whether representatives of the industry, aside from the governments, would be invited to participate. My question today is, can the minister say whether these representatives will be invited as well as the representatives of the governments concerned?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: In reply to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. No decision has been reached concerning inviting representatives of the fishing industry to the federal-provincial conference. This matter will be decided later on, as the meeting will not be called before late fall or early in the new year.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Postmaster General a question he was fond of asking when he sat in the opposition.
What steps does the minister intend to take to prevent huge robberies such as the one which took place in Ascot Corner, where $40,000 were stolen from a mail truck?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I must say the present government has not yet succeeded in convincing bandits to change the habits they acquired under the previous regime.
The moment I was informed of that armed robbery, I instructed the postal authorities to get in touch with the banks in order to find out how to transport cash in mail trucks, which used to tempt bandits in the past as it did this first time under the present regime. So, the postal authorities are in touch with

the banks to try and find a way, if possible, to put a stop to those armed robberies, something which the previous administration was unable to do.
(Text):



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena asked me about articles in the French language in a publication of the national museum of Canada. I can assure the hon. member that as an aid to scientific reference and cataloguing, museum publications will in future include abstracts of scientific articles in the other official language. This could not be done with "Contributions to Anthropology 1960", but the practice will be followed in the future.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me a question, as reported on pages 590 and 591 of Hansard for June 3, 1963, concerning the discharge of a young man from the R.C.A.F. on the grounds he is a bad security risk. I have the answer here. It is fairly lengthy, and I wonder if I could obtain permission of the house to table the answer and have it appear in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: text of the answer referred to is as follows:]
I would like at this time to make reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and recorded on pages 590-91 of Hansard for June 3, 1963, concerning the discharge of a young man from the R.C.A.F. on the grounds that he was a bad security risk.
2.	In view of the periodic reviews to which this matter has been subjected, I feel sure that this is the case to which he refers.
3.	On May 7, 1948, the R.C.M.P. were requested by the R.C.A.F. to conduct a security check on this young man, who was being considered for secret duties with the air force. Again, on December 6, 1949, they were requested to conduct an S.A. clearance on
Inquiries of the Ministry behalf of the N.R.C., with whom this young man had applied for a position, whilst still employed in the R.C.A.F.
4.	The type of security clearance required in the second case, called for a high level field investigation.
5.	Field investigation of this subject revealed that a communist organizational meeting had been held on his father's farm in 1937. Subsequently, however, after representation had been made on this young man's behalf, additional information came to light which corroborated the original findings in this case.
6.	In 1950, as a result of representations made on this man's behalf, the superior of the college from which the young man had been expelled informed the R.C.M.P. that in 1936 he had had occasion to recommend the young man for summer employment. This recommendation resulted in the superior being censored by a minister of the Saskatchewan government, who produced a newspaper clipping which reported that the young man had chaired a communist meeting in Regina the previous night. The young man, when summoned by the superior, to explain the report, admitted among other things that the report was true. Expulsion followed.
7.	In addition, the young man involved then corresponded through the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with Hon. Stuart Gar-son. In his statement to the minister of justice the airman admitted "youthful indiscretions" at the age of 18 and approximately 20, and went so far as to identify three men who had visited his home as "farm union organizers". The men he identified were well known as prominent communists of that day, two of whom are currently active in the communist party of Canada. The first man was provincial secretary of the communist party in Saskatchewan, the second was also a member of the provincial committee of the communist party of Canada in Saskatchewan, whilst the third was a member of the Regina district committee of the communist party of Canada in Saskatchewan.
8.	The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in correspondence with Hon. Brooke Claxton, minister of national defence in 1950, stated that the young man had been duped into attending a three day conference in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1937 of a communist front organization known as the league for Spanish democracy and that his name had subsequently got on the mailing list of this organization, causing him to receive literature and further invitations. This information was unknown to the R.C.M.P. at the time and was volunteered by Mr. Douglas.
9.	Again in 1950, in correspondence with Hon. Stuart Garson, the hon. member for

Inquiries of the Ministry Burnaby-Coquitlam stated that the young man had been duped into attending some communist meetings in 1937 and 1938, under the pretence they were going to help the loyalist government in Spain.
10.	With the investigation continuing, the superior of the young man's ex college was again interviewed and he reported that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had informed him that he had personally interviewed the young man and had demanded of him why he had not mentioned his association with a particular man and the recruiting of persons for the Spanish civil war.
11.	The man referred to was a well known self admitted communist, and head of the communist "Friends of MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion" and section organizer of the communist party of Canada, Shaunavon district.
12.	The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has also made reference in the house to a photostatic copy of a letter which he possesses dispatched to the then minister of justice by the reverend father in charge of the school. I too am in possession of such a copy, and if my hon. friend will refer back to the letter he will discover that while pleading for the government to reinstate this man in the R.C.A.F., the reverend father includes the sentence "not in his old post of course".
13.	My hon. friend has alleged that the R.C.M.P. in this instance have confused communist activities with legitimate C.C.F. activities, and that as a result of their having misconstrued this information the young man has lost employment three times, his employer being informed inside of a month that this man is a bad security risk, and has been reduced to selling door to door in order to earn a living, meanwhile nursing an ulcer from worry and tension.
14.	However, according to our information the young man was not expelled from his college for C.C.F. activities, although two other students were expelled for this reason a year earlier, and the cases may have become confused. Again, the young man far from being hounded from job to job and being forced to sell from door to door has been apparently happily employed for the past 11 years with a provincial government. Finally, the principal of the college has not, as alleged by my hon. friend, cleared this man completely, but maintains his original stand.
15.	In summarizing governmental action in this matter, I must stress that the representations made on this young man's behalf have previously been considered by Hon. Brooke Claxton and by the Hon. Stuart Garson, while Mr. M. J. Coldwell acting on behalf
[Mr. Chevrier.l
of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has seen a summary of the information on file. In addition, the hon. gentleman who has raised this matter will recall, I'm sure, participating in a conference with ex-commissioner S. T. Wood and justice minister Gar-son on this subject.
16.	It will be seen therefore that this matter has received a great deal of attention over the years, based upon the representation of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
17.	This is a case where information as known to the R.C.M.P. was passed to the R.C.A.F. and N.R.C. who decided to take certain action. In the periodic reviews, additional information has been gathered to support that originally supplied. The information indicates that this is not a case of mixing up communist activities with legitimate C.C.F. activities, as alleged by the hon. member.
18.	Under all these circumstances I do not feel that the question of security risk in this case could have been resolved in any other way except in favour of the government.
19.	I hope that once and for all we can close this case and accept the word of the young man himself, who it is alleged does not want to become a "cause" and who wishes to remain happily in the job where he has been employed for 11 years. Any more publicity in this matter, instead of assisting the young man to settle down, could possibly disrupt the career which he has made for himself, since being discharged from the R.C.A.F. some 13 years ago,
20.	Finally I should like to say that this case has been exhaustively reviewed on a number of occasions by at least two former ministers of justice. We all share the objection of the hon. member to the thought of injustice in any such case and are seeking all possible ways to avoid it, but I am satisfied there was no injustice in this case, having regard to the legitimate interests of security. Under these circumstances I feel the matter should now be considered closed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether the French government has requested that Canadian planes be removed from French soil in the event that they are equipped with nuclear weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to answer the question my hon. friend has put, of which he gave me notice, but I cannot because it is hypothetical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the French government asked the Canadian government to remove Canadian planes from French soil?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On Friday last the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me a question in connection with a situation prevailing between Canadian National Railways and the brotherhood of railway trainmen. I should like to deal with that question and tell the hon. member that I am advised that if the Canadian National Railways is considered to have unilaterally altered conditions of employment during the lifetime of an existing agreement, and such alteration of conditions is regarded as a breach of the agreement, then the question should be submitted to arbitration as provided under the governing collective agreement. Otherwise an employer is free to alter working conditions except where a notice to bargain has been served pursuant to section 14 or 15 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and pending the completion of conciliation board proceedings. I may add, however, that this latter condition does not apply to the situation referred to by the hon. member.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Arthur Laing: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act and to rename the said territories, and to effect certain consequential changes in the statute law with respect thereto, inter alia to increase the number of elected members of the council of the territory from four to five, to establish a separate territorial revenue fund and to provide for the transfer thereto of a portion of the amount standing to the credit of the Northwest Territories revenue account in the consolidated revenue fund upon the coming into force of the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, in rising to introduce this resolution on the amendments to the Northwest Territories Act I hope you will not find me out of order if I also refer in passing to the resolution respecting the establishment of Nunassiaq territory, which stands
28902-5-123
Northwest Territories Act as No. 7 on the order paper. As hon. members will understand, the two measures are very closely interrelated and they contemplate the division of the present Northwest Territories to make two new territories, the one on the west to be called Mackenzie, and the one on the east and far north to be called Nunassiaq.
At this point I would like to warn those who from time to time have indicated that they would prefer another name, that the name Nunassiaq was selected by the residents of that area, and it is the Eskimo name for "Beautiful Land."
On the mainland the dividing line between the territories will be the 105th meridian, which is roughly two thirds of the way from the Yukon boundary to Hudson bay. Mackenzie territory will also include Banks and Victoria islands, which are closely associated with the western mainland. The other islands of the Canadian Arctic will form part of Nunassiaq.
The legislation also provides for an elected majority on the council of Mackenzie territory, and for other changes which will have the effect of increasing the control exercised by the people of the present Mackenzie district over their own affairs.
We will later be considering the Nunassiaq resolution and bill, and at this stage I would only say that the legislation for Nunassiaq also contemplates increased local participation in government in accordance with the circumstances of that area.
In order to put this legislation in perspective I think it would be useful for me to review very briefly the history of territorial government in Canada. Almost since confederation the federal government has had to provide for the administration of very large areas on our frontiers. Although perhaps it is not generally recognized, we in Canada have a good deal of experience and have established our own practice in dealing with these questions. Various experiments have been tried over the years since 1869; some have been more successful than others. From the beginning, however, three fields consistently reappear.
The first thing is the recognition of a federal responsibility for these areas of great expanse and small population. The federal government has always accepted the role of a trustee, both for the people of all Canada who own the land and resources, and for the future residents of these areas, who will take over responsibility for them when the population has grown to the point where even provincial status can be contemplated.
The second thing has been a steady devolution of authority to local or territorial agencies as the population grows and substantial, settled communities develop. This

Northwest Territories Act pattern can be seen in the old North-West Territories after 1875, in the Yukon Territory early in this century, and in the present Northwest Territories over the past 15 years.
Finally it has been accepted that the forms of government should, as far as possible, accord with that British constitutional practice which is represented in our own parliament and government. In the present Northwest Territories, as in the old North-West Territories, there has been an attempt to recognize interdependence of the executive and the legislature. The amendments to the Yukon Act, which were passed in this house just three years ago, also reflect this accepted tradition.
The present Northwest Territories are what was left over from the old North-West Territories when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were established in 1905 and the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec were enlarged to their present size in 1912.
The first large influx of population into the territories did not occur until gold was discovered at Yellowknife in the 1930's. In Yellowknife there was apparently some considerable and understandable dissatisfaction with the Ottawa council, but the war intervened and no changes were made at that time.
Developments after the war were reflected by substantial changes in the membership of the Northwest Territories council and in its activities. The first resident of the Northwest Territories was appointed to the council in 1946, and in 1951 the interests of people living in the territories were recognized when federal legislation provided for the election of three representatives from constituencies in the Mackenzie district. In 1954 the number of elected members was raised to four, continuing to provide representation for all the district of Mackenzie, but not for Keewatin or Franklin.
Many hon. members will be aware of the increasing activity of the Northwest Territories council since that time. The legislative fabric of the territories has been largely overhauled. Revised ordinances of the territories were published in 1956 to bring up to date the old body of laws which had been inherited from the North-West Territories of 1905. A conscious effort has been made, and today is substantially complete, to put the legislative, financial and administrative arrangements for government of the territories on a basis that would lend itself over the years to a smooth evolution toward provincial status. The present bill is a further step in that evolution.
The present legislation reflects a formal resolution of the Northwest Territories council which carries the support both of elected and

appointed members. The resolution was forwarded to the federal government following the council session in January 1962, and was accepted in principle by the government of that time.
With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would like to table the resolution, since the legislation before us is designed to reflect the recommendations contained in it. I suggest that this resolution is so important to the matter we are discussing that I would like to have the consent of the house to have it printed in Hansard.


The Chairman:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The resolution above referred to is as follows:]



RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW TERRITORIES IN THE NORTH

[Stage Direction]
Whereas the construction and improvement of transportation facilities and increasing activity in the exploration for and development of mineral and petroleum resources in the Northwest Territories are bringing about rapid growth and change especially in the western portion of the district of Mackenzie:
And whereas such development and growth is likely to continue, probably at an accelerated pace in future years, bringing with it a larger population and the development of new towns and communities;
And whereas it is increasingly desirable, in the light of these conditions, to have a territorial government and administration in closer touch with the area and its people so that it may be more responsive to the needs of the changing situation;
And whereas in past years the achievement of a closer relationship of the government to the regions and the people of the north has necessarily been made difficult by the great size of the Northwest Territories and a close relationship is especially important because of the diversity of conditions within the area, which must be considered by a territorial government and reflected in legislation, policy and administration;
And whereas there would continue to be a problem in achieving a sufficiently close relationship if there were only a single territorial government for the entire area;
And whereas the western region of the territories is a natural economic and social entity, which is now capable of more rapid development towards responsible government than the eastern and far northern regions;
And whereas laws and policies which are necessary or desirable in some parts of the territories may be inappropriate for other parts;
And whereas the council of the Northwest Territories, after extensive consideration of these questions, has reached the conclusion that the good government of the territories would be facilitated, and the interests of the residents advanced, by certain changes;
Therefore, the council of the Northwest Territories resolves that the commissioner request the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to recommend to the government of Canada that legislation be placed before the parliament of Canada to establish two new territories to replace the present Northwest Territories;
And further that, in the preparation of the legislation, the government of Canada be requested

to consider the recommendations ol the council on the boundaries, form of government, and other matters respecting the two new territories, as follows:
A.	With respect to both new territories:
(1)	that one of the new territories, to be called the territory of Mackenzie, should comprise that part of the mainland of the present Northwest Territories and associated islands lying west of the 105th meridian of longitude, together with Banks and Victoria islands, and that the other territory should comprise the remainder of the Northwest Territories;
(2)	that there should be provision for a commissioner and council for each of the new territories, with powers and responsibilities essentially similar to the present powers and responsibilities of the commissioner and council of the Northwest Territories;
(3)	that as in the immediate future neither territory will be able to meet the costs of government entirely from local taxation, appropriate financial arrangements should be made on the pattern established by the financial agreement recently approved by the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories;
(4)	that, in order to provide adequate time for the orderly transfer of business and for legal, administrative and other measures necessary for the two territories and for the establishment of new constituencies in the territory of Mackenzie, the federal legislation should be timed to enable the new territories to come into existence during 1964.
B.	With respect to Mackenzie territory:
(1)	that the council should consist of nine members of whom initially five should be residents of the territory elected by the residents of the territory, and four should be non-residents appointed by his excellency the governor general in council to provide experience and knowledge of administration, business and other affairs that may not be readily available within the territory;
(2)	that the seat of government should be within the territory, and that the commissioner should be resident there.
C.	With respect to the other new territory:
(1)	that a name of Eskimo origin should, if possible, be chosen, for which the council of the Northwest Territories hopes to be able to make a recommendation following its next meeting at Cape Dorset in Baffin island;
(2)	that the council should comprise seven members including, in addition to a deputy commissioner, three residents of the territory and three non-residents;
(3)	that, at the outset, because of the sparsity of population and the at present limited understanding of government processes by a large majority of the people, all members of the council should be appointed by his excellency the governor general in council, but that the resident members should be elected by residents of the territory as soon as it becomes practicable to establish constituencies;
(4)	that there be no restriction, preference or provision of any kind with regard to racial origin in connection with election or appointment, and that all members of the council should, as in the past, act in the best interests of all residents of the territory;
(5)	that, without derogating from the foregoing, until such time as all resident members are elected by the people of the territory it would be desirable for one or more of the members, either appointed or elected, to be of Eskimo origin;
(6)	that resident members, whether elected or appointed, should be paid a suitable indemnity;
(7)	that the seat of government of the territory should, for the time being, remain at Ottawa and
28902-5-123i
Northwest Territories Act the commissioner should be an officer of the department of northern affairs and thus in a position to co-ordinate the policies of the territorial administration in relation to the people of the territory generally with the special federal responsibilities and policies concerning the Eskimo people who will constitute the majority of the population of the new territory, at least in its early years.
Arthur Laing: As far as Mackenzie territory is concerned, the council recommended the boundaries which I mentioned earlier, and suggested a form of government similar in most respects to the present government of the Northwest Territories. For this new territory they suggested that the council should consist of nine members, of whom initially five should be residents of the territory, elected by the residents of the territory, and four should be non-residents appointed by his excellency the governor general in council. They further asked that the seat of government should be within the territory, and that the commissioner should be resident there.
It seems unnecessary for me at this resolution stage to enlarge at length on the council's statement. The plain fact is that the present Northwest Territories are so large and so diverse that it is exceedingly difficult for one government adequately to look after the needs of all the people. Frobisher Bay on Baffin island is as close to the United Kingdom as it is to the Yukon-Northwest Territories boundary. It is as far from the 60th parallel to the northernmost part of the territories as it is from here to New Orleans.
Beyond this, the people of the Mackenzie district have for many years been dissatisfied with the fact that the seat of government of the territories is in Ottawa. This resentment reflects not only a commendable measure of local assurance but also the difficulty which they have experienced in doing business with a government so far away. They feel, and I am sure every hon. member would agree, that they would be better served by a government which had its headquarters in the territories where it could remain in closer touch with local conditions and local needs.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in the populated Mackenzie district we have found over half the population is living in the five settlements of Fort Simpson, Fort Smith, Hay River, Inu-vik and Yellowknife. A total of 8,000 of the population of 16,000 live in these five communities, which indicates that in the vast expanses of the north country there is seemingly a move toward urbanization, as there is in the rest of Canada. This indicates the necessity of having government in the area because, in the type of services required in

Northwest Territories Act these communities and the amenities attendant thereto, the people feel it is important they have authorities living there who can make decisions instead of authorities who come from Ottawa to make decisions.
The division of the territories is a prerequisite to the establishment of a resident commissioner and seat of government in the Mackenzie district. The seat of government is now in Ottawa simply because it is easier to reach any part of the territories from there than it is from any centre within the territories. Unless the territories are divided, the costs of operating a resident government would be exceedingly high, and it would be very difficult indeed for such a government adequately to reflect the needs and wishes of all the people throughout this vast area.
On second reading of the bill there will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss in more detail the considerations which led the council to frame their recommendation and which led both the present federal government and its predecessor to accept it. Hon. members will be better able to discuss these questions when they have the text of the bill before them. Accordingly I do not propose to deal with them in greater detail at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make some personal observations because it was my good fortune, in spite of the circumstances under which I went there, to visit Hay River and Fort Simpson at the time of the devastating flood. I am going to say that I found among the people there a mixture of very great responsibility and indomitable courage. I am quite certain those people possess these qualities because they are living there, and I think if they did not possess these qualities they would not be living there. I think the point has now been reached when we can say, though we keep the reservation always that the national government of Canada will have to assist those territories in the future as they have in the past, that the time has arrived to give them the maximum possible amount of self-government. The legislation which we propose as a result of this resolution will be a move in that direction.
We are discussing today, Mr. Chairman, not the bill itself but the resolution, which provides "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act". I suggest to you, sir, that it is reasonable and proper for this house to give full and sympathetic consideration to the considered recommendations of the Northwest Territories council, which represents in its membership the people who will be most immediately affected by this measure and to which parliament has delegated much of our
[Mr. Laing.l
responsibility to make laws for the government of the northern reaches of Canada.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question just before he concludes his remarks, if that is permissible. Did I understand the minister to say, or to imply at least, that even with the establishment of the new territory of Nunassiaq there will still be some parts of that area which will be administered directly from Ottawa and will not be covered by the territories council?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, probably this is a matter which might better be discussed on second reading, but I would like to tell the hon. member that substantially speaking the effect of the two bills, if they pass the house, will be to extend the type of government that we at present have in the Yukon to the Mackenzie, and to place Nunassiaq in the position where the Northwest Territories was before. There would be a minority of elected members in Nunassiaq but a majority of elected members in Mackenzie.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the resolution which has been brought before the house provides an opportunity for the discussion of northern affairs. It is some time since the house or a committee of the house had an opportunity to examine in some detail the developments that have taken place in the north, the area north of the 60th parallel. I think this occasion provides the ideal opportunity for such a widespread discussion, inasmuch as it is a proposal which contemplates legislation that is forthcoming largely because of the changes that have taken place in the north during recent years. There has been a tremendous upsurge of development. In other words, it is possible to say that at long last the north has come into its own and is now recognized as an integral part of Canada.
A northern development policy was deliberately embarked upon by the former administration. One of the first proposals which gave rise to the resolution which we have before the committee came from the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, who right from the outset of his administration indicated that he was fully aware of the necessity of Canada occupying this vast territory in her frontier. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was prime minister visiting the Northwest Territories back in July of 1961, appeared before the Northwest Territories council which at that time was in session. In his remarks to the council he included the following words:
I was particularly interested in one view that you expressed:

That was referring to a view that had been expressed by the council:
More and more the council believes that to a greater extent than ever before, self-government should be made available to the people in the north, and I'll join with you in that. Already the field has greatly widened the responsibilities of the council, and I can assure you of this fact: that having seen at first hand something of the achievements of the past, something of the things that have already been done, anything that you may suggest-and the members of the council-to increasing the field of your responsibility, and also providing, to a measure not before known, of selfgovernment, will receive my warmest approval and support.
Mr. Chairman, that was one of the early formal statements made on the matter. As I look back in the records I find that as early as April 1958, under the then minister of northern affairs and national resources, the present hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and the then prime minister, the main thesis deriving from the program of northern development that had been already launched at that early period in the new administration's activities was the necessity of granting greater local government and autonomy to the areas north of the 60th parallel.
I pay this tribute to the Leader of the Opposition because not everyone agreed with him that the time had come and was ripe for accepting Canada's heritage in every respect in these million and a half square miles which we now know constitute a part of Canada's rich heritage. He was the first prime minister to travel extensively north of the 60th parallel. That was necessitated because of the many official openings that took place in the north, the completion of the microwave network system of communications, the opening of roads to resources, the opening of the new townsite of Inuvik and the other activities that have been going on during recent years.
But as I say, this has not always been the viewpoint of many in this House of Commons or many across the country; there was considerable resistance when it was first put forward. It is obvious today in this house, on the part of the new government and all hon. members of the house, that there is common agreement that the time has come for a major forward step in recognizing the role played by the Northwest Territories in our system of confederation. This is a far cry from the days when the policy of the former administration was criticized in a rather flippant way as being a policy of building roads from igloo to igloo, and other observations to the effect that it was the result of a distorted or blurred vision. That vision has more than justified itself, and it bears out the truth of the scriptural injunction that where there is no vision the people perish.
Northwest Territories Act


Mr. Maiheson:: Was not the recommendation contained in the Gordon report in 1956?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In referring to the vision of northern development and the criticism which was directed against it, I am merely drawing attention to the fact that the program of northern development was put forward in the face of considerable opposition both in this house and outside it; and that some of those who then were in the forefront of the opposition are now playing leading roles in the new administration.
I do not intend to go further than that in this regard, but I think the record is well known. For example, when I took over responsibility for the department just before the new year of 1961, one of the members of the press gallery wrote words to this effect; "The new minister of northern affairs should examine the vision of northern development and see why it has become a nightmare". This was typical of much of the feeling which was prevalent at that time and it is encouraging to see that in a comparatively short period there has been such wide acceptance of the viewpoint which was espoused by the former prime minister.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Another retreat by the Liberals.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Is it not a fact that the approach to northern affairs taken at that time was really the implementation of a chapter of the Gordon commission report? I have studied this matter with great care, and I have also studied the policy of the former prime minister in 1957. Does the hon. member not agree that the policy statement made in 1957 by the present Leader of the Opposition was substantially the recommendation contained in the Gordon commission report in 1956?


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not want to engage in a discussion of the Gordon commission and its recommendations, because they have been discussed in other contexts in this house during the current session of parliament. There are various versions of the Gordon commission report. I do not want to become controversial. I was merely stating a fact, that this was a deliberate program initiated by the former administration, and we are delighted to see it so enthusiastically embraced by all sides of the house.
I was making the observation that notwithstanding what might have been recommended in the Gordon commission report back in 1956 there were critical reports about our roads to resources program, our development road program, and some critics went so far as to say it was merely a matter of
1934	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act building roads from igloo to igloo. That is a matter of record, and it parallels in history the comment which was made when the government of Sir John A. Macdonald first sought to penetrate the Northwest Territories by building the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Liberal party of that day referred to the construction of the C.P.R. as building a railroad which would go from wigwam to wigwam.
This suggests that political parties do not change their fundamental orientation in their approach to national development. I remember another statement-and I am sure the hon. member for the Yukon will bear me out in this-that we were spending money in the north like drunken sailors.


Mr. Nielsen:: That was the present Prime Minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the hon. member for the Yukon will be taking part in this discussion later, so I will leave this aspect for him to deal with. To return to the circumstances which have made possible this very happy occasion in the House of Commons, let me say that one of the reasons the north was neglected for so many long years was our failure to appreciate that Canada, geographically and politically, is an indivisible entity. Professor Morton of the University of Manitoba in a recent paper put his finger on the point precisely when, in summing up an article on the prospects of northern development, he came to the conclusion that Canada is a northern nation with a northern heritage and a northern destiny.
This has always been true; it is not a recent discovery. There have been those right back to the days of Voltaire who have referred to eastern Canada, the part of Canada which was then known, as the land which God must have given to Cain, because it was so forbidding, so formidable in terms of its geography. We must recall that 75 per cent of Canada, in fact the heartland of Canada, is made up of the pre-Cambrian shield and this is rugged, rocky terrain which requires the best kind of pioneering citizens for its development; and we have had them in all generations since Canada was first occupied. Canada has been fortunate in its pioneering spirits. The outward expansion of our country has always been oriented into the northwest.
I was intrigued when I went to Halifax to discover-and the hon. member for Halifax, who is still the mayor of that city will bear me out on this point, I am sure-that Halifax still bears with pride a name by which it has long been designated, "guardian of the north". There is real recognition that the orientation of Canadian development was ever onward into the northwest. I was at

the Keefer terminal opening at the head of the lakes a year ago and I was most interested to find that the good citizens of Fort William and Port Arthur refer to their towns as "the gateway to the northwest". And they are very close to the Canadian-United States border.
This trend to the north is a fact evident from our history, but very often down through the years we have acted as though it had no basis in actuality. Thus when Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of the territories in 1905 many voices of doubt were raised. We remember it was just a decade or so before 1905 that criticism was raised of the national policy of building communication into the Northwest Territories at all. It was said that this region would only be good for buffalo and Indians and that we would be building a railroad which would not even pay for its axle grease. These are matters which are reported in Canadian history.
Now compare Canada's geographical position with that of the United States. The heartland of the United States is the Mississippi valley, and in geographical terms the differences between the patterns of development in Canada and in the United States can be partly explained by the topography and geography which we inherited.
I think this occasion also provides a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to one of the first Canadians who recognized the potential of the Canadian north. I refer to the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was bom in that part of Manitoba from where the Secretary of State comes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Actually I think he was born in North Dakota.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, he was bom at Ames, Manitoba, in an Icelandic community which was then part of the northwest territories. If I recall my history correctly-I am aware that the Secretary of State is a former professor of history from Manitoba, so I would not want to debate with him on this particular point-I recall that Arnes, Manitoba, was the birthplace of Mr. Stefansson, and, as I say, at that time it was part of the Northwest Territories. He was a member of a pioneering Icelandic family and he died last August full of honours for his outstanding work connected with the north. The exploration in which he was concerned took place in the early part of the century. He later became a lecturer and a savant at Dartmouth University in New Hampshire.
Stefansson was one of the first to appreciate the potential of the area with which this resolution deals. He received support for his exploration of 1912-18, from the government of Sir Robert Borden, which advanced

him up to $300,000, a substantial sum of money. The appeal for government support was first turned down, and it was only after the personal intervention of Sir Robert Borden, who in the tradition of Conservative prime ministers had enough wisdom to believe that the vision of Stefansson had some tangible significance, that the government of that day contributed that comparatively large sum of money. It was that expedition that produced one of the great works of Stefansson, the book entitled "The Friendly North". It is interesting that the name of the proposed new territory, Nunassiaq, literally translated means "the beautiful land". Following Stefans-son's expedition of 1912-18, he wrote of his experiences in "The Friendly North", a book which I have no doubt is well known to hon. members interested in northern matters. It was this new interpretation of the north which changed the whole outlook on the forbidding, formidable, unfriendly and cruel north. Unfortunately, the Canadian government did not continue to support Stefansson as had the Borden administration, and a good many of his contributions were directly lost to Canada. He moved across the border and established his northern institute at Dartmouth University.
Let me mention one or two of the ideas put forward by Stefansson over 40 years ago, just to show how visionary they were. He pioneered the idea of working from floating ice floes. Indeed, this is how he carried out a good part of his expedition. This idea was later taken over by the Soviets, and they have been using it with increasing enthusiasm during the past decade or so. During that time Canadian research in the north dropped to a very low ebb and is only now stepping up in tempo once again. He suggested the trans-polar route for aviation, which has become a reality in our time, and the feasibility of using submarines under the ice to tackle the transportation problem of the Canadian Arctic. This, as we know, became a fait accompli a year or so ago when a nuclear submarine of the United States navy was able to travel under ice all the way to the north pole.
But, Mr. Chairman, more important, it was the explorations of Stefansson which established beyond all shadow of a doubt the sovereignty of Canada over the Canadian archipelago. We owe a great debt to this Canadian who originally came from Manitoba. I speak as a Manitoban with some sense of pride in this regard. It is in the tradition of Canada, Mr. Chairman, that a good many of the pioneering developments in the north of Canada have originated from this province. It is still the only province with a railway on its arctic coast, and it will be for a long
Northwest Territories Act time to come. The development of northern Manitoba has always been of the pioneering kind.
To conclude this tribute to Mr. Stefansson, I might say he anticipated the mineral discoveries and the oil explorations and discoveries now being made. He talked about roads to resources and railroads to resources. He talked about modern communications, as I have already indicated. He even considered the possibility of tourism in the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic. Hence the title of his book "The Friendly North". All these things have now been realized.
I am not going into a long recital of what has been accomplished in the past few years, but in the area of oil exploration 123 million acres of the Canadian Arctic and subArctic are now under permit. This is more than any other province in Canada. It is hoped that there will be four more wells drilled in the Canadian archipelago during the present year. There have been discoveries of rich iron ore deposits inside the arctic circle which are so promising that California Standard, which made the discoveries, have formed a subsidiary company, Crest Exploration, with a view to exploiting and developing these resources. I do not want to be too visionary but it is not beyond the realm of possibility, with iron-ore deposits and oil and gas nearby that we might have in the not too distant future a Pittsburgh of the north based on a smelting operation there. Even on Baffin island a rich iron ore deposit was discovered last August, rich both quantitatively and qualitatively. The roads to resources and the microwave link-up now extending from the arctic coast to the Mackenzie delta, the northern research co-ordination centre now under construction at the Mackenzie delta, and the Pine Point railway which will cross north of latitude 60 next year, if it is up to construction schedule, are just a few of the developments which have given rise to the proposal we now have before us. Perhaps most of the developments mentioned are in the western Arctic, but the same pattern is unfolding in the eastern Arctic.
I should say a word about tourism in the north, because there has been some misunderstanding on this point and criticism still continues. It can be said, I think, that already tourism is the second most important economic aspect north of the 60th parallel. Why? Because the great desire of the tourist is to get away from the booming, buzzing confusion of the big cities and out into the wilderness and wide open spaces. North of the 60th parallel there is space in abundance and breathtaking beauty. In fact, everyone to whom I have spoken who has travelled
1936	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act north of the 60th parallel, whether it be in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon or even to the remote islands of the archipelago, has come back deeply imbued with what is known as the spell of the north.
It is estimated that last summer 18,000 people visited Dawson City almost as many as crossed the trail of '98 during the great gold rush. At least $2 million in revenue was derived from the tourist industry in that important part of the northern area of Canada. Camp sites and picnic grounds as well as commercial motels are now springing up along the entire length of the Mackenzie highway. Two thousand tourists travelled over the highway to Yellowknife last summer and it is anticipated that this figure will at least be doubled during the current year. In the area of resource development this is a tremendous economic asset and it applies with equal significance to all parts of the north.
Let me move now to the most important area, human resource development, which is the subject of the current debate. There has been equal progress in the area of human affairs as well. For example, there is the spurt in education. The vote was given to the residents of the eastern Arctic for the first time in 1962. The hon. member for the Yukon was instrumental in promoting this development. It was received with a certain amount of misgiving because it was said that these people were not ready for the federal vote. However, they exercised their federal franchise with enthusiasm and wisdom during the past two elections. The anomaly in this respect is that they do not yet have the territorial vote.
As the minister indicated, the governmental situation in the Northwest Territories has long been somewhat of an anomaly because the people living in that part of Canada have never had the full benefits of the British traditions upon which our governmental system in Canada is founded. This resolution preceding the intended legislation provides a golden opportunity to bring Canada up to date in this regard. I am not going into the record, though perhaps the hon. member for Yukon will; but arrangements that were regarded as temporary have tended to become permanent; and now as we move this long step forward-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must bring it to his attention that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it unanimously agreed that the hon. gentleman has leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might say one word and then the hon. member will have the right to proceed anyway under the rules. In bringing this legislation forward there was an understanding among all parties that it would be dealt with very expeditiously, and it was on that condition that I did bring it forward, rather than go on with the program that the government had planned for today.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief, and I appreciate the words of the leader of the house. Usually we are still on questions at this time of the day, so I shall be as brief as possible under the circumstances. There are just one or two observations I wish to make concerning the resolution which, as the minister has indicated, is based on the recommendation of the Northwest Territories council made in January, 1962. I think it provides us with an opportunity to overcome some of the anomalies that have prevailed in the government of the north for far too long. The only suggestion I should like to make as we consider the resolution is that we make certain that we are moving to do what everyone wants to have done in this legislation. There have been some misgivings on this score.
The former prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition, visualized this as a step forward in local and self-government for the territories. Following the recommendation from the Northwest Territories council certain representations were made. The mayor of Yellowknife, for example, wanted to be heard on this important matter. When I was the responsible minister I carried on quite a lengthy correspondence with him and suggested that he take the matter up with the Northwest Territories council. He then approached the former prime minister and received a commitment from him that when this legislation came before the house he would have a chance to be heard before a parliamentary committee. I should like to refer to an editorial dated July 1961 in the News of the North which, incidentally, the mayor of Yellowknife edits. In it he said:
So we're going to have a new territory. But let's have it governed so that it will represent the people of the north more adequately, so that it will not he dominated by the voice of the department of northern affairs.
It is interesting that this harks back to the same theme that was voiced in the 1930's when people like Jock McMeekin, the editor of the Yellowknife Blade, were talking about the bureaucratic clique that was supposed to handle the administration of the north. In 1961 Mayor Horton of Yellowknife put forward almost the same thesis. I think it should also be noted that since the recommendation

came forward from the territories council an important political change has taken place. As I have already indicated, the people of the eastern Arctic have the federal vote and in my opinion they have exercised their franchise with keen understanding. Yet they are faced with the anomaly of not having the territorial vote and they were not consulted and given the opportunity to be heard through the territorial council with regard to the proposals now being placed before the house.
As we move forward with this step that is so important to the north, I should like to suggest that the opportunity be given to the mayor and council of Yellowknife to be heard, as was promised, and for representatives from the eastern Arctic to be heard if they so desire. If they have the franchise so far as federal government matters are concerned, certainly they should also have it with respect to territorial matters. I hope that the legislation will take this fact into consideration. The hon. member for the Northwest Territories has already made this proposal in the form of a question in the house. Unfortunately he is absent today attending the meetings of the Northwest Territories council in Inuvik, but I am sure that if he were here he would renew his request.
Let me conclude by saying that the fundamental purpose of this resolution as I understand it is to provide for local control and local responsibility. This was one of the recommendations of the Glassco report. During recent years we have tried, within the framework of the existing legislation, to give the Northwest Territories more and more local responsibility and control. We certainly must be sure that this is the intent and purport of the legislation that will be brought in when the resolution has been given approval by this committee.
The central government of Canada has played an increasingly dominant role in directing the growth of the Canadian economy. This has been especially true of the frontier, by the very nature of the circumstances. The former government, in many ways that I have not time to go into now, tried to redress this imbalance in the west, in the maritimes as well as in the north. It is also a truism that in a free, democratic, pluralistic society, organized groups are always active and vocal. They must be given an opportunity to be heard. I trust that as we move forward with these measures, they will be shaped to assure that everything done is in the best interests of all the people in the north. The best way to do this is to provide them with an opportunity to be heard on these important matters.
Northwest Territories Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted to apologize to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. Since I interrupted him to suggest that Stefansson was born in North Dakota, I have looked up the record and I find that he was born at Arnes, Manitoba, as the former minister said. He and his family went south to North Dakota a few months afterwards, and he was brought up on a farm in North Dakota.


Mr. Leboe:: My remarks will be brief, Mr. Chairman, because I should like to co-operate with the wish of the house leader to get this resolution through so that the bill may be passed to enable the Northwest Territories council to have it before them. The two resolutions referred to by the minister will, I think bring about a much broader influence of the residents of the Northern Territories. The division, of course, will naturally facilitate this and we are very happy that this will be so. I would hope that this would give us an opportunity to focus more attention on the assistance, encouragement and understanding of the native population throughout the whole of Canada. These people suffer from a lack of understanding. While we are moving ahead, somehow I feel we are not moving ahead as rapidly as we should be in this direction. I would hope that this new division of the territories, and the different governmental set-up, would help to facilitate this understanding in the northern territories.
I am reminded also of the problem of communications. I have long advocated a national highways system. The territories depend entirely upon provincial highways for their communication, and I would hope that the new governments of the territories would press for a national highways system which would give us a far better lead, as it were, into the territories in so far as commercial and tourist traffic are concerned. I might say in passing that we are very pleased to learn a new railway is going up north. I have not any particular personal interest in the matter, but it is of interest to me because one of the contractors from Prince George has a very large contract in connection with the railway. I happen, therefore, to know something about it. Railways are important because they are the only means by which heavy loads can be moved profitably. In this connection, I would think that the value of the resources in the north to Canada ought to give us an opportunity or a reason for looking into the possibility of a subsidy of some kind for freight going in and out of the northern part of the country. I know that the cost of living in some of these areas is very high, and anything that the Canadian people can do to

Northwest Territories Act help get materials in and out of the territories would be a good investment.
I would complete my remarks with these few words. I do believe that the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is interested in these territories, so we can look forward to some very progressive steps in this regard in the near future.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We too, in the New Democratic party, Mr. Chairman, want to indicate our support not only for the resolution before us but for the one which will follow. I would assume that the discussion at this stage will be of such a broad, general nature that the discussion of the following resolution will be extremely brief. Thus, the two resolutions will be passed this afternoon.
We give support to this idea for two reasons. One, of course, is the meeting of the Northwest Territories council and the desire to have copies of the legislation before that body for their meeting. The other reason is based upon our philosophic concept of the rights of people and the need to establish and promote legal autonomy and the legal authority over their political and other activities. These two resolutions lead us in that direction. They move towards the time when people living in the territories will have full control over their own affairs to the same extent as the people living in the ten provinces at the present time.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris as he attempted to heap glory upon the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition for all that the Conservative government did during the past six years. I would say that there has not been that degree of change take place in that period of time to warrant the glory being concentrated upon the members on the Tory benches.
We need to concern ourselves, as has been mentioned, with the economic and social development taking place in those areas now encompassed by the territories. However, we have to keep in mind that any economic and social development that does take place depends exclusively upon the people who are living there. People have to have some emotional attachment to what they are giving themselves to, in order to develop socially and economically to the fullest possible extent. They must have the fullest possible say in their own affairs. There must be legal autonomy. There must be freedom of the individual to determine his own course. All these things go hand in hand. While we believe this step is welcome, in itself, it does relatively little to lead us towards the time when these areas may become elevated to provincial status. There are a number of people of Eskimo origin living within the areas involved and these should be looked at specifically.


We have a large number of native Indian people in Canada classified as such, as distinct from Eskimo people, and our Indian affairs are in a disgraceful and deplorable situation. We are one of the few countries in the world which has a special law designed for a particular group of people, based on their culture and heritage, and if we are not very careful in our approach to the relationship of the Eskimo people in the territories with non-Eskimo society we will find ourselves, in the very near future, in the same deplorable state with respect to the Eskimos that we are in with respect to native Indians.
This is something which should be of prime concern to the minister, his department and the government as a whole. Some extensive research work must be done into the cultural, social and economic problems confronting the Eskimo people in these areas today, and also projected into the future, to make sure we are taking the right steps to preserve the integrity of those people, develop respect for their culture, and within them develop respect for the type of society and economy which we have.
The whole area outside of the provinces in the north is virtually a communist state. When I say that I do not associate it with the situation which exists in the Soviet union, but within that area the federal government has sole, exclusive jurisdiction. Only a few feeble efforts have been made in the past, and are being made today, to break down that federal government, central, authoritarian control. To me this is virtually a system of communism in which everything is directed from the top, and with relatively few decisions being made by those most vitally affected, namely the people who live there.
People in the north tend to look upon Ottawa as a sort of absentee landlord with only some vague, casual interest in road building programs and the like, which take place from time to time. In those parts of Canada which are organized into provinces, by virtue of the British North America Act this tends to place some controls on authoritarianism at the federal level, and this is particularly important in the field of civil and other rights. The closer we can bring control to the people over their own affairs, particularly in matters of rights and freedoms and the direction of their social and economic activities, the better chance we will have to foster a type of democracy of which we can be proud.
Perhaps at present it is not feasible overnight to bring these areas to provincial status. Perhaps they themselves do not feel sufficiently interested or emotionally attached to the concept and idea of becoming provinces, but we must bend every effort possible to

that end, and make sure the time is not too far distant when those areas will become provinces and when the people living in them will have the fullest and highest possible degree of authority over their own affairs. In this way, we can ensure that their social and economic development takes place and moves in a direction in which they want it to, and not in a direction which somebody in Ottawa thinks it should. Perhaps it would be appropriate in this situation to pay tribute to Lincoln's phrase and say that government of the people, by the people and for the people is essential in our democracy, and I hope we can get to that stage at the earliest possible moment so far as the territories are concerned.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, this resolution provides me with an opportunity I have been waiting for since the time I heard that the former deputy minister, Mr. Gordon Robertson, was sent to the privy council, of publicly expressing my gratitude to him for the wonderful job he did while he was in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and for his devotion to the development of the north and the welfare of the people who live there.
It also gives me an opportunity to welcome the new deputy minister, Mr. Cote, who I understand will be assuming his duties very shortly. Last, but by no means least, there is another gentleman to whom I would like to pay tribute and who will soon be retiring. I refer to the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Cunningham, who is now sitting in the gallery. I have been associated with all these gentlemen for more than six years. These are excellent men who have acquired a fund of knowledge that is second to none among the experts on the north, and I for one am very sorry to see all this talent departing from the department.
The resolution before us purports to say that legislation will be introduced which will in some way advance the approach to selfgovernment in the territories. There are many people in the north who do not agree with that, just as I do not agree with the hon. member for Skeena when he says that many people in the north look upon the federal government as an absentee landlord. Indeed the reverse is true. They see perhaps too much control from the federal government in Ottawa, and they desire to be as far away from it as they can in the sense that they want more of that control in their own hands.
When my hon. friend from Skeena refers to some vague and casual road building efforts, I suggest to him that he should do a little travelling in the north, which he can do now as a result of the roads built over the
Northwest Territories Act last six years. I further suggest to him, when he says there has been no progress made in the north which would warrant the tribute paid to the Leader of the Opposition by the former minister, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, that he probably forgets the time he visited at my home in Whitehorse and had a cold ade on my patio, which was built by loans made available through N.H.A. and which have resulted in a 200-home development that did not exist in 1957. However, I do not want to get too deeply into that.
I disagree most heartily with the hon. member who interjected when the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was speaking with respect to the vision. He said it was the vision of the Gordon commission; but how many times in the last seven years did we hear it ridiculed, scorned and derided by hon. members over there? How many times have they called the vision a nightmare, and what criticism was heaped upon the things being done in the north? My hon. friend from Skeena speaks about building roads; but I can tell him that in the last seven years almost $25 million were spent on building roads in the Yukon territory alone. These roads brought the discoveries we are now reading about. They include the richest iron ore deposit in the free world, the first discovery of oil and gas in the Yukon, and a tungsten mine. These things have been made possible by communications which were not constructed prior to 1957.
In his introductory remarks the minister made reference to the name Nunassiaq. My hon. friend, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, is not here but I have spoken with him concerning this proposed legislation, and he tells me the people of the eastern Arctic were given the choice of two names which were suggested by the department. If that is correct, I do not think this is much exercise of free choice, or a selection from 10 names or a selection from 20. Surely the name of the territory should be a reflection of the choice of the representatives of the Northwest Territories people on the council. When we pay lip service to a territorial council in the sense that we have regard to the opinion of these gentlemen who sit on decisions respecting territorial affairs, surely that must be tempered by the realization that the council of the Northwest Territories is not represented at all by any people from the eastern Arctic. No one from that area of the north sits on the territorial council. What is more, the council of nine consists of five members appointed by the minister and only four elected members.
The resolution preceding the bill calls for an increase from four to five in the number of

Northwest Territories Act elected members on this council of nine. This will still leave room for four appointed members. Why not have them all elected; or does the minister feel there are not men of intellect, capability or ability in the north who can discharge the legislative or even the executive functions? Why should there be any appointed members on the council? The Yukon territory now has a council of seven and they are all elected. Surely if in that area we are going to move toward selfgovernment and a full measure of autonomy there are sufficient financial controls so as not to leave the federal government with any fear that their investment is going to be squandered if all members are elected-because monetary control still remains with the department; it still remains with the governor in council.
I am wondering, too, just whose resolution it is that has been tabled by the minister. As Mr. Justice Sissons of the Northwest Territories once said, "The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau". I am just wondering whether the resolution was not drawn up here in Ottawa and presented to the Northwest Territories council and rubber stamped, as good pieces of legislation seem to have the habit of being when they hit the Yukon council. My remarks must be frank here. It would appear that I am the only member from the north, above the 60th parallel anyway, who is going to be speaking on this resolution.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ny heart is there.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris says his heart is there, and I agree with him. But I must say that I have grave doubts that the bill which will probably follow this resolution is going to accomplish what the people of the north want.
The minister mentioned that there were three matters which should be considered when discussing legislation of this kind. One was the federal responsibility, the second was the devolution of authority, and the third was the form of government similar to British constitutional practice. I want also to say a word or two about the historical and constitutional background of the Northwest Territories and of territorial government in Canada. In 1905 the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created out of the Northwest Territories, as hon. members know, and this transition from a territorial form of government to a provincial one was comparatively easy. It is not so easy to change the system in the north right now, however desirable this might be and however anxious we all are to proceed to that end.
The Northwest Territories Act of 1905, as the minister knows, provided for the liquida-


tion of the affairs of the old government of the Northwest Territories and the appointment of a commissioner who would exercise the executive powers formerly vested in the lieutenant governor or the lieutenant governor in council. The commissioner should administer the government of the new Northwest Territories under instructions from time to time given by the governor in council or the minister of the interior. They remain substantially the same today. Here is where the people of the Northwest Territories are going to have a legitimate complaint with respect to the new territory. It is completely contrary to what I maintain is the law, and certainly the constitutional practice in the growth of governments in this country, to have a commissioner resident elsewhere than in his own territory.
It was suggested by the minister in his opening remarks that the commissioner of the new territory will remain in Ottawa. This has been the complaint for years and years and years in the Yukon territory, and until very recently the commissioner of the Yukon was always an Ottawa appointee. Now he is a Yukoner and is resident there. This was an accomplishment brought about by the former administration which I would very strongly suggest the minister follow with respect to the Mackenzie district when it becomes a separate territory.


Arthur Laing: That is understood.


Erik Nielsen: I hear the minister say that this will be the case and a local resident will be appointed commissioner. I am glad to hear that. The historical development of the Northwest Territories proceeded from the stage where the governor in council still retained the power from time to time to constitute and appoint a council of four to aid the commissioner in the administration of the territories; but by the passage of the 1905 act the supreme court of the Northwest Territories was disestablished and, as the assistant deputy minister will remember, stipendiary magistrates were constituted for the north. I believe he was one of them. It was not until 50 years later that the territorial court of the Northwest Territories was established. I think this proposal, unless the bill provides otherwise, is going to disestablish that territorial court, as a matter of law. It will be interesting, if the minister will have his legal officers check that proposition, because I believe that is going to be the net result. It appears that by this historical legislative development the government and administration provided for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories by the Yukon Territory Act of 1898 and the Northwest Territories Amendment Act of 1905 follows the precedent of

the Temporary Government Act of Rupert's Land which was passed in 1869. They were presumably enacted to be temporary, and this is the crux of a point that has been made in the past by Mr. Justice Sissons and a point with which I am in wholehearted agreement.
There was some justification at the time of the passage of that legislation for instituting these temporary forms of government. There was a gold rush in the Yukon territory, with thousands upon thousands of people pouring into the area. They were a rough crowd; they were a mixed crowd; they were an international group of people. At that time the Yukon was remote; it had no air lines, no roads, and communication into these areas was slow. There were no highways or railways; everything was in a state of flux. It was necessary to establish immediately a local, stable government for the maintenance of order. At that time, the conditions which made a government seem necessary or excusable existed, but the temporary form of government which was set up then is still in existence. It was set up on the basis that it was to be the government until more suitable arrangements could be made. Now the temporary government of Rupert's Land, which was established as far back as 1867, was maintained for only three years. In the Yukon, the temporary government was maintained for 63 years and in the Northwest Territories for 57 years. This resolution and the resolution to follow it will not remedy the situation at all, because these governments are still not the governments contemplated by the legislation which was passed prior to confederation when Rupert's Land was set up.
There have been various changes both in the Yukon Act and in the Northwest Territories Act since 1898 and 1905 but none of these changes has affected the temporary nature of the institutions which were set up at that time. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Skeena that a communist state exists in the north, because I think such a statement is a disservice to the devotion and industry demonstrated by the departmental officials in their care of the affairs of the north. I will say, however, that it approaches a system of colonial administration. In this regard it seems to me that even the British were much more enlightened with respect to the manner in which they administered their colonies many years ago than we are today. I wish to cite here the words of Sir Saville Garner, a British high commissioner for Canada who wrote an article in the magazine North, which is the official publication of the department of northern affairs. He had just completed a visit, in 1960, to the Northwest
Northwest Territories Act Territories and when he came back he had this to say about the government and the administration there:
Perhaps an Englishman may be pardoned in concluding by making a comparison, which may seem on the surface odd, between Canada's north and the administration in a British colony. Anyone familiar with a colony expects to find a governor who acts not only as the centre of the administration and the stimulus for policy, but also as a focus for all the activities in the territory and as a symbol of its unity. Moreover and obviously the different government services are co-ordinated and work under central direction. While the far north is not a distant island, it does in many ways play the part of Canada's colony; but the contiguity of lands has caused a striking contrast with what is normally to be found in colonial administration. There is at the moment no one at the head of the administration who acts as symbol and is a focus. The commissioner for the Northwest Territories is the deputy minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who visits the area on relatively rare occasions. The government services, moreover, are not unified.
It seems to me that Sir Saville Garner's words bear a striking resemblance to the conclusion reached by the Glassco commission. I do not agree with all the conclusions of that commission but certainly I am in accord with that which touches the need for a more central government, a government which would be on the spot to deal with northern affairs.
I express this hope to the minister-that the legislation which will be produced as a result of this resolution, and particularly as a result of order No. 7 on today's order paper, will provide for a resident commissioner in the new territory and thus follow along the lines of what, I am sure, was intended by the British North America Act when words were inserted in that measure to provide that the government of Canada would have power to absorb these territories and create them part of Canada for administration and control. This is my view of what the federal responsibility should be in the north. As the deputy minister has often said, the department of norther affairs should be constantly striving to eliminate its reason for existence. Once we have passed sufficient autonomy to the people of the north there will be no further reason for the existence of a department.
It is blithely said that the only difference between the jurisdiction in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories as compared with that in the provinces lies in the fields of justice, natural resources and the expenditure of money-in other words that although the Yukon council, for example, is fully elected, none of its members can introduce any measure which affects the territorial purse. In reality, much more administrative control is exercised in many more fields than those of justice and natural resources. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member

Northwest Territories Act for Skeena in their remarks mentioned the subject of human resources. When the address was presented to the Queen from the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, signed by the Speaker of the Senate on December 17, 1867, and by the Speaker of the House of Commons on December 16, 1867-this was the address which contained the terms and conditions upon which the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were placed under the administration of Canada-one of the guarantees contained in that address was that the legal rights of any corporation, company or individual within the territories would be respected and placed under the protection of courts of competent jurisdiction. This, specifically, is why I mentioned to the minister the possibility of disestablishing the territorial court by the passage of any legislation based on this resolution.
The second guarantee which all successive governments since the presentation of that address have left unfulfilled is that which guarantees the Indian tribes compensation for land required for the purpose of settlement. The claims of the Indians, it was said-and here I am reading from the address-would be "considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British crown in its dealings with the aborigines". This last condition has not been complied with as far as the Indians and Eskimos of the present Northwest Territories are concerned, nor has it been in the Yukon. There are no treaty Indians in the Yukon territory and it is high time the federal authority did compensate the Indian and Eskimo people of both territories for the use of their land in conformity with the commitments which the Queen and the government of Canada entered into at the time of the address which I mentioned.
May I call it five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might confirm my understanding of something which, I thought, had been agreed to by all parties before this legislation was called, namely that we should have just one speaker from each party and then proceed to the first reading of the bill in order to meet the convenience of the Northwest Territories council. We were hoping we could get this resolution through in a very brief time this afternoon. As I indicated to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, we are trying to meet some of the arrangements which had been made before we took office. If I felt that a great deal of parliamentary time was going to have to be expended on these resolutions, I am afraid they would have to be put off until a later date.


Erik Nielsen: Might I just say a word on this. I should like to explain to the house leader that I was not privy to any such arrangement made between the parties, having just returned to Ottawa yesterday; but I am sure he would agree, in the absence of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, in view of the importance of the legislation to people in both territories, that he would like to have their views expressed as fully as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be delighted to hear them express their views on the bills, but I thought we had made this arrangement in order to get the bills read so that they could be discussed by the territories council before being brought back here for consideration. I can assure hon. gentlemen that there will be ample opportunity at that time to debate the bills at some length. If it is not possible without prolonged debate at this stage to accomplish what I thought the house had agreed upon, I am afraid we will have to ask the committee to rise and at some other time bring the matter before the house again. If it is a matter of just ten or fifteen minutes to dispose of the matter, I would be only too happy if the matter could be disposed of.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I hope to be able, to speak on this bill and will not take more than five or ten minutes.


Erik Nielsen: We would be restricting ourselves somewhat but I can assure the house leader that my remarks will not be of any length.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it could be quite clearly understood that there are only the two hon. gentlemen who have indicated they intend to speak and that they are both going to be brief, then we would go on with the committee as soon as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and the representatives of the other parties have spoken.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I hope that this matter can be arranged, because the hon. gentlemen who have spoken know the circumstances under which we are introducing the resolution at this time and the subsequent bills. There is a deadline of April 1, 1964. Otherwise, we will have to go to the expense of having another election in the Northwest Territories. There is a deadline to this matter and I think we are aware of it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that in the course of the council's deliberations they might take care of that problem, anticipating that it might be necessary to extend their life beyond the present allotted time.


Arthur Laing: I think they would prefer not to do that. The purpose of getting the resolution concurred in is that during the course of the summer further discussions can take place. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the circumstances.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have good reason in wanting to keep the minister happy with my brevity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 thank hon. gentlemen for their co-operation.


Lucien Lamoureux: 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.



WATER RESOURCES


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division, composed of representatives of the ten provinces, within the framework of the proposed national resources council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate, and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces, in addition, to further the study of water pollution control objectives for the provinces, in pollution control problems of a national character.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I again introduce this legislation because of the continuing and increasing menace caused by the pollution of our waters to human health, fish and wildlife and to our recreational facilities in Canada, and also because of a growing recognition- and I am glad to say it is growing-of the need for co-operative action between governments effectively to deal with this problem. I know that in dealing with a question like this it can be treated on a strictly nonpartisan basis, because I am certain that there are members in all parties who are seriously concerned with this problem of the pollution of our waters in Canada. There is no need for me to emphasize that the New Democratic party policy stresses the need for the conservation and proper development of our natural resources in order to protect the living standards of this and future generations, and the protection of our waters is a safeguard for one of our most important natural resources.
I am fortunate to live in a country where we enjoy abundant supplies of pure water and clear, mirror-like rivers, lakes and streams. However, many Canadians are not as
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division fortunate as I and have suffered the hazards of water pollution occasioned by the greed of thoughtless corporations and other organizations for generations past. I notice a few hon. members looking at me with a sort of concerned appearance on their faces. I will allay their fears that I may be attempting to introduce prohibition by the back door by quoting from the Philadelphia Monthly magazine of 1798. This is what I read in that magazine:
By its fluidity and mildness pure water promotes a free and equable circulation of the blood and humours through all the vessels of the body... hence water-drinkers are not only the most active and nimble but also the most cheerful and sprightly of all people .. . But to delicate and cold constitutions and to persons unaccustomed to it water without wine is a very unproper drink.
Therefore I hope people will understand our approach to this problem. However, most Canadians today have to depend upon water that is second hand or worse, depending on the stage of its meandering or wandering past industrial plants, municipal intakes and sewers, or through barnyards, ditches or other sources of pollution. This is a problem, I judge from my reading, that has concerned members of parliament and many other people in this country for over three quarters of a century; and yet this menace to life and happiness, and to civilization itself, as history teaches us, continues to grow daily.
While we face this serious situation it would be unfair not to mention or to give credit to those who have worked on this problem almost unsung and unheard throughout the years. There have been a multitude of people who have taken a great interest in this question. Some excellent work in the first instance was done by the international joint commission in dealing with the pollution of the great lakes and other international waters. Some of the work they have done sets a model for other agencies which may wish to follow in the pathway they have blazed. As far as the federal government is concerned several departments are responsible for dealing with some aspects of water pollution. However, the British North America Act as I see it imposes a division of jurisdiction in water management that fails to recognize the interrelationship between various water uses and various water users. This has resulted in a piecemeal approach in dealing with this problem. The tendency at the federal level, and somewhat naturally, has been to concentrate on those aspects of water use specifically delegated to the federal authority in the British North America Act.
The provincial governments have been forced by the growing menace of pollution,
1944	HOUSE OF
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division particularly in recent years, to take some action to meet the problem. For instance, in British Columbia there are several agencies now that deal with various aspects of water pollution. Water pollution has been the subject of very interesting discussions at several British Columbia natural resources conferences. It is now generally recognized by all parties in British Columbia that there is a pressing need for the establishment of a fresh water control agency in British Columbia to deal with the question of water pollution and a need for effective co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in this field.
The Ontario water resources commission was established in 1956 and in co-operation with regional and local authorities there has been some very good work done in this direction. However, they started very late in the day and they have a very large problem to deal with at this time.
In addition, increasing numbers of municipalities have shown concern with the question of water pollution, particularly in the last 10 years. That interest has been stimulated to some extent, I think, by the action taken by the former government in voting $100 million for assistance to municipalities in the building of sewage disposal plants and structures related to the disposal of sewage and so on. I have noticed in my own district that because of the work that has gone on in some municipalities public attention has been more or less focused on the problem, an interest that did not exist before, and I think it is because of the concrete works they have seen being undertaken, as it were, in front of their eyes.
While on the whole we in our district enjoy fresh, pure and clean water, because of growing industrialization in a few areas there is a tendency for pollution to develop. This is causing serious concern, particularly in view of the large scale enjoyment of fresh water. I noticed in a local paper, the Trail Times of May 11, that the association of Kootenay municipalities meeting at Kimberley had a very interesting debate on this question and indicated their concern. Let me say here that the problem is almost infinitesimal in our area compared with what it is in Ontario and other densely settled areas, and I am very glad to see that the municipalities are hoping to take effective action to make certain that pollution does not increase and to remedy any pollution that has developed to date.
The general tenor of the debate at these meetings was the need for co-operation between all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. I would say that in addition there is a need for co-operation with many types of community organizations
[Mr. Herrldge.l

because pollution can occur in unorganized districts, in small communities that are unable to deal with the problem effectively unless they have the supporting research and assistance of the senior governments.
In reading various papers I have noted that the problem is receiving attention all across the country at the present time. I am very pleased to see that various periodicals and newspapers across Canada are giving more space to the question of the conservation of natural resources and the question of water pollution. I want to pay particular tribute to the Family Herald, a farm periodical to which I have subscribed for over 50 years. In recent months it has had some excellent articles on the conservation of resources, utilization of land, water pollution and so on. I also wish to pay tribute to the Globe and Mail. I understand it is a Tory paper but it is amazing the number of articles it publishes with which I agree. My reading of the Globe and Mail in the last 18 years has indicated that someone in that organization has a very keen interest in this problem. I also pay tribute to other periodicals.
In particular I wish to mention Mr. Walter Gray of the press gallery who writes for the Globe and Mail and Mr. John Bascom St. John of the same paper. Throughout the years they have written most interesting and intelligent articles on a subject that does not receive enough attention from the press gallery on most occasions. Throughout the years their excellent articles have dealt with various aspects of the conservation of our natural resources. Let me say that their type of journalism is a welcome contrast to the sensationalism that deals with human weaknesses and the sins of the flesh, which have been dealt with so extensively lately, and the foibles of certain sections of our conservative society. I am not going to suggest that we are all saints here. There are some sinners in all parties. I am talking about the failure to understand the value of our natural resources. I must pay tribute to these writers because the people who take the time to write these articles are making a great contribution toward an understanding of the problem and an appreciation of the things that have to be done.
Piecemeal, corrective action to clean up pollution is not enough. The only way to wrest our countryside and our cities from the stinking clutches of pollution is to eliminate the causes and we have not made much progress in that respect to date. To do this, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that several lines of attack are required and I am going to make a few suggestions before I complete my remarks. I am only speaking briefly because

I should like other members who are interested in the subject to have ample opportunity to speak.
I suggest that first of all we need a coordinated federal-provincial approach to water control to unite the present multitude of agencies which work in parallel lines or overlap in federal, provincial and other fields. Second, I believe we have got to have a very extensive research program and this can only be established on the basis of co-operation between governments. Third, we require the collection of water control data, the analysis of water and the collection of other information which can only be done by governments working together. Fourth, when we are dealing with our water resources I think we should establish a sound system of priorities for the use of water. There has been a great failure in this respect in the development of water resources to date. Fifth, I believe that a better relationship, shall 1 say, of water development to ARDA and provincial agencies working in the same field must be established.
In concluding my very brief remarks I should like to quote what a very well known writer has said. I refer to Ralph Tyler Flewelling, who said:
We cannot impose our wills on nature unless we first ascertain what her will is. Working without regard to law brings nothing but failure; working with law enables us to do what seemed at first impossible.
In concluding my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution on a non-partisan basis to see if we cannot get together to deal effectively with a problem which, to date, has not been met.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cariier-La-salle):: This private member's notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has some merit. I understand that the hon. gentleman has, time and again, sponsored a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to impose heavy fines on all who are found guilty of polluting interprovincial waters. This was one way of forcing private individuals, incorporated bodies and municipalities to improve this grave situation. Although his bill never passed second reading, I congratulate the hon. member on his past efforts.
The hon. member's new notice of motion is very good, but I must remind the house that the problem of pollution is now scattered over too many departments. By this I mean that we have now the international joint commission, which is made up of an advisory board on control of pollution of boundary waters. This board has four representatives in the United States, two representatives from Canada, four from the state of Michigan,
8, 1963	1945
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division three from the state of New York and three from the province of Ontario. The three representatives of Ontario are connected with the Ontario water resources commission, and the two representing Canada are connected with the Department of National Health and Welfare. The boundary waters concerned are the great lakes and part of the St. Lawrence river.
We have also many other federal departments concerned with this matter. Two other federal departments which are concerned with the pollution problem in Canada are Northern Affairs and the Department of National Revenue. In the past, the Department of Public Works, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, provided financial aid to municipalities through the National Housing Act. This act assists municipalities in the construction of sewage disposal plants and trunk sewer systems which have a direct relationship to the treatment project. At present, this responsibility comes under the Department of National Revenue.
We have other laws that cover certain aspects of pollution which are related to other departments such as justice, transport, fisheries, public works, etc. The control of the pollution of water is a matter which is dealt with extensively under the law. In addition to the laws already referred to, there are others by virtue of which any person responsible for the pollution of water is liable to be prosecuted. These laws are the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act, the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada and the common law of the United Kingdom have always declared that riparian owners who complained of pollution were in the right.
Here are a few excerpts from the legislation referred to as found in the Water Purification Board Journal of the province of Quebec:
Criminal Code of Canada
A common nuisance is an unlawful act of omission which ... endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all Her Majesty's subjects.
Fisheries Act
No one shall throw overboard ... or cause to be thrown, left or deposited upon the shore, beach or bank of any water... or in any river, harbour or roadstead or in any water where fishing is carried on ... or on the ice over either such water or at a place from which it is likely to be carried into either such water . . . ballast, coal, ashes, stones . . . remains or offal of fish or of marine animals .. . lime, chemical substance or drugs, poisonous matter, mill rubbish or sawdust of any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this act or not.
Federal Navigable Waters Protection Act
No person shall throw or deposit . . . any stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes or other material or
1946	HOUSE OF
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division rubbish... in any tidal waters... or non-tidal waters ... no owner or tenant of any sawmill... shall throw or cause to be thrown any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever into any river, stream or other water, any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water.
Sections of the Canada Shipping Act have been designed to prevent the pollution of water by ships discharging oil from their bilges. I continue to quote:
Supreme Court of Canada
The proprietor of riparian lands has a right... to the flow of water through or by his land in its natural state, and if the stream is polluted by an upper riparian proprietor, the lower proprietor may maintain an action ... for damages.
It is no defence to the person who pollutes to show that the waters were already polluted by other persons. Nor is it a defence that the pollution is the result of business operations carried on in a proper manner and that the business is important to the community.
The rights of riparian owners have always been zealously guarded by the courts. The origin of the common law applicable to this subject goes back and beyond the Roman law.
Common Law
In common law a riparian owner (that is, an owner of land on the banks of a river or stream) is entitled to expect that the water in the river shall flow past his land neither diminished nor increased in amount and without sensible alteration to its natural quality. A riparian owner is therefore entitled at common law (and quite apart from statute law) to take proceedings in the civil courts against any person or body causing injury, interference with the flow of the stream or by polluting its quality.
Thus a riparian owner has only to prove that his right to have the water in its natural state has been infringed to order to succeed in an action: he need not prove actual damage.
Under common law, therefore, almost any water added to a river or stream constitutes pollution.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is definitely unlawful to pollute any waters in Canada. However, it would cost the individual a tremendous amount of money in legal fees to enforce this provision. Personally, I feel that the various health departments and other related departments in all the provinces are to blame for the situation that exists today. It is through these departments that permission has been granted to municipalities and firms to dump raw domestic and industrial waste into our lakes and rivers. The various provincial departments have given this permission in past years when most municipalities drew drinking water directly from lakes and rivers by pumping stations without filtration. After epidemics occurred in various areas in Canada in the 1930's, some of the provincial departments issued ordinances to many of the municipalities to build filtration plants for the protection of health. If at that time orders had been issued to build sewage disposal plants, the cost of filtration would have been less and the pollution prob-blem would not exist today. In spite of the


laws that have been in existence for so many years, the provincial departments have closed their eyes and have given permission to pollute waters.
I should like at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to explain a situation which exists in lake St. Louis. The beautiful greenish clear waters of the St. Lawrence river and the mucky, brown polluted waters of the Ottawa river enter lake St. Louis at Ste. Anne de Bellevue and lie Perrot. There exists a distinctive dividing line between the clear, greenish waters on the southern side of the lake and the mucky brown on the northern side which extends from west to east for the entire length of the lake.
All the municipalities which operate filtration plants on the island of Montreal draw this mucky brown polluted Ottawa water except the city of Montreal. The city of Montreal several years ago, spent millions of dollars to extend their intake pipe across the river to reach the clear greenish St. Lawrence waters. The drinking waters of the city of Montreal are of better quality, both by clearness and taste, than that of any other municipality on the island.
All other filtration plants which draw Ottawa waters have to have their filter basins cleaned about seven times more often than that of the filtration plant of the city of Montreal, and also use a very high percentage of chlorine which is self-evident by the taste, compared to that of the drinking water of the city of Montreal. It would cost the municipalities of Pointe Claire, Dorval and Lachine millions of dollars to extend their intakes to the clear waters of the lake, and even if they intended to extend these intakes, the pipes would have to cross the Department of Transport shipping channel. I believe that permission would be difficult to obtain because of damage that may occur from ships.
The reason that we must purify all our lakes and rivers is not solely because of the municipal filtration problems but because of public demand; reasons of health, reasons of aqua life and fishing sports, reasons of bathing beach operations and boating, etc. I believe that the federal government should not make this a confusing problem. To solve this situation, costs should be divided at a ratio of one third federal, one third provincial, and one third municipal for all projects involving water purification, and in addition to this, for all projects where municipalities wish to proceed with building public parks with beach and marine facilities.
The federal government operates many national parks where very few Canadians have the opportunity to go, and I sincerely

believe that it should aid in providing these facilities close to the people who cannot go to Banff or Lake Louise.
Grants for parks with beach facilities should be applicable not only to the building of beaches but also for the expropriation of land for this purpose. The sooner the federal and provincial governments move in this direction the sooner the pollution problem will be taken more seriously.
It will not be solved by another study commission or a division of a department. If the federal government wants a study made on pollution, then all it has to do is issue an order to the research council to study immediately all aspects of pollution in Canada. It is as simple as that; and let us here in this house stop making things too complicated, by forming another board, another department, another commission.
As to the study of water purification in the province of Quebec, this study has been neglected for many years. Dr. Kirkland, who was a member of the Quebec legislative assembly for Jacques Cartier riding for 25 years sounded the alarm amongst the public about the plague of water pollution. Each year at each session he brought the subject up, but not until the year 1960, when the Liberals took office under the fine leadership of Premier Lesage, was action taken.
Premier Lesage gave Dr. C. A. Kirkland the task of settling this problem. In spite of his failing health, Dr. Kirkland proceeded with bringing forward bill 88, which created the water purification board. He postponed from day to day his trip to a Boston hospital by continuing his discussions with Premier Lesage and putting finishing touches to bill 88, so as to have it ready for the coming session. He has fallen victim of his duty, and the population of Jacques Cartier, for whom I am the federal M.P., are grateful to him for his endeavours.
The legislative assembly of Quebec gave unanimous approval on June 1, 1961 to bill 88. Hon. C. A. Kirkland passed away on August 8, 1961. He was succeeded to the legislative assembly by his charming daughter, the Hon. Claire Kirkland-Casgrain, minister of state, who was the first woman ever elected to the legislative assembly in the province of Quebec.
I am proud to add that I was one of her staunch supporters. Last year, Claire Kirkland-Casgrain organized all the 17 municipalities in my riding to form a vigilante committee. Despite the intentions of municipalities to build treatment plants, we went a step further and asked municipalities to pass by-laws which will prevent shore pollution, by prohibiting individuals from dumping any foreign matter into the lake. When I see each
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division day that large industry behind the parliament buildings polluting the Ottawa river, and this pollution reaches lake St. Louis, one wonders whether all our efforts were in vain.
This piecemeal system of prevention, and the many laws related to pollution, are not enough. What we need is finance, financial participation of one third federal, one third provincial, one third municipal, and not another study group of functionaries. We are always conscious of the difference between the inflow and outflow of money between Canada and the U.S.A. The island of Montreal is surrounded by water which is polluted. Each week end during the summer months, thousands of Canadians leave the Montreal area for the beaches in the Plattsburg-Bur-lington areas, because there is no safe place to swim in the Montreal island area. This situation causes an outflow of millions of dollars, which is detrimental to our balance of payments, and which could be partially resolved by quick action. By that I mean federal financial grants of one third for sewage purification plants and related sewer systems and for parks, with beach and marine facilities.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words to say on this important matter, and one of the considerations which draws me into the discussion is to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) upon his persistence and perseverance in this vital renewable resources area. Over the years he has introduced this resolution, dealing with conservation generally, and now specifically with the problem of water pollution. He and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) have been pioneers in this conservation area. I suppose one could call them good Conservative conservationists.
However it does provide us with an opportunity once again to give attention to what is perhaps one of the most critical problems in the whole area of renewable resources. As a result of the difficulties in considering our rich heritage of resources we, as I have said many times before in this house, brought together the resources for tomorrow conference in 1961, which had as its basic focus the necessity for the wise management and multiple use of renewable resources. It cannot be repeated too often across the country that that conference charted a whole new course in this very difficult area.
The previous speaker mentioned the essential difficulty resulting from the problem of divided jurisdiction. Our resources, including water resources, belong to the provinces, and down through the years in a federal state we have had the drawback of log rolling, Ottawa throwing the problem to an individual
1948	HOUSE OF
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division province and the province in turn throwing it back to Ottawa. Nothing was done until we held the resource conference in 1961. I am sure the hon. member who is sponsoring this resolution is aware of the buck-passing technique which delayed action on his perennial motion, for example. Some encouraging action and progress has been made in recent years and, legislation already exists on the statute books dealing with this difficulty of divided jurisdiction. The most important act in this respect is the Canada Water Conservation Act which provides for federal participation in major water control measures, participation of up to 33-J per cent. The usual formula results in participation by the provinces to the extent of another 33J per cent, leaving the rest to be handled by the municipal authorities. This act has been on the statute books for a number of years-at least ten, I believe-but was only used in recent years. In late years several major water control programs based on the wise management and multiple use principle have gone forward in Canada. I refer to the metro-Toronto water control program, which is a multimillion dollar scheme. Any province can participate on this scale if the province itself is willing to seize the initiative, because the federal legislation is available. It is up to the province to effect intragovernmental coordination among the departments at the provincial level, having co-terminus jurisdiction in the resource field.
Then, of course, the sewage disposal legislation has gone a long way to dealing with the immediate problem of pollution of our water by reason of the disposal of raw sewage.
I think the most promising development, however, in this field is the resource ministers council. This is just under way and, if it continues to make the progress that it has made during recent months, it will be a most useful organization in resolving this perpetual difficulty of divided jurisdiction in a federal state.
I agree with the previous speaker that we do not need any more boards; we do not need any more government departments. We do not need any more conferences. I think it will be agreed that the resources for tomorrow conference, with the three volumes which resulted from the deliberations, will provide enough grist for the resource mill at all levels of government for many years to come. To refer to the resource ministers council, which came into being a year ago last September at a meeting in the city of Toronto, this council represents a new type of federal-provincial co-operation in that it stresses the spirit of co-equality. While the federal minister is represented he is, to use
(Mr. Dinsdale.]

a phrase that was frequently referred to ur-ing the preliminary stages of formation of the council, co-equal with his provincial counterparts serving on the council. In other words, it gets around the difficulty that always arises from federal-provincial programs, where the provinces feel they are being pushed around. How many times during recent years, during the very active period of co-operative federalism, have we heard protests from provincial governments that Ottawa is intruding itself too directly into the affairs of a province because of these participating programs. I feel that the genius of the resource council is simply that it places the participating ministers in the position of co-equality.
We have been assured by the minister of northern affairs that the next step forward is about to take place. This is the setting up of a secretariat which will work with the council of ministers to do the necessary research and provide the background of information that is needed, because of inadequate research hitherto, in all the renewable resource areas. Pollution, for example, could be referred to this secretariat; they would be the research centre and the sounding board that could exhaustively examine the problem, and on the basis of their conclusions the governments concerned could take action.
I think the present executive set-up of the council is most auspicious in this respect. It is going to establish its headquarters in Montreal; it will be the first perfectly bilingual governmental agency. It is neither a federal body nor is it a provincial body; it has equal responsibility to both these senior levels of government. The principle of a rotating chairmanship has been adopted. This is also an excellent idea because, while the federal minister started out as the chairman of the resources for tomorrow conference and while he continued as the chairman of the coordinating committee of ministers that emanated from that conference, the decision was made to get away from this tendency on the part of the provinces to feel they are being pushed around by Ottawa, by having a rotating chairmanship. The first chairman after the federal minister, who had chaired the pre-conference steering committee and the post-conference provisional committee, was the resource minister from Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Spooner, and the current chairman is the Hon. Rene Levesque who has co-operated in all respects during the organizational stage of this important resource ministers council. He will be followed, I would presume, by the minister from Prince Edward Island; and

eventually on the basis of this annual rotational system every provincial minister will have the opportunity to chair the council. I sincerely trust, Mr. Speaker, that a general secretary of the secretariat will soon be appointed. It was encouraging to hear from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) that some excellent candidates have applied and their applications are now being processed. I am sure that before very long we will have a permanent secretariat operating with the resource ministers council and this council, in the days that lie ahead, will make a major contribution to resolving the problems that are dealt with in this excellent resolution.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should commence by expressing my commendation of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who once more has demonstrated his unflagging zeal and enthusiasm to protect one of our priceless national assets, the streams and lakes of this country. There are, as I see it, two aspects of the resolution which is before us. In the first place the resolution deals with the necessity for research and survey. I believe-and I say this with great respect for the hon. member for Kootenay West-that we should co-ordinate with this resolution an executive body that can enforce the findings of such research and survey. I realize this may take us into the jungle of constitutional dispute.
As I understand the law, sir, there is power vested in the dominion government under the criminal law, and with regard to health and safety, to make prohibitory legislation. I realize the right of prohibition is of course not the same as the power to regulate. I realize, also, that within the province there can be no dispute about the provincial power to regulate in regard to provincial streams. But we are dealing in this resolution with the question of interprovincial streams and lakes and there is then the question as to whether the power of the provinces remains unimpaired in this regard.
There are many interests concerned in this resolution. There are the riparian owners; there are the rights of fishermen, casual and commercial; the rights of municipal authorities and the federal parliament. Living as we do in this industrial age I believe it is inevitable that we accept that trade effluent will be discharged in our streams and rivers. It follows, logically, that we must take full necessary steps to treat these effluents adequately. I would recommend to this house that we adopt the example of the United Kingdom where, as I understand it, a water control division has been set up to ensure that no one can discharge trade effluent into
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division a stream or a body of water without permission from the water control board. Firms must submit a written application stating the amount of effluent they propose to discharge, the maximum daily amount and the anticipated amount over a year. The board then considers the flow of water in the stream, the nature and the quantity of the effluent and other related factors before deciding whether or not to grant a permit. A permit cannot be unreasonably withheld and there is a right of appeal to the courts if a board makes an unreasonable decision.
I suggest we must permit elasticity in the standard of purity or pollution which may exist not only in various streams but within the stream itself, in various parts of its course. The same standard of purity cannot be maintained in an industrial part of our country as could be expected in sparsely populated regions. So the problem is twofold. We must try to maintain the purity of those streams which have not yet been polluted and we must attempt to restore those waters where pollution has already taken place. I suggest we must have an executive body with adequate powers for these purposes and I believe such a body could be set up by agreement with the provinces. This may require the provincial governments delegating certain of their powers with regard to interprovincial streams and that, of course, raises the question of the British North America Act. I am convinced the whole matter of pollution control must proceed in a spirit of co-operation, good will and patience. It is going to take a good deal of money to clear up the rivers, streams and lakes of this country.
I trust the house will forgive me if I mention a constituency point. I am speaking about the necessity of constant surveys. It often happens that streams and waters are polluted, and those using them do not realize it. For many years that part of lake Erie which abuts the riding of Brant-Haldimand was a source of supply of valuable white-fish and pickerel in commercial quantities. Then, almost overnight, the fish disappeared and today we can only catch perch in these waters-a fish which does not offer a profitable return to our fishermen. Had adequate research been carried out and regular surveys been conducted, this pollution would have been detected before it had accomplished this destruction.
I said a while ago that there had to be good will and co-operation in this matter of attacking pollution. The government has before it at the present time a program designed to encourage industry to go to areas where there is high unemployment. If we initially impose upon industry a high standard of
1950	HOUSE OF
Suggested Water Pollution Control Division sewage treatment, should they relocate in accordance with this program, a high capital outlay would be required. This might well discourage such firms from helping the government to achieve its purpose by moving industry into depressed areas. I would respectfully suggest that the government should consider granting tax incentives to industries required to make substantial capital outlay on treating effluents in order to maintain the purity of our water.
I do not propose to trespass further on the time and patience of the house. I will only say, once more, that this will take co-operation, good will, a great deal of money, above all, patience.
(Translation):


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West for having introduced a motion which is of major importance for us. It is to be hoped that the government will give immediate consideration to the delicate question of water pollution throughout Canada, in the province of Quebec and especially in the riding of Roberval. The government has a fine opportunity there to make a truly efficient agency of the national resources council.
Each province has its special problems in that field and it seems to me that if selected representatives from each province were appointed to form an advisory board, the latter could increase the efficiency of the future council by setting out very precisely what its functions will be.
Also, the government might very well set up another commission which would simply join the hundreds of commissions and committees already set up by the previous and by the present governments.
At the present time, we have so many commissions covering the water problems, that we do not know where to direct representations.
As far as I am concerned, I have been endeavouring for the past four years to denounce a corporation whose activities are detrimental to a whole region and I still do not know where to address my complaint. Let us stop setting up commissions to create jobs for party supporters. Let us concentrate our efforts on a responsible agency where we can gather all the required factors to attain our object: the control of pollution in all rivers and streams under federal jurisdiction.
I said "under federal jurisdiction" because as you know, distinctions are the order of the day. Indeed, if we resorted, even for a laudable motive, to the national resources council in order to encroach upon provincial prerogatives, I would not be in agreement.


When it is said that the new division will have the powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate and analyse water control data and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces, it should be noted that the future council will be composed of federal appointees. Those are hardly defenders of provincial interests. As for the required funds-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired and it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
(Text):
May I remind hon. members that pursuant to the order made on Friday last, when this house resumes at eight tonight it will revert to motions.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made July 5, 1963, the house will now revert to motions.



FINANCE


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to thank hon. members for allowing me to make this statement at this time.
Since the budget was brought down on June 13 the government has received representations and suggestions for changes from members of all parties in this house and from many people outside. The old saying that only he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches has always been as true of taxes as of most things. The complexity of modern business and, therefore, the complexity of modern taxation, has made it increasingly difficult for governments to foresee all the administrative problems and all the consequences of tax changes. Detailed information, from those affected, can be secured only after the proposals have been made public. No government and no minister of finance should be reluctant to reconsider and revise proposals if public discussion shows it to be desirable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I might say that there are, of course, many recent precedents for so doing.
On this occasion I acknowledge with gratitude the representations and suggestions that have been made. All have been carefully considered. Some are good ideas which I am glad to act on. Therefore, on behalf of the government I am proposing to table tonight revised resolutions on the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to supersede those tabled on the night of the budget. In part, what the revisions do is to clarify the budget proposals and improve them in detail. For example, we had recommended that sales taxes would not have to be paid by the purchaser under a fixed-price contract; it should have been made clear that a binding tender, submitted before the budget, would also be regarded, if accepted, as equivalent to a contract.
There is another administrative change of a similar kind. We had proposed to set a time limit of 12 months-that is, until June 14, 1964-before which deliveries of building materials, machinery, etc., under existing fixed-price contracts must be made in order to qualify for refund of sales tax. Although that time limit is adequate in the majority of cases it is not unreasonable, I think, that it be extended to December 31,
1964.
Information received from various industries since the budget was delivered makes it clear that the exemption from sales tax on materials consumed or expended in a manufacturing process should be continued. The tax would bear inequitably on many manufacturing enterprises and on the printing and graphic arts industries. The resolution has been modified accordingly.
It has also been revised to operate more fairly as between those who construct buildings on the site and those who manufacture pre-fabricated buildings or certain pre-fabricated components of buildings.
A different type of clarification in the income tax resolution concerns the question of appeal, which was raised early in discussion in this house. It is the government's intention that the powers sought in order to prevent "dividend stripping" and the use of associated companies to reduce tax should be made subject, in the bill, to appeal to the Exchequer Court. This has been incorporated in the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the final version or the authorized version?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should also refer at this point to the provision for pipeline companies to deduct exploration expenses. The date set was chosen to keep the law as simple as
Statement on Budget Proposals
possible, not to provide retroactive benefits. But since this has been questioned, and to make certain there will be no retroactive benefits, the provision will apply only from the date of the budget.
There is one other substantial clarification proposed. This concerns the definition of the degree of Canadian ownership which will entitle companies to deduct a lower rate of non-resident withholding tax and to take 50 per cent depreciation for certain new assets. The proposed definition has been changed in a number of ways. The requirement that 25 per cent of the company's directors shall be Canadians will not come into effect until 1965 and will be broadened to include resident officers of the corporation. Moreover, to give greater stability the status of the corporation will be determined by the ownership of its shares in the 60 days immediately preceding its taxation year. And, to meet the cases of corporations with widely-spread ownership who would have great difficulty in determining the beneficial ownership of shareholdings, they will be able to qualify if their shares are listed on a Canadian stock exchange and not more than 75 per cent of the voting stock is owned by a non-resident shareholder or others associated with him.
This requirement provides for a substantial minority interest, available to Canadian investors, as a counterweight to a controlling group with interests outside Canada.
Now, in addition to these clarifications, the government proposes that two changes of substance will be made in the excise tax resolution.
The first of these concerns schools and universities and similar educational institutions.


Mr. Lambert:: This is not decision, it is capitulation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is proposed that materials used in their construction will continue to be exempt from sales tax, in effect, by the refunding of the tax on a basis similar to that followed in the case of hospitals.
The issues involved in a decision such as this are extremely difficult ones for a minister of finance. Any tax produces hard cases. It is often tempting to think that we should deal with them by allowing an exception. But if we should follow that impulse we would in no time end up with a tax system which is too complicated to be administered well, and which does not produce the revenue needed.
For this reason, if exceptions and exemptions are allowed to go too far, they do more harm than good.
Nevertheless, after careful reconsideration I think it right to make such an exception in the case of schools and universities. Their need for new buildings is so great, they are

Statement on Budget Proposals of such importance to the future of Canadians, and the sources of finance available for their construction are already so strained that they are a very special case indeed, and one that, on reflection, I believe should be recognized.
The second change that the government proposes is one that has, in the short run, a considerable effect on the revenue that will be raised. I should therefore remind the house of the objectives of the budget which was presented on June 13th.
It is, first of all, a budget designed to encourage production and employment. To achieve those purposes we must accept a deficit while our economy expands. But if we are to have full employment and economic growth, not only in the short run but on a sustained basis, we must reduce the excess of our current payments to other countries over receipts from those countries. Such excess expenditure abroad does not produce any employment in Canada. That is one reason why we must export more and compete more effectively against imports.
Moreover-and this is the second main objective-we must take positive action to safeguard the Canadian economy against an ever-increasing and excessive degree of ownership and control outside this country. This must be done while we continue to treat fairly the foreign investors who are making-and, I hope and believe, will continue to make-an essential contribution to the developement of our country.
These objectives cannot be gained without maintaining confidence in our economy and our finances. For that reason, we cannot contemplate an indefinite series of budget deficits. It must be clearly established that our fiscal policy and measures are so designed that, when other forces are strong enough to cause the economy to operate close to its full capacity, our budget will be balanced.
These are the interrelated objectives of the budget. They are not simple or easy. But I think they are objectives to which most responsible people will subscribe.
They mean that, in present circumstances of production and employment it is reasonable to budget for a substantial deficit. But they also mean that the government must take definite action to reduce the deficit as production and employment increase. That reduction will not come about quickly enough solely through the natural expansion of government revenues. The growth of Canada implies growth in our expenditures also. Many of the new programs which Canadians clearly want for their well-being, and which are needed for economic expansion and the creation of more jobs, will require increased expenditures next year. We must be in a posi-

tion to meet those needs. We must therefore provide for new sources of revenue, especially for revenue that will come to us next year.
I have explained to the house why removal of the exemption from sales tax on building materials and machinery is, in my opinion, the least objectionable source of additional revenue.
At the same time, the evidence that has been presented makes it clear that the sudden imposition of the tax at the rate of 11 per cent would have a very sharp immediate impact on some industries. Of course, there are always objections to raising any tax, even from many of those who feel most strongly that the budget should be balanced. The government cannot accept such pleas to eliminate the tax. But full consideration of the arguments suggests that the timing of the extra taxation can be adjusted in a way that will synchronize with the needs of the economy over a longer period.
It is proposed, therefore, that the tax will come into effect in stages. The rate charged from June 14th will be 4 per cent. This will continue until 31 March next year. The rate will then be raised to 8 per cent and will continue at that level until 31 December,
1964.	After that the final 3 per cent will be added.
Refunds will be made to those who, during the period from June 14 until tonight, have actually remitted sales tax at the full rate on goods they have sold or imported that were previously exempt.
The graduation of the tax will have two effects. First, it will give people time to adjust their affairs, to absorb the impact of the tax in the most convenient way. Second, the graduation of tax rates will provide an important incentive to people to proceed with construction and other investment projects now.
The total result of the revision in the resolutions will be to reduce revenues, compared with the estimate I made on June 13, by about $115 million in the remainder of the current fiscal year. For the full fiscal year 1964-65 we estimate that the additional revenues previously forecast will now be $125 million less.
As Minister of Finance I regret the loss of revenue during the next 18 months but I believe that on balance the changes now proposed will be helpful. They do not alter the objectives of the budget. They will improve its immediate economic effect and stimulate expansion and employment. The resolutions I am now tabling contain the details of the changes I have mentioned and some minor or consequential changes I have not mentioned. I would propose they be

printed in today's Votes and Proceedings for the convenience of hon. members, that is the amendments which are proposed in the budget resolutions.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, somebody has just told me to say something to the minister about bookkeeping but I only took a simple course when I was going to high school and I was plucked. Therefore I do not think I am in a position to pass judgment on the substantial changes which the Minister of Finance has made in his bookkeeping arrangements tonight. We will deal with them at a later stage. I am sure my first words are ones which all members of the house will echo. I express our satisfaction and our pleasure in seeing the return to this chamber tonight of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We have been concerned about the fact he has been out of the house, sir. We are glad to see that he has returned, apparently as good looking and just as much the picture of health as he was before he left this chamber.
There is another reason, too, why we on this side of the house welcome his return to this chamber this evening. Some of us have felt that possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has been blamed unduly and unjustly for many of the provisions contained in the budget which he presented to this house. We are, therefore, happy to see the Prime Minister back here tonight to accept responsibility, on behalf of the government, for the budget.


Mr. Pearson:: I rise on a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to thank the hon. member very sincerely for his kind words and to add that as the leader of the government, I am happy to accept responsibility for every member of my cabinet.


George Clyde Nowlan: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister that our welcome is none the less sincere because he has now recognized, and picked up this burden which some of us were afraid, and certainly some of his colleagues and some of his members were hopeful, was one from which they would be dissociated. Now, we know upon whom responsibility should rest. We are glad to know, too, that the Prime Minister has had this opportunity to rest because certainly he will need it if he is to achieve some degree of efficiency in the operation of a government which is so obviously collapsing, as is the present government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after those pleasant and complimentary remarks, may I refer for a moment or two to a statement which has been made by the Minister of Finance? It is a rather unique situation, Mr. Speaker, 28902-5-124
Statement on Budget Proposals in which we find ourselves tonight. We all remember, of course, the night of June 13 when the budget was introduced. We remember the firm statements which were made by the then minister-I am sorry, that was a slip-by the Minister of Finance, when he said that his party, the government, welcomed the budget, which was a matter of definitive' accounting, was a matter which should not be delayed any longer. This was an occasion when the government must outline its short term and long term economic and financial policies. Above all, Mr. Speaker, it was an occasion to institute a grand scrutiny by the parliament of the nation. Certainly we have had a grand scrutiny. Even Napoleon, in his retreat from Moscow, never returned quite so far or quite so fast as the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance said that this was a firm, definitive non-partisan treatment- remember, he was absolutely non-partisan. He said on that night of June 13, which was after all only a month, roughly, give or take a few days-1 suppose the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) will check my arithmetic and tell me if I am wrong; he was wrong a few days ago, but I will not remind him of that-that this was an occasion which should not, must not, be avoided or delayed. Certainly, his advice to the house should have been accepted by him.
What have we had tonight? The first chapter of the first book of Gordon was the budget speech on June 13. Then, we had the chapter by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland), defining what was undefinable in the budget. Then, we had the withdrawal of the excise tax on the sales of securities. Tonight, sir, we have the fourth chapter of the budget. Canada has never seen anything such as this before.


An hon. Member:: No budget for two years; you did not bring in a budget at all.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am glad to get that remark. Somebody sitting over there said, "You did not bring in a budget at all". I am glad to have that interruption, Mr. Speaker, because I forgot to mention this in the original debate on the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have been twitted from time to time about the fact that I might be the only minister of finance in Canadian history who has never introduced a budget. I am not sure whether or not that is a historical fact. However, Mr. Speaker, I would say this to the house and to the nation: I would much rather be the minister of finance who never brought in a budget than be the minister of finance who brought in the worst budget.

Statement on Budget Proposals
The situation with which we are confronted tonight, Mr. Speaker, is one which has never happened before in the House of Commons. The house has had to dispense with the ordinary business with which it would have been dealing at this time, and we have had to agree unanimously to postpone the business so the Minister of Finance could explan the inexplicable, define the undefinable and bring forward, as I said, the fourth chapter in the budget. This is certainly something that has never happened in the House of Commons before.
It is not unusual, as all of us who have been here for some time know, for a minister of finance to introduce amendments to a resolution or two, which he has introduced in his budget speech. Sometimes he has done this during the course of a budget debate. Sometimes he has done it during discussion on the budget resolutions. Usually, these changes have dealt with minor, technical matters. Once or twice, I think, in Canadian history budgetary changes have been made. I remember one former minister of finance from my own constituency who introduced a resolution dealing with the tariff on steel pipe. He withdrew that, but this related to one resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your predecessor withdrew a whole tax.


George Clyde Nowlan: The tax on steel pipe; but if my hon. friend the Secretary of State wants to indulge in an argument with me on procedure, I would be glad to remind him of various discussions in various debates that we have had from time to time. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to indulge in that program tonight.
As I have said, the budget came down on the night of June 13. Then, we had the withdrawal of the 30 per cent excise tax on securities, which was a very serious withdrawal. I think the Minister of Finance would have admitted, prior to that night and prior to the revulsion which arose in this nation, this 30 per cent excise tax went to the very heart of his budget. He withdrew it under substantial pressure from this nation.
Then we had the Minister of National Revenue standing up, with that beatific smile on his face, explaining what was not intended to be covered by the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, that this item and that item and the other item were going to be excluded and were never intended to be covered by the budget. Then tonight, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have a discussion of the whole budget, not of an individual item or one or two matters. For the first time since Canada became a nation in 1867 we have had a minister of finance review his whole

budget and explain that this was misunderstood, that was unworkable, this was administratively difficult, and that should be postponed.
We have had a discussion of the budget. First we had the budget speech itself and then we had an amendment moved by the official opposition. We had a debate on that and we had a division. On the division one party, the Social Credit party, frankly supported the government and voted against the opposition, against us, on the amendment. The other party further to our left did not vote, and I was somewhat reminded of a certain president of a certain country who many years ago said he was too proud to fight. I think on that occasion the party to our left were too proud to vote. In any event they did not vote. But the fact remains that the official opposition voted against the budget and parliament, after that division and over the protests of the opposition, accepted the budget. Now, what do we have?
We have the Minister of Finance coming into the House of Commons tonight. As I said, I do not blame him too much. He was put in an absolutely impossible position, in the time limit imposed, in the way he was circumscribed and in the instructions which undoubtedly he received from the government of which he was an honoured member. We are not particularly criticizing him at this time, although obviously he has to take a great deal of the responsibility.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are having this debate tonight, not on any formal motion, I would suggest, but by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to revert to motions so that the Minister of Finance might attempt to explain what had been unexplainable and not understood heretofore by the people of Canada. We all know that the word "motions" appearing in our rule book is a catch-all phrase which enables a government, ministers of the government, those sitting on the treasury benches, to make explanatory statements, usually about matters which have not yet been before parliament itself. Indeed I think this is the first time in the history of parliament when we have had "motions" used to enable the Minister of Finance to deal with substantive motions which had already been dealt with by parliament. This, sir, I say is an affront to parliament, and it is by a party which talks about its loyalty to parliament.
I suggest to you, sir, without indulging in any partisanship whatsoever on this _ very non-partisan occasion, that when the history of this parliament is written on the occasion of the centennial which is only a few years away-


An hon. Member:: You won't be in it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, I cannot give an assurance of what Divine Providence will do to me or any other hon. member here, but I can say if any budget is being brought down on that occasion and if the present Leader of the Opposition is prime minister and asks me to bring it down, then I will be bringing it down on that occasion.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think some consideration should be given to whether or not this is an affront to parliament itself, parliament having debated the budget during the regular period, having considered amendment and having finally, rightly or wrongly, made its decision. Then tonight we have statements brought in of such an order and of such a nature that I certainly do not propose to deal with them in any detail at this time.
If anything, this shows confusion and disorder on the part of a government which was going to give us decision and firmness in parliamentary procedure. After all, without getting too technical, the Minister of Finance admits in his statement-and I give him full credit for it-that the balance of ways and means is substantially affected by the statement which he has now brought in. It is reduced by the order of $150 million, according to what my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, whispers to me.
I would suggest to you, sir, and I draw this particularly to the attention of the house leader, the Secretary of State, that there have been previous occasions when other ministers of finance, not of the government opposite but in the relatively immediate past, attempted to give statements with respect to the financial transactions of the government. Mr. Speaker, you of course being non-partisan and impartial, and not remembering any debate that goes on from one day to the other, could not be expected to recall these things; but even the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State-in one of his non-partisan moments, if there are such moments-might remember when I attempted to deal with financial affairs affecting the economy and I was told never to do it on motions, but to go into ways and means. I was told that this might affect the balance of ways and means, and the only way it could be done was through a motion that you, Mr. Speaker, leave the chair and that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means.
My immediate predecessor, the former hon. member for Eglinton, was confronted with this argument; but tonight, by the co-operation of the members of the opposition and entirely contrary to all rules respecting fiscal controls of this nation, we have had a debate on motions which should only have been countenanced on a motion that you, Mr. 28902-5-124J
Statement on Budget Proposals Speaker, leave the chair and that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means.
After hearing the statement of the Minister of Finance tonight, it is obvious that this whole budget should have been withdrawn. Indeed to all intents and purposes it has been withdrawn. It has been staggered. The days of its coming into effect have been postponed, and there has been one step after another to alleviate the burdens which were imposed by the budget. Tonight we have a situation where the only way in which the government should have cleared up the situation would have been to bring in a new budget, to withdraw the old one, and have a motion put that you, sir, should leave the chair and that we should have a committee of ways and means.


An hon. Member:: What about the surcharges?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there is a feeble voice over there obviously in fear and trembling of what is going to happen to him in the next election, but anything about the surcharges will pale into insignificance compared with what happened during his budget debate. There is no question about that. And speaking about withdrawing the budget, obviously I would take it that after the Prime Minister has come into the house and staked the fate of the government on the stature and status of the Minister of Finance, we can assure that the government is not going to withdraw the budget. But if they were not going to withdraw it, then it is obvious what should have been done; and why it was not done, even though it is inconceivable, is possibly because the Secretary of State or else the Minister of Finance could not arrive at a decision as to what they were going to do. And remember, Mr. Speaker, this is the government that had all the answers for all the decisions. Why did they not bring in the resolution the week before last? That was the time we should have been dealing with these matters, not tonight. No one knows that better than the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State. Of all the irregular procedures to which the House of Commons has been subjected since confederation, this is the worst. We could have had, and we should have had, once the budget debate was over, if there were decisions to be made and if this government is capable of making a decision, the various resolutions affecting income tax, excise tax, and the various resolutions which are contained in the budget. These could and should have been dealt with. Then we would have had a determination by the House of Commons and by parliament, and we would have had resolution and determination instead

Statement on Budget Proposals of waffling and indecision such as this country has been subject to since June 13 last. The government having decided on this course, I simply say this, and I do not want to take up too much time-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, I will take up more time on the resolutions-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: -and the country will take up more time in considering the new resolutions which are before us tonight. It is going to be a long day and a longer night before these resolutions are finally passed; have no misunderstanding whatsoever on this score. After all the inexplicable explanations and inconsistencies we have had brought in a new budget in a most irresponsible manner. All I am saying in this connection is that, this course having been decided upon by the government-and I am sure all hon. members of the house will agree with this procedure-[DOT] there needs to be some time given to the members of the house to decide now what these resolutions mean and what action is going to be taken with respect to them. I think there will have to be some reasonable amount of time given to a consideration of these budget resolutions, and possibly there will have to be another clarification to clarify the unelarifiable. But that is a matter which time alone will tell. I would suggest that after a reasonable time has been given to the house and to the country to consider the proposed changes which have been suggested-they could only be suggested, of course, tonight as this is only the fourth budget interpolation-as soon as possible after that this house in committee of ways and means should settle down to the rather arduous, lengthy and sometimes rather boring problem-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The middle of August.


George Clyde Nowlan: Possibly the end of September. As I was saying, we should then settle down to dealing with these resolutions clause by clause, resolution by resolution. Only then, after parliament-and not the Minister of Finance in his fourth attempt-has given due and careful consideration to these matters and passed them, will the business elements of this country know where they stand, where they fit and what economic problems are ahead of us for the next 12 months.
I know that this discussion of procedure is perhaps not one of paramount interest to the millions of Canadians who are waiting tonight with intense interest-at least, tens of thousands of them-to see whether they are going to be out of a job at the end of

this week or the end of next month. The whole nation is waiting for clarification of these economic problems and I am sure assistance has not been given to them in this House of Commons tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: I wonder whether the doubts
and uncertainties of the past few weeks have been resolved, or has the minister by his statement tonight made a bad matter worse and made still more clarification necessary? He has tried to clarify-and I will give him full credit for attempting to do so-some of the doubts; he has tried to answer some of the many questions which have been raised across this nation. But in so doing I am wondering whether he has not left more unanswered than he has answered, and in trying to answer the questions he has tried to answer I wonder whether he has not created new ones. The only way these questions can be resolved is by dealing with the resolutions themselves.
I am not going to deal with the subject matter of the resolutions to which the minister referred. Obviously some of them are of a technical nature. The minister was good enough to send the resolutions to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and myself and, I presume, one or two other hon. members. He sent the details to us before he spoke about them, and we thank him for so doing. But the amendments are so technical and so numerous, and are of such an effect that certainly one could not be expected to deal with them tonight.
We have the one about building materials. We are glad to know that universities and schools are going to be exempt from the impact of the tax. It certainly did not need a soothsayer or prophet to know this would be done. Someone once said that Joseph Howe was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. One did not have to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to anticipate that change tonight. That was obviously one that was going to be made. Many of the others which the Minister of Finance brought forward were obvious, but the impact on the over-all picture is such that we need a great deal of time and mature consideration to decide just what will be the over-all impact. The matter of machinery and apparatus is another item which is of course parallel to that of building materials.
The minister also went quite a way in another direction, certainly in so far as the graphic arts and newspapers are concerned. That was a fairly obvious change also. There was no question as to what was going to happen in that direction and one would be very naive if he did not think there would

be any amendments in regard to this item. We have heard of certain amendments with respect to materials consumed and expended directly in the process of manufacture. That clause was a sleeper; it certainly went a lot further than the minister or the government realized when they brought it in. They just looked at the capital letters and they had no one to explain what this clause meant. They took the capital letters covering machinery and apparatus to be used in the manufacture and production and did not look at the fine print, which is much more important, because a printing machine, printing press mill, or whatever it may be, may or may not be taxable. They taxed it. You can accept it if you feel it is justified, or you can oppose it. It is a positive thing. Then there was material consumed or expended purely in the process of production. There you had the sleeper of all sleepers. You had the protests of the graphic arts industry and the newspaper publishers which were vocal, pointed, direct and justified. There are hundreds of industries in this country which are suffering and will continue to suffer from that provision; make no mistake about that. I would think a further amendment has to be made there if we are going to deal with this problem.
Then we have, of course, another area in the budget which does not attract popular attention because it deals with finance and the stock market, the buying and selling of securities and investments. The great majority of our citizens are perhaps not too much interested in this question. But this nation- and I am sure the Minister of Finance has said this from time to time-depends now, and will for many years in the future, upon a constant inflow of a reasonable amount of foreign capital. Frankly I think the Minister of Finance has an exaggerated opinion on this matter, but he has stressed again and again the necessity of Canadians controlling their own instruments of production.
We would all agree with that. We all welcome that as an ultimate goal. But when a nation is in a situation as precarious as the one in which this nation is today, needing capital in substantial quantities from day to day and from year to year, let the hon. gentleman remember that we can cut out building this building, or that building, and the tax on building material may set back 10,000 or 100,000 people and put them out of jobs; but if you once stop capital flowing into this nation, the troubles which happened in April last year in connection with our exchange position will be like an April shower compared with what would happen as a result of this budget. Not only would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) be buried under the avalanche which would follow but
Statement on Budget Proposals the economy of this nation would be buried as well. That is why I say the necessary thing for this house to do, as soon as a reasonable interval has elapsed in which to study these resolutions-and I am not, now, spelling out how long that interval should be-would be to go into committee and get down to a detailed study of these proposals so that parliament and the nation may finally know where we stand economically in the coming year.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that we are very pleased to see him back with us and that we greatly appreciate his presence in this house where he always conducts himself with dignity and kindness. I can assure him that we appreciate that. It is also worthy of note that members of the cabinet have missed him, that they have often been caught unawares and, as much as possible, have avoided answering questions asked in the house. It is to be hoped that, now that their leader is back, the members of the Liberal cabinet will have regained their poise and their high spirits and will give us the answers to which we are entitled.
I should like to point out, in passing, that on the occasion of the Prime Minister's return, the Minister of Finance has treated him not to a shot of Gordon dry gin but to one of Gordon dry tax.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a remark made by the financial spokesman of the Conservative party before talking to the new resolution the Minister of Finance has just presented. He did not miss the opportunity to say that we had supported the government when the budget was adopted. In that respect, I wish to set him straight. We did not support the government, we gave it a chance to submit its resolutions, its estimates to the committee of the whole house, so that we could make suggestions to improve them, if only a little, as is the case tonight. Besides, the Conservative opposition seems to forget that all last year we supported it until February when we fell under that heavy load.
We are ready to give a chance to whatever party to present legislation and submit to the house matters likely to interest it.
We are going to make suggestions and we hope that they will be welcome.
Some of the changes which were recommended this evening are of an administrative nature and will involve minor changes only. In our opinion, little has been changed

Statement on Budget Proposals in the budget. However, there are two things which command our attention and we felt it would be a good thing to point them out. The Minister of Finance stated that the 11 per cent tax will not apply to materials used in the construction of schools, colleges, universities and buildings of a similar nature. The government deserves to be commended in that respect, because we feel it is the proper attitude to take, but it has forgotten some items. There was some talk about exempting from the 11 per cent tax the building materials used in the construction of churches, monasteries, etc. The Minister of Finance has overlooked that point.
I also note that political personalities in Canada had called for an exemption from that 11 per cent tax on materials entering in construction projects carried out by municipalities, provincial crown corporations and governments.
Only a few days ago, Mr. Rene Levesque said that this tax would paralyse us and that it would cost the province of Quebec from $25 to $60 million within the next five years. What can the Minister of Finance and the present government reply to this man from the province of Quebec who is trying to develop industry?
After the decisions announced tonight, what will the present government reply to the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, who stated recently that the 11 per cent tax on building materials would cost $30 million to the city of Montreal during the next five years? What will be the reply of the Minister of Finance to the C.L.C. or to the national confederation of labour unions? The levying of the tax is postponed, it is applied gradually; I only hope that the delay the Minister of Finance has provided for himself will enable him to ascertain that this tax is effectively disastrous to our national economy and that he will abolish it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be content to criticize; I would like to help the Minister of Finance in finding a solution. It is not enough to criticize; what we need are solutions. It is obvious that the minister finds himself faced with a dilemna, which he sums up in the following passage of his speech:
Of course, there are always objections to raising any tax, even from many of those who feel most strongly that the budget should be balanced.
In short, we see that the Minister of Finance has but two alternatives; taxes or budget deficits. But deficits entail debts, and debts
[Mr. Gregoire.l
lead to high interest rates. And what about the $918 million that we shall have to pay this year on our present debt?
Mr. Speaker, I am not able to say whether it was done on purpose or not, but the Minister of Finance seems to have limited himself to two fields: taxes and deficits which means taxes and debts.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance who is known by the people of this country as an intelligent man is not looking for a third alternative or is not trying to find a solution to the problem we are facing at the present time? Why is the Minister of Finance always faced with two alternatives: either to increase taxes, which involves a slowing down of our economy and an increase in prices, or budgetary deficits and indebtedness?
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he try to widen his vision because, in this day and age, we are facing new problems as we are living in a new era and we must find new solutions.
In my opinion we are through with taxation and deficits, which offer no solution.
If we stay in that rut where there are only those two alternatives, it is natural that we will get hurt, and the Liberal party seems content to remain in that narrow path. The Minister of Finance is not getting out of the rut. He must try to find another solution, because inevitably, as he said himself a moment ago, our economy will again be unbalanced because the country is expanding. Our population is increasing, our assets are growing and the Minister of Finance will, under such circumstances, of necessity have to submit another deficit budget.
But why should we have an expansion involving debts to private concerns, debts which burden future generations? Why would not that deficit instead be assumed by the people's financial organization, a body which belongs to the people and which would not saddle future generations with the payment of interests such as ours has to pay?
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance had his deficit financed by the Bank of Canada, which belongs to the Canadian people, and not by the chartered banks, which belong to a few individuals who control the progress and development of this country, he might well afford to increase his deficits. Indeed, on the day when the Minister of Finance accepts to consider that third solution, he will not appear before us saying:

"Unfortunately, we will have to increase taxation, otherwise the deficit will be too high."
If, at this time, the minister defers this tax, because it hurts, he will only defer the blow, or, to say it briefly, postpone the day of reckoning. It is a respite, it is true, but a respite which may mean an unstable currency. There was often a question of inflation in the past. Well, that 11 per cent sales tax, even if progressively increased, even if deferred, indeed, means inflation. I think that the minister was well able to see that the imposition of that tax resulted in higher prices. As a matter of fact, I received a telegram from the officers of the home builders' association of the Montreal district, which said that the tax would entail an increase of $850-and not $400

in the building costs of a home.
Mr. Speaker, it should be kept in mind that when prices go up, money loses its value, and this causes nothing less than inflation. I remember very well that during the last election campaign, some people suggested that Social Credit policy would lead to inflation. I ask the Canadian people whether it is we who are bringing about inflation at the present time. It is rather the Minister of Finance and his government, through the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
I wonder whether the minister has thought of what will happen in a few months when the tax will increase. It is possible that for some time a few Canadians might be able to hoard building materials, but only those who will enjoy enough credit to pile up such materials in their warehouses and their factories.
On the other hand, small contractors and house builders who do not have the necessary margin of credit to pile up materials, will have to pay a heavy price when payments fall due, because they did not have the means to hoard building materials, for lack of credit facilities while rich and powerful contractors will pile up materials and be in a position to indulge in competition which I declare forthwith illegal, because they will have taken advantage of the privilege now granted by the government. And it is really a privilege which is granted to a few financial tycoons by suggesting to them: "You who can pile up materials, do it immediately, because the sales tax on building materials is only 4 per cent whereas in six months or a year, it will reach 8 or 11 per cent."
Statement on Budget Proposals
On the other hand, those who have not the necessary credit or are not sturdy enough, financially speaking, will not be able to accumulate materials and, in a year and a half, will be definitely under unfavourable conditions, so much so that the small building contractor might disappear.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that there is some good in the measure, as it aims at delaying the bringing into force of the sales tax but, on the other hand, one must clearly understand what it will entail shortly-that is when the tax will be raised to 11 per cent for all the small building contractors. They will have to close shop, for they will then be unable to face the competition that is being set for them at present.
Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the problem and it must be found. It must be found outside the paths followed by economists of the past. It must be found with something reflecting the realities and the possibilities of our time. In brief, we must face present realities, that is the tremendous capacity of the Canadian people to develop the country and to produce. That is what is physically feasible.
We now ask the Minister of Finance to turn aside from the beaten track in order to reform our economy, not in a production sense because private enterprise sees to that, not in the field of consumption, because the Canadian people see to that, but in a third field, that is the field of exchange, the monetary field of the economy.
In fact, I urge the Minister of Finance not to ignore the solution, not to fear deficits, but on this condition only that his deficits be financed by a Canadian organization, an organization which belongs to the people, that is the Bank of Canada. If those deficits are financed interest free, they will not impose a burden on future generations. On the contrary this generation will be in a position to develop the country without having to support the burden of taxes and to bequeath our successors a still greater country.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, before concluding my remarks, I should like to impress on the Minister of Finance that we are living in a modern age because of new methods of production, because of the tremendous progress that has been achieved.
So, he must enlarge his vistas, extend his fields of investigation, search beyond the orthodox economic principles of yesteryears to find a new solution where he will not

Statement on Budget Proposals always be squeezed between the two walls of taxes and deficits which will allow him to find a third outlet to develop the economy of the country, that is an economic system, a monetary system really belonging to Canadians and which will enable them to develop their country for the benefit of Canadians, by Canadians and for Canadians.
(Text):
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up too much time of the house tonight, not for the reason advanced by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) but for the opposite reason, that there is really very little material presented to us tonight on which to comment. There are a few things to be done first though, and one that I almost overlooked, and that is to join this group in the expressions of great satisfaction expressed by other hon. members of the house tonight at the reappearance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) . I may say that almost from my first day in this chamber I crossed swords with the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada, but this does not in any way detract from my very real sincerity in expressing the great satisfaction of this group in seeing him back restored in health, although I cannot help but add, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure our satisfaction must be very small indeed compared with that of his own followers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: -who must have been anticipating with some trepidation having again to navigate very rough waters without the skipper at the helm.
We heard a lot about a baby budget before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) came into the house this evening. I suppose you might call it that. If so, it is a very attenuated baby, a very minor baby. The final difficult birth resulted in triplets, but not by any means identical triplets. As I say, there is not a great deal to this. It was, as most people expected, a retreat in some form as far as was considered possible, with the great necessity of saving face on the 11 per cent sales tax. Most of us, I think, will certainly support the Minister of Finance when he exempts schools and universities from the imposition of this tax. Certainly there is some satisfaction in seeing that the tax is going to be imposed in stages, although it occurs to me
[Mr. Gregoire.l
that the Minister of Finance may find himself again subjected to a flood of correspondence from customers who have been charged a high price for their purchase, who have paid a tax on it and are applying for a refund. I wonder just how he is going to deal with those people who have bought paint to paint the front porch and who had to pay the sales tax which the entrepreneur is now going to get back in his hands again.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are great omissions in the exemptions that one would have hoped for in the statement of the Minister of Finance. There is, for instance, only a very limited exemption with respect to housing which is not only one of the major social problems of the country but also one of the major means by which economic activity is stimulated. Also, sir, there is no suggestion that the great construction projects on which expansion depends are going to receive similar treatment. In fact, they are rather rigorously left out of the statement submitted to us.
What I was particularly interested in was the last few sentences in the minister's presentation tonight in which he said:
As Minister of Finance, I regret the loss of revenue during the next 18 months but I believe that on balance the changes now proposed will be helpful. They do not alter the objectives of the budget. They will improve its immediate economic effect and stimulate expansion and employment.
That is a truly charming expression. The budget is to be improved, and it has been improved undoubtedly, by taking the exact reverse position from that which the minister took less than a month ago. It seems to me that if these retreats do as the minister suggests tonight, stimulate expansion and employment, then the budget as a whole, as I said earlier in the house, is not calculated to stimulate employment or expansion. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the most depressing thing about this final triplet of the triplet budget, if it is final as one of my colleagues says, is that it reveals that the Minister of Finance is still wedded to the philosophy in which he drew up his budget originally. It is defined fairly well in the statement he made on July 2 of this year in reference to something that the leader of this group had said. At that time the minister said, as found on page 1751 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would like to see our budgetary deficits increased. He argues that if consumer expenditures are increased this will in turn increase the general level of economic activity throughout the country. I say to him that the trouble with this theory as applied to Canada-and I say this with respect because I am not unaware of the theory; I understand it, I think-is that about one quarter of such increased expenditure, or so it is estimated, would find its

way into additional imports of one kind or another and this would aggravate our payments problem and only add to our difficulties in the long run.
That, of course, is quite true when we have a government that is determined to do four things. It is determined to expand production and to increase employment. It is also determined to balance the budget, to maintain a fixed rate of exchange and to cope with our balance of payments problem. I would suggest this to the Minister of Finance. While it may be quite true that under conditions of a fixed rate of exchange any increased government expenditure may very well have the effect that he suggests in his comment to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), the same is also true of any other expansion of payments, any other expansion of income, any increase in employment, any stimulation of the economy. I am driven to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance tonight has merely confirmed the suspicion that some of us have had all along, that this budget was not designed to expand the economy. This budget was designed to control exchange crises while at the same time maintaining a fixed rate of exchange, which I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is incompatible with any expansionary move in our economy.
If the Minister of Finance is still so concerned about coming somewhere close to a balanced budget and if he is looking for other sources of revenue, I suggest to him there is another place he may look for some of it at least. These figures are contained in statistics produced by the dominion bureau of statistics on the 4th of July this year. They give figures for business gross savings from 1958 to 1962 but I will just give the increase from 1961 to 1962. The increase in depreciation allowances and miscellaneous adjustments from 1961 to 1962 was $216 million. The increase in undistributed profits in the same period was $201 million.
I might point out that in his budget the Minister of Finance is contemplating adding to these depreciation and depletion allowances for certain extremely well heeled industries in this country. Therefore I suggest that if the Minister of Finance is unable to accept the theories that are accepted by most modern economists of an expanding economy and the use of deficit financing to achieve that end, if he is going to base all his activities on the possibility of a balanced budget some time, these are some of the sources that he should consider, rather than bringing to a halt, as he apparently is still going to do, a vast number of major projects on which the welfare of the Canadian people is going to depend in the next year or two.
28902-5-125
Statement on Budget Proposals


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I wish to make it very clear that I rise to my feet not to say anything with regard to substance but only with regard to procedure. The Minister of Finance, as he concluded his statement tonight, said he was tabling revised budget resolutions. The willingness of the house to accept the revision of those resolutions is one thing, but dealing with them in a way that is procedurally correct is another.
I draw your attention to the fact that the budget resolutions were tabled on June 13 and that after a number of days of debate the house went into a committee of ways and means on those budget resolutions. Today's order paper, for example, has as one of its items, "House again in committee of ways and means". Under that is a note that for the budget resolutions we should refer to Votes and Proceedings of June 13.
We have not been told tonight by the minister how he proposes to make the change. My reason for rising at this moment, which is the earliest moment it can be done, is to make sure that the change is not made by some sleight of hand, by simply slipping in where the June 13 resolutions are the ones that have been proposed tonight.
It seems to me there are three courses open to the house and to the government. One would be to get unanimous consent either from the house at some proper time, or preferably from the committee of ways and means, which is already seized of the resolutions. The second would be to move amendments in committee of ways and means altering the resolutions and submitting those amendments to a vote in committee. The third would be to discharge the present order and start all over again. As far as I am concerned, I see no difficulty in accepting tonight's resolutions as an improvement over what we had on June 13, but I am concerned that this matter be handled in a way that is procedurally correct. I think it was unfortunate that the minister did not at the conclusion of his statement indicate what procedure the government proposes for dealing with this very unusual situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member I do not have before me the proceedings in committee of ways and means after we went into committee at the conclusion of the budget debate, but my recollection is that when we went into committee on that occasion the committee rose immediately without taking under consideration any of the resolutions that had been tabled.


Norman Platt Lambert: But it accepted them.
19S2	HOUSE OF
Statement on Budget Proposals


John Whitney Pickersgill: Therefore in the circumstances the resolutions themselves were never in fact in the possession of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that should be so, I am merely suggesting that there was no consideration of them and it would not appear to me that there would be any problem. If there is any procedural problem I would hope, unless Your Honour sees a ready solution to it, that it could be taken under consideration and that there could be some conference between myself as house leader and hon. gentlemen regarding the business of the house with a view to making sure that what is done is done in a thoroughly regular fashion.


George Clyde Nowlan: Without prolonging the discussion on this point of order which may be more or less academic in view of the fact that none of us has had time to consider carefully this matter, I would question the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that the committee was not seized with the resolution. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) made his budget speech, in the course of which he brought forward the resolutions which were incorporated in his speech and printed in Hansard. At the conclusion of that speech, we went into commute of ways and means. Whether we were there for 30 seconds or 30 days, I do not think affects the situation in the least. My impression at the moment is that the committee of ways and means was seized with the resolutions and, this house having allowed the committee of ways and means to be seized with the resolutions, could not tonight or at any other time take action on them without the concurrence of the committee of ways and means.
I think probably some consideration should be given to this situation. However, I am suggesting fairly strenuously at the moment that the committee of ways and means is seized with these resolutions and the commute of ways and means is the only body which can deal with them unless, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, by unanimous consent we agree to bringing forward the resolutions again.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, even more important than the fact the committee was seized with these resolutions is the fact that the whole debate on the motion that Your Honour do leave the chair so that the house can go into committee of ways and means, was on this particular resolution. Therefore, the resolutions that were under discussion in that debate were the resolutions which are before the committee and are the resolutions which were


tabled on June 13. Certainly, we could not
accept that answer as a means of solving the problem. I agree that the thing to do is to have the house leaders meet to see if we cannot work out a solution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say a word in reply to the suggestion made by the Secretary of State? I think the suggestion he makes, that there be a conference to discuss this, is an appropriate one, and I hope that the house will accept it. My point in raising the question at this juncture was to make sure that something was not done that would be difficult to put right later on. I draw your attention to the fact that on today's order paper there is item No. 15 which reads:
June 26-House again in committee of ways and means-the Minister of Finance.
Note: Texts of ways and means resolutions are appended to the notice paper of Votes and Proceedings of June 13, 1963.
Now, that notation has been there every day since the motion to go into committee of ways and means was passed. It has not been altered by the fact that on June 19 the Minister of Finance said he was going to withdraw, in committee of ways and means, the resolution regarding the tax on securities. My request is that there be no change in this wording until there has been a conference of the parties, with perhaps Your Honour present, to decide what procedure is the correct one. This is my point. I am suggesting that there be no change made until we have had such a conference.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank all hon. members for giving me the benefit of their advice in connection with this very interesting procedural matter. I think hon. members have almost solved the problem here tonight, and it is a pleasure indeed to take their suggestions into consideration. If we may do that, we will decide between tonight and the meeting of the house tomorrow, exactly what is the correct procedure to follow.
The house will now resume the order of business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Laing -Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act and to rename the said territories, and to effect certain consequential changes in the statute law with respect thereto, inter alia to increase the number of elected members of the council of the territory from four to five, to establish a separate territorial revenue fund and to provide for the transfer﻿JULY 8, 1963
thereto of a portion of the amount standing to the credit of the Northwest Territories revenue account in the consolidated revenue fund upon the coming into force of the said measure.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before the committee rose at five o'clock I was attempting to draw an analogy between what the situation should be in the Northwest Territories and what I hope will be in the legislation which will be produced following this resolution. Perhaps the minister might well have referred to the situation in Manitoba, and perhaps a comparison might be drawn from the time when Manitoba became a province.
The territorial government, just prior thereto, was presided over by a resident commissioner. The seat of the government was in the territory, and there was a lieutenant governor appointed by the governor in council. I believe that person was a Mr. Morris, who held office during pleasure, and whose duty it was to administer the government under the jurisdiction from time to time given to him by the governor in council or the secretary of state for Canada. This is similar to the situation today. There was a legislative assembly composed at first of 26 members altogether, who were the elected representatives of the electoral districts with powers similar to those given to other legislative bodies, much in the same way as the powers are given to the Yukon under the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories under the Northwest Territories Act.
The legislative assembly could not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost to any purpose that had not been first recommended to the assembly by message of the lieutenant governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill was passed. This is similar to the provision today in the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act, and therein lies the control by the federal government over these expenditures in the north.
There was an executive council, and here I think that there is an important distinction, to aid and advise the government of the territories; and the persons who were to be members of the council were, from time to time, chosen and summoned by the lieutenant governor; and the members thereof might, from time to time, be removed by the lieutenant governor. By statute, 36 Victoria, chapter 6, the membership of the council was increased to a maximum of 21 instead of 15, the minimum remaining at seven. Members of the executive council were made the heads of and presided over the departments of government in the territories. At that time they consisted of, first, the office of the executive 28902-5-125*
Northwest Territories Act council; the department of the attorney general; the department of the territorial secretary; the department of the treasury; the department of public works; the department of agriculture; the department of public instruction and the offices of the legislative assembly.
The public service was divided into two divisions. First, there was the inside division consisting of the employees comprising the several departmental staffs at the seat of the government in the territories. Second, there was the outside division comprising all other employees of the government of the territories. The system of civil service in both territories is under the complete and absolute discretion of one man who is under the direction of the minister, and here I refer to the commissioner himself. He has complete authority as to who shall be hired and fired, but there are no formal ground rules laid down for competitive examinations such as those that exist in the civil service of Canada. The staff of each department was divided and ranked similar to the divisions and ranks that pertain in the federal civil service.
The conclusions I would like to draw here, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that they will be taken into consideration by the minister and his officials, are that pursuant to the joint address presented in 1867, at a time when the Northwest Territories were admitted into the Dominion of Canada, certain guarantees were given. Further, the terms and conditions under which the Northwest Territories were admitted into Canada were not complied with, and are still not complied with so far as the Northwest Territories and their existence today are concerned, and incidentally neither in so far as the Yukon territory is concerned. This conclusion carries with it very far reaching constitutional effects which are being dealt with from day to day in our courts.
Second, there have not been formed in the Northwest Territories, according to the terms of the joint address, those "political institutions bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which exist in the several provinces of this dominion." This is very clear if one analyses the types of government that have been set up in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory, as compared with those which prevailed immediately prior to the creation of the various provinces of this dominion.
Third, and it is quite important, the claims of the Indian tribes for compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement have not-again in the words of the joint address-"been considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British crown
1964	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act in its dealings with the aborigines." Surely this legislation should provide for some relief here, and I am glad to see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration present in the chamber because this should be of particular concern to him.
There was a treaty at one time with the Indians of the Mackenzie district, but it was never really implemented and has become a dead letter for all practical purposes. Further there has never been a treaty implemented with the Indian people of the Yukon. There has been no treaty with the Eskimos, and no relinquishment of the lands reserved to them as their hunting grounds by the treaty of Paris of 1763. There is no Eskimo act and the Indian Act does not apply to Eskimos.
The time for provincial autonomy is still probably a good many years distant so far as certain portions of the Northwest Territories are concerned. However it is rapidly approaching so far as the Yukon is concerned, and even so far as the Mackenzie district is concerned. At this stage I want to interject that I do not hold with those who believe the two territories should be joined because they have different geographical problems, and their historical traditions, forms of government and their economies are quite different. It appears we are not ready for it yet in the Northwest Territories, but if we are going to take steps towards achieving autonomy, surely these steps should be in accordance with the constitutional practices which have prevailed in Canada since and immediately prior to confederation.
My own recommendations, which I hope the minister and his officials will take into consideration are first that the House of Commons should set up a special committee to examine all aspects of both these resolutions, Nos. 6 and 7 on today's order paper; and since they have not been invited to participate in any of the discussions, the people of the eastern Arctic should be consulted because they live there. They are the people who pay the taxes in that area, and they are the people who are pioneering in that area. Their views and opinions should certainly be sought as to whether or not this is the kind of legislation they desire.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, could I have about two minutes to finish my recommendations?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: The bills could then be
referred to this committee, and the members
TMr. Nielsen.]

of the Northwest Territories council as it now stands, as well as others from the eastern Arctic, could be invited to give the committee the benefit of their knowledge and experience in the north.
My second suggestion is that there should be set up in the present Northwest Territories, government and administration along the general lines provided for in 1872 in the early North-West Territories, bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit "to those which exist in the provinces of the dominion, and in accordance with the terms and conditions upon which Rupert's and the North-Western Territory were admitted into the union".
A third recommendation would be that the minister and the government follow a course which will introduce, as quickly as possible, participation by the members of the various councils in the executive function of government rather than in the purely legislative function. I suggest this because we all know, from the practical point of view, that the legislation for the territories is prepared here in Ottawa and that members of the councils have no participation in the executive function of government. This is important if we are to approach provincial autonomy in the two territories because eventually there will have to be that executive arm of government set up in the same fashion as in any other democratic jurisdiction.
Fourth I would suggest a new treaty be negotiated with the Indian people of the Mackenzie district, and at long last a treaty should be negotiated with the Yukon Indian people.
Last, I feel there should be a treaty negotiated with the Eskimos, and if necessary an Eskimo act should be passed.
If the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consult with the legal officers in their departments I am sure those officers will advise them that there is some substance in the suggestions I am making with regard to these native peoples. I therefore wholeheartedly agree that the time has come, as the minister suggested in his introductory remarks, to provide the maximum amount of self-government for the people of all the Northwest Territories, and to adopt steps which will surely and progressively lead to the day when all our Northwest Territories will achieve a state of provincial autonomy.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I only want to say a few words and my desire to speak stems from the fact that I was very interested in listening to the hon. member for Yukon, who is much more familiar with

this subject than most members of parliament. I am quite sure that after a member of parliament has been here for a very short period of time he has found that some of his constituents have gone into the Northwest Territories, and therefore some of the problems that are all well known to the hon. member from Yukon are apparent to quite a number of hon. members of this house. The suggestion the hon. member made that any changes which we make in the Northwest Territories Act must be designed to bring provincial status and representation on a provincial basis to the people in that area is, I think, self-apparent. That this is not being done is, I think, also self-apparent.
I mentioned the other day that I had a very simple problem in the Northwest Territories that resolved itself among four departments, and each of these departments, had a different point of view and opinion. They seemed to consult each other but none of them had any interest whatsoever in what the Northwest Territories council had to say on the matter. I think this raises the problem which could be met by the suggestion of the hon. member from Yukon, who suggested that we should set up immediately a special committee to discuss these two resolutions. He suggested that a special committee of the house could give some consideration to the problems, and I am sure that all hon. members who have had any of their constituents living in the Northwest Territories are aware of the situation there. In my opinion the situation in that area is very dictatorial. The people who are administering the Northwest Territories Act, in many cases, like dictators in whatever branch they may be employed. I think they are backed up by the lack of interest of the other departments concerned with this matter.
The problem I had concerned the Department of Labour. In my opinion, and in the opinion of some of the officials of the Department of Justice, the situation was clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government through the Department of Labour. Yet they did not wish to step on the authority, or whatever it may be, that should be exercised by the members of the council and the resolutions they are supposed to have passed, or should have passed, if they had been fulfilling their duties.
We continue to have an obligation to the constituents who go into that area and find themselves completely unprotected by the acts we have passed governing the Northwest Territories. I suggest that the minister should give some consideration to setting up this special committee. It may mean there will be discussion beyond the terms of the resolution as the minister has proposed it, but I think
Northwest Territories Act this will be very worth while in the light of the interest that will be shown by hon. members who have not previously been intimately concerned with matters of the Northwest Territories, and the other area.
This is a new part of Canada. We have already made mistakes in other parts of Canada that I am sure hon. members do not wish to be repeated in the establishment of the Northwest Territories. The hon. member for Yukon has pointed out many problems which exist there, which go beyond the scope of this resolution, but which would not necessarily go beyond the scope of a parliamentary committee, if the minister would recommend that such be set up.
In my opinion, if these matters are discussed and if the problems are brought to the attention of the government and the officials of the various departments and a decision is finally reached, I am quite sure there will be great harmony in many fields of endeavour in the Northwest Territories.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak for very long on this resolution tonight because I am sure we all want to see it carried. But coming from Edmonton and having had a personal interest in the north for some time, I hope that I may make some slight contribution on the resolution stage, because I want to consider the manner in which we should look at the bill when presented.
The minister said in his opening statement that the people of the Northwest Territories were noted for their responsibility and courage. While I will agree with those complimentary terms, I think that perhaps the initiative shown by those people is something the house should consider as more important. I say this for the reason that we are all aware to some extent of the natural disabilities faced by people who settle in that north country. These disabilities, as we all know, are the extremes of climate, the very few people around, the lack of conveniences, the great distances from any markets, etc. All these disabilities require a type of person with a great deal of initiative, and all of them make it necessary that the government, in regulating the lives of the people up there, must allow as much flexibility as possible so that changing conditions which exist from place to place, the difference in people themselves, and so on, may be dealt with by those on the spot who have the experience, the drive and the ambition that took them there and who can figure out, because they are so close to the problems, a way to get around these things and have more room to manoeuvre.
This is where I think we run into a good deal of trouble in the north occasionally. I

Northwest Territories Act do not want to be too critical of the civil servants there, but it does seem to me that there is a natural attitude on the part of a civil servant who is, for instance, interested in the welfare of the air force in a particular area, to get just a little bit narrow in his outlook and concentrate so much of his energy on air force matters that it is easy for the well being of the civilian population to be not only overlooked but perhaps trampled on to some extent.
In the Northwest Territories this is what can happen most easily, because government employees constitute really the majority of the people there. There are people employed by the northern affairs department, the Department of Transport, air force people concerned with defence, northern transportation people, and Eldorado people. By the time you consider all the government people in the north you find they constitute the majority of the population, and therefore any attempt to regulate from Ottawa is perhaps going to have the effect, whether intended or not, of putting the welfare of the government department first and the welfare of the ordinary civilian second; or should I put it this way, of being government for the sake of government rather than for the sake of people.
I suggest to the minister that it is his responsibility in that territory to remember this fact about the Northwest Territories, that while paternalism by civil servants may show up in any place, the Northwest Territories is the most fertile ground for this to happen, in that because of the preponderance of civil servants, and because of the vast distances, we may see more examples of this happening.
I have had occasion to speak previously in this house on regulations made by the air transport board, for instance, where you have long distances, a small amount of business really, high costs and few people involved. A regulation made by the air transport board to strengthen the air industry, while it may be very suitable as a general policy for all of Canada, may in fact have a very detrimental effect on that particular part of the territory. I suggest, therefore, that what is needed is an acceleration of the reliance of people in the north on their own self-government.
The minister spoke of the responsibility of those people. I have talked about initiative. Surely these two factors are very important and useful in government. I must say that the development of the north shows we have been very slow in taking advantage of the tremendous amount these people could do to govern themselves. There seems to have been a feeling that we should take it easy because there are few people there and development is slow. I suggest that perhaps it is because we have taken it easy that development has
(Mr. Nugent.]
been slow. Perhaps we should exercise less caution in this regard and lean more heavily on these people than we have in the past.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Laing thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-83, to amend the Northwest Territories Act and to rename the said territories, and to effect certain consequential changes in the statute law with respect thereto.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NUNASSIAQ TERRITORY


Arthur Laing: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a new territory under the name of Nunassiaq territory and to provide for the government thereof and the administration of justice therein; to provide inter alia for the appointment of a commissioner and deputy commissioner of the territory, the establishment of council of the territory, the appointment and election and the tenure of the members thereof, the sessional indemnities for the elected members and one of the appointed members thereof, the travelling and living expenses of the members thereof and the legislative powers of the commissioner in council; to provide also for the payment of territorial revenues into the consolidated revenue fund and for the establishment therein of an account to be known as the Nunassiaq revenue account, to which shall be credited amounts equal to the territorial revenues paid from time to time into the consolidated revenue fund and all moneys appropriated by parliament to be credited to the said account; to provide also for the payment, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of money required for the territorial purposes specified in ordinances of the commissioner in council or, until the establishment of the first council of the territory, in orders of the commissioner, all such payments to be charged to the Nunassiaq revenue account; to provide also for the establishment of a territorial court and for the appointment of a judge and a deputy judge thereto; to provide also for the appointment of police magistrates in and for the territory and for the fixing of their salaries and allowances; to provide also that the governor in council may appoint justices of the peace in and for the territory and authorize payment of their remuneration and travelling and other expenses; and to provide further that the governor in council may appoint a clerk of the court, sheriff and such other officers as are deemed necessary for the administration of justice in the territory and fix their salaries and allowances.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). Could the minister give us a geographic description of this new territory?

(Text):


Arthur Laing: The territory is all of the Northwest Territories except that embodied in the bill just presented and called the Mackenzie territory. In other words, it is all of the Northwest Territories from 105 west meridian plus Victoria and Banks islands. It is all of the territory other than that, eastward of that point and including the Arctic islands.


Gilles Grégoire: I have another question to ask the minister. Does this territory also include the islands around the province of Quebec in the northwest part of the Arctic ocean?


Arthur Laing: It includes all the islands which are presently under the jurisdiction of Canada and all of those islands in Hudson bay which are presently not under the jurisdiction of Ontario, Quebec or Manitoba.


Gilles Grégoire: Does it also include the islands north of the province of Quebec and east of that province in the Arctic ocean?


Arthur Laing: The situation is that all islands in estuaries of rivers flowing out of provinces are automatically the property of the provinces concerned. If they are out of the estuary, or outside a line drawn from promontory to promontory, they are in the possession of Canada. This has reference to the disposition of these islands-whether or not they will belong to Nunassiaq or to the province.
I think the hon. member probably has in mind the islands off the north coast of Quebec which are contiguous to Quebec, but none the less in the possession of Canada at the present time because they do not come within the definition of provincial islands by lying within the estuary of the river or inside the line drawn from headland to headland. I have forgotten the name of the island; perhaps the hon. member knows it.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, but I am also talking about the islands around the coast of the province of Quebec in the Arctic ocean. I think the province of Quebec has requested that these islands should belong to Quebec. Has the minister received such a request, or is he aware of it? Has he received any information about these islands outside the boundaries or rivers?


Arthur Laing: I believe I have heard something about it.


Gilles Grégoire: May I call it ten o'clock? I believe we would like to discuss this resolution.
Nunassiaq Territory


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was an understanding among all parties on the basis of which I called the business on Friday-an understanding made at a conference of all parties that we would put through these two resolutions today so that the bills might be available to the Northwest Territories council which is now meeting. I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe would mind discussing this on the bill. It would be just as much in order then, and we would have the measure before us with all the details. Otherwise, I am not sure that the government is prepared to make time available tomorrow for this, and we might have to put this item over until another occasion because there is other urgent business which the government wishes to put forward. I only brought this legislation forward today on the basis of an undertaking by representatives of all parties that it would be put through today. I appeal to the hon. gentleman to accept my proposal that we discuss the point he raises on the bill itself.


Mr, Gregoire:: I was not aware of that understanding; neither was I aware that these islands off the north coast of the province of Quebec were included in this territory. I think that if we had an opportunity to discuss this resolution we might be able to give good advice to the government so that we could exclude them-


An hon. Member:: They are, now.


Gilles Grégoire: No; these islands may be considered by some as being part of Canadian federal territory, but by others they are considered as being part of the province of Quebec. So, Mr. Speaker, I think I will call it ten o'clock so that we may have an opportunity to discuss this matter further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the hon. member for Brandon-Souris could clear up this point in one minute. If he is able to do that, would the hon. member consent to our going on a few minutes longer?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not know that I can accomplish what the hon. gentleman has in mind other than to indicate that there was an all-party agreement that this discussion would conclude today. I might also suggest that the matter which has been raised by the hon. member could be better discussed in a committee of the house, if such a committee were set up, because it involves a matter of detail. It would be possible to have officials before such a committee and the question could be clarified to the satisfaction of all concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: If this committee were set up before the bill is presented, I would accept

Nunassiaq Territory
the proposal. I think we could make some good suggestions on this point. I am rising because this is a most important matter. To whom will these islands belong? Will they belong to the federal government or to the provincial government? That is my point in speaking on this resolution. I am convinced they should belong to Quebec, and if they are to be included in this new territory I cannot accept it. If the committee is ready to sit and the Secretary of State can assure us that it will sit before the bill is presented, then we will agree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would be possible to sit before the bill is presented, but I am sure we could make some arrangement to have the matter considered before the bill is proceeded with. What we want to get is the first reading of the bill so that it can be seen by the Northwest Territories council; but we would not proceed to second reading for a good long time. I would be quite prepared to give an undertaking that in some fashion or other this matter would be remitted to a committee so that the matters the hon. member wishes to raise could be raised, if that is satisfactory.


Arthur Laing: Might I point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that we are particularly anxious to have the resolution stage passed so that we can get a copy of the bill for study during the summer, to present it to the council that is now meeting at Inuvik. It is particularly desirous that a copy should be released to them for study. I might point out to the hon. member that while he protests the possibility of certain measures being contained in the bill, when he sees the bill he might be entirely satisfied. Certainly the production of the bill, which we would like to produce tonight, is a prelude to any study by the committee. I would confirm the undertaking given by the house leader that we will have a committee set up suitable to the hon. member where these matters can be discussed.


Gilles Grégoire: We agreed to let the resolution pass and have the bill presented to the house, but the point I was making was this: If we could bring forward suggestions before the bill was presented perhaps the government could introduce an amended bill to the house. I can assure the minister of national resources that we will see that just treatment is given. But I am convinced that these islands belong to the province of Quebec and should be included within the territory of the province of Quebec.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?
[Mr. Gregoire.l


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to inquire what consideration the minister intends to give to the suggestion made by a number of members for the establishment of a committee of the house to go into the whole problem of the Northwest Territories, as it affects these resolutions and others.


Arthur Laing: It is proposed in the commitment given by the house leader that if it is unsatisfactory that a committee of the whole deal with the matter, and there is a demand by the committee of the whole for a special committee, I am certain we will be happy to have a special committee set up.


William Arnold Peters: The committee of the whole would not allow representatives to be heard from various agencies, who I am sure would want to be heard by a special committee established for the purpose. I think there is a considerable difference. The house will go into committee anyway, but I think the solution is much broader than that. I want to know whether this matter can be given consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will give the hon. gentleman the assurance I have already given the hon. member for Lapointe, that once these two bills are seen, if there is any demand from any quarter of the house that some of the matters in the bills or other matters related to them could usefully be reviewed by a committee, I will undertake to ask my colleagues to have this done, and I feel sure they would agree with me. In fact I am quite prepared to commit the government to putting a motion on the order paper for a reference to a suitable standing committee of the house to consider these matters before we proceed with the legislation itself. This could be done, unless hon. gentlemen would be equally well satisfied when they have seen the bill to having it read a second time and then having it sent to the committee for revision. I will undertake to discuss it with hon. gentlemen and meet their reasonable wishes in the matter.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to make now a formal demand for a special committee on this bill. Is that agreed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman would perhaps find that he is restricting himself in the way he puts that, but I do not think there is any real misunderstanding between us.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Laing thereupon moved lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-84 respecting the Nunas-siaq territory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: Would the house leader announce the business for tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The business for tomorrow is the business for today which we never reached; that is to say, second reading of the Atlantic development board bill. I hope we can get both second reading and committee stage through tomorrow, so that we can send the bill to the other place and make progress
Business of the House with this matter. When we have completed that we will take the second reading of the economic council bill, and should there be any time before the end of the day we will take the resolution preceding the measure respecting the Department of Agriculture.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for today, which the house leader mentioned, would have been reached had not the government had to revert to motions to make further corrections to some of its other mistakes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was understood when the business was announced and agreed to on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 9, 1963