1964-04-09

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Hon. members will recall that when the President of the United States and I met in Washington last January we reviewed the work of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs and agreed that it should meet again around the end of April. This committee was established in November, 1953 and normally meets alternately in Ottawa and Washington. It has now been agreed that the committee, which held its last meeting in Washington on September 20 and 21, 1963, will meet again in Ottawa on April 29 and 30.
Canada will be represented at this meeting by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the ministers of finance, trade and commerce, industry and agriculture. The United States delegation will be led by Mr. Rusk, the secretary of state, and will consist of the secretaries of the treasury, interior, agriculture and commerce and the under secretary of state. In addition Governor Her-ter, the President's special representative for trade negotiations, and the chairman of the council of economic advisers are expected to attend as are Mr. Robertson, the chief negotiator for the Canadian government on tariffs and trade and the governor of the Bank of Canada, together with the United States ambassador in Ottawa, and our ambassador in Washington.
This meeting will provide a valuable opportunity for the ministers of both countries to review economic and trade interests of common interest and concern. Canadian ministers look forward to welcoming their United States colleagues to Ottawa and having mutually useful discussions with them.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him
whether he could now make a report regarding the present position of the investigation being carried out in connection with the losses and thefts from the armouries. I have delayed making this request for a considerable time. There was a report in the press a couple of weeks ago of a number of arrests. Since then no report has been made to the house and, as this matter has been outstanding for weeks, I feel the minister should be in a position now to lift the veil of silence which has surrounded this whole matter.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: wish to thank the right hon. gentleman for having agreed, understanding the difficulty of my position, not to press questions on this matter in the course of the last ten days or so. I hope he will understand that I am not abusing the position when I say that for the reasons I have earlier stated in this house I am still not in a position to furnish an up to date report on this important and serious matter.



PROPOSED COMMON UNIFORM FOR ALL ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister please advise the house whether so-called spokesmen of the Department of National Defence have been authorized by him to indicate that there shall be integration of the armed forces to the point of having a common uniform by 1967? At the same time would the minister advise me whether he has completed his inquiries into the question of leaks in regard to the white paper, which I raised some two weeks ago.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. gentleman has asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to correct the impression created by a newspaper story yesterday. It is true, as the press has reported, that the Department of National Defence considers July 1, 1967 as an acceptable target date for the unification of the three forces for planning purposes. I have said in the past that the integration to unification process would take approximately three to four years.
On the subject of uniforms, however, it will be some time before we start considering this matter. In the meantime there are more urgent tasks to be undertaken. A planning

Inquiries of the Ministry group is now working out the plans for the new single defence staff. Once legislation has been passed and the single defence staff is in existence, it will start to work on the formation of the headquarters organization, followed by the integration of field command organizations. So there is much work to be done before consideration can be given to the subject of uniforms.
I have no doubt, however, that the new defence staff will eventually study this matter, particularly the problem of utilizing present investments, both private and public, in uniforms and also the preservation of valued traditions. I am well aware of the great pride that service personnel, both regular and reserve, have in their uniforms, and there will be no decisions taken without full consideration of all the factors involved.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it from the reference to unification that the minister intends there shall be one defence force, or one armed force in this country, and there will be no distinction among the present three services or any of the units thereof?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear-and this is set out in the white paper- that the integration of the defence staff is the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister please answer the second portion of my question, as to whether he has yet been able to plug the leaks in so far as the white paper and other matters are concerned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This matter is quite well under control, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon!: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister about something which does not appear in his white paper. Once integration has been completed, is it the ultimate intention to retain the positions of chief of the naval staff, chief of the general staff and chief of the air force under the head of the chief of all integrated services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention to retain those positions, and this will be set out in legislation to be presented to the house by the government I think either today or tomorrow.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In answer to the hon. member for Edmonton West he indicated that the leaks within the Department of National Defence had been brought under control. Would the minister undertake to remove these leaks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that in accordance with the recommendations of the Glassco commission we are proposing to establish an integrated information service, which I think will be of benefit not only to the members of this house but to the whole Canadian nation.



PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
EXEMPTION FROM SALES TAX OF "READER'S DIGEST" and "time"
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman advise us whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with the legislation in its original form with respect to the tax exempt position of two publications, Reader's Digest and Time magazine,, or whether, as I indicated yesterday to the Minister of Finance, there have been pressures brought to bear on the government which might lead to the modification of its program?
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister)?
The intention of the government in connection with this matter of policy will be quite clear when the legislation on this subject is introduced in the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday with reference to the statement that had just been made by Premier Robarts concerning the Canada pension plan. My question was:
Can the Prime Minister say whether this differs from the understanding he had at the Quebec conference? Could he also say whether the federal government is still doing its best to persuade Ontario to stay in the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have now had an opportunity of reading the text, or at least a partial text, of what Mr. Robarts said as it appeared in the Globe and Mail, and there was nothing in that text which would warrant any change in the government's proposal to proceed with the Canada pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the premier of Ontario, who apparently has not made up his mind on this matter, will feel

that it will be in the best interests of the people of Ontario to participate in that plan, and anything we can do to convince him of that fact, we will be very happy to do.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister that is perhaps partially supplementary to the one he answered a few minutes ago. Has the premier of Ontario had any communication with the federal government during the last few days indicating that he intends to set up a provincial pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is prepared to offer the provinces a greater share of the investment funds, as this seems to be the major objection mentioned in Premier Robart's speech of a few hours ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have put forward our own proposals in this and other respects. After consideration of the views of the provinces those proposals will be considered by the committee of parliament if and when that committee gets the bill, and I hope it will shortly. All these things can be considered in detail at that time.



PEACE RIVER-APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence I will address it to the parliamentary secretary. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the house whether an application has been received for a licence under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with respect of the Peace river in British Columbia and, if so, has a licence been granted and to whom?


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell us when he proposes to announce to the house the
Inquiries of the Ministry setting up of a committee on radio broadcasting and television? Also, could he tell us exactly what kind of committee he intends to form in order to inquire into that matter?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Siaie):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a statement in that regard as soon as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: That is no answer.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Will federal government aid for urban renewal areas, such as the Alexandra Park plan announced by the minister yesterday, include any N.H.A. or equivalent loans to the home and business owners whose premises will require to be rehabilitated?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the announcement made yesterday, my announcement was restricted to what is possible under existing legislation. The type of aid the hon. member is asking about is not possible under existing legislation. The matter is under study, and when government policy has been determined it will be announced.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell us whether the secretary general or any other official of the United Nations has asked the government to increase the strength of the Canadian force in Cyprus?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since this matter is being discussed with the U.N. secretary general at present, I am not in a position to provide the hon. member with an answer.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Am I to understand that the government is in touch with the secretary general at present concerning this request?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our ambassador to the United Nations had an interview with the secretary general this morning, but he has not yet reported to me.

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is in two parts. First of all, has the government of the United Kingdom, through its minister of defence or its foreign secretary, requested the secretary general of the United Nations to make public the directives to the United Nations force in Cyprus? Second, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself made such a request to the secretary general of the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question, in so far as I know, is no, and the answer to the second part of the question is no.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not think that the secrecy of these regulations or directives to the United Nations force encourages the Greek Cypriots to make dangerous experiments with the United Nations forces to see just how far they can go?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to that question is no.



REPORTED TRANSMISSION OF MILITARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he was aware, when he was secretary of state for external affairs at the time of the Korean war, of diplomatic intrigues to forward General MacArthur's plans of attack to red China through Great Britain, while our Canadian soldiers were fighting and dying in Korea?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not aware of any such move, Mr. Speaker, and the reports have already been condemned as false by the British foreign office and by officials in Washington.



CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to [Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1

the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the house about the possibility for Canada to initiate negotiations of some sort with the Organization of American States? Can he tell us also whether representations from this organization have been made to the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is definitely the type of question which should be on the order paper. If I am not mistaken it has been asked once or twice before this session.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with an article appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette relating to the statement of the Minister of Transport to the Canadian association of broadcasters. The Minister of Transport said publicly that parliament was a complete failure, and he seemed to accuse everyone and everything in it, including the opposition, its procedures and so on and so forth, except himself and the government. To be more specific, he outlined a series of reforms which he feels should bring some sort of order out of chaos. He wants to abolish appeals from rulings of the Speaker, to allow procedural changes without unanimous consent, to ration the time allowed to most debates, and to reform the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, this would be a very good reform, but I am wondering whether the Minister of Transport would go along with it. The point I want to make is that the Minister of Transport, instead of making a declaration of that kind to the public, should speak about the matter first to the house and try to get reform on the part of all members, instead of trying to put the blame on the opposition when there is blame on the other side also.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since my name has been drawn into this perhaps I might be allowed to say that I made a speech in Quebec yesterday without having a text. I made it to broadcasters and being broadcasters, they made a tape of it. I am going to have a transcript made, as soon as possible, and I will send it to the hon. gentleman and to any other hon. member who wants to see it. I hope the hon. member for Megantic will support the suggestions I made in that speech.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we have spent enough time on this subject.


Raymond Langlois: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just for clarification may I say I am willing to accept it if the Minister of Transport will also accept his own suggestions.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon. member for Megantic causes me to ask a couple of questions of the Secretary of State, for after all questions are answered within three days in the United Kingdom instead of having to wait almost an eternity, as has become the custom lately in this house. Why is it that ten orders for returns directed by the house at the last session have not been brought down? I seem to recall that on February 25 the minister said he would see whether he could table the remaining orders for returns not then made to the house. In spite of the long period that has intervened since February 25 we are in the same position of being denied information that we should have.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make inquiries immediately and try to satisfy the right hon. gentleman as soon as possible.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house regarding any steps taken or contemplated relative to the alarming increase in the cost of living of 2.5 points as of March 1, 1964 as compared with the same date one year earlier?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, government policy in this matter will be announced on an appropriate occasion. The government is doing everything a government can do to keep the country prosperous, which is the best way of keeping the cost of living down.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate
Inquiries of the Ministry in a general way whether positive steps will be taken to help the population meet the increased cost of living which reached a peak during February?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I answered that question I should be participating in the budget debate.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. gentleman's reference to the budget and the increase in the cost of living indicate an assertion that the budget has contributed to the increase in the cost of living?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The increased economic activity of Canada under this government has undoubtedly increased the pressures on the cost of living.


John George Diefenbaker: So we have inflation. HOUSE OF COMMONS



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NOVA SCOTIA HOCKEY TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour as the minister from Nova Scotia. Is he aware of the fact that the Windsor Maple Leafs hockey team, champions of eastern Canada, are in the gallery on the road to the Allan cup; and will the minister agree with me that by winning the Allan cup they will be making Nova Scotia's usual contribution toward strengthening confederation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the presence of this outstanding hockey team in the gallery. My hon. friend's question allows me to make at least one non-controversial statement in the house, namely that every member of the house wishes this team success on Friday.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY MONTREAL MAYOR RESPECTING CO-OPERATIVE FEDERALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
The mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, stated yesterday on television that he did not know what co-operative federalism was, and also that he did not believe the public could understand what it was all about. Would the Secretary of State explain to the house what constitutes the substance of the government's
1946	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry policy on federal-provincial relations? In brief, would he define co-operative federalism?


Mr. Pigeon:: Here is the answer; it is a fiasco.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very interesting statement, but I do not think the Secretary of State should be called upon at this time.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works about a subject that has lapsed into obscurity recently. Is the minister in a position to report to the house about the progress, or lack of it if that is the case, that is being made in discussions with the various provinces on a proposed second trans-Canada highway?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and some time next week I might make a statement.


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works following the question put by the hon. member for Skeena. Unfortunately I could not make myself heard at the time. I would now ask the minister this. In view of the fact that several weeks ago he suggested to this house that at the federal-provincial conference there would be a discussion on the possibility of co-ordinating plans for further trans-Canada highways, was this subject discussed at the conference?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If I remember well, I said a few weeks ago that it would be inadvisable for me to make any statement before the federal-provincial conference took place. As I said in reply to a question a few minutes ago, some time next week I shall make a statement which will cover all aspects of this question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact


that several mayors of the western region of the Lake St. John county are sitting in the galleries, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, for their information, whether he intends to extend the winter works program in the areas designated as distressed areas, so that they may complete their projects?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I replied to that question yesterday and I have nothing to add to what I said at that time, namely that the matter would be given consideration.



BASIS FOR FIGURES RESPECTING NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour; he is certainly kept very busy this afternoon.
Can the Minister of Labour tell the house if the official unemployment figures take into account some 600,000 citizens on social welfare who are also, for the most part, unemployed people living in hardship?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I just say that the sample survey covers a sample of Canadians from which is derived a total reflecting the number of persons in the labour force who are willing to work and who are out of work. That is the best figure we have, and it is somewhat different from the figure mentioned by the hon. member.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Labour tell us why he does not use the figures released each month by the unemployment insurance offices throughout the country, which give the exact number of unemployed they have on their hands? Why does not his department use those figures which are accurate and not just guesswork?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There was a good deal of discussion on this matter some years ago, and I think it has been accepted by the house that the figures to be used are the dominion bureau of statistics figures based on the sample survey. It is obvious that the figures which are released by the unemployment insurance commission reflecting active claims in a particular period are not an accurate measure of unemployment. Other factors obviously enter into it; persons who claim

benefits and take jobs before they collect benefits, and so on. The figure that has been accepted is the dominion bureau of statistics figure, and these others are used for other purposes.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like at this time to provide information in reply to a number of questions asked this week concerning the activities of the board of trustees in the maritime situation. These questions were raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Ontario.
The first question concerns the integration of the seamen's union. The trustees have indicated that they do not favour the integration of licensed personnel in the S.I.U. To the contrary, they endorse the recommendations of Hon. Mr. Justice Norris that officers be separated from other personnel. They would favour the integration of engineers with other ships' officers if the engineers and other officers so desire. The trustees would favour integration of unlicensed personnel into one union, again only if the unlicensed personnel so desired. In this respect they endorse the recommendations of Hon. Mr. Justice Norris as to integration. The trustees do not favour any integration against the will of the seamen concerned. Hon. members will recall that there are provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act governing representation questions concerning unlicensed and officer personnel.
Another question raised concerned the "do not ship" list. There was no "do not ship" list in existence when the trustees were appointed, and there is not one now. Members of the trustees staff have been endeavouring to locate persons who at one time had been placed on the "do not ship" list and, where it appears they are interested, are asking them if they wish their case investigated. The trustee representatives in the hiring halls will see that the "do not ship" practice is not revived.
I have discussed with the trustees the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that they meet with the industrial relations committee of the house. The trustees have carefully considered this suggestion and feel that a meeting with this committee at this time would prejudice their efforts to achieve the objectives defined by the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustee Act. This is particularly so since much of the information in their possession is felt by the
Inquiries of the Ministry trustees to be the property of the unions they represent. The trustees naturally understand and appreciate the interest shown by members of the house in the carrying out of the difficult tasks with which they are charged.
Finally there is the question concerning hiring halls, raised by the hon. member for Ontario. The methods of hiring are governed by law,, collective agreements and the constitution of the union in question. As indicated earlier, the trustees have placed a representative in each hall who will endeavour to see that prescribed hiring arrangements are fairly followed, and the trustees will make suggestions for changes in the collective agreements and in the union constitution in this regard.
With regard to the specific question which the hon. member for Ontario posed, I understand a full member of the S.I.U. of Canada does have the privilege of accepting or refusing a particular referral. This privilege does not extend at present to probationary members. The rules governing these matters are now under review by the trustees and the unions.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question in respect of the last answer regarding hiring halls. Does the employer have the same privilege of rejecting an employee where a referral from the hiring hall is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe this would be covered by the specific agreement, but I will get this information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Labour if it is an oversight that there is nothing in his statement today regarding Mr. McLaughlin taking over the headship of the S.I.U.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No; I have attempted to answer every question that was left unanswered at the close of proceedings two days ago.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Yesterday it was brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour that members of the rights and welfare committee of the S.I.U. were protesting strongly against the appointment of Mr. McLaughlin to the position he is to be appointed to. Has the minister anything to say with regard to this, and what action does he intend to take in regard to the trustees' decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday, as the hon. member for Red Deer points out, members of the house, including the hon. member for Lake St. John and the hon. member for Fraser Valley, raised questions concerning a telegram which was sent to me by S.I.U. members of the rights and welfare committee, signed by

Inquiries of the Ministry Michael Sheehan, John J. Wood and Omer Boudreau, directors of the committee. To my knowledge these persons are not currently members of the S.I.U. and the first one, I understand, is a member of the C.M.U. However, I have replied to this telegram and have pointed out to the persons signing it that these are matters for the board of trustees.
The only observation I could make at the present time on the contents of the telegram is that while the trusteeship act does permit certain action to be taken regardless of the constitutions of the maritime unions, it does not permit the constitution of any maritime union to be scrapped.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary question, since the minister has told us the trustees do not think this would be a good time for them to discuss these matters with the industrial relations committee of this house, do the minister and the government share that view, or do they not think that perhaps the information that could be given would be illuminating to members of the house and therefore worth while?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter very carefully with the chairman of the board of trustees and with Mr. Millard, who undertook the negotiations in the recent crux, and it is the unanimous view of the trustees that a public appearance before a committee of the house would involve discussion of matters which at the present time would, in their view, prejudice their work as members of the board of trustees.
Having discussed that matter with the trustees I am bound to agree with them that at present it would not be in the interests of a solution of this problem to have that kind of situation develop. I do, of course, reserve the right to raise this question later on when these same circumstances may not prevail.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister in this connection whether the Banks McLaughlin "no ship" blacklist is still being followed. In addition, are those seamen who are on that blacklist still being denied employment on lake shipping?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the trustees advise me that when they took over there was no such list in existence. One of their staff is making every effort to right any injustice that may have been caused to a person whose name was placed on such a list, and any person who has a grievance in this connection is invited to come forward and have the matter clarified by the trustees.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that answer, but I would point out to him that last evening in Montreal I was informed that there are in fact seamen who are still being denied employment because of their absence from the list of those whom Mr. Banks and Mr. McLaughlin felt should have employment. I hope the minister will look into this, because this would simply mean a continuance either under Banks, McLaughlin, or the board of trustees of major wrongs that caused an intolerable situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly say the board of trustees are anxious to uproot any vestige of this d.n.s. list. If there is any member of the S.I.U. with a grievance in this connection he ought to come forward, either to the Minister of Labour or the board of trustees, and every effort will be made to right any injustice.


John George Diefenbaker: And in this uprooting process I ask the minister does he not think that if McLaughlin carries on in the position of the president of the union, all the evils of the Banks regime will still continue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. McLaughlin, if and when he succeeds to the presidency, will be under the close supervision of the board of trustees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to the matter of the trustees appearing before the industrial relations committee, would it not be the prerogative of that committee to decide whether or not to summon them to appear before it? Will the minister not consider arranging for a meeting of the industrial relations committee so that it can make the decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to answer the procedural question which the hon. member raised without further consideration, but I am sure he would agree it is important at this particular stage of the matter that the views of the trustees be carefully considered by members of the house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a two way street.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because it would be our wish to allow them, at this stage, to have a considerable amount of latitude with respect to matters which they are not in a position to discuss publicly. I have nothing to add to the statement I made earlier, and I must accept at this stage the views put forward by the trustees.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: 
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, are the trustees, in permitting the S.I.U. constitution to be carried out in the replacement of Banks by McLaughlin, fulfilling any arrangements made with Paul Hall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I promised the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I would table copies of the joint statement issued by Mr. Charles Millard and Mr. Paul Hall, and I shall do so now if I have permission. This request was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and if I have permission to table a copy the answer to that question will be contained in the statement, which the hon. member could study.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the tabling of the said document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. If Mr. McLaughlin is to succeed Hal Banks in the presidency of the S.I.U., thus continuing the regime of Hal Banks, does the minister sincerely think that seamen with grievances about the "do not ship'' list will come forward and declare openly what they think?


Mr. Speaker:: I hardly think the minister can be called upon to answer that question. It is in the nature of a hypothetical question, and I believe the situation has been made clear this afternoon.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (Si. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State?
Since construction of the C.B.C. headquarters is practically completed in Ottawa, has the corporation taken a decision concerning the possibility of dedicating that building to the memory of John F. Kennedy, as I suggested last December?
20220-123J
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the C.B.C.
has made a decision in that connection but I shall inquire and report back to the hon. member.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Has the Secretary of State received suggestions concerning a specific name to be given to that building?


Maurice Lamontagne: I should like the hon. member to repeat the last part of his question which I did not hear.


Raymond Langlois: Has the minister received suggestions concerning a specific name to be given to that building?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me this is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper. It illustrates how time can be used for, shall I say, better purposes.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that all the flowers have gone away, will the Prime Minister interpret for our benefit the interesting new parliamentary theory expounded by the Minister without Portfolio yesterday that "a private member has no right to question the word of a minister and more particularly what I", meaning the Minister without Portfolio, "said".
R:ghi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
It is well known, of course, that one member in this house accepts the word of another whether he is a minister or not.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Could he tell the house whether it is true that the loss following the theft of a mail truck in Montreal, on March 31 last, will amount to $2 million?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is little more to report at this time, except that the investigations are continuing. The amount involved is very substantial. It

Inquiries of the Ministry is not $2 million but it is still very substantial. The investigating staff of the Post Office Department are working closely with the police, and measures have been taken which it is hoped will prevent recurrence of such thefts. However, the investigation has not reached a stage at which we can make any definite statement at this time.
I can assure the hon. member and the house that this matter is receiving very close attention, and as soon as we have the detailed information a statement will be made. The amount involved is perhaps in the vicinity of half the amount mentioned by the hon. member, or perhaps a little more. I think it might be somewhere in the vicinity of $600,000 to $800,000, possibly more.



POSTMASTERS ACTING AS AGENTS FOR NEWSPAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I have in my hand a circular received by a Regina resident from the Winnipeg Free Press seeking a renewal of subscription. At the bottom it says "Your Postmaster is our agent and will be glad to forward your renewal to us." My question is, are postmasters permitted to act as agents for newspapers?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I hope not. I will take the question as notice and will certainly look into it.



POLICY RESPECTING CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL POST OFFICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on March 31 and again on April 3 the hon. member for Oxford during my absence from Ottawa asked the Acting Postmaster General, partly in that capacity and partly in his capacity as Minister of Public Works, some questions regarding the winter works program as it affected small post offices. He referred particularly to a letter which I had written to him and he questioned the Minister of Public Works regarding it.
I think, with respect, that if the hon. member had read the last two paragraphs of my letter, the answer is contained in those two paragraphs. What was referred to in those two paragraphs was the extended winter works program announced by the Minister of Labour last fall, it has nothing to do with the winter works program that has been in force over a period of years. It referred to the extended winter works program that was being terminated as of the end of April.

There has been no change in the other program. When post offices are needed, if they fit in with the winter works program the Department of Public Works will be advised. This letter referred to the extended winter works program and nothing more.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Postmaster General can enlighten the house by telling us what is the difference between the extended winter works program and the original one.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would be glad to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, but it might take some time.


Michael Starr: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no desire to cut off the Postmaster General, but questions are supposed to be urgent, pressing and of a type not capable of being put on the order paper.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Favreau: Yesterday I undertook to answer a question by the hon. member for Skeena which revived a question he had put some time ago asking whether the Minister of Justice was aware of the circumstances involved in the sale of Pacific Meat Company to another company and the agreement made by Pacific Meat Company and the principals in the process of that sale, and whether a study could be made to determine whether there is an infraction of the Combines Investigation Act.
I should like to say in reply that the director is aware of the situation and can be expected to take any action under the Combines Investigation Act which the statute may require. The general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry is being pursued unless and until a report is published. However, I may add-because this is general policy with the combines branch-that whether or not a formal inquiry is undertaken, the director of investigation and research examines all mergers such as the one in question here.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the attention of the right hon. gentleman Mr. Nielsen:	Having regard to that
been drawn to the speech of Professor Bora ultimatum by Mr. Levesque, I wonder Laskin, a leading authority on constitutional whether the Prime Minister will say if his law, delivered before the Port Arthur Cana- government intends to consult with the dian club and reported in today's issue of Eskimos as to the setting up of this com-the Montreal Gazette? If so, would he care mission and as to a general agreement re-to comment on that address?	garding the takeover.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, sir, I have no knowledge of that speech.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister prepared to make a statement with respect to his findings concerning water levels on the great lakes?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Our branch officials concerned are finding this a very complex matter. A complete statement is being prepared, and it will be of such length that I think I shall be asking the house to agree that it be printed without being read. However, it is not completed yet.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the setting up of the commission between the federal and Quebec governments, which he said he would take as notice. I wonder whether he can answer it today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Then I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the ultimatum that Mr. Rene Levesque has laid down in these terms:
We will never accept a referendum to help a bunch of hypocrites get the answer they want.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the lateness of the hour may I suggest to the experienced hon. member that he pose his question succinctly.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, had Your
Honour not risen it would have been finished by now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been dealt with, and the supplementary estimates of this department will be considered shortly. If past practice is any criterion, the house will be able to deal with this matter in the next three or four days.



FORT CHURCHILL, MAN.    TRAINING SCHOOL FOR ESKIMO CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister advise the house whether it is the intention of his department to conduct a vocational training school or a training school of any nature for Eskimo children at Fort Churchill, and when he expects this program may be instituted?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is a question for the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforfh (Keni, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. As he is not in his seat perhaps I can direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Since we are now perilously close to the planting season, can we now have the government's policy in regard to the support price of soybeans for 1964, under the stabilization act?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to bring this question to the attention of the minister.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Where is the minister?



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary could answer it. Has any decision yet been reached concerning the requested assistance to tobacco growers in southwestern Ontario? I would emphasize that this is a very urgent matter indeed.

Supply-National Defence Mr. Speaker: I think this question fits into this item pertains to the R.C.A.F. station at the same category of questions for the order Saskatoon. The R.C.A.F. estimates do not paper.	usually provide specific amounts for the
operation and maintenance of any particular BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	station.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice is still house leader I would like to pose a question to him in that capacity. Inasmuch as a number of committees studying very important matters at the last session recommended in their reports that they be reconstituted at the earliest possible moment in this session, can the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader now tell us whether the Conservative party has filed its list of members for the committees, so they can be established?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and the members will begin being named tomorrow.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of special privilege, in unison with voices in other democratic parliaments of the world I would like to bring to the attention of this house that today certain Canadian groups across Canada are commemorating the sad anniversary of the courageous uprising of the people of the Warsaw ghetto. It is to be stressed that six million Jews, men, women and children, lost their lives almost 20 years ago at the hands of nazi persecutors. It is hoped that the Canadian government will do everything in its power in the future to prevent such massacres and attempts at genocide.

House again in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Royal Canadian Air Force-
35e. Operation and maintenance, $13,653,000.


The Chairman:: Shall this vote carry?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, is the associate minister going to provide the answer to the question I asked yesterday on this vote?


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked whether any amount of money in


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the minister, and I am sure the hon. member for Rosthern cannot hear the reply being given.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The R.C.A.F. estimates do not usually provide specific amounts for the operation and maintenance of any particular station. However, it is estimated that the operating costs associated with the station at Saskatoon amounted to $1,700,000 in the fiscal year 1963-84.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration, $19,000.
Mr. Monteilh:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can give me some of the details of the first item, "Professional and special services", in the amount of $11,000.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, if I might answer the hon. member on behalf of the minister, this item is to provide for legal services by a lawyer appointed by the Department of Justice to assist the Department of National Health and Welfare in the drafting of the proposed Canada pension plan legislation.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the first item of this department I should like to say to the acting minister that I am sure all the people of Canada are extremely proud of the accomplishments of our Canadian Olympic hockey team, which was assisted financially to a certain extent by the advisory council on fitness and amateur sport. The splendid efforts which were put forth by Father Bauer and his hockey team in Europe were greatly appreciated by the people of Canada.
I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the department or of the advisory council to carry on this same type of program or policy which was adopted last year. At that time it was adopted on a one year basis so as to recruit a Canadian Olympic hockey team. I am sure many people in Canada would like to know whether this step is going to be followed up in preparation for the next Olympics four years hence, or whether the whole idea will be scrapped. I would heartily recommend that the advisory council be asked to give very strong

consideration to carrying on with this program in order to prepare for a strong Canadian representation in the field of hockey at the next Olympic games.


John Carr Munro: I shall be pleased to bring to the attention of the minister the hon. member's point of view. I do not believe there is any intention of scrapping the idea.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with a few very important matters concerning the interprovincial games of 1966 which will be held in Quebec, and with some statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). However, I will raise these later when the general estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare will be before us, because I think that will be a more appropriate time.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a single question, or rather make a remark to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I referred recently to him a problem which had been called to my attention by the Saguenay association for the blind, inquiring about the possibility of obtaining, through his department, passes allowing the blind to travel free on C.N.R. trains within Canada.
Has the hon. member made inquiries in his department and would he be in a position to inform me in that regard?


John Carr Munro: I am well aware of the representations made in this regard by the hon. member. The matter has been sent to the department for report. I have not yet received this report, but I will check into it again today and try and have the information for the hon. member before the end of the week.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to put to the parliamentary secretary. Could he tell us, and if he cannot do so today he could give me the information later by letter how many requests he received from the Quebec government regarding building plans submitted to Ottawa for the construction of new hospitals in the province of Quebec, but more particularly in St. Henri, in Montreal, and in the city of Joliette, where there is an urgent need for a hospital, as well as in the city of L'Assomption?
If the parliamentary secretary cannot give me this information today, I should be obliged if he would give it to me later, either by letter or in the house.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
9, 1964	1953
Supply-National Health and Welfare [Text]
I would be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words on the Olympics, in regard to the bobsled team from Canada. I understand that the bobsled itself had to be brought from the Olympics by the Americans; otherwise the team appears to have received fairly good co-operation from the Canadian officials.
I am just wondering whether in future consideration could be given to a little more co-operation with those who take the trouble which this team took to take part in the Olympics. There is more involved than appears on the surface, and certainly we should have brought their bobsled back instead of having the Americans do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25e-Health services, including assistance to the provinces-To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $2,000,000.
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary two or three questions with regard to hospital construction grants. First of all I would refer to the auxiliary hospital program initiated by the province of Alberta two or three years ago, the building program in connection therewith having stopped in the last few months. I want to know specifically whether the federal government have rescinded their grants to these auxiliary hospitals on the ground that they are not active treatment hospitals. If so, is this part of the reason that the Alberta program has been halted?
Second, there has been a considerable amount of pressure throughout the country for an increase in hospital construction grants, and I would appreciate knowing, as I know a lot of other people in the country would, whether the government is going to increase these grants.
Third, I should like to raise the question of construction grants for nurses' residences as they affect religious orders. I should like at some time a statement from the department with regard to their position in this matter and whether or not they consider these residences as they consider ordinary nurses' residences. If I could get these answers later I will be content.


John Carr Munro: I am sure every effort will be made to supply the hon. member with the answers on the main estimates. As to his

Supply-National Revenue second point on hospital grants, I believe a statement will be made tomorrow in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30e. Medical services-operation and maintenance, $950,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could give us a brief outline of these additional costs for medical services and so on.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Of the total amount of $950,000, $650,000 is required for hospital, doctors' and other professional and special services. This is because funds are required to meet the higher costs of hospitalization for tuberculosis and medical care and physicians and surgeons fees. These higher expenditures are due to an epidemic of tuberculosis in the Northwest Territories around Eskimo Point and to a greater demand for services of physicians and dentists.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And the transportation item of $150,000?


John Carr Munro: This is an amount which is required to meet expenditure in excess of the original allotment as indicated by the trend in current expenditure. The outbreak of tuberculosis at Eskimo Point in the Northwest Territories has necessitated transportation of patients to treatment centres. The greater demand for treatment and services particularly in remote areas is increasing these expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Customs and excise divisions-
5e. Inspection, investigation and audit services, $90,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to relate a certain matter to the committee and to the minister handling these estimates, especially as he is now minister responsible for this particular department. I want to refer to an exchange of correspondence, part of which is between myself and the minister's predecessor, the late Mr. Garland. It dates back to January of this year, when the Vancouver fishermen's settlement service wrote to the deputy minister of national revenue for taxation in Ottawa and pointed out certain anomalies that had arisen with respect to fishermen and the filing of income tax forms for certain years.
I think I can do no better than to read part of the text of the letter to the deputy minister in order to indicate initially what the problem was. The letter reads in part as follows:


On July 9, 1963 this office filed notices of objection with you with respect to the assessments of Andrew Karjala and Arthur Moffatt. Our objection was based on our contention that the method of averaging fishermen's tax, as set out in the Farmers' and Fishermen's Guide 1962, and on which the reassessment of the returns in question was based, was in error. To date we have had no reply to our notices of objection, although more than six months have elapsed. We now have the 1963 edition of the Farmers' and Fishermen's Guide, and also form T2011, and we note that both of these prescribe a new procedure for averaging, which leads to the same result as our original returns for Karjala and Moffatt, and which contradicts the reassessment of their returns.
We can only assume, therefore, that although the department has not seen fit to respond to our notices of objection it has nevertheless concluded that our objection was correct and has amended its own forms and instructions accordingly. We note also that the new form T2011 was printed in October, which proves that the department had accepted our interpretation at least three months ago.
I received a copy of that letter, as did the hon. member for New Westminster. I took the course of sending a copy of the letter to the late Mr. Garland in his capacity as minister of the department and asked him to deal favourably with the contention raised in the letter of January 20, 1964, from the Vancouver fishermen's settlement service. I received an interim reply that the matter was under study; then under date of February 27, 1964 I received this communication from the late Mr. Garland:
Further to my letter of 10th February, 1964, I am pleased to advise that in the case of the notices of objection filed by the Vancouver fishermen's settlement service the taxpayers will be allowed to calculate their taxes in accordance with the method set out in the 1963 edition of the Farmers' and Fishermen's Guide.
As of March 13 the Vancouver fishermen's settlement service had not received any communication from the minister to the effect that he agreed with their contention. I do not know the reason for the failure to answer, but I note that the same thing occurred before with respect to the original notices of objection, in that no reply was received.
In fact what has happened is that undoubtedly these two fishermen, Karjala and Moffatt, were not the only fishermen who filed income tax forms for the year 1962 as prescribed in the Farmers' and Fishermen's Guide. Undoubtedly many thousands of farmers in Canada as well as many hundreds of fishermen filed income tax declarations according to the 1962 guide, and undoubtedly many of them had their returns reassessed.
It seems to me that there may well be thousands of people in Canada who are not aware of the exact situation because the minister or the department have not communicated the specific information in any public way. Certainly they have not done so

to the Vancouver fishermen's settlement service, which raised the matter in the first place. Therefore I would think there must be thousands of people in Canada who, on the basis of the erroneous method of calculation in the Farmers' and Fishermen's Guide for 1962, have paid countless dollars in taxes which they should not have paid because their returns were reassessed by the department.
I am sure if the farmers and fishermen of this country knew that the department or the minister had come to the conclusion that the reassessments made on the basis of the 1962 Farmers' and Fishermen's Guide were in fact in error they would like to have the opportunity to re-examine their position and to re-file in accordance with the revised interpretation contained in the 1963 edition, which was authorized as correct by the late minister, Mr. Garland, in February of this year in the letter he sent to me.
I only raise this matter in a public way to point out the situation and to ask the minister to see that the original notices of objection or letters from the Vancouver fishermen's settlement service are replied to; and perhaps to make a public declaration of what the fact is so that those farmers and fishermen who may have paid countless thousands of dollars in taxes which they should not have paid will have the opportunity to reassess their position and re-file their forms for that year. There has apparently been an error on the part of the Department of National Revenue, and the farmers and fishermen should have the opportunity to get back a few dollars for their own pockets.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, there are two questions raised here. One has to do with particular taxpayers. I have no knowledge whatever, of course, in that regard, and even if I did there might possibly be some impropriety on my part in mentioning it.
The second question is a general one arising from the particular cases to which reference has been made. I think the best answer I can give the hon. member is that I will have all aspects of the statement made today by the hon. member looked into to see exactly what should be done and what the situation is. That I will do right away.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation. I have known the minister for some time and when he says he will look into something I know he will. I am sure that the taxpayers concerned will be appreciative of his comment. When the minister completes his study of all the aspects and implications of this question, I wonder whether he would consider making a statement in the house as to his conclusions.
Supply-National Revenue


George James McIlraith: I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to know whether it is one which could be dealt with by a statement on motions, but I will see that the information is made available by whatever the correct method may be.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on item 5e, inspection, investigation and audit service, under which we are asked to vote an additional amount of $90,000 to be added to estimates of $5,388,000 already voted for the year 1963-64. Besides, I note that for 1964-65, the same item involves an increase of $3 million.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the house that if we must vote more public funds to have field investigators harass Canadian taxpayers and priests in their own homes only to collect a few paltry dollars, we are making a very poor investment.
I say that following a personal experience, because last year, I had to appear in certain cases where charitable donations receipts were simply turned down. However, I won something because the investigators had refused to recognize the validity of the receipts without even taking the trouble of going to the priest's house or seeing the taxpayers concerned. They simply turned down the receipts without further ado.
Mr. Chairman, if the government intends to increase travelling expenses, investigation expenses and the number of investigators, briefly, if it is to pay salaries or provide some kind of featherbedding for people who may be friends of some hon. members, I think we are remiss if we vote this item. Today, we are asked to vote another $90,000. If a good part of this amount is meant for the salaries or the expenses of some civil servants who did not discharge their responsibilities, I think we should consider the matter seriously.
I would point out, incidentally, that the government did not include in the new budget it brought down the measures it proposes to take in order to settle this problem which is a sort of nightmare for Canadian taxpayers, when the time comes to prepare their income tax return.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
20e. General administration, $70,000.
Robert Norman Thompson: I have two questions for the minister, one related to the item we have just passed and one related specifically to this item. One of the problems of the revenue department, which we all understand, is this question of making tax levies equitable. The dividing line is sometimes not

Supply-National Revenue easy to determine. There are two industries in Canada that I believe are suffering from inequitable decisions by the taxation department.
The first is the soft drinks industry. I found it rather difficult to speak to the late minister on this subject because he was so honest in his own approach to it he found it difficult to take a position other than that which had been common practice, because his own business background related to this industry. We have across this country a number of small industries producing soft drinks. Their product is subject to sales tax. Their chief competition comes from soft drinks that are made in the home, the constituents of which are purchased in food stores. I am thinking of Kool Ade and a number of other products of that type which are not subject to tax.
The increased cost of sugar and the increased cost of operations have put many of these small soft drink companies in a financial position where they are likely to go out of business. There is a limit to which they can raise the price of the product and they find it impossible to carry on in a profitable way because they have to pay sales tax on their product, which is in direct competition with a product which is not subject to tax.
This brings me to the second point which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. It relates to fresh fruit juices that are imported in concentrated form in bulk packages and then reconstituted and sold mostly through our dairies. In examining this question we find that the canned concentrated fruit juice sold in food stores is not subject to tax, and neither is the powdered concentrate. Of course, fresh fruits are not subject to tax. However, when this same concentrated fruit juice comes into the country in bulk containers and is reconstituted it is subject to excise tax. This seems to be an inequitable situation.
It has been brought to my attention that some United States firms have completed large contracts with some of our large food distributing stores, particularly of the supermarket type, under which these stores are importing tax free reconstituted juice from the United States in 32-ounce containers. When our Canadian dairies import the same constituted juice that these United States companies are using and reconstitute it themselves, it is subject to tax. I think this is something about which we ought to be very careful because unnecessarily it results in a tremendous drain on United States dollars. If we imported the concentrated juice and packaged it here using our own labour, we would not only save foreign exchange but we would

also give work to a number of our people. I mention this because I believe the government should look at the matter closely.
I hope the government will try to make the situation more equitable so far as the soft drink industry is concerned and will also give consideration to the question of these imported concentrated fruit juices. I am sure any action would be not only helpful to those who are interested in seeing that a greater amount of fruit is included in our diets, but it would also be more equitable treatment to an important part of the business community of this country.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Ontario.


Michael Starr: I will forgo my question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Michael Starr: No.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, as we are discussing the item concerning informative material, I would like to make a few remarks.
In a personal message from the late minister of national revenue of February 15, 1964, there were some indications as to the manner of preparing an income tax return. Having in mind the claims which are, from time to time, made by the taxpayers in Quebec in the hope that their existence will be recognized, I see that, in the last paragraph of the folder entitled "Do you need further information?", there is a list of district taxation offices. If we study the folder, we find that the province of Quebec has four such offices. Quebec city, Sherbrooke, Montreal and Rouyn.
On the other hand, the province of Ontario, with a population figure which is only one sixth larger than that of Quebec, has 11: Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville, Toronto, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Kitchener, London, Windsor, Sudbury and Fort William.
Those are names and also figures which are given to us directly by the Department of National Revenue, and if the Quebec people do not spend their time insisting and insisting again to get adequate representation, we arrive at conditions such as those described here, in the little bulletin of national revenue.
I believe in particular that the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, for instance, with a population of more than 300,000, might have a district income tax office. There are many other districts in the province of Quebec which might also justify an income tax office.
Mr. Chairman, I close my remarks by quoting the title of an editorial I read in Le Ban-lieusard of St. Foye, in my riding, and also in the Editorial, a newspaper of Beauport and

the Beaupre country, with respect to charity receipts. I will just quote the title which reads as follows:
When governments subsidize lies.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the problem is important. I do not wish to labour the point but I should like to call the attention of all Canadians, and of the government in particular, on the slightly unequal number of taxation offices in Quebec and in Ontario. In fact, I might also speak of the other provinces; for instance, in British Columbia, where the population is much smaller than that of Quebec, there are at least three district taxation offices. In Alberta, where the population is quite small, there are two such offices just as in Saskatchewan.
I feel such an inequality should be set right. [Text]


Mr. Rynard:: With respect to the question of concentrated orange juice, the acting minister probably does not know that this matter has been under study for some time. The hon. member for Simcoe North and I have had considerable correspondence on the subject, and it is under continuous survey.


John George Diefenbaker: The point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer with regard to the soft drinks situation deserves the most serious consideration by the government. He is to be commended for having brought it to the attention of the committee, so that an opportunity would be given to the government to look into this very important matter where each year soft drink manufacturers all across the country find themselves in an impossible situation.
However, I rise to deal with another matter which was raised during the question period yesterday. It concerns the distribution of application cards for social insurance numbers. Yesterday I asked for an unequivocal answer from the government that the information contained in these cards would not be made available to other departments of government, and I mentioned in particular the income tax department. I found it very difficult to get an answer.
I shall not read in full what was said, but as recorded at page 1918 of yesterday's Hansard the Minister of Labour replied:
I am not in a position to indicate at this stage what system of government record keeping will be involved in the future, but that is the present attitude of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh; income tax, and so on?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly not.
Then after some other words I asked him:
-will he give the undertaking on behalf of the government that this information will not be made available to other departments of government?
20220-124*
Supply-National Revenue
This morning on the C.B.C., Mr. Blair Fraser, who speaks from time to time as a supporter of the government, unashamed and unchanging, chose the opportunity to make a personal attack on me. I am not going to answer that, except to say I seem to recall that throughout the years not only he, but also another parliamentary editor of Maclean's magazine, seemed to devote themselves unequivocally to the support of the Liberal party, whether right or wrong.
Indeed I recall back in 1957, at the time Mr. Fraser was connected with Maclean's magazine in a very intimate capacity, four or five days after the election an editorial appeared in that magazine applauding the return to office of the government of Mr. St. Laurent. That was one prophecy in which he and those associated with him were not right; and it was not the last.
I do not intend to go into the record today except to point out that the questions I asked were well founded. I asked whether this information would be made available to any other department, and I was unable to secure an answer. I now wish to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that as far back as August 21, 1963, a memorandum was sent out to all district officers of the administration branch of the Department of National Revenue, which in part read:
Although legislation concerning the proposed Canada pension plan cannot be considered until parliament reconvenes, this division-
-that is, the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue

-which would perform an important administrative function in the implementation and continuing operation of the plan, is already involved in preliminary planning in the areas of coverage, enforcement and collection. In order that we may be ready to assume our full responsibility when legislation has been considered it is necessary that five positions at head office be filled immediately. These positions are one administrative officer 8 for the administrator (taxation), Canada pension plan and four administrative officer 6 for regional administrators (taxation), Canada pension plan.
I am informed that officials of the Department of National Revenue have sat in on the proceedings in connection with this pension plan, and it is a strange thing that these appointments should have been made before the legislation has even been considered by parliament. The internal competition was set up and appointments were made. I am not going to give the names of the officials who were appointed, but they are now in office working on numbering, payroll collection procedures, carrying out functions not as yet approved by parliament, and drawing salaries for performing that which has not been authorized.

Supply-National Revenue
I go no further at the moment than to say that in order to carry out payroll deduction procedures, collection, coverage and enforcement, these officials of the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, will have full access to all the data being compiled under this scheme. That is how serious the situation is, and no amount of trying to brush it aside can circumvent the fact that people are being asked to complete these forms and that the information contained in them will be available to these officials.
We are told Nelson put his telescope to his blind eye, but I am sure the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, having this information will find difficulty in emulating what Nelson achieved. That is why I brought this matter to the attention of the house yesterday.
Why is it necessary, before the pension scheme has received the authorization of parliament, to proceed in this way? Why should these forms be sent out to the province of Quebec, since notice has already been given that Quebec will not participate in the plan?
As the Prime Minister said today, he does not know what the attitude of Ontario will be. But the fact remains that until a decision in this regard is made, what is being done is improper. And everywhere across the country, no matter whether it is said in parliament that it is voluntary on the part of those who are now receiving or who may receive unemployment insurance, what is being done is most improper regimentation and should receive the strongest condemnation on the part of parliament.
I wanted to clear up the record in this regard. I again point out that the gratuitous efforts at personal attack on the part of Mr. Fraser, for which he is paid moneys supplied by parliament, are carrying political partisanship beyond what I think is proper and appropriate. While he is acting as editor of Maclean's magazine no one can take any umbrage, but when he chooses the C.B.C. for the purpose of attacking that which he does not understand, but which he must realize in his heart is a wrong understanding, then the reason for his attack becomes more definite and clear.
When I asked yesterday whether this information was going to be used, I had every reason to do so and Canadians have the right to a definite answer on the part of the government

not one of uncertainty, not one which does not clearly define the position in which the income tax branch will be, and the information which will be available to them.


George James McIlraith: The point raised by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency dealt, it

seemed to me, with two matters. Part of his observations had to do with the substantive matter of taxation which, of course, is not germane to the estimates of the Department of National Revenue but is something more properly dealt with during the budget debate. The other part of the hon. member's remarks may relate solely to the administration, and in this regard I shall be glad to take particular account of what he had to say.
The Leader of the Opposition discussed at some length the political beliefs of the editor of Maclean's magazine-


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what I was dealing with.


George James McIlraith: *-and the action of that magazine during the 1957-58 campaign. I remember one particular edition of that magazine very well and I can only say to the right hon. gentleman that I have some sympathy for his feelings in that respect. However, he should have been very much relieved by the extremely good results he had in the 1958 election

results which should have made him overlook such a bad-


John George Diefenbaker: Prophecy?


George James McIlraith: -such a bad prophecy on the part of the magazine. I might perhaps refresh the right hon. gentleman's memory by telling him that I had a somewhat similar experience in Ottawa on that occasion, when representatives of all the publicity media went to a certain very large room in a hall which had been rented-a substantial hall, by the way, with a capacity for holding many thousands of persons-and the hall was left vacant all the evening except for an attached room where a certain person was, with a very few personal supporters and a very large number of boxes of luncheon sandwiches which were put to uses other than those for which they were intended when they were ordered the day before.


An hon. Member:: Did you take them over?


George James McIlraith: No. For some reason or other they did not send the sandwiches over to where they would have been used. The red-faced public media representatives did not ever catch up, as a matter of fact. It is rather interesting. The television recorded some aspects of that location. In any event, I will not digress further into what happened on that occasion. Possibly this is not the occasion on which to do so. But I wish to let the Leader of the Opposition know that these things do happen at certain times in the course of certain elections.
The point the right hon. gentleman made about the forms is, undoubtedly, an important one. As a matter of fact, I was following it

yesterday. Of course the Leader of the Opposition asked his question on the orders of the day, without notice, and it is the kind of question which should, perhaps, have been placed on the order paper so that a precise and carefully prepared answer might have been given. That accounts for part of the difficulty he has had.
But perhaps I should enter a caveat with regard to one other portion of the right hon. gentleman's remarks-the part having to do with personnel who prepare legislation for government action. As he well knows, in connection with a measure such as the Canada pension plan-and I do not wish to enter into a discussion of that subject-there are undoubtedly actuaries from various departments, such as the revenue department, lawyers from the Department of Justice, and others, who have spent a great deal of time on activities of this kind. Only minutes ago, dealing with the estimates of another department, the committee approved a fee for special counsel to assist in preparing certain complicated legislation. I am sure the house would be extremely critical of any government which chose to bring forward legislation of the magnitude and importance of the Canada pension plan, without having taken the appropriate preparatory steps so that the measure could reasonably be expected to go into operation if and when it received the approval of parliament. There is a very fine line to be drawn here.
The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that a government cannot spend any money before parliament has given its approval and, as a matter of principle, that is right. However, the government also has the responsibility of carrying out preparatory steps so that the measures submitted to parliament for approval may be properly drawn up, and, second, to place itself in a position where it is able to carry out the decision of parliament when a measure has been approved. It is in drawing the line that the difficulty arises.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister, but of course his answer does not apply to the situation. These people were appointed as a result of notices sent out. last August. The legislation has not been passed by parliament. They are carrying out their duties and receiving salaries on the basis of those duties, but. the duties have not yet become applicable. They are not in the position of those who are called upon in various departments to give expert advice.
While the minister answered in a nice, general way, the question remains: As Acting Minister of National Revenue, can he tell us whether this information will in any way
Supply-Northern Affairs be used by the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, in the days ahead? I am looking for an answer on that point.


George James McIlraith: I do not think I am in a position to give a categorical answer to that question at the moment, but if the right hon. gentleman wants to leave the question with me I shall put it in a form to which a thorough answer can be given. It is an important question and I shall be glad to follow it up.


Robert Norman Thompson: I count it an honour to be associated with my good friend, colleague and seatmate the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, but for the sake of the record I would remind the minister that I come from another beautiful part of the country. I refer to the foothills and parkland area called Red Deer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: The Post Office Department.


Erik Nielsen: Where did the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources escape to?


Lucien Lamoureux: It was my understanding that it was the desire of the government to go on to the Post Office Department, but do I understand now that they are willing to go on with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


John George Diefenbaker: Is it northern affairs, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, northern affairs; vote No. le.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates, 1963-64, to authorize payment of a contribution to the Canadian council of resource ministers in an amount equal to one half the aggregate contribution of the provinces but not exceeding $32,000 and to provide a further amount of $53,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this particular section dealing with departmental administration makes it possible to discuss and summarize in general the arguments that have been advanced on a number of occasions by hon. members on either side of the house with regard to the Eskimos in northern Quebec. I think the house owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Northwest Territories who, knowing the conditions of the Eskimo to a degree that no other white man has ever known finds himself a representative of theirs in parliament, to the

Supply-Northern Affairs hon. member for Yukon with his wide knowledge, as well as the hon. members for Pontiac-Temiscamingue and Peace River. The representations of these hon. members deserve the serious consideration of the minister and of parliament. Indeed, this is a matter so serious in its import that the Prime Minister himself should make clear the views of the government.
I am not entering into any difficulties as between the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec but I am joining with the hon. gentlemen who have spoken to express the strongest condemnation of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, which in what it has done even to date shows a disregard for an aboriginal people that cannot be justified. Eskimos are not serfs; they are not political captives or pawns to be shoved about at the will or the whim of a government or governments. They are Canadians.
I read the other day with a great deal of interest the views expressed by the minister in an address at St. Catharines. That address was filled with the wisdom that comes from years of experience in public life. The heading is, "Laing says Canada is envy of world". The minister said in this speech:
Canada is the envy of the world, a country everyone outside its boundaries thinks is a superb place and whose future only those inside our boundaries doubt.
He was speaking to the south Ontario Liberal association. Then he made some observations, when he got away from national issues, and said this:
Our entire safety lies in a government of laws, and not men.
Never were truer words spoken by him. I am going to ask him to carry out the terms of the great principles that he enunciated. I will read what he said again:
Our entire safety lies in a government of laws, and not men.
What have we here? Have we a government, in so far as the Eskimos are concerned, of laws, not men? Can these people, who are within the sole jurisdiction of the federal parliament, be transferred, bartered away, whatever the terms, to another legislative body? Where is the constitution of this country, if this can be done? Are they to be mandatorily, and without regard to their feelings, transported into another jurisdiction? What would happen if any group of Canadians that was exclusively under the jurisdiction of a province was transferred to another jurisdiction? Can it be done?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have before me the only recent case dealing with the subject of the transfer of jurisdiction, administrative or

otherwise. I shall refer to it after first referring to the case to which various hon. members have alluded. That is the case decided in 1939; it was a reference as to whether the term "Indians" in head 24 of section 91 of the British North America Act-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, would the right hon. Leader of the Opposition mind giving me the reference to the case again?


John George Diefenbaker: I am just coming to that. It was a reference as to whether the term "Indians" in head 24 of section 91 of the British North America Act, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government, includes Eskimo inhabitants of the province of Quebec. It is to be found in the Canada Supreme Court Reports, 1939, at page 104 and following. This is a very interesting situation. In 1939 the province of Quebec contended that it was not right or legal or constitutional for the government of Canada to give the government of Quebec the responsibility to look after the Eskimos in that province. They claimed that this responsibility could not be placed on their shoulders. The government of Canada argued that an Eskimo was not an Indian and that therefore the exclusive jurisdiction over Indians did not apply to Eskimos.
I am not going to read from the case, except to point out that it is a most interesting one. One goes back as far as 1763, and on the 8th day of June of that year a discussion took place concerning the trade carried on by the French on the coast of Labrador. With regard to that discussion it is reported that they carried on "an extensive trade with the Eskimo Indians in oil, furs, etc. (in which they allowed Your Majesty's subjects no share)". Then later on Sir Hugh Palliser referred to the Eskimos as Indians. On April 10, 1772, Governor Shuldham referred to them as the Eskimo Indians. And so on throughout the years.
The Hudson's Bay Company made a full investigation regarding the peoples under their jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that the proper description of the Eskimo was within the classification of "Indian". Finally in 1879 correspondence passed between Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Hector Langevin on the subject of the Eskimo on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and throughout the correspondence "Eskimo Indians" is employed as a description, as it had been employed for 100 years in official and other documents.
The interesting situation was this. The province of Quebec said, "The Eskimos belong to you". The government of Canada of that day said, "No, the Eskimos do not belong to us and we are not responsible for them". They fought the case, and the Supreme Court of Canada held that Eskimos came within the

descriptive word "Indians". So the government, the parliament of Canada, has exclusive jurisdiction; and in these days of constitutional discussion the government of Canada is the first in this regard to brush aside the constitution, to deny their exclusive jurisdiction and, under the guise of pretending that what they are doing is entering into an agreement, they would turn over the administration to a jurisdiction that has no right to exercise any power over these people, beyond the usual powers that a province has over subjects or people within its boundaries.
In order to do this the minister says, "We can enter into an agreement with the province". I am most anxious to hear the opinion of the law officers of the crown in this connection. I say that no reading of the judgment in the case of the attorney general of Nova Scotia and the attorney general of Canada reported in 1951 Canada Supreme Court Reports, page 31, can lead one to believe that the parliament of Canada or the government of Canada can by a simple agreement get rid of, transfer, assign or sublet any of its exclusive jurisdiction. While I do not usually read the headnote alone, I am going to do so on this occasion, Mr. Chairman. Every lawyer knows that it is always most important to read all the case rather than just the headnote, but the headnote does epitomize the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. It reads:
The parliament of Canada and each provincial legislature is a sovereign body within its sphere, possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the subject matters assigned to it under section 91 or section 92, as the case may be.
This is the important thing. The province of Nova Scotia thought it could transfer some jurisdiction to the federal parliament:
Neither is capable therefore of delegating to the other the powers with which it has been vested nor of receiving from the other the powers with which the other has been vested.
There is just no question about this. All the evasive uncertainty that has been displayed in this matter does not take cognizance of the fact that the parliament of Canada or the government of Canada cannot deal with fellow Canadians in a cavalier, unjust manner without regard to their views. There has been a suggestion here that a referendum might take place on the basis of the 1951 case. No matter what the referendum might declare, this act could not be justified, under the authority to which I have referred. I cannot understand this. These are aboriginal people in a country which has undertaken not only the responsibilities inherent in the bill of rights but is a member of the United Nations, and Canada intends by this action to breach the greatest principle of all.
Supply-Northern Affairs
I have listened to the argument in this connection, and the more I look at the minister of northern affairs the more I am convinced that he is convinced he has a most unsalutary job on his hands, that of trying to explain why this action is justified. As a matter of fact, in light of principles such as he enunciated in that speech, embodying as they do his views throughout his life as I have known it for many years, in his own heart he cannot justify this. I raise it to a level higher than an emotional one; I raise it to the constitutional level. The government cannot do this; they dare not do this. They cannot take people like this and shove them around as pawns in order to meet the needs of the moment.
I go further than that. Even if they agreed to this it would not be within the constitutional limitations defined bv the 1951 case. It would be a case of self-determination. I have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaking of self-determination somewhere else in the world. What about trying it in Canada? In this case, even though the government determine upon this course the constitution will not allow it, if I read the case in 1951 aright, and there has been no challenge that I am reading it wrongly.
Now, Mr. Chairman, why is this the case? I presume it is because the government felt these people would be voiceless serfs. In other words, they would have no one to speak for them. But they have in the person of the hon. member for Northwest Territories and other members. The minister has not denied something he was asked the other day. He was asked whether or not, when he saw the Eskimos, he did not find them opposed to this action. He did not deny that, and the interpretation of his failure to deny it becomes very clear.
I am not resting the case of these people on the basis of any arguments as between the government of Canada and the desires of any province. I am resting it on the constitutional right of these people to have their rights respected by parliament. How are we going to justify this? Today we hear more and more, and in stronger terms than ever before, that the constitution must be maintained. Yet at the very time this is going on these poor people on the shores of the Arctic are being told that the constitution belongs to others but not to them. That is in effect what they are being told, and the government cannot justify this. Strong arguments on the law have been made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. He pointed out the circumstances and he pointed out the law.

Supply-Northern Affairs
We cannot get any information. I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman, a few questions and we will want answers to these questions before this item dealing with these poor untutored fellow Canadians passes. Are negotiations now going on between the federal government and the government of Quebec in connection with the financial arrangements? Has the federal government offered to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the administration? Does the government of Quebec ask for 100 per cent of those costs? Do the prospective arrangements call for transferral of federal property, including hospitals, schools and administrative buildings, and on what terms? These are questions to which we have the right to answers. The government are talking of the constitution as though it belonged to us, the white race. This is a constitution which belongs to all Canadians without regard to race. I make this appeal to the government: Do not think that because they are few in number their votes do not count. Do not treat them as chattels to be pushed around, their constitutional rights denied.
That is the appeal we make, far and above the things that separate as between the federal government and any of the provinces. That is what is at stake here in trying to get information from the government. They say that parliament is being held up. Last evening the Prime Minister spoke of obstruction. I could read some of his statements on the subject of obstruction through the years when he was in opposition. It is not obstruction to stand for the rights of the people in the House of Commons. We are not going to be placed in the position of having the government, hiding behind a smokescreen of obstruction, at the same time, while hiding behind it surreptitiously and clandestinely take away the rights of these people. We are not going to have that. We are going to have this matter cleared up and the Minister of Justice is the one who can do it.
I am going to refer to an article in L'Action by Mr. Poliquin on February 21 last. He referred to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the minister of natural resources for Quebec having a five hour meeting the day before. On the question of consultation Mr. Poliquin, who was present, reports Mr. Levesque as having said:
It our Eskimos are advised previously of any decision and given detailed explanation, we are in accord.
That is the attitude of the minister of natural resources, Mr. Levesque.
But if you consider their lack of information, their complete dependence on federal civil servants, and if consulting them seems a sort of referendum, then this should not be done, for it would be inapplicable and artificial.


No matter whether there was such consultation it would still remain a travesty on the constitution. Mr. Levesque went on to say:
On the other hand, we are quite sure that in accepting the principle of the transfer the federal authorities have no intention of ruining it by such procedures.
That means that those on the government benches have agreed to this and they must place the facts before us no longer wrapped in an enigma of uncertainty. We want to know what the facts are. We want to know whether these aboriginal people are to be treated as persons, as people-


An hon. Member:: As Canadians.


John George Diefenbaker: -or are they simply to be in the position of inanimate things, of chattels, who are to have their course determined by the will of the master? That is the issue here, the constitution of Canada; and the constitution must be upheld. It is not to be deviated from, it is not to be circumvented by the political exigencies of the moment. What did the Minister of Justice say on this occasion? Mr. Poliquin goes on to say in his report:
One can hardly call it a love scene. In this atmosphere the... conference opened in the west block. They took turns provoking each other. About 6.30 p.m. Levesque had had enough. He prepared to leave. He was fed up with the stubbornness of Mr. Laing.
Then the Minister of Justice came into the picture.
Mr. Guy Favreau at this point intervened with: "We agree judicially, administratively and financially. Why burn the bridge between us?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what Mr. Poliquin reported and he was there. I was not. The two ministers were. They will be able to give their revised version of this event. Then the article goes on to say:
Discussion went on for 90 minutes. Nothing was decided.
Then it says that Mr. Levesque was "bombarded" by the press. That is a good expression. Mr. Levesque is reported as having said:
I abhor a pseudo-democratic consultation, which would give the Eskimos the right of veto on this transfer, and which would be a farce.
I say, and I am not in full agreement with my colleagues in this regard, that I do not think consultation in any way meets the situation, but certainly consultation would have been at least a step forward. But they are not to receive that. They are to be told: You are Eskimos; you have no rights under the constitution.
Sir, we are going to find out about this. I am not entering into a discussion as to the matters that may be in issue between the

federal and provincial government. I am putting this to the Minister of Justice directly. I do not know whether he was one of distinguished counsel on that case in 1951. No, he was not on that one, but he was one of the law officers and I am asking him to interpret that case. I know I must not ask the Minister of Justice to give his opinion of the law, but it would be interesting, though, if he should try to say that that case does not deny the very thing that is being done here.


Michael Starr: He has made a facial expression but you cannot tell whether it is yes or no.


John George Diefenbaker: If the Minister of Justice will not give an opinion then I ask any of the legal members of the house to read the case. It does not require much interpretation to understand these words, and I repeat them:
The parliament of Canada and each provincial legislature Is a sovereign body.. .Neither is capable therefore of delegating to the other the powers-
And so on. Of course, in order to explain this away they will say that they are not delegating power over the Eskimos; they are just delegating the right to exercise the power of administration over them. What else is left? No more important matter will come before this parliament than the welfare of 2,500 Eskimos. How can the government deal with them in this way and then go to the United Nations and say that Canada stands against discrimination? To treat these people in this way is the crassest demonstration of discrimination in that it denies that the constitution of Canada, which is my birthright and the birthright of all Canadians, applies to Eskimos. That is my argument.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock and so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is now my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the house would not agree unanimously to carrying on with the business of the government and waiving the private members' hour for today? The house seems to be in a wonderful mood to proceed with the estimates and this would certainly allow us to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: We agree.


Michael Starr: In view of the very important matter now being discussed and in view of
Supply-Northern Affairs the fact that it is imperative that the government should make a clear and concise statement on the matter, we fully agree that we should carry on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


Guy Marcoux: That suits us also, Mr. Speaker, on condition that irrelevant speeches will not be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to suspending the hour and carrying on with the discussion of the estimates?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



DEPARTMENT OP NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates, 1963-64 to authorize payment of a contribution to the Canadian council of resource ministers in an amount equal to one half the aggregate contribution of the provinces but not exceeding $32,000 and to provide a further amount of, $53,000.
Mr. Francis:: As a relative newcomer to this house I have heard some moving and dramatic speeches. Seldom, however, have I heard a more moving and dramatic one than the one made by the Leader of the Opposition. He has gone through the history of this issue and put the constitutional position in very clear terms. He has said that the constitutional position and the decisions of the highest authorities must be respected. He has given us a very dramatic and moving demonstration of the need to respect human rights, pointing out that the Eskimos involved in the administration of northern affairs are not mere pawns.
In the short time I have been in this house, Mr. Chairman, I have observed a few things. I observe that today the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is not here when his leader speaks in this house on this matter. I have heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm persistently accuse this government and press this government as to why it was not going to proceed with this measure, which the leader of his party has said would be such a wrong thing to do. The Conservative party in this house speaks with two voices. If parliament comes into disrespect it is because of a lack of sincerity. I have seldom witnessed

Supply-Northern Affairs a greater exercise in sanctimonious hypocrisy than that put on by the Leader of the Opposition.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


An hon. Member:: What right have you to talk?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Sit down.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is the purpose, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I think it would be better if the hon. member for Carleton-


Michael Starr: You are not contributing anything to this.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think it might be better if the hon. member for Carleton were to adhere to the vote before us.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have listened to-


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has been speaking on this very point. He has opened the door to the discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been charged with hypocrisy, and the hon. gentleman can make that statement because I throw it back in his teeth. I spoke about unconstitutionality; that is what I spoke about.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have sat here often and heard the encouragement of the questioning by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm in an effort to embarrass this government when it was taking a very carefully considered position on this matter. I am proud of the position the minister of northern affairs has taken. It is fortunate that he is most reasonable. He is also, Mr. Chairman, as cognizant of human rights as any hon. member of this house.
Surely it ill-behooves the opposition in this house to speak, as I have heard them on other matters, with two voices. One voice attacks the government because it does not follow an aggressive ultranationalist policy which would do a great deal of harm to this country. The other voice is the more sensible voice of conscience, which says there are human rights, that there is a constitutional position. I am glad to hear the constitutional position so well put forward. This kind of thing, in my opinion, does not do credit to this house when two voices come forward on a matter as important as this. The position of the government, a position which I am able to support, is one of careful consideration of all aspects of the problem and full consideration of provincial and federal rights. Certainly, to my knowledge, no action has been taken which is inconsistent with that.


An hon. Member:: Bring on another seal.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, this is a very delicate matter which everybody should discuss with the utmost coolness and moderation since human beings are involved.
Thus, I am not blaming the hon. member who has spoken before me for having become a bit irritated because in certain quarters, an attempt was made to make political capital of negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa with respect to the Eskimos.
When I first came to this house, directly from the bar, I never would have believed that this matter would be examined without at least finding out all the facts, the policy of the government and its position from a legal point of view.
I say that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who is perhaps the one who most bitterly criticized the attitude of the government in the house, has always intimated something which is false both in fact and in law. He was scandalized and he took for granted that the government intends to proceed with a jurisdictional transfer of Eskimo affairs. On the basis of this false premise, he accused the government of not being concerned about the rights of the Eskimos and of just simply signing an agreement to rid government of its jurisdiction.
I say that such statements are a hateful betrayal of the truth, of the facts and of the law.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, the legislative jurisdiction concerning the Indians rests with the federal government. It is also true that in 1939, where the matter was referred to the supreme court, neither the Quebec government nor the Ottawa government wanted to look after the Eskimos. It is also true that the supreme court, at that time, stated that for the purpose of section 91 the Eskimo people were Indians. Therefore, the related jurisdiction, in the legislative view point in particular, rested with the federal government, and more precisely with the parliament of Canada.
What is not true is, first of all, that the present government tried or is trying to make a transfer of jurisdiction. Neither is it true that we are trying to lay down conditions for the administration of Eskimo affairs in the far north and that the government would forget or rather would bypass those human beings, those Canadians, because the Eskimos are Canadians.
There was no treason, no attempt to get rid of that jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to a decision of the supreme court to the effect that delegation of powers between federal

and provincial authorities-delegation or exchange of powers, as defined or described in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act-was illegal.
It is true that it was stated, in that case, that the two governments are sovereign in their respective fields and that, under the constitution, a provincial government cannot delegate its powers to the federal government in a field that is subject to legislative jurisdiction under section 92, just like the federal government cannot delegate its powers to the provincial government in a field which comes under its own jurisdiction according to section 91.
Therefore, this prohibits such agreements, such contracts, under which constitutional powers would be exchanged without being authorized by an amendment of the Canadian constitution.
But what happens in the same case? It has been decided that nothing prevents the federal government, in the exercise of its own jurisdiction, from selecting a body of the provincial government as its representative, its agent to exercise, in accordance with conditions laid down by the federal government, a federal jurisdiction; and the fact that this agent acts on behalf of the federal government is not unlawful, but on the contrary it is completely in accordance with the constitution.
Conversely, it is clear that the provincial government which is entrusted with the administration of certain civic rights may delegate, when necessary, to the federal government or to an agent or a department of the federal government, the power to act as its representative for the purposes of exercising its jurisdiction. It is simply a delegation of powers and a mandate is merely being conferred, on behalf of the provincial government, to the main agent. It is quite clear and simple and there is nothing more to it.
What, then, is the matter involved here? It is merely for the moment a draft agreement under which the Quebec government would agree to look after the administration of Eskimo affairs in the far north, on behalf of the federal government.
The federal government maintains its jurisdiction to such an extent, gives up so little of its authority and is so anxious to carry out its responsibilities, of which it is aware, that this administration by the Quebec government will only be conducted, as specified moreover, in the draft agreement, under conditions laid down by the federal government. Therefore, it is in the exercise of its jurisdiction and in order to discharge responsibilities towards the Eskimos that the federal government imposes conditions on the province of Quebec in that administration,
Supply-Northern Affairs and the federal government will be satisfied only when the provincial government accepts them.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Has the government of the province of Quebec accepted to have conditions thus imposed by the federal government?


Guy Favreau: That is my understanding under the preliminary agreement which has already been mentioned by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), myself or our government as well as by the representatives of Quebec.
One only has to read the statement made in this house by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to understand. It laid down the policy to be followed. We will be satisfied only when there has been sufficient consultation with the Eskimos and only at that moment, any agreement will simply be within a definite framework established by the federal government, and the province will take over administration of a sector, that of the Eskimo affairs, in cases limited to northern Quebec.
That is nothing new. That policy is already accepted by this government and was applied in the past in a very useful and efficient way by the government which preceded us under the direction of the leader of today's official opposition.
I have in mind, for instance, an agreement concerning Indians under which the federal government transferred to some provinces the field of education of Indian children-


John George Diefenbaker: No application at all. [Translation]


Guy Favreau: -or when the Indian community development was entrusted to provincial governments. Those are useful agreements, but they are agreements under which the provincial governments involved purely and simply become mandatories of the federal government to administer a sector or a part of Indian affairs. They do not do this on their own authority, but rather under the authority of the federal government.


Mr. Baldwin:: With respect, would the minister permit a question which is very pertinent to this point. Is it not a fact that any agreements that are in effect between the federal government and the provincial governments are only because of legislation, section 113 of the Indian Act, by which parliament gave to the government the right to negotiate agreements in accordance with the Indian Act? The point I make is that the

Supply-Northern Affairs federal government negotiated those agreements only because parliament authorized it to do so.


Guy Favreau: Such agreements are made within the administrative authority of the federal government and that was dealt with by the supreme court in 1939, when both governments were refusing to look after the Eskimos-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, something obviously happened in the translation booth and we did not get the English translation of the words following the question put by the hon. member for Peace River. Would the minister mind going over them again?


Guy Favreau: I listen so infrequently to my own words-I hope that will not be considered as a defect or a fault-that I do not always remember the exact words, but only the ideas I try to convey.

Mr. Chairman, I was saying that the agreements which were and continue to be made in regard to Indian affairs are made in the framework of the exercise, by the federal government, of its administrative jurisdiction in the field of Indian affairs.
But to dispel the concern my learned friend showed a while ago, I would add this: If at present the federal government administers Eskimo affairs, it is because the supreme court, by a decision rendered in 1939, allocated this responsibility to the federal government.
And in the same way that no one can question our right to deal with Eskimo affairs through agents, representatives, intermediaries-because of course it is not the government who must go in northern Canada to look after Eskimo affairs, it may be civil servants, agents or representatives-I do not see why, as long as the decision quoted by the Leader of the Opposition is not against that and that there is no transfer of jurisdiction, we could not use, in the same way, a provincial government to manage Eskimo affairs, within the limits of specific territories, and this according to the standards and-I repeat-conditions that will be prescribed by the federal government.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the minister? Since the administrative fields which are to be transferred deal with education, health services, and so on, am I to understand that the minister, when he says that those fields-and I refer especially

to education-will be managed by the provincial government, but on the terms prescribed by the federal government? In other words, will the federal government, in the education field, dictate to the provincial government how to discharge its responsibilities?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as regards education, my learned friend may be assured that the fundamental rights of the Eskimos will be respected. That is, indeed, the first condition we laid down.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Answer the question.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, some apprehension was voiced with regard to the religious angle. Now, that has always been the first care, not only of those who represented the federal government, but also of the representatives of Quebec, who agree that the respective faiths of all Eskimos concerned would be respected and that there would be no infringement of their freedom of religion.
Besides, those who know Quebec are aware that in this province educational and religious matters are essentially linked, and there is no question about it, to our mind, because we would not have it any other way.
As to the children's education, the Eskimo parents' wishes will be regarded, and the same principle will apply in respect of their faith. In short, they will be treated in the same way as the Indian parents and children.
And if hon. members still have any doubt or worry concerning the contents of any possible agreement, which would only be signed after consulting the Eskimos, it will be my learned and hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who will deal with it.
Should there be any apprehension with regard to the substance of a possible agreement I am authorized to say that it is the wish of the government to give the house the assurance that the text of any such agreement concerning Eskimo administration in the far north of Quebec will not be implemented until it has been tabled in the house, and time and opportunity has been afforded to any hon. member to test the confidence of the house in the government, if any hon. member wishes to do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are two or three points I should like to make in connection with the minister's declaration. But first I should like to refer to the intervention made by the hon. member for Carleton who felt he should introduce some colour into the debate this afternoon by drawing attention in some fashion or other to the absence from the chamber of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I should like to say

to the hon. member tor Carleton that my hon. friend told me yesterday he had a speaking engagement outside this city today. In accordance with that engagement he left this building much earlier this afternoon. Therefore any conclusion the hon. member may have wished to make, whether of a colourful nature or not, is at once odious and entirely untrue. My hon. friend is as legitimately absent this afternoon as the hon. member for Carleton often is. So let there be an end to that canard.
As to what was said by the minister, we should appreciate clarification of certain points. When the hon. gentleman indicated that the conditions of the administration would be imposed by the federal government -that the provincial government would merely be the agent of the federal government-did he mean the preliminary agreement envisaged that there would be no discretion on the part of the agent as to determination of policy? Is this a general mandate? Who is to furnish the funds, and will there be an accounting of the funds used in the discharge of this administration? Who will determine the norms for education? Will the Eskimo children in this part of Canada receive the same level of facilities, technical or otherwise, as are being provided for instance at Inuvik, or will there be one policy for Eskimo children in the northern part of Quebec and another policy for those who live elsewhere? We want to be given answers to these questions.
The minister, in his eloquence, was skilful in sliding around the questions put to him by my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temisca-mingue. He said the rights of the Eskimos will be respected and that the desires of the Eskimo parents will be respected. But he said nothing about the policy and the administrative conditions to be followed and imposed by the federal government. These are questions which demand an answer.


Guy Favreau: I had proposed to deal today mainly with the matter of the constitutional position of the government in relation to the entente or agreement contemplated. The hon. member may be sure that his questions will be answered and dealt with by my colleague the minister of northern affairs whose estimates we are now discussing-I should have said "supplementary estimates" but such is the length of the discussion that I always think we are really discussing the main estimates. Those questions which the hon. member raised will be dealt with by the minister responsible for the particular department concerned.
Supply-Northern Affairs [Translation]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the minister can resort to such excuses, since he tried to justify the government's position and he indicated the federal government had an absolute right to send an agent or an administrative officer. It is precisely on this point I am asking what will be the rights and powers of this agent, for an agent cannot have more powers than the principal.
This is why I am asking whether this agreement, or this preliminary agreement, provides administrative or political independence for the agent. Otherwise, there will be no principal and agent basis, but an agreement whereby the federal government will delegate the entire administration to the province. This is why I insist on these particulars; if not, the principle advocated by the minister, who, in his argument, holds-I do not mean that he is trying to deceive the house-that he could elude the judgment quoted by the Leader of the Opposition will go by the board.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word or two with respect to what the minister has said and particularly in regard to what he has not said. We have had no explanation from him as yet, nor have we had it from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, with respect to what the government's intentions are in regard to the Eskimos of new Quebec. We still have not received any answers and the arguments that were presented by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition have not been answered. The minister has thrown up a smokescreen in an endeavour to say that because Indian people have been treated in a certain respect with regard to educational matters and health and welfare, Eskimo people can be treated the same way. The minister nods his head in the affirmative, but I am sure he must realize that the Eskimo people cannot be treated, constitutionally, in the same fashion as the Indian people, because there is a specific exclusion with regard to these people in the Indian Act. If he will read section 113-and I am sure he must have done so when he was minister of citizenship and immigration-he will see that specific exclusion. My colleague from Peace River points out that section 4 also has applicability.
The minister is saying that because the government has been in the habit of dealing with educational, jurisdictional transfers with regard to Indian people, he can do the same thing with regard to Eskimo people. This is false and wrong. While section 113 of the Indian Act, an act passed by this parliament, authorizes this specifically, it specifically excludes Eskimo people. I will read, for the

Supply-Northern Affairs benefit of the minister and the committee, section 4 of the Indian Act, which sets forth the following:
This act does not apply to the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Eskimos.
How, therefore, can the minister justify his so-called argument in reply to the constitutional points made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Peace River by saying, "Because we have done it with the Indian people, we can do it now with the Eskimos"? Quite the contrary is the case. The parliament of Canada has authorized jurisdiction with regard to educational matters to be delegated to the provinces, if you will, but it has specifically excluded that power with respect to Eskimos. So there is still a good deal to be answered by the minister. The minister, as the person responsible for safeguarding the constitutional rights of these people, is called upon to answer specifically why he considers the government is justified in transferring any jurisdiction whatsoever in regard to the Eskimo people, wherever they are situated in Canada, whether it is the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba, or indeed in any other location in Canada.
I can tell the minister this, which the hon. member for Northwest Territories has already told him and members of this house on a previous occasion. The Eskimo people do not regard as their home any particular province, neither the province of Quebec, nor Manitoba nor Newfoundland. They regard as their home the north. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, while he was asked the question on occasion after occasion, has yet not risen to confirm the assurances that he gave to those people in Fort Chimo when he visited them, namely the assurance to the Eskimos in that region who did not want any transfer of jurisdiction-


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Where is the word "assurance" involved in the statement I made? What assurance did I make when I visited them?


Erik Nielsen: Let me read it to the minister; his memory has obviously failed him for a moment. I have in my hand Hansard for December 16 last year, when he said, as reported on page 5976, when making a statement on his estimates:
I found that the Eskimos made the following demands upon me, that no change from the federal administration to provincial control be made without further consulting them. I found that their opinions were so definite that I told them we would not make a change without discussing the situation further with them...They did not want a change made.


I took it from that and from the quotations which have been made of the minister's remarks in the press across this country, that this amounted to an assurance to those people that no change would be made unless they were consulted at every stage as to the government's intentions. They have been bandying this word "consultation" about and we are now in a complete maze, because what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources means by "consultation" is quite obviously different from what the Minister of Justice means by "consultation", which again is different from what the Prime Minister means by that word; and it certainly is widely different from the views obviously held by the minister of resources for Quebec, Mr. Levesque. He said, as late as yesterday, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune that jurisdiction over the Eskimos in Quebec had gone to the federal government in 1939 by a court decision, because there was an international scandal over mistreatment of Canadian Eskimos, and Quebec at the time was not interested in doing anything about it. In the same article the press quotes him as giving a flat refusal to the request for a referendum on the takeover, and he also said there had been a rampant campaign by people tied to the federal government against this little provincial government which is supposed to be coming in to deprive the Eskimos of everything else. Then further he said that they would never accept a referendum to help a bunch of hypocrites to get the answer they want, but that he will go into consultation about anything else.


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. member permit a question. Was the hon. member in the house when the minister of northern affairs reported on the terms of the free understanding between Quebec and Ottawa, in which he recited the definition of consultation, that there could be no other definition than this one?


Mr. Nialsen:: I certainly was in the house on that day. If the date has escaped the minister it was March 4, and I was shocked to read what the minister had placed on the record. I am sure that is not what the minister wants, nor is it what his departmental officials want. Because what he read into the record on that day was this, that the extent of the consultation will be that the terms and provisions of a fait accompli, of an agreement which had been executed between the two governments would be explained-explained, mind you- to the Eskimo people. That is what the minister said, and if that is consultation, I fail to appreciate how the rights of these people are

being protected. I fail to see how that statement of March 4 can be reconciled with what the minister said on December 16.


Guy Favreau: For the purpose of the record, will the hon. member agree that when he stated a few minutes ago what the minister of northern affairs is alleged by him to have said, he was not reading from any text but was quoting extemporaneously?


Erik Nielsen: I have Hansard for March 4 in front of me, and for the purpose of accuracy I would point out the minister said this, as reported on page 506:
The consultation, that is the communication of the terms of the agreement, excluding however the financial provisions thereof, and the receiving of the views and comments of the Eskimos concerned, will be made through a commission, consisting of one or more members appointed jointly by the federal and provincial governments. The functions of this commission will be to explain the conditions of the agreement, as well as the programs for the future, in terms clear to the Eskimos and to interpret and report to the two governments on the views and comments which will have been expressed to the commission.


Guy Favreau: Is that not consultation?


Erik Nielsen: If that is the extent of the consultation, then I am afraid this government is sadly lacking-


Arthur Laing: Read on.


Erik Nielsen: Well, there is no point in my reading the whole thing because the minister himself put it on the record. However, I will read the last paragraph of the minister's statement, which will not take up too much time of the committee.
Both governments agree that such consultation is a prior condition to the execution of the agreement. After the commission has reported, the two governments must also agree upon what modifications and recommendations suggested in the report should be accepted and included in the final text of the instrument of transfer.
When the minister put this statement on the record on March 4 he said no agreement had been reached. There was not even an agreement to agree; it was a consensus. Now we find the Minister of Justice referring today to a draft agreement, a draft agreement that I suggest-he can correct me if I am wrong

has already been prepared in the absence of the constitution of the commission to which the minister referred on March 4. So that there already exists a draft agreement-


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, I never referred to a draft agreement. What I said, and I have my words as translated from the French, was that the government wished to give an assurance that any agreement which may be made with the government of Quebec for the administration of the Eskimos will not be implemented until it has been
Supply-Northern Affairs tabled in the house, and time and opportunity has been afforded to any hon. member to test the confidence of the house and the government, if any member should be disposed to do so. That is what I said.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Justice cannot wriggle out of the words he used before he started reading from the text because as Hansard will show, he definitely referred to a draft agreement before he started reading from any text. If I am not correct, let the Minister of Justice now stand in his place and tell the members of this committee that there is in existence no draft agreement between the two governments. I challenge him to do that.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Justice has no reason to have any such knowledge of this matter at all; but I do, and I categorically deny that there is any draft agreement whatsoever existing at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: This is fine, Mr. Chairman. We have been attempting for weeks and weeks and weeks to get answers similar to that which the minister has just given, and now we are getting them. If anyone wonders why we take time on these supplementary estimates surely the actions of the government are full explanation. The Minister of Justice would not rise in his place and give us that assurance, but the minister of northern affairs had the courage to do so.
I presume the Minister of Justice intends to follow the procedure set forth by the minister of northern affairs so far as the so-called consultation with the Eskimos is concerned. He is so generous as to assure the members of this committee that the government will show us the agreement. He will table it in the house so that we can have a look at it-not so that we can exercise our constitutional right as the parliament of Canada to ratify any such agreement; not so that we can-


Guy Favreau: Again on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, what was said was that the agreement, if and when it is made, will not be implemented before any member of this house could test the confidence of the government as to its terms and implementation.


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Chairman, try as
the minister might he cannot evade the words already in Hansard and which I copied down myself. He said that the text of the agreement would be, and here I quote him, "tabled to check the confidence of the house in the government".


Guy Favreau: To test it.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Erik Nielsen: This will be after the agreement has been executed, after the Eskimo people have been bypassed, after parliament has been bypassed and after the constitution of this country has been completely disregarded by the government. This, sir, is the intention of the government.
The minister speaks of critical remarks which are hateful. I suggest to the members of this committee that it is hateful to see the evasion of the truth to which this house has been submitted by members occupying the treasury benches, not only on this question but on others. Questions are asked and not answered at all. If they are answered they are distorted, just as this one has been.


Guy Favreau: That is what you are doing now.


Erik Nielsen: I suggest to the minister that he has been guilty of distorting the facts of this case, otherwise the dozens upon dozens of questions which have been asked for almost eight months now would not have led to this situation, had they been answered instead of evaded, or if the minister of northern affairs had risen in his seat, instead of sitting silently, and answered some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. Yesterday or the day before the hon. member asked in the house whether or not the minister did not give the assurance to the Eskimo people at Fort Chimo that they would be moved at government expense if they did not wish to remain under Quebec jurisdiction. But he sat silent. That is a question which should be answered.


Arthur Laing: The question was too ridiculous.


Erik Nielsen: It is not too ridiculous to the 2,500 people involved.


Arthur Laing: And it was not asked.


Erik Nielsen: The question was asked.


Arthur Laing: Not of me.


Erik Nielsen: Then why does the minister not answer? Did he give the people of Fort Chimo the assurance that they would be moved at government expense if they did not wish to remain under Quebec jurisdiction?


Arthur Laing: Of course not, and no Eskimo at Fort Chimo asked me that question.


Mr. Rheaume:: Then why did you not say so yesterday?


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me there is a little difference of opinion as to what the council of the Eskimo people at Fort Chimo believe in regard to the assurances given them by the minister, and what the minister believes as being an accurate recollection of the assurances he gave them.

I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Canada Month for the month of November 1963; I think it will interest the members of the committee and should be on the record.
On page 5 of this publication I find the following:
Eskimo is now the second language of 20 employees of Quebec's bureau of northern planning, reported bureau chief Eric Gourdeau. Only trouble is, the 2,500 Eskimos in northern Quebec are not keen to return the compliment by taking French as their second tongue, asserted northern affairs minister Arthur Laing: Most of their contact has been with English speaking people. Laing's parliamentary assistant, M.P. John Turner, said the Eskimos thought "French" meant "Catholic": "To them the words are synonymous."
Quebec wants to assume responsibility for Eskimos in the province, expects to be able to offer them jobs in coming industrial developments. Ottawa presently administers all Eskimos. Northern affairs Laing insists that, "No discussion will take place without.. .the Eskimo people themselves."
I do not appear to have the article here because I had not planned to take part in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I really was not-which
quoted the minister, who I am sure must have read similar articles himself, as giving the assurance to the people of Fort Chimo that financial assistance would be forthcoming to those of the Eskimo people who did not wish to have any part in this transfer.


Arthur Laing: I think I might save the hon. member pursuing this matter if I were to tell him that I have a complete tape of every word I uttered there and I would be glad to have him listen to it some time.


Erik Nielsen: I would be delighted. I only wish that more cabinet ministers might show even that small degree of co-operation to members on this side. I am going to use a term with which I am sure the Minister of Justice is very familiar and which is familiar to a good many people in the country today. It is a basic term in the new dialogue of internal diplomatic expression and I think it is a term which will be understood by the people of Quebec. Within the constitutional framework surely the people of Quebec will understand the right of self-determination.
Recently we have heard a good deal about opting out, such as the opting out that Premier Lesage has done in regard to the Canada pension plan. If he considers this as one of the rights of the province, if he considers this as one of the rights of self-determination within the province of Quebec, then he is one person and his government is one government that will understand the conceding of the right to the Eskimo people to

opt out of this arrangement which the government is considering imposing upon them.
I see that it is five minutes to six, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to take my seat to allow the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources the remaining time before supper to answer some of the questions that have been put to him. I will leave him with one last question about which the Eskimo people at Fort Chimo are very much concerned. If they do wish to opt out, and apparently it seems that they do since 90 to 95 per cent of them do not want anything to do with this transfer, is the government prepared to pay their removal expenses to transport them from the area in which they are now living to other parts of the northland?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I anticipate that most of my remarks on this subject will be made after the dinner hour but I do want to make the comment, in light of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, the reply by the Minister of Justice and the intervention of the hon. member for Edmonton West, that it would seem to us who are not members of the bar that for some time to come we are going to live under a government of laws instead of men. I rather think that in the main the calibre of the debate thus far has been quite high-


An hon. Member:: Except for Carleton.


Arthur Laing: -and while I am quite unable to speak on matters of law I have no intention of degrading the calibre of the debate.
I do want to say that this matter is one that has been before the government of Canada for some time, not only before the present government but before the previous government. My predecessor in this post was approached by officers of the government of Quebec in 1961, I believe, at which time they indicated their interest in taking over the operation of Eskimo affairs in northern Quebec. The tremendous area of Ungava, which was added to the province of Quebec in 1912, is now showing some promise of progress through the development of mines and so on and is thus evoking the interest of more people from southern Canada than it has in the past. According to the count by northern affairs there are about 2,300 Eskimos in the area at the present time located at some 27 posts, with only a very few at some posts, and up to as high as 600 or 700 at the very large posts.
In the couple of minutes left before six o'clock I wish to say that I am extremely proud of the work that northern affairs has done with these people because I would think they are among the most primitive people on the continent, and in many instances the white man has made contact with them for
Supply-Northern Affairs the first time within the last ten years. I am very proud of the work of the officers of the department not only since I have been minister of the department but over the last ten years, during which time contact has been made with these Eskimos.
We are finding that production from their limited resources of fur and fish is increasing greatly. Our officers, particularly in the industrial branch, are bringing along a number of small industries. They are extremely puny in terms of industry in southern Canada, but nevertheless these industries are providing income for the Eskimos. I want to tell the committee at this time that there is one place in nouveau Quebec where relief paid in February 1962, amounted to over $8,000, but as a result of developing the resources there and the production of things that the Eskimos can sell the amount of relief paid in February of this year was less than $700.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Arthur Laing: When we adjourned at six o'clock, I had had the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the committee the work which the department of northern affairs has conducted in the northern areas for our Eskimo people over a period of some ten years. I want to say again that I am extremely proud of that work and very happy with the progress that is being made with these people. I want to remind the house that this portion of the responsibility of the department that we are discussing at the present time relates to part of the province of Quebec. There have been indications by the government of Quebec that it would prefer, as the northern sections of that province develop, to take over the administration of the Eskimos in that area.
This proposal has been made not alone to this government but to the previous government as well. We did not decline to discuss the matter with the government of Quebec, and I am quite certain that the previous government did not decline. I am quite certain that my predecessor in this house had discussions with the province of Quebec at that time. They have, on a number of occasions, brought to our attention the fact that they would like to administer the Eskimos in our place. They have asked us if we would enter into discussions with them as to a means by which this could be brought about.
1972	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Now, when these meetings started to take place we immediately had a great number of questions asked in the House of Commons concerning the progress of the discussions.
I think on 16 or 18 different occasions questions have been asked of myself, of the Minister of Justice, of the Prime Minister and various other people. On March 4 I presented to the house a memorandum dealing with the results of a meeting or two we had with officials of the province of Quebec. I gave the house at that time the contents of the memorandum, and I quote:
-is not an agreement, nor is it an agreement to agree. It does constitute a statement outlining a consensus with respect to certain basic principles and conditions which, in the event of an agreement, are common to the two governments.
I went on to list these various conditions, four in all, as found on page 506 of Hansard tor March 4. The questions that have arisen in the house have dealt largely with the matter of consultation. There was a prolonged series of questions on March 10, which ended in an exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister, as recorded on page 736 of Hansard, said this:
If it will prevent a further waste of time by additional questions, I will say once again that the Eskimos will be consulted before an agreement is signed.


An hon. Member:: Full retreat.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot allow the last remark made by the Prime Minister to pass unchallenged. We on this side of the house have at last been able to get an answer indicating that these primitive people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -are not going to be treated as chattels by this government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, if the right hon. gentleman would read Hansard he will find this question specifically answered by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources days ago. I suggest he read the statement.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. We got the answer today.
Well, I would interpret the words of the Leader of the Opposition to mean that at long last he was satisfied he had gotten an answer. A few days later, when I was on government business in the province of British Columbia, a series of questions were asked again by the hon. member for Yukon. They were directed to my parliamentary secretary who provided some answers and then said that any further replies would have to await my return. I returned to the House of Commons a day or two after this, but no questions were asked of me then.
However, later we came to this point just a matter of a few days ago, on April 6, when the hon. member for Peace River dealt with it. He tried to establish in the minds of members of the house that there had been a 

fait accompli; everything was cut and dried. The hon. member said, as recorded on page
1839 of Hansard for that date:
It has been admitted in the house that this transfer is going to take place.
Some time later I intervened to ask him if he would refer me to the page in Hansard where that quotation was made. The hon. member said he was sure his seatmate would be glad to look this up while he was proceeding with his remarks. The hon. member's seatmate was the hon. member for Yukon.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is going to get it now.


Arthur Laing: He has had since April 6 to find it. I do not think he will find it because it was never made in the House of Commons. This was the general buildup.


Erik Nielsen: May I draw the minister's attention to page 506 of Hansard, the statement to which he has already referred, where he set forth the consensus. He will find, in the left hand column, about half way down the page where he said:
Canada is prepared to have Quebec administer Eskimo affairs as part of Quebec's general administrative responsibilities in the province.
Surely that constitutes an assurance that the transfer is going to be made?


Arthur Laing: I think I read the preface to my statement which said this is not an agreement or even an agreement to agree. How the hon. member can read that statement, and interpret it to mean that it was admitted in the house that this transfer was going to be made, is beyond my comprehension.


Erik Nielsen: Surely the minister will agree with me the meaning of his words was quite clear and when he said:
Canada is prepared to have Quebec administer Eskimo affairs as part of Quebec's general administrative responsibilities in the province.
Does the minister not agree that what he is saying there in effect is that the federal government is prepared to transfer the administrative responsibilities over Eskimos in the province of Quebec to the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: At the beginning of page 505,
as I have already stated. I said the memorandum was not an agreement, nor an agreement to agree, which was a preface to the entire statement. All we were doing was setting out a few basic principles by which we would be guided in any negotiations we had with the province of Quebec.
I am a little bit concerned that the hon. member for Yukon thinks if he can make an assertion in the committee that is not denied, then he clothes it with veracity. I can assure him that is not the case at all. We have

been sitting here listening to these repeated questions inferring that an agreement has been completed, and in the absence of a complete denial each time I think now some hon. members opposite are beginning to believe their own words. I think it was an American humorist named Josh Billings who took care of this situation, when he said: "It ain't the things a man don't know that makes him look foolish, but the things he does know that ain't so." I think there are a number of things hon. members on the opposite side have believed are so, but are not so.


Gerald William Baldwin: On that basis is the minister prepared to indicate now, with reasonable assurance, that no transfer will take place?


Arthur Laing: The hon. member has asked me a question, and I intend to deal with the matter as I go along. I want to direct this to the attention of members of the committee, that in the arrangement of these affairs dealing with our indigenous people I would think it would be a natural thing for a national government, as time goes on and as conditions warrant it, to work closely with provincial governments in the supply of services to these people.
I want to pay some attention to what I thought was a very fine argument made last week in this regard by the hon. member for Skeena, that it is unthinkable that forever we should have two classes of people. Certain hon. members opposite are laughing. They are people who apparently would believe that it is good to keep people on two levels perpetually, and they are not prepared to agree or admit that a province is capable of rendering services equivalent to those given by a national government. With that I cannot agree.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to a statement made in the house on April 8, 1960, by a former minister of citizenship and immigration, the Hon. Ellen Fair-clough. As recorded at page 3037 of Hansard for that date, she said this:
Second, I wish to announce that the federal government is prepared to negotiate agreements with the governments of the various provinces for the extension of normal provincial welfare services to persons residing on Indian reserves.
Now, as hon. members know, section 113 of the Indian Act provides for these agreements in respect to educational matters only, but here in 1960 the previous government announced as a policy of that government that it was prepared to extend these agreements with the provinces to welfare services.
She continued:
The purpose is to avoid the development of exclusive welfare services on reserves which would
Supply-Northern Affairs
tend to set Indians apart from other Canadians and duplicate provincial programs in adjacent nonIndian communities.
In negotiating these agreements the federal government is prepared to pay a reasonable share of the costs of the benefits, over and above the federal contribution under existing federal-provincial agreements, such as the Unemployment Assistance Act; and to share with the provinces reasonable costs of additional staff and administration required for the application of such programs. Moreover, my department will be prepared to enter into agreements to enable Indian bands to assume responsibilities for welfare programs normally administered by municipalities under provincial legislation.
Today we had the right hon. Leader of the Opposition attacking us for negotiating with the provinces when, under his own leadership, his government had announced in 1960 that it was prepared specifically to do those things.


Erik Nielsen: Could the minister deal with the exception made in section 4 of the Indian Act, which specifically excludes Eskimos from the operation of that act?


Arthur Laing: Well, I think I have dealt fairly adequately with the attitude of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition today, as compared with the statement made on behalf of his government on April 8, 1960.
In addition, I want to point out that in my riding of Vancouver South, which is a purely urban riding that contains some of the largest homes in the city, there is an Indian reserve of some 600 or 700 acres, the Musqueam Indian reserve. About four or five years ago, when the right hon. gentleman who sits opposite was prime minister, an agreement was made at that time under the pressure of the then chief, who happened to be an Indian woman named Mrs. Guerin, to have the children from that reserve not attend the little school on the reserve but to go to the Kerrisdale school with white pupils. She had to fight a long battle with the Vancouver school board and with some of the parents of the area. I have kept a watch on developments since, and I wish to say it proved again that in this world there are no indigenously inferior people. Those children are coming along just as well as any white child in the school.
This integration, if you want to call it that, this understanding between whites and indigenous people, is a thing all governments should support so long as it can be adequately done and safeguards provided.
I am now going to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. member for Skeena has been consistent in this regard, because immediately after that announcement was made by the minister in 1960 he said, as recorded at the same page of Hansard:

Supply-Northern Affairs
We also appreciate the announcements made by the minister with respect to these two matters, which are exceptionally good ones. We hope additional steps will be taken later on in order to deal with other similar problems.
That is, dealing with the problem of bringing welfare matters more closely under the direction of those governments that were on the ground, rather than under the central government. Therefore, I think any claim that exception should be taken to administration of these schemes by the provincial government is not sound, is not historically correct, and probably would have been the policy of the previous government as well.
I want to tell the committee some of the things that occurred on an exceptional trip I took last summer over some 7,000 miles of the northern territory, during which we held a couple of gatherings of the Quebec Eskimo people, first at Fort Chimo and second at Great Whale River. This is language taken from an interpreter. It is not particularly erudite language but I want to give the committee some of the remarks I made to the Eskimo elders when we met them at Fort Chimo on September 10, 1963.
Getting down to the present situation, I can understand it if the Eskimos find it hard to explain that one government should argue with another government that it can do better by him. We are dealing with a moral responsibility. And since it is a moral responsibility, the first primary, predominant consideration is the person that we are trying to help. In other words, the Eskimos. And the government of Canada has accepted this moral responsibility. Accepting this moral responsibility does not mean that we shall exclude other agencies or other governments from giving assistance to Eskimos. This is part of Canada but this is also the province of Quebec. And there are provincial laws which have to do with people over which the federal government has no control and an area which it does not invade. We white people make a statement now and again that we prefer the devil we know to the devil we do not know. I think in the minds of some of the people here there is that feeling. Most of the concern, I think, about the administration of Quebec-because this is Quebec and the Quebec government has to administer this area in respect of a number of things-I think most of the concern has to do with exercising the sanction of the game laws. I cannot believe that they would impose white man's game laws on Indians and Eskimos.
Now then, when we get down to talk of takeover, there have been two discussions in which I was involved with officials of the province of Quebec. They were initiated by the province of Quebec. They asked for the discussions. There have been no negotiations whatsoever in respect of a takeover. In other words, the operation of northern affairs in respect to assisting Eskimos in various ways is in the identical position today as it was two years ago. If there are any further discussions which could lead to negotiations, I am going to propose to the people of Quebec, the representatives of the government of Quebec, that no action be taken without consulting the Eskimo people themselves and I do that because the only interest in our being here and spending a tremendous sum of money here is the good of the Eskimo people themselves.
[Mr. Laing.3


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did any of the Eskimo leaders say to the minister at any time during his visit to Fort Chimo last September, or did they indicate to him either in English or through interpreters, that they did not want their affairs transferred to the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Of course I have just read my statement, I could read another-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I want to know what the Eskimos said to the minister, not what he said to them.


Arthur Laing: I could read the entire account. I had heard representations from the Eskimo people and this was my reply.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I was looking for a simple answer-yes, or no. Did any of the Eskimo people at that time indicate that they did not want their affairs transferred? Surely a simple yes or no could be given; I do not want the transcript of what was said.


Arthur Laing: Of course some Eskimos said they were fearful of any transfer. Most of them said they were extremely happy with the administration of affairs by the department of northern affairs. I have made that statement on a number of occasions. As a matter of fact, I did so when I returned. The hon. member has no need to ask that question in the committee, now.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit me to intervene for a moment? During the dinner hour I have been able to find the press reports to which I referred earlier in my remarks before the recess. This is an article by Mr. Dafoe which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press.
The Eskimo council met with federal northern affairs minister Arthur Laing to express their concern about the transfer of authority and asked for federal assistance in moving out of the province if Quebec did get control.
I wonder if the minister could tell us whether any such offer of federal financial assistance was made at the time of his visit.


Arthur Laing: This is another case of the hon. member taking up a statement which appeared in the press and trying to establish it as a fact in the house.


Erik Nielsen: Well, I am asking the minister.


Arthur Laing: No single Eskimo made any suggestion to me with regard to our providing transport or accommodation for him to leave the territory. That has been said before. A number of meetings have been held with the province of Quebec, and the differences which exist between us principally have to do with what is meant by consultation.

I want to tell the committee now that the position I have taken, the position we have taken, in respect to what "consultation" means, this being the outcome of the memorandum I gave to the house on March 4-and nothing has been concluded or undertaken by us or by the Quebec government since, and as a result of that memorandum-our interpretation of the meaning of "consultation", the position we are taking now is that we would not exclude from the consultation with the Eskimos any aspect of the proposed arrangement with Quebec for the provision of those services. This confirms what I said both at Fort Chimo and at Great Whale River and represents the continuing attitude of the government.
The Leader of the Opposition asked three specific questions this afternoon. He asked whether an agreement had been concluded. He asked whether a proposal had been put up that we pay 50 per cent, or 100 per cent of the cost. I want to assure the committee that at this moment no agreement has been reached with Quebec in any respect whatsoever. My officials are dealing with officials of the Quebec government with respect to putting into effect, or working from, that memorandum presented to the house on March 4, and that is where the matter stands.


Erik Nielsen: Before the minister concludes, I wonder if I might ask him one question bearing on the remarks he made as to his interpretation of what "consultation" means. Frankly, I agree with him that that is what consultation should mean. But from what he has said it would appear there has been no consultation with the Eskimo people themselves with regard to the provisions, the terms of the consensus which he read into the record on March 4.
I should like the hon. gentleman to assure us that there has been consultation with respect to the provisions of the consensus between the two governments. The minister said that since March 4 there have been continuing conversations between officials of his department and those of the government of Quebec. Have the Eskimo people been represented with regard to those conversations?


Arthur Laing: Of course, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the memorandum which I brought to the house, how could they be expected to? The memorandum was a memorandum of a set of principles which, in our view, were prerequisite to our accomplishing anything by way of an agreement with Quebec, and we are still in a state of argument, if you like, on the question of what constitutes consultation with the province of Quebec. Certainly that is the primary step, one which must be
Supply-Northern Affairs taken prior to any discussion with the Eskimos. As far as consultation is concerned, I am having a consultation with my hon. friend from Yukon and I am quite certain that every time I sit down he will make his views known to me. I think that is consultation, and that is the attitude we are taking in this matter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister will give this committee his assurance that on the commission to be set up between the two governments, if indeed the government insists upon going ahead with this unconstitutional plan after having heard these arguments, he will have representatives of the Eskimo council, or independent counsel obtained by the Eskimo people, who will be sitting on the commission and taking part in the discussions as to the provisions of any eventual agreement?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, this aspect has been discussed by my officials and the officials of the government of Quebec.


Erik Nielsen: I am very glad to hear that the matter has been discussed by the officials of the two governments, but my question was: Will the minister assure us that the Eskimo people, through a representative of their council or by independent counsel selected by them, will be represented on that commission? Will the minister answer that question for us?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to either rise and give us that assurance or tell us he cannot give us that assurance-one way or the other; because I am sure we are all interested in finding out whether the government intends to have the Eskimo people represented at all on that commission. Surely we are entitled to an answer.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to establish some more facts for my hon. friend by not giving a denial. We certainly will see to it, because of the construction we put upon "consultation", that the views of the Eskimos are known by whatever means we can obtain them.


Erik Nielsen: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I still have to ask the minister whether he will be kind enough to consider the question I have asked him. It is a very simple question: Will he either give the committee his assurance, or not give the committee his assurance, that the Eskimo people will be represented on the commission either by someone of their council or by independent counsel selected by them? This is the assurance that we want.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Arthur Laing: We will consider that, Mr. Chairman.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could deal with those points which I raised with his colleague the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice assured me that the Minister of Northern Affair and National Resources would deal with them. They deal with who shall have the say on the norms for education, and whether there shall be any independence or discretion as to policy on the basis of agency, as it has been indicated that any agreement will be on the basis of principal and agent.


Gerald William Baldwin: There has been no consultation between the ministers.


Arthur Laing: Certainly in any discussions we have had with Quebec, and in our own minds, the maintenance of the present standards of service would be prerequisite to any arrangement at all; and not only maintenance but an extension of those services, because not in all districts have we the full grades of education that are going to be soon required in the area; we have school to grades 4 and 5 in some places. In addition to that we have not secured all the children in the area, but about 65 per cent, for the schools. So the standards we would insist upon would have to be as good as those we have now and, in addition, would have to take care of the future requirements of the population.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is what I am concerned with, in that the level of the educational facilities will be comparable in the ultimate evolution of the educational process in the area with, say, the Eskimos in the western Arctic. Will this be the case?


Arthur Laing: Quite obviously they will have to be. We are somewhat behind, in that area, in the provision of schools, partly because of the discussions that have taken place. I think we are prepared this year, in respect of Chimo, to put a $300,000 school there.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister just how he expects to make the province comply with federal requirements in this matter of education?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, the minister just gave an answer and I think he would want to clarify that answer by answering the question I have asked.


Arthur Laing: Of course, Mr. Chairman, education being one of the prime considerations, it would be included in the agreement. I am quite certain the hon. member would not 
wish to suggest that either we or a province, having entered into such an agreement, would show bad faith thereafter. The standards would be maintained as under the agreement, of course.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is no suggestion of that. I just wanted to know how the federal government can exercise its control in the matter of education to see that the school facilities and standards are equivalent to those now in force. The minister has not answered that question to my satisfaction.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity to make a contribution and ask questions after a while. It seems to me we will make better progress that way.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that for intelligent discussion, if the minister is replying to a question he should reply to it fully so that we will not have to come back again on that particular point. My question is absolutely pertinent to the point raised by the hon. member who asked the previous question.


Arthur Laing: Surely, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend does not suggest that the province of Quebec would not wish to maintain the standards.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am not suggesting anything. I am asking the minister a question, and he persists in not answering it.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


Mr. Ricard:: You are looking at yourself in a mirror.


Arthur Laing: My hon. friend did not deal with the language question at all, though he probably inferred that. He dealt with the quality of education. If Quebec agrees to maintain a certain quality of education, is he suggesting they are going to fall down on that agreement?


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is not the answer to my question, Mr. Chairman; it is another question.


Lucien Lamoureux: I recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The item under which we are carrying out this interesting discussion is vote le, which concerns itself largely with a grant to the Canadian council of resource ministers. 1 think it is most appropriate that we are having this particular discussion under this

vote, because the hon. minister has already intimated that there were some discussions on this subject in which I, as the minister of northern affairs and national resources in the former administration, took part. On both these occasions the discussions were incidental to the subject of the resource ministers council. As a matter of fact, the first time I was approached on the subject was during the course of the very successful resources for tomorrow conference in the city of Montreal in October, 1961.
On that occasion the minister of natural resources for the province of Quebec incidentally referred to his government's interest in the matter of administering the affairs of the Eskimos of new Quebec. The second occasion on which the subject was raised was also a meeting following the resources conference, a meeting at which we were making the final arrangements for bringing into effect on a permanent basis the resource ministers council, and again this subject was raised incidentally.
Realizing the constitutional importance of the supreme court's decision of 1939-I am not getting into the constitutional aspects tonight because I feel this has been quite adequately dealt with by my legal confreres on this side of the house-I suggested to the minister of resources for the province of Quebec that it was of such vital and fundamental importance that it should be discussed at the highest levels, namely by the prime ministers of the two governments concerned. The last contact I recall having had on this subject was on March 16, 1963 when I replied to the minister of resources, who was inquiring when the premier of the province of Quebec might hear from the Prime Minister of Canada. In reply to the remarks of the minister tonight with reference to any negotiations which the former administration might have had, I have to indicate that this is all that transpired. In other words, we stood firm on the constitutional aspects of this problem.
There is another reason for my entering the discussion at this time. This is the first opportunity that I have had to refer to the passing of one of the senior officials of the department of northern affairs. I refer to the late Frank Cunningham, who was the assistant deputy minister for a number of years and one of the men who played a key role in implementing many of the progressive policies which have taken place in northern development during the past five or six years. Mr. Frank Cunningham retired early because of ill health and did not live many months beyond his retirement. I am sure the minister of northern affairs would join me in indicating that he was the type of devoted civil
Supply-Northern Affairs servant in the department of northern affairs to which the minister referred in opening his remarks tonight. Mr. Cunningham was largely concerned with roads to resources and the material aspects of the northern development program.
This brings me to the point that I want to present to the committee tonight. All the policies which were implemented by the former administration with respect to northern development our primary concern was with the development of human resources. The minister agrees with this viewpoint, and has indicated this is so in the remarks he has made to the committee tonight. The only reason I am speaking at this time is because as I listened to him I saw a ray of hope that the door was still open, and that he is not yet firmly convinced that the step being contemplated by the present government, namely the transfer of administration and jurisdiction of the Eskimos of northern Quebec to the provincial government, will be in the best interests of these people. As a matter of fact, I think the case could be proven that this might indeed be a retrograde step.
The minister paid high tribute to the work that has been carried out by the department of northern affairs in all parts of northern Canada. Having said that, he then indicated he is willing to transfer the jurisdiction and administration of this territory to another level of government. I am sure all members of this committee will agree that the record of Canada and the governments of Canada with reference to the original Canadians- the first Canadians as they are sometimes called-is not a good one. I am not going to recite the long sad story of governmental neglect in the area of both Indian affairs and Eskimo affairs. The problem has been confounded by the sort of paternalism which completely ignores the wishes of the people concerned with regard to the administration of their own affairs, as contemplated by this transfer of jurisdiction. I could speak of the neglect in the areas of health, the problems which have been compounded by segregation on reserves, by educational segregation, and so forth and so on. It is only in recent years that both the Indian affairs branch and the department of northern affairs have moved forward with a progressive policy toward our first Canadians.
As a result of the improved health program the Indians and Eskimos are no longer a vanishing people. The infant mortality rate was of shockingly high proportions until the department of northern affairs and the northern health services branch moved into this area of Canadian activity. Educational

Supply-Northern Affairs programs were one of the keystones of northern development under the former administration. It should be pointed out that the first program for sponsored university education in any part of Canada was undertaken on behalf of the citizens of northern Canada by the department of northern affairs. Then the great leap forward with respect to our first Canadians was the granting of the franchise, the unrestricted franchise. This was the first genuine indication that the government of Canada was concerned in moving these people forward from third to second class citizenship to first class citizenship.
A great deal of interest has been generated in the major metropolitan press across the country with regard to this question. Top flight reporters have been sent into the area concerned to examine the problem at the grassroots level. I have been disturbed to find comments of the politicians concerned which seem to suggest that these first Canadians, our original Canadians, are a backward people. This has been the case with some of the public figures in the province of Quebec involved in these discussions. As a matter of fact the minister of resources of the province of Quebec has repeatedly indicated that he is willing to consult in all aspects of this problem except the fundamental area, the matter of the transfer of administration and jurisdiction. One of the most disturbing statements came from the M.L.A. who represents this area of northern Quebec, who demanded that the franchise should be removed from these northern Quebec Eskimos. This is why I feel there is a strong possibility that the step contemplated might be a retrograde one.
The minister has indicated his confidence in the capacity of these northern citizens. I can confirm this on the basis of the many contacts I have made. For example, Fort Chimo is one of the main communities concerned, and the Fort Chimo Eskimo cooperative is one of the most progressive of all northern co-operatives at present in operation. I recall a press conference that was held at the Ottawa press club in August of 1962 when representatives of the Fort Chimo co-operative came to Ottawa to promote the sale of Arctic char. They were exposed to a full battery of questions on the part of members of the parliamentary press gallery, and their answers were so sophisticated and competent that one press interrogator suggested that the Eskimos had been briefed. He said to one of them: "You sit there and you answer these questions with all the sophistication of a business executive". The Eskimo could not speak English, but speaking through an interpreter he said: "If I look like a business executive it is because
[Mr. DinsdaleJ

I am a business executive; I am president of the Fort Chimo Eskimo co-operative".
Very often the uninitiated, those who are unfamiliar with these excellent people, refer to them as backward, not ready for the franchise and not capable of handling their own affairs as other Canadians do. I could refer to the first conference of Eskimo cooperatives held at Frobisher Bay just a year ago, when representatives from right across the Arctic as well as northern Quebec met at Frobisher Bay for a conference which lasted several days. They carried on discussion in an economic conference that would compare favourably with many of the conferences that are conducted in the southern parts of Canada.
I am giving a friendly warning to my successor, the present minister, that every indication in the house up to the present time concerning this move would suggest that the government is moving in a retrograde direction. The new government has repeatedly given lip service to a more humanitarian and enlightened approach to the problems of our first Canadians. This is the first major action that the government has contemplated and it threatens to reverse all the gains that have been made in recent years by their predecessors in governmental responsibility.
I am going to make four recommendations that should be taken into consideration by the government as they contemplate this problem. I think it has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt in the discussion today that before there can be any change of jurisdiction a constitutional amendment is required. This is a national problem. It is one that applies to both Indians and Eskimos and it concerns all the provinces. If we are going to continue as a federal state we cannot deal with this problem only within the jurisdictional area of one province. We must consider the entire national perspective. Yet the minister has already indicated that the government is willing to negotiate notwithstanding the constitutional prerequisite.
My colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, stated the constitutional position quite precisely the other day, I thought, when he made his excellent contribution to this discussion. I noticed that when the hon. member for Carleton tried to deal with this matter without any reference to authorities he did not refer to the excellent contribution of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue who presented the Quebec viewpoint on this matter. Rather he dealt with the questions that had been propounded by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who has not yet made a speech on this subject. I suggest that the hon. member for Carleton

should follow the lead that has been given by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue.
The second recommendation I wish to make to the minister and the government is that the wishes of the Eskimos be respected in these matters. So far as I have been able to determine, the Eskimos have made no requests for this jurisdictional transfer. If there is one fundamental principle that is more important than another it is the fundamental right of self-determination, which Canada has insisted upon in discussions at the United Nations and other international gatherings, with regard to the treatment of other peoples who have not yet assumed the full status and quality of citizenship. This is a basic human right and I think the minister would be well advised to take this into consideration. There has been no agitation by the Eskimos for this transfer. On the other hand, in every case where the Indians have been granted certain concessions requests have come from the Indians themselves in each instance.
Mr. McTaggart, the former principal of the school at Fort Chimo, has got into the public discussion recently. I know Mr. McTaggart. He comes from the province of Manitoba and I am sure that Manitobans are noted for their-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might help me- tolerance and temperance in these matters. The point Mr. McTaggart was trying to make was that the wishes of the people of Fort Chimo were being ignored. It may be that he trespassed, so far as his responsibilities as a civil servant are concerned, but I do not think it can be denied that he had a legitimate point in trying to present the body of public opinion in this northern community as he understood it.
The next point I should like to make is that the discussions must include both Eskimos and Indians. Otherwise we will have discrimination between these two groups of first Canadians. I simply refer to the situation at Great Whale River where you have Indians and Eskimos living side by side. If the Eskimos are under one jurisdiction and the Indians under another jurisdiction you will have segregation and confusion confounded. The first native Indian to serve in this parliament-I refer to Senator Gladstone-has made the point repeatedly that the problems of these two peoples cannot be considered in isolation. They are one and the same and indivisible. As a matter of fact, he has repeatedly recommended that both these groups should be brought under the jurisdiction of one department and he prefers the 20220-125
Supply-Northern Affairs Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources because of the excellent record they have established in administering the affairs of the Eskimos.


Miss LaMarsh:: The Eskimos are no more Indian than is Senator Gladstone.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My hon. friend the minister of health and welfare says the Eskimos are no more Indians than is Senator Gladstone.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Except legally.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister should read the decision of the supreme court in 1939 in this respect.
The final point I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that parliament must decide this issue. This is the reason for the extended discussion on these estimates. This matter must be brought before parliament because it is a fundamental issue of human rights and only parliament, not the government, is qualified and has authority to deal with it.
Before concluding, I should like to make one or two additional points. The Minister of Justice maintains that this whole matter is administrative. I want to ask him how you can turn over administration without affecting the jurisdiction? How can you enter upon such matters as health of the Eskimos, medical care, schools, welfare and justice, without possessing jurisdictional authority to do so? If this is the case, then this government is either being false to Quebec or false to the constitution.
If Quebec has a legitimate claim, and no member on this side of the house has said it has not, then the proper constitutional steps must be taken to turn over jurisdiction. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue made this fundamental point. This is not the first time that this government has tried to cut corners. It has done it in so many other basic matters in this house in recent months. The government, for some reason, is trying to approach this matter in an underhanded, devious and uncertain manner. It is for this reason we on this side of the house are objecting. Our objection is to this government's total incapacity to act in accordance with the principle that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
The confusion that has resulted has been caused directly by the government's devious methods. There is no need for unseemly haste. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is no need for unparliamentary haste in dealing with this fundamental issue.


Frank Howard: We dealt with this same subject on another occasion, and while it is of vital importance because it affects the rights of people, nevertheless I do not think

Supply-Northern Affairs it warrants the extensive repetition that has taken place, certainly not in so far as I am concerned. However, listening to the minister explain the situation this evening, particularly when he answered questions posed by members of the Conservative party, he left a distinct impression with me that he had something to hide; that he was in a box and that he was trying to explain away an awkward situation. This is regrettable. I think perhaps the minister is in a situation, unfortunately, not entirely of his own making and he is making the best of a bad job.
I do not know who initiated these discussions, but I think it would be the province of Quebec. I think it is quite obvious, after listening to the hon. member from Brandon-Souris, that the discussion of the transfer of jurisdiction really did start at the ministerial level. There was not any concern on the part of the government of Quebec or on the part of this government, in attempting to discover the attitude of the people themselves. I believe this is what the minister is trying to cover up, and it is a regrettable situation. I gather it is not only the Liberal government that is responsible for this sort of high level bungling, or attempts at high levels to deal with the rights of people. I say that because of the admission made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris just a moment ago. He was attending the resources for tomorrow conference in Quebec and was approached on this question. His answer was that this matter should be discussed at the highest level, and he qualified that by referring to the level of the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec.
This is where the error was made in the first instance. What the hon. member for Brandon-Souris should have said on that occasion, if his words now mean anything or reflect the attitude of his party, was that this matter should be discussed at the highest level, namely, the level of the people concerned. This is the only level at which it should be discussed. I have tried to make this point time and time again with the minister: When you are dealing with the rights of people, for heaven's sake consult these people first. If you do not do that, you have no business proceeding further with any discussion, developing memoranda or answering letters. In this instance, the Eskimo people should have been consulted first to ascertain what they wanted. Then the minister, as the one responsible for their affairs, should be their representative, and negotiate for them. You do not consummate an agreement, then come back and try to sell it to the native people. So far as I am concerned you should discontinue these discussions with Quebec until you

find out what the Eskimo people themselves want, and you should not do anything else.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He has indicated that the initial error was the suggestion the matter should be discussed at the highest level, the prime minister's level. Does he not recall that one of the points I made during my observations tonight was that no discussion ever took place at that level, and my stand was that you must consult with the people concerned.


Frank Howard: The hon. member also said he suggested it should be discussed at the highest level, and he referred to the level of the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec. He can qualify that by using the phrase he has just used now, but the fact is that he made that statement and did that.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, several days ago we were discussing this subject and I raised a few points. Until that time I had refrained from entering the debate, even though as a resident of the Northwest Territories and as the member representing the bulk of the Eskimo people in this country, I am quite prepared to stand in this house and tell the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a few things about the Eskimo people that they may not know. However, I participate at this point because I have not had answers to the basic issues I raised.
By way of comment, I was fascinated by a headline in tonight's Ottawa Citizen, which 1 assume came from the pen of the Prime Minister's nephew, who is editor of that paper, in which he says the Prime Minister is going to the country if there is any more delay in the house. I say to the Prime Minister and to the committee, we would love to go to the country on the issue of whether or not 2,500 Canadian people are going to be pushed around. I will gladly campaign anywhere, from one end of the country to the other, on that very issue.
Until we get some answers I am quite prepared to talk, and talk, and talk. I say to any of the brave gentlemen opposite, with their northern experience, like the hon. member for Carleton, who want to tell us something about the north, let them stand up and I will gladly take my seat while they pose their questions.
I want to say to the minister I have confidence in the stand he has taken within the cabinet on this matter. I have confidence in the kind of things he told the Eskimo people

on his visit to the Canadian north last fall. My recollection is that just before he went to Fort Chimo he bumped into me in the Canadian Arctic and I suggested to him, having come from Fort Chimo myself, that he might run into this problem. I know the Eskimo people at Chimo have a reasonable degree of confidence in him, but I am not confident in the things the Minister of Justice said in the committee today, because I am satisfied he is the one who has the power in this play going on between the federal government and the provincial government.
The Minister of Justice said today, "Don't worry, whatever is best for the people shall be done," but I say to him nearly all of the unpleasant, unsavoury, unacceptable and unworthy things that happened to me in my life have happened to me at the hands of people who were doing what was best for me, and I am not prepared to have the Minister of Justice decide what is best for me and what is best for 2,500 Canadian citizens who happen to be Eskimos in northern Quebec.
There are a few issues which I have raised in the house and I intend to raise them again in the committee tonight. One important issue that has been the curse of many previous ministers of northern affairs is whether the people of the Canadian north are going to be consulted about major policy matters or not? This is the issue.
The people of the north are a special kind of people. The minister who represents them in parliament-and I must say I am happy with the way the present minister is representing us who live in the north-must have a special kind of courage. He must have a special understanding of what we, who choose to live in the Canadian north, want. We insist on being consulted before things like this happen. It may have been good enough in previous years for the federal government and the House of Commons to do things to the Canadian north, but it is no longer good enough, and so far as I am concerned, so long as I am its member, I shall take this same position on every issue that is raised. You are going to consult us, Mr. Minister, before you decide what you are going to do with our lives.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in Ottawa at the present time we have gathered together a group of our northern officials in conference. They are here to give the minister and his senior officials the benefit of the experience they have had over the past two years. Every two years the department brings these men and women from all parts of Canada in to Ottawa, and I say to the minister if he wants to find out what is going on, let him consult these people. They are all here, brought to 20220-125J
Supply-Northern Affairs Ottawa at considerable expense to the taxpayer, and surely no one begrudges the cost of that. For goodness sake, I say to the minister, talk to them. He has all his officers here from northern Quebec. Let him ask them what are the issues at stake right now. Let him go to these people and find out.
My hon. friend suggests a deal has been made. I am not sure it has. Hopefully, I suggest it has not. The reason I am speaking now is because questions I raised several weeks ago were not answered. Indeed, it was not until this afternoon that the minister got up and, under tremendous pressure from the hon. member for Yukon, finally admitted that several people, several Eskimo people, had told him they were opposed to the transfer of their affairs to the jurisdiction of the Quebec government. Why in the world could he not have said that in the house two days ago? I asked him whether the people of northern Quebec suggested to him that they did not want to be administered by Quebec. I asked him whether any of them had asked him about getting help to move to the Northwest Territories. He sat there and said nothing.
It was only today, when finally a minister of the crown realized his estimates might not get through until he was prepared to level with the committee and the people of Canada, that he got up to speak. There has been a lot of talk about consulting the Eskimo people. How do you consult with the Eskimo people? I will tell you how to do it. I am waiting for a definitive statement to be made on this matter by the hon. member for Saguenay, who represents the Eskimo people. During the dinner recess, out of curiosity, 1 looked up the last poll results from the northern Eskimo settlements in Quebec. 1 was not happy with them, but I was interested to learn that they voted almost solidly in favour of the hon. member for Saguenay, who happens to be on the government side of the house.
Apparently we are not afraid to consult those people when we want them to elect a member of parliament from northern Quebec. I know the way the last election was fought. Apparently we did not hesitate to take the issues of nuclear weapons, cabinet solidarity and balance of payments to the Eskimo people in the north when they voted for the hon. member for Saguenay, but all of a sudden they are not competent to say whether or not their affairs should be administered by the provincial government. I suggest it is a glaring omission that the hon. member for Saguenay has yet to make a single statement in the committee.
If he is not prepared to speak for the 2,500 Eskimo people in northern Quebec, then by

Supply-Northern Affairs default I am prepared to speak for them. I am prepared to say to the minister that I am not satisfied with the reasons given for the negotiations and dealings made to date. I am satisfied that this is nothing more than an exercise in political appeasement to the province of Quebec, and I am prepared to continue talking in the committee to see to it that we get to the bottom of the issue.
One of the chief negotiators in this matter has been the minister of resources in the province of Quebec. The Minister of Justice assures us, turn these people over to Quebec and all shall be well. Yet this same minister, Hon. Rene Levesque, says it will be an abuse of democracy to give the Eskimo people the right to vote on it. He says it is hypocrisy; that those who want this vote are hypocrites. I ask, should the Canadian people entrust the affairs of our Eskimo people to this kind of person who is prepared to make this kind of statement?
I want the minister to reassure me on this matter. I want him to reassure the Eskimo people. He can reassure me tonight by clearing up the one or two areas that are still in doubt. Further, I want him to do something else, and I am really prepared to help him.
I want him to write a letter to the Eskimo people of northern Quebec. I have all their names and addresses. I have a typewriter that will type in syllables. My secretary is an Eskimo and she will help with the translation. I want him to do this while we in southern Canada are tussling over the question of the administration of Eskimo affairs. I want him to write a letter and give to them the same kind of reassurance that hopefully he has given us.
Write them a letter. Tell them that he is their minister. Tell them that they can count on the trust they have in him-and I know they have trust in him. Write them a letter. I will help him print it. He can use my typewriter. Let him say that while we southern Canadians are fighting over this issue they need not worry because he will see to it that their constitutional rights and their right to self-determination will be defended, just as would be the rights of any other Canadians. That is what I am asking him to do tonight.


Mr. Turner:: I do not intend to deal with the legal and constitutional aspects of the matter before us. I feel that the Minister of Justice has dealt well and capably with them. I do wish to refer to certain aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Yukon who tried throughout the course of his address this evening, as, indeed, he did in his earlier interventions on this subject, to put words into the mouth of the minister of northern affairs.

The hon. member is a lawyer with experience in a tough territory where life is harder than it is in southern Canada. He has had experience before the courts. Versed as he is in the common law, after many years of practice he knows it is an old and respected principle of the common law that silence is never to be equated with acquiescence or acquiescence deemed to follow necessarily from silence. Yet, this evening, having in mind the fact that over the past several weeks questions have been posed by hon. members of his party, some of which have not been answered by the minister, either because-[DOT] with respect, Mr. Chairman-they were out of order, or inflammatory, or hypothetical, or argumentative, because the minister has not chosen to abuse the rules of the house in the same fashion, his silence is interpreted by the hon. member for Yukon as acquiescence. I put it to the hon. member that he is too accomplished a lawyer to believe in that principle, though from time to time he is too enthusiastic a debater to follow it.
1 want to suggest to the committee that what the member for the Yukon has tried to do with the statement made by my minister, the minister of northern affairs to the House of Commons on March 4 is this: misread it, misinterpret it, colour it by omission, and separate the preface from the integral part of the statement, though the preface is an important part of that statement. My minister said, clearly, that this memorandum was not an agreement or even an agreement to agree; it was merely a memorandum of basic conditions and principles in the event that an agreement might eventually be concluded between Quebec and the federal government. This is, as was said by my hon. friend the minister of northern affairs, a set of guidelines and it is obvious that if one is to have guidelines one must express them in the indicative, not in the subjunctive mood; one must indicate them in the terms one would ordinarily find in the agreement itself. But, relying on sophistry, the hon. member for Yukon finds the word "agreement" in the memorandum and says: Aha! A fait accompli; a deal has been signed; the Eskimos have been betrayed. Yet the document is perfectly clear. We are still, as the minister was then, in the course of negotiations, and 1 would ask the hon. member for Yukon and other hon. members who, 1 know, are dealing sincerely with the subject, to consider these points as items in a memorandum made during the course of discussions.
1 listened while the minister referred to the declaration of a former minister of citizenship and immigration, Mrs. Fairclough, to be found recorded in the April 8, 1960, edition

of Hansard. The hon. lady announced government policy of that day to the effect that the federal government was then prepared to enact agreements with the governments of various provinces for the extension of normal provincial welfare services to persons residing on Indian reserves. She said the purpose was to allow the development of the Indians as a self-sufficient people so as to avoid the growth of exclusive welfare services on reserves-something which would tend to set Indians apart from other Canadians. This, as I understand it, is the point taken by the hon. member for Skeena.
The hon. member for Yukon answered this argument by saying that Eskimos are not Indians-that they are deliberately excluded from the Indian Act. This, I suggest to him, is another sophistry. The hon. member for Yukon looks at me benignly and smiles. He knows as well as I do that the governing authority is the supreme court action which he cited and which the hon. member for Peace River also cited-the Indian reference before the Supreme Court of Canada. I know that the hon. member for Yukon, a meticulous lawyer, still refers from time to time to the headnote, and the headnote summarizes the case: "Eskimo inhabitants of the province of Quebec are 'Indians' within the contemplation of head 24, section 91 of the British North America Act".


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he referring to the 1939 supreme court decision?


John Napier Turner: I anticipate a double-barreled reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just one question, if that is the case referred to. Is the hon. member aware that the Indian Act was passed in 1951, which was 12 years after the decision to which he refers, with full knowledge that the decision he quoted says that a reference to an Indian does not include any person of the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Eskimos?


John Napier Turner: I will concede, within the limits of the Indian Act and the welfare provisions of that section, the strength of the hon. member's argument. All I am saying is that we must not be legalistic about this. We are talking about the native people, and the principle adduced by the hon. member for Skeena, with which I agree. It is that the native, indigenous people must be allowed to develop and live as ordinary Canadian citizens, and be treated under the ordinary provincial jurisdictions of this country, whether they be Indians or Eskimos.
That is to say, they should eventually fall within the welfare provisions, the educational
Supply-Northern Affairs provisions and the provisions affecting natural resources which fall under provincial jurisdiction. I submit that the principle adduced by Mrs. Fairclough in her statement in 1960 is as valid in affecting the Eskimos as it is valid in affecting the Indians. For the hon. member for Yukon to try to introduce a legalistic distinction as affecting that principle surely is a late evening whimsy on his part.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition said earlier today that we must not treat the Eskimos as voiceless serfs, as pawns, as political captives; and I could not agree more. As I understand it, the policy of the government with respect to the Indians and our native peoples is that they shall no longer remain as second class citizens; they shall no longer remain as wards of the federal government; they shall no longer remain as pawns, but shall be allowed to run the ordinary course of development as citizens, having the same rights and bearing the same responsibilities as any other Canadian. It is because that is envisaged within the negotiations undertaken by the federal government with the province of Quebec with respect to the Eskimos that the purpose of these negotiations, if they are ever to mature, surely is to emancipate the Eskimos as we hope one day to emancipate the Indians from federal trusteeship and allow them to develop as ordinary citizens in this country.


Frank Howard: Only if they agree.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member raises, probably by way of mental telepathy that is a product of a sensitive spirit, the next point I was going to make. This is our concern. We want the Eskimos to be brought into the 20th century; we want to encourage them to develop themselves as fully-fledged citizens of Canada, which means that eventually they must take the responsibility not only as citizens of this country but of their respective provinces. But we want to insist, and we have insisted, on certain guarantees before any transfer is effected. Those guarantees, which we are in the midst of negotiating, I would submit to the committee were set forth in the memorandum to which I referred earlier, namely the memorandum that my minister gave to this house on March 4; that the cultural and economic ties of the Eskimos throughout the north would not be broken; that the Quebec government would respect the Eskimo language and the religion to which they belong; that the Eskimos, after the transfer, would continue to enjoy at least the same services as they are now receiving. In other words, it was an integral part of any agreement to be negotiated with the province of

Supply-Northern Affairs Quebec that the same rights, the same services would be guaranteed to that northern, minority people.
The principle of self-determination has been raised and echoed in this chamber this evening. My minister made it quite clear that the governments of Canada and Quebec were to undertake to consult jointly with the Eskimos. What did this consultation mean? The statement has been read several times in this chamber. The hon. member for Yukon looks at me knowingly again. He knows exactly what those words mean. They are too clear to be mistaken except by a man who wants to mistake them.


Erik Nielsen: I am waiting for your interpretation.


John Napier Turner: Consultation in an impartial fashion means that a commission, which would be chosen jointly by both 'governments-


Erik Nielsen: Will there be Eskimos on it?


John Napier Turner: This is a matter to be determined, as the minister suggested.


Erik Nielsen: He has done nothing of the kind.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, it is getting late in the evening and I know the hon. member for Yukon likes to maintain his seat and exercise his voice. But he must opt too; either speak, or sit. I do not say that unkindly.


Mr. Aiken:: It might be the same thing.


Mr. Pugh:: Why don't you say something while you are on your feet?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, it is strange how good humour increases on the other side as the hour gets later.
The consultation would take the form of a commission chosen jointly by the two governments. Any agreement, before execution, would be submitted to the Eskimos, explained to them and interpreted to them. They would be asked for their views.


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


John Napier Turner: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to finish. Their views would be sought, and if as a result of those views, as a result of the expression of opinion from the Eskimos in the north, in Ungava and northern Quebec, the federal government deemed that modifications or changes to any draft agreement, if and when it is drafted, were necessary, those changes, to the best of my understanding, would be made. Let me say-


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Napier Turner: I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would allow me to finish. I know the impatience he has-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: If the parliamentary secretary wished to accept a question, he would resume his seat. He has not done so, and therefore I presume he is not prepared to accept a question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yukon reminds me a great deal of Pandora and the genie which escaped from her box. Once you open the box, it is very difficult to put the genie back in. Let me say, in all fairness, that I believe those on the government side gave a fair hearing both to the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories and I would appreciate receiving, for a few more minutes, the kind attention that I am wont to receive from the other side.
Those are the principles that this government, as I understand it, are trying to achieve; namely, emancipation of the native indigenous peoples of this country so that eventually they will be governed as ordinary Canadian citizens under provincial jurisdiction right across the country. The same principle, the same services and the same rights would be guaranteed to these minority, native peoples by whichever provincial government assumes responsibility for their administration-not jurisdiction. Third, the views of these people will be obtained in as democratic a fashion as is practically possible.
Let me say a final word, Mr. Chairman. Ever since the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources assumed this portfolio he has given every consideration to this important question. I had the opportunity of being on the trip across the north with him last summer when, as the hon. member for Northwest Territories said, we bumped into him. I might say that not only did we bump into the hon. member for Yukon, but we could not shake him.


Erik Nielsen: You are not shaking him now, either.


John Napier Turner: When my minister was up there he said on several occasions, and expressed it from his heart-and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition gave him credit for that this afternoon-that we want government, not by laws but by men. That was a sincere statement.


Erik Nielsen: The other way around.


John Napier Turner: A government of men, not laws.


Erik Nielsen: No, the other way around.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I find it a strange thing that a subject that seems to have attracted the sincere discussion, criticism and opposition of men opposite, who are entitled to take that position, should be treated by them, when the government maintains and defends its case, in a sense of joviality and ridicule. It should be one thing or the other; either the committee takes this question of a minority people seriously, or it does not.


Michael Starr: Your speech has been filled with fun.


John Napier Turner: If it does take it seriously, I would ask the concession of hon. members opposite to let me finish on this personal note. I have every confidence, as I am sure everyone in this house has, that the minister of northern affairs will see that justice is done to the Eskimos of northern Quebec, and that they are consulted within the full principle of democracy, and their views taken into account. I have no doubt of that, nor has any member on this side of the house; and if hon. members on the opposite side were to probe their consciences, neither have they.
In conclusion I should like to quote this evening's editorial in the Ottawa Journal, not necessarily a publication favourable to this government. The editorial is entitled "Nouveau Quebec" and I will read three paragraphs into the record, if I may:
Outsiders should be careful, however, to note that the federal government is not insisting on maintaining its custodianship of Eskimos in the province of Quebec. The federal government knows well that in the constitutional or legal or geographic sense Quebec has the right to seek to take over this responsibility which some years ago it voluntarily rejected.
The federal government properly asks, however, that the Eskimos suffer no infringement of their freedom of choice in religion, education and representation.
It is a matter of basic principle, greatly complicated by ice, isolation, tradition, prejudice, economics and politics-a matter demanding the greatest of care and understanding.
In resuming my seat let me say that my minister and those who are negotiating with him have tried to maintain that care and understanding, and I would ask hon. members on the other side of the house to credit us with that and to devote to the problem the same non-partisan type of care and understanding.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Erik Nielsen: While the hon. member is still on his feet would he permit a question which I wanted to ask him during his remarks. Would he not agree with me that the democratic thing to do would be to have representation on the commission to be appointed either from the Eskimo council or by their selection of an independent counsel?


John Napier Turner: There are several ways of going about this, and in the negotiations they are being considered. Whatever avenue is chosen in setting up this commission, I can assure the hon. member on behalf of the minister that the democratic principles to which he paid service tonight and to which we both adhere will be fulfilled.


Erik Nielsen: Now will the hon. member answer the question I asked, if he cares to, namely whether he agrees that the Eskimo people should be represented on that commission.


John Napier Turner: I realize the impatience of the hon. member for Yukon if he does not get an answer which is satisfactory to him. In general this question has already been answered. Every opportunity will be given to the Eskimos to present their views to the commissioners, whoever they may be. Whether or not an Eskimo will become a member of the commission I cannot say, as the hon. member knows full well.


Frank Howard: May I put a question to the parliamentary secretary. Is the effect of the intent of the memorandum which was put on Hansard on March 4 to consummate an agreement to transfer?


John Napier Turner: Is the hon, member asking me a question?


Frank Howard: Yes.


John Napier Turner: That memorandum, as I understand it, forms the guidelines-it does not provide the exact language but it does form the guidelines-of any eventual agreement which is made or concluded between the two governments. That is all I can say to him, whether or not it is satisfactory to him.


Frank Howard: If the hon. member would look at a few of the words contained in the memorandum for a moment I think he will agree that the government of Canada has committed itself to the principle of transferring jurisdiction first and foremost. Naturally I will have to extract sections from the text instead of reading the whole thing, but I do not think I am extracting them out of context. The first part concerns an agreement as to certain things. Then towards the end of the first paragraph, as reported at page 506 of Hansard, it says:

Supply-Northern Affairs
-Canada is prepared to have Quebec administer Eskimo affairs as part of Quebec's general administrative responsibilities in the province-
The memorandum says that it is an understanding reached at the February 29 meeting and that Canada is prepared to have Quebec administer these things. This is an intent which exhibits a desire on the part of Canada.
Then further on we come to point No. 3 of the matters which are understood, which refers to after the transfer has taken place, indicating that there will be a transfer. Then point No. 4 uses this expression-my grammar is not as good as that of the hon. gentleman who talked of indicatives, subjunctives and the like:
4. The governments of Canada and Quebec undertake to consult-
Then it explains the consultation and interprets it as-
-the communication of the terms of the agreement, excluding however the financial provisions thereof.. .will be made through a commission-
And so on.
Then further on in the same paragraph it says:
The functions of this commission will be to explain the conditions of the agreement-
So that both governments agree that such consultation is a prior condition of the execution of the agreement. There is nowhere a solitary word about the acceptance of that agreement. I submit that this, coupled with the reluctance, hesitancy and hiding of explanations given by the minister and his parliamentary secretary, indicates that there has been a sell-out of the rights and interests of these people.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I rise to answer what began as a question and ended as a declaration. I must repeat that those items in the memorandum which the hon. member has just recited have to be read in conjunction with the preamble at the beginning of the statement of the minister, when he said:
The memorandum is not an agreement, nor is it an agreement to agree. It does constitute a statement outlining a consensus with respect to certain basic principles and conditions which, in the event of an agreement, are common to the two governments.
It is surely a common experience in negotiating a treaty, whether it be between two countries or an agreement between two provinces or a contract between two people, that in the midst of the negotiations you set out the terms which will be agreed on one by one; and if you finally get to the end of the agreement then you have the terms. But if you are not able to reach agreement, and in this instance if the federal government is not able to reach a satisfactory result with


regard to minority rights, or the standard of services, or the method of consultation, or the financial provisions, then this whole series of items which the hon. member for Skeena read will be wiped out. These are statements of principle in general form which have been agreed on in the event that there is an eventual understanding between the two jurisdictions. If there is not, then it is all wiped out. That is the way I must explain the matter to the hon. member.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the statement of the minister which appeared at the front of Hansard is merely his interpretation of what the understanding is, and that there is also another party to the agreement, the government of Quebec, which has its interpretation too? I submit that all we can concern ourselves with is, what does the understanding mean, what does the memorandum say, not what the minister thinks it says.


Arthur Laing: If I may reply at this time, I want to say that I regret very much that the hon. member for Skeena seems to be joining in the view taken by the hon. member for Yukon, namely that if you assert anything and it is not denied in the house it becomes a fact.


Frank Howard: On a question of privilege, the minister should know full well that I have my own opinions and I do not have to join this element over here.


An hon. Member:: It is mutual.


Arthur Laing: That statement seems to be agreeable to both sides of the house. I cannot help saying, however, that there is a likeness of attitude and I want to tell him that when he uses that kind of language he is not being fair to me and he is not being fair to himself.


Frank Howard: You are not being fair to the Eskimo people.


Arthur Laing: There are three or four provisions included and I want to tell the hon. member that up to this time we have made practically no progress on them at all with the officials of the province of Quebec. I want to tell him that so far as the whole matter of financial arangements is concerned, we have not even had one single meeting on finance with any officials of the province of Quebec. So far we have not got to the point where we can agree that this memorandum and its provisions should be the basis for arrangements with the province of Quebec. Yet the hon. member gets up and asserts that in his judgment the Eskimos are already sold out. I want to assure him and the house, which is more important than he is, that

there are no arrangements at all, and in respect of the memorandum that we drew up we have made practically no progress at all.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I was delighted at the way the parliamentary secretary started his remarks, by talking about sophistry, because I was sure that before he would finish he would show that he is an expert in that regard. I was really deeply touched by his remarks with regard to getting information from the minister, with regard to questions being asked and the minister trying to supply information, because I am sure that the parliamentary secretary and the minister are aware that the main complaint we on this side of the house have been making, not only about his department but about all departments, is the lack of information; and the reason more progress has not been made on the estimates is that we have not got enough dentists on this side of the house. We cannot yank out the information.
To remind the minister of where he goes wrong, and as an example of his question answering, I would refer him to the 9th of March when I asked him if tenders had been called for 140 Eskimo houses to be delivered at Waterways. I got no answer that day. The next day the Speaker suggested that the question should go on the order paper. I explained the urgency and pointed out that the minister appeared to have the information ready and I thought there was a possibility that he was perhaps making a mistake. The minister then proceeded to answer and began with the words:
I am pleased to reply to the hon. member's argument.
He was pleased to reply to the argument. This is the usual thing. We call for information and we get an argument. To this day there is no answer to my question on record in the house. I will admit that a week or so later when the minister was passing my door he was courteous enough to tell me that the number was 104, not 140, but there is nothing on the record to show it, and until he answered a question asked by an N.D.P. member there was nothing to show they were going to be delivered at Waterways. The urgency is borne out because I have just found out that the minister has put out a tender for another 75 houses to be delivered at Waterways.
Considering that it is one month to the day since I asked my question, and considering the length of time we have been trying to get some straight answers out of the government, I think that the remarks of the parliamentary secretary in making a speech of that kind constitute nothing more than effrontery. Since 1 am dealing with the matter 20220-126
Supply-Northern Affairs of these houses, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make the further point that it is not just a matter of getting some information but rather of getting the right information. When the minister said he would answer my argument he did not give the information asked for. He proceeded to give me some freight rates, on which he based his contention that the government was proceeding the right way, but every item of information he supplied was inaccurate.
He gave a truck rate to Hay River of $2.85 per hundredweight. I got a telegram the next day from the main trucker there saying that the truck rate was $1.70. The minister gave rates by barge which did not apply to that class of goods. He gave rates by rail which were out of line. In other words, every figure supplied by the minister was inaccurate. Yet they ask us to take their word that they are trying to give us information. We were given all this gratuitously by way of argument advanced by the minister. What I wanted to know was whether the government was really buying them. I wanted some information so I would know whether they were going to proceed further, but all I got was an argument and incorrect information.
Not only is the information inaccurate but it is silly, because between shipping by way of Yellowknife or Hay River or Waterways the information he gave works out to a difference of $20 per ton, and if the minister knows anything at all about the Northwest Territories he should know that the rates each way are competitive, or else all the goods would go one way. With a difference of $20 per ton it would be silly of anyone to think that he could compete going a different way. Not only was the information gratuitous and inaccurate but it was stupid, and it simply shows that the minister is so careless he does not care what type of information he gives the house.
There is another point which I have mentioned before. The department says it has a rule that it favours neither Yellowknife Transportation nor Northern Transportation and I have thought over the years that the department has tried to carry out fairly a policy of giving freight 50-50 to these two companies. In this instance the houses are to be delivered at Waterways where only Northern Transportation can operate, so they are not trying to be fair at all.
If the minister was at all concerned about the accuracy of his information and what it does to the people in my area he would know that by quoting figures as erroneous as these, which make it seem advantageous to ship by way of rail to Waterways, he is doing the greatest possible damage to all the truckers operating out of Edmonton. The parliamentary

Business of the House
secretary to the minister has tried to persuade us that they have some regard for the rights of people, including the Eskimos. I suggest that if they have any regard for the rights of people they should at least check their information and make sure they are not harming the truckers of Edmonton in the way they have by trying to discourage any shipper in Canada from shipping by that route. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: May I ask the house leader whether the program he outlined the day before yesterday still stands for tomorrow or whether he wishes to make some revision, and also what the program may be for Monday?


Guy Favreau: I am afraid the program for tomorrow will be desperately the same as it has been in the course of the last few days. I hope that the debate on the supplementary estimates will end tomorrow. If there is some time left during the day, then we would take second reading of the pension plan. Then, on the first and second full days that are available we will continue the budget debate.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could ask the minister if, in order to get these estimates through, he would explore the possibility of the house being willing to sit on Friday night and then on Saturday?


Guy Favreau: I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following items were passed In committee of supply this day]:
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Customs and excise divisions-
5e. Inspection, investigation and audit services, $90,000.
Taxation division-
20e. General administration, $70,000.

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration, $19,000.
National health branch-
5e. Health services, including assistance to the provinces-Administration, $20,000.
25e. Health services, including assistance to the provinces-To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $2,000,000.
30e. Medical services-Operation and maintenance, $950,000.
National research council, including the medical research council-
5e. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,125,000.

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Air Force-
35e. Operation and maintenance, $13,653,000. Pensions and other benefits-
86e. To deem for purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, such persons as the treasury board may prescribe who, upon ceasing to be public service participants, were entitled under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act to an annuity, to be or to have been elective public service participants during a period prescribed by the board, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 10, 1964	MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS