1964-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Armstrong	Messrs: Lessard (St. Henry)
Balcer	Macquarrie
Beaule	Marcoux
Brewin	More
Cameron (High Park) Moreau	
Cashin	Nielsen
Crossman	Nugent
Doucett	O'Keefe
Drouin	Paul
Dube	Plourde
Francis	Rapp
Girouard	Rochon
Greene	Valade
Howard	Woolliams-29.
Jewett, Miss RAILWAYS,	(Quorum-10) CANALS AND TELEGRAPH
Addison	LINES Messrs: Kindt
Armstrong	Korchinski
Asselin (Notre Dame de Lachance	
Grace)	Lamb
Balcer	Laniel
Basford	Latulippe
Beaule	Lessard (St. Henry)
Bechard	Macaluso
Belanger	MacEwan
Bell	Mackasey
Berger	Marcoux
Boulanger	Matte
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) McBain	
Cameron (Nanaimo- McNulty	
Cowichan-The	Islands) Millar
Cantelon	Olson
Cooper	Orlikow
Cowan	Pascoe
Crossman	Prittie
Crouse	Rapp
Emard	Regan
Fisher	Richard
Foy	Rideout
Godin	Rock
Granger	Ryan
Greene	Southam
Guay	Stefanson
Horner (Acadia)	Stenson
Howe (Wellington- Tucker	
Huron)	Watson (Chateauguay-
Irvine	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Kennedy	Willoughby-60.
20220-1261	(Quorum-20)
Messrs:
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Basford
Belanger
Cameron (High Park)
Cantelon
Chapdelaine
Coates
Cooper
Cowan
Deachman
Ethier
Forbes
Foy
Francis
Gelber
Gray
Groos
Harley
Honey
Horner (The Battle-fords)
Jewett, Miss
Kennedy
Klein
Konantz, Mrs.
Lambert
Lessard (Lake St. John)
Lloyd
Loney
Macdonald
Martin (Timmins)
Mather
McCutcheon
McLean (Charlotte)
McMillan
Mitchell
Moore
More
Nixon
Ormiston
Otto
Paul
Perron
Rock
Roxburgh
Simpson
Southam
Tucker
Webb
Webster-60.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Aiken	Jewett, Miss
Addison	Kelly
Armstrong	Kindt
Asselin (Notre Dame deKlein Grace)	Leblanc
Bell	Lloyd
Cameron	(High	Park)	MacicaseyCameron	(Nanaimo-	MatteCowichan-The	Islands)	McCutcheon
Caouette Casselman, Mrs. Chaplin Chretien
Cote (Chicoutimi)
Crossman
Crouse
Danforth
Douglas
Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)
Gelber
Gendron
Grafftey
Gregoire
Habel
Hahn
Hales
McLean (Charlotte)
Monteith
More
Moreau
Morison
Olson
Otto
Pascoe
Ryan
Rynard
Scott
Tardif
Thomas
Vincent
Wahn
Whelan
Woolliams-50.
(Quorum-15)
	PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
	Messrs:
Baldwin	Chaplin
Basford	Cote (Chicoutimi)
Beaule	Crouse
Berger	Drouin
Cameron	(High Park) Dube
Cameron	(Nanaimo- Eudes
Cowichan-The Islands) Fane	
Cardiff	Forbes
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Frenette	Richard
Gendron	Rinfret
Grafftey	Rochon
Gray	Rock
Hales	Rondeau
Harkness	Ryan
Lessard (St. Henry)	Scott
Loiselle	Skoreyko
Mandziuk	Smith
McLean (Charlotte)	Southam
McMillan	Stefanson
McNulty	Tardif
Muir (Lisgar)	Tucker
O'Keefe	Valade
Pigeon	Wahn
Pilon	Whelan
Regan Ricard	Winch-50.
(Quorum-15)	
AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Alkenbrack	Jorgenson
Armstrong	Konantz, Mrs.
Asselin (Richmond-	Lamb
Wolfe)	Langlois
Barnett	Laverdiere
Bechard	Madill
Beer	Mather
Berger	Matheson
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Matte	
Cardiff	McBain
Choquette	Moore
Crossman	Mullally
Cyr	Nasserden
Danforth	Noble
Dionne	O'Keefe
Doucett	Olson
Drouin	Ouellet
Emard	Pennell
Ethier	Peters
Forbes	Pigeon
Forest	Rapp
Forgie	Ricard
Gauthier	Rochon
Gendron	Roxburgh
Groos	Southam
Gundlock	Tardif
Honey	Temple
Horner (The Battle-	Vincent
fords)	Watson (Chateauguay-
Horner (Acadia)	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Howe (Wellington-	Watson (Assiniboia)
Huron)	Whelan-60.
(Quorum-20)	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Asselin (Notre Dame deLoiselle	
Grace)	Mandziuk
Baldwin	More
Boulanger	Morison
Casselman, Mrs.	Perron
Chapdelaine	Pugh
Forest	Rinfret
Guay	Southam
Homer (Jasper-Edson) Temple	
Kelly Lessard (St. Henry)	Winch-20.
(Quorum-8)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Armstrong	Bechard
Barnett	Belanger
Basford 	Bigg
Blouin	Lachance
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Leduc	
Cashin	MacLean (Queens)
Chatterton	Macquarrie
Coates	Mather
Crouse	McLean (Charlotte)
Cyr	Mullally
Danforth	Noble
Dionne	Patterson
Dube	Pugh
Foy	Rheaume
Godin	Stefanson
Granger	Tucker
Groos Howard	Whelan-35. (Quorum-10)
MINES.	FORESTS AND WATERS
	Messrs:
Alkenbrack	Herridge
Asselin (Richmond- Leboe	
Wolfe)	Leduc
Barnett	Loney
Berger	Martin (Timmins)
Blouin	Martineau
Caouette	McBain
Coates	Mitchell
Cyr	Moreau
Deachman	Muir (Cape Breton
Dinsdale	North and Victoria)
Fleming (Okanagan- Rheaume	
Revelstoke)	Rideout
Gendron	Roxburgh
Godin	Simpson
Grafftey	Stenson
Gray	Turner
Gregoire	Watson (Chateauguay-
Habel	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Harley	-35. (Quorum-10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:	
Barnett	Laverdiere
Basford	Lessard (St. Henry)
Bell	Maclnnis
Chretien	Mackasey
Cyr	McNulty
Dionne	Millar
Emard	Mitchell
Frenette	Muir (Cape Breton
Foy	North and Victoria)
Godin	Muir (Lisgar)
Grafftey	Noble
Gray	Orlikow
Greene	Regan
Habel	Ricard
Irvine	Rideout
Knowles	Starr
Lachance	Stenson
Latulippe	Weichel-35. (Quorum-10) DEBATES Messrs:
Aiken	MacNaught
Batten	Nugent
Cowan	Paul
Howard	Prud'homme
Lambert	Rinfret
Langlois	Rouleau-12. (Quorum-7) ESTIMATES Messrs:
Armstrong	Boutin
Blouin	Brown
Boulanger	Cadieu (Meadow Lake)

Business of the House
Cote (Longueull)
Crossman
Enns
Fairweather
Fisher
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Honey
Konantz, Mrs.
Laniel
Macquarrie
Martineau
Mullally
Wahn-21.
Cameron (High Park)	Loiselle
Cantelon	Madill
Cashin	Mandziuk
Chatterton	Matte
Coates	McCutcheon
Cote (Longueull)	Muir (Lisgar)
Cote (Chicoutimi)	Mullally
Danforth	Nasserden
Douglas	Nixon
Ethier	Nowlan
Fane	O'Keefe
Fleming (Okanagan-	Orlikow
Revelstoke)	Otto
Forest	Perron
Forgie	Peters
Francis	Pilon
Girouard	Prud'homme
Grafftey	Richard
Guay	Rochon
Hales	Rondeau
Honey	Roxburgh
Howe (Wellington-	Rynard
Huron)	Skoreyko
Howe (Hamilton South)	Starr
Jorgenson	Stefanson
Kelly	Tardif
Leblanc	Whelan
Leboe	W oolliams-60.
(Quorum-20)	
VETERANS AFFAIRS	
Messrs:	
Asselin (Richmond-	Latulippe
Wolfe)	MacEwan
Cameron (High Park)	MacRae
Chatterton	Madill
Clancy	Martin (Timmins)
Emard	Matheson
Fane	McIntosh
Fleming (Okanagan-	Millar
Revelstoke)	Morison
Forgie	Nesbitt
Frenette	O'Keefe
Greene	Otto
Groos	Patterson
Habel	Pennell
Harley	Pilon
Herridge	Pugh
Honey	Rideout
Howard	Rock
Kelly	Temple
Kennedy	Thomas
Laniel	Weichel-40.
(Quorum-15)	
PRINTING	
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Mr. Speaker	and Messrs:
Boutin	Laverdiere
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Leblanc
Cardiff	Loiselle
Choquette	Ormiston
Clancy	Ouellet
Cooper	Pascoe
Cote (Longueuil)	Prittie
Cowan	Richard
Drouin	Rochon
Ethier	Simpson
Kennedy Lamb	Scott-23.
LIBRARY OF	PARLIAMENT
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Mr. Speaker	and Messrs:
Baldwin	Casselman, Mrs.
Boutin	Chapdelaine
Brown	Chatterton
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Choquette

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Boulanger	Homer (The Battle-
Cardiff	fords)
Cowan	Irvine
Cyr	Konantz, Mrs.
Doucett	Lessard (Lake St. John)
Ethier	Martin (Timmins)
Fairweather	Matheson
Fane	McNulty
Forgie	Peters
Gauthier	Rinfret
Gelber	Slogan
Gundlock	Tucker
Hales	Whelan-25.
Mr. Walker moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Pickersgill:: If I may have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to move that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of joint committees of both houses with respect to the library of parliament, the printing of parliament and the restaurant of parliament, and that the members to serve on each of the said committees on the part of this house will be as contained in the second report of the special committee presented this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, standing order 41 provides a procedure by which the house can deal with the hours of sitting. I do not wish to move a formal motion at this point but I should like to propose, and I hope it will be agreeable to hon. members, that in order to make progress with the supplementary estimates the house should sit this evening.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: We are perfectly agreeable to that. I think it is a proper suggestion on the part of the Prime Minister, and it will receive our full support.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The suggestion the right hon. gentleman has just put forward was made from this corner last night. We agree.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: We are
quite prepared to go along with this suggestion and do our part in facilitating the passage of the estimates.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: We are
prepared also to facilitate the passage of these estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that by unanimous consent the house will sit this evening from 7 to 10 p.m. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of certain questions asked yesterday and the suggestion on his part that Canada was giving consideration to providing additional forces to the United Nations force in Cyprus. Would he let the house know what the situation is in this connection? Also, does he agree with mounting public opinion to the effect that the willing shoulders of Canada are already bearing our share of the United Nations force, a larger share than that of any other nation, with the exception of the United Kingdom; that it has accepted its full and complete share, and that any additional troops should be provided by other members of the United Nations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the right hon. gentleman's question I can assure him, as I have already indicated elsewhere, that Canada does feel that other members of the United Nations ought to share in the obligations which are imposed on them under the charter of the United Nations.
I can confirm that we have received a request from the secretary general for additional personnel. We hope to be able to deal with this matter very shortly. The request we have received is not in the same category as that which has been addressed by the secretary general to the governments of Sweden, Finland and Ireland. The request to those governments is for additional ground troops and is part of the secretary general's attempts to bring the non-British component of the United Nations force up to the 3,500 level originally envisaged.
The request to Canada is for brigade headquarters staff, a "function which up to now

has been discharged by United Kingdom forces. Both requests form part of the field reorganization which General Gyani is putting into effect as the international force is gradually phased in to take over some staff and peace keeping functions previously undertaken by British forces.


John George Diefenbaker: What would be the number of brigade staff that is being asked for; would it be less than 100?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would be slightly over 100 but less than 150.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what representations have been made to the secretary general requesting that he endeavour to secure forces from other members of the United Nations? Because it seems, in view of the course being followed now, that it is only the willing that provide and the unwilling stand by.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will recognize in that generalization he has simply expressed an impulse of human nature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Don't you share it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada, however, as he has properly noted, has not shirked its responsibilities. We have made strong representations to the secretary general of the United Nations that he should solicit, as indeed he is doing, the contributions of other countries. We ourselves only this morning have been engaged in that process with two other countries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for the impulsive nature that he exercised in doing that.


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned a force of 3,500. I rather assume that he meant 7,500.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to the desire, pursuant to the resolution of the security council, to reduce the British force from 7,000 to 3,500 and bring the United Nations force up to 3,500 to reach the total of 7,000, the maximum provided for in the security council resolution.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
According to an article in Le Devoir this morning, the secretary general of the United

Nations is said to have asked Canada to send another Canadian unit to Cyprus in the near future.
Can the minister tell us what his intentions are in this respect?


Mr, Marlin (Essex Easl):: I answered the same question at the request of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), a few moments ago.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Did the minister authorize the national unemployment insurance commission office in Winnipeg to present an ultimatum to the teachers of Manitoba requiring them to fill out applications for social insurance numbers within a week of notification, and declaring it an offence if they failed to comply?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. Did the employment insurance office, without any authority, send a letter dated March 28, 1964 to the teachers of Manitoba on this particular subject? Was that without any authority whatever from the minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any such instruction or ultimatum was sent out. There was a letter sent out by the commission in which, as I understand it, instructions were included covering the social insurance registration program. One part of the instructions was a section dealing with the book renewal aspect, which is mandatory. Beneath that description was a sentence to the effect that failure to comply was an offence. I think that statement applied only to the book renewal aspect of the program and has been misinterpreted to include the whole program.
The situation is as I have stated. Only those in the insured population are obliged to apply; others are free to do so. In this case it will be my wish that the teachers would come forward and register even though they are not compelled to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter requires a further statement on the part of the minister. I have before me the notice of registration which reads as follows:
The new system includes issuance of a "social insurance" number to all employed persons. Whether covered by unemployment insurance or
Inquiries of the Ministry not. It will be broad enough and flexible enough to be adapted to the record keeping required for the proposed pension plan and other social security measures.
Then after all that is set forth, at the foot of the page in large letters appear the words: It is an offence to fail to comply with this request.
There can be no misunderstanding that that covers the whole record.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The sentence in that case is intended to apply only to the preceding sections dealing with the book renewal program, as I indicated. I have not the form in front of me but I examined it yesterday with the commission, and as I recollect it the section the right hon. gentleman read has application only to the preceding section dealing with the book renewal program. In other words it is dealing with the mandatory aspect of the program applying to the insured population.
If there is any misunderstanding arising from the large print that is employed I should like to remove it simply by repeating what I have already stated in the house, that teachers are not obliged to come forward and no instructions have been sent out to that effect. It is my wish that they will come forward and apply for social insurance numbers.


John George Diefenbaker: You should be a little more careful with the printing.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: supplementary question. Might I ask the Minister of Labour whether he would be good enough to give instruction to the national unemployment insurance office in Winnipeg to circularize the teachers in the districts to which these directives have gone in order to allay the anxiety of the teachers concerned. They are really disturbed about it, as is shown by the telegram which has been received. I think a directive from the minister would help to allay their fears. If this is on a voluntary basis, that is fine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must say this matter is urgent, as I think the telegram indicates. I think the minister should make a statement so the teachers of Manitoba would understand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point very clear, and it seems to me the minister gave a long detailed reply which will be published across the country.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I made my point, but the minister did not.	..

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the provinces have been consulted regarding the compulsory registration imposed by Ottawa by means of numbered social security cards?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker; and I would not, on the face of it, think this is a matter that would require such consultation. But I will be glad to look into it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the general protest, does the government intend to bring this matter before parliament before requiring Canadian citizens to fill out this card?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is based, as is so often the case, on false assumptions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. gentleman poses rather provocative questions, he must expect from time to time to get rather sharp answers. I do not think it is in order to rise on a point of order or question of privilege on every second question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is my duty to direct questions to the Prime Minister and to any member of the cabinet. If I am out of order it is your responsibility to deal with the matter, and I shall abide by your ruling, provided it is fair and reasonable. But as a member of parliament I cannot accept the arrogant answer of the Prime Minister of Canada, who should set an example in this house and answer the questions we ask him.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
[Mr. Mandziuk.)



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which may seem to be a matter of ancient history, but is relevant to what is happening today in the labour dispute on the great lakes. In the report the government received from Mr. Robinette and another lawyer concerning possible prosecution of Mr. Banks, is there any recommendation regarding Red McLaughlin?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not seen any of these reports because they have been given to the Minister of Justice. I think he would have to deal with the question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister satisfied
himself that the man who has now been placed at the head of the S.I.U. by the trustees is not going to be faced with charges of conspiracy to assist Mr. Banks in the assault of Mr. Greaves or for the conversion of funds of the union within the next month or two?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course the preliminary statements about the gentleman in question are quite incorrect.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. McLaughlin has not been placed in the presidency by the trustees, and will not be placed there by the trustees. He is not the president.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not say he was placed as president.


Some hon. Members:: You did.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I said that in effect he is in charge of the union.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is incorrect also.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like an answer to the question. I should like to know if the minister can tell us whether the government apprehends that this man may be facing criminal charges, as is his predecessor in terms of control of the union.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The charges that have been placed in connection with the S.I.U. are very well known to all hon. members in the house. A question along the same line was asked a day or two ago by the Leader of the Opposition.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. Surely we still have not got an answer from the minister. Has McLaughlin,

to the minister's satisfaction, been cleared of any question of wrongdoing in connection with the charges that have been laid against Mr. Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It ought to be apparent to the hon. gentleman that it is the courts of the country that decide these matters and not the Minister of Labour.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do think the hon. member is pressing this line of questioning a little too far. This matter has been under quite detailed discussion during the last two or three days, and his question is becoming almost hypothetical. If he has a point of order, let him raise it. I think he should stop this line of questioning.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The reason I am asking this question, and I want an answer if I can possibly get it, is that I have been informed this morning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been told to go slow on the investigations they have been making with regard to things in connection with McLaughlin.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who told you?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not have to say who told me.


An hon. Member:: Hearsay.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is a great deal of hearsay in this matter, but 1 think we need to have the position of the minister clear. What is the government's view of Mr. McLaughlin? All he has given to us has been Mr. Millard's view, and I want to know the government's view.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is quite true that I have been giving the view of the trustees with regard to Mr. McLaughlin, because the trustees have been given that authority by the parliament of Canada.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, we will try to withdraw it.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Acting Minister of Justice. Have orders been given to the R.C.M.P. to go slow in their investigation of Mr. McLaughlin?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that matter, but that is a conclusion made without any supporting evidence at all.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, the Prime Minister just said he will be glad to look into the matter, and then he went on to say that the allegation was made without
Inquiries of the Ministry substance. If he has not looked into the matter, how can he say the allegation has no substance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, I said this was an allegation made without supporting evidence; and if and when statements are made in the house which reflect on the R.C.M.P. in this way and on the government's relationship with the R.C.M.P. there should be supporting evidence.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that no reflection whatsoever was made on the R.C.M.P.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I simply asked a question to get information. I submit that is strictly in accordance with the rules of the house, and the Prime Minister knows it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that McLaughlin should not be judged before his trial. Was Hal Banks not judged and removed from office by reason of the fact that the very same allegations were made by the judge against Banks as were made against McLaughlin, both being hoodlums?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question at issue involves charges before the courts of Canada, and I was asked whether those charges ought to be prejudged and used in any way to disqualify Mr. McLaughlin-


An hon. Member:: What did you do with Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: *-or any other person. So far as Mr. Banks is concerned, the trustees removed him from office not on the basis of prejudging charges in the courts in defiance of the bill of rights but on their own assessment of the situation.


An hon. Member:: A sell-out to Hall.


Some hon. Members:: Sell-out.


An hon. Member:: United States domination.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has indicated that the trustees were given authority by the parliament of Canada. Would he not agree that this authority given to them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must object to the form of the question. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to rephrase it. He is asking for a yes or no answer and giving a prejudged decision before asking the question. If he cares to rephrase the question it might be in order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Since the trustees are not responsible for the change in administration with regard to the leadership of the S.I.U., in that the constitution of the S.I.U. is being followed; and since the trustees took the responsibility of putting in Mr. Turner as temporary leader of the S.I.U., is it not also their responsibility if Mr. McLaughlin takes over for Mr. Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is an argumentative question which I am not obliged to deal with.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour has seen the editorial entitled "The Sell-out" in the Kingston Whig-Standard of April 6, which asks why the trustees have suddenly abandoned the principle of firm opposition to any American interference in this affair? "The deal has been made and it smells", says the editorial.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, but I have seen editorials in the Globe and Mail, the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen expressing the very opposite opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question in this same field. It arises out of an answer he gave yesterday to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). In view of the statement that the three men who signed the telegram in question, Michael Sheehan, John J. Wood and Omer Boudreau, are not currently members of the S.I.U., has he ascertained why they are not members of the S.I.U. at the present time? If they were expelled without the right of appeal, does he not feel that attention should be paid to their complaints about Mr. McLaughlin?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that the complaints of any member or former member of the S.I.U. ought to be considered very carefully. I would agree with my hon. friend in this particular case that the membership of the gentlemen in question may be a matter of argument because it is a fact, for example, that Mr. Sheehan was a member of the S.I.U. and then became a member of the C.M.U., and it was because of this situation that that comment was indicated. This is a matter where reference to the trustees would check the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister aware they were both expelled and put on the d.n.s. list?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate that, and I indicated yesterday that the trustees were very anxious to right any injustice that may

have arisen from use of the d.n.s. list, and indicated the procedure by which that might be done.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the question that I had intended to ask has just been asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I would like to ask the Minister of Labour this question. In view of the fact that Michael Sheehan and John Wood were actually expelled from the
5.1.	U. by Hal Banks, does he not think that the answer he gave to the question yesterday covers over what is the whole crux of this matter? This is the problem we face in the
5.1.	U. at this time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there was no desire to cover over any aspect of the problem. I made a statement yesterday to the effect that the trustees were desirous of righting any wrong. If either of these gentlemen feel injustice through the application of the d.n.s. list, or through disqualification of membership, they ought to bring their case at once before the trustees, who are anxious to right any injustice. Certainly it was not my intention, by referring to the membership question, to suggest in any way that these persons should be denied any legitimate rights they have within the S.I.U.


Mr. Fairweather:: As a further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: May I caution the hon. member for Royal. If he has a real supplementary of course it is in order, but if it is another statement I think we have had extended discussion already.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is not a statement. Is McLaughlin now facing charges in any court in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows the answer to that question if he listened to the question put the other day by his leader.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does the Minister of Labour now recognize d.n.s. lists as being in existence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that question yesterday.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister maintains that he dealt with this question yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: It appears that we are in need of another St. Patrick. The minister maintains that he dealt with this question yesterday but I say, sir, that his answer of yesterday is not compatible with the answer he just gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I had to spend part of the day away from the house to preside over a debate organized by the St. Jean Baptiste societies of the Joliette diocese and, during that time, according to page 1963 of Hansard, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) said some false things about me. He took advantage of my absence to do so.
Should he persist in his ways, I shall report him to Miss Charlotte Whitton, the mayor of Ottawa, who will take it upon herself to put him in his place and set him straight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was a stupid statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is an important detail to point out to the house that the use of the term "false" is not parliamentary.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any particular point of detail on which erroneous information was supplied by myself or placed before the house, I would be obliged if he gave the particulars.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a question of privilege. If the hon. member for Carleton persists with his false innuendoes, Miss Whitton will take it upon herself to put him in his place and chastise him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to get more and better co-operation from members of the house. The hon. member for Carleton.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the words used by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm are unparliamentary. He said I made a false statement, and I ask him to withdraw it.


Mr. Monteith:: Well, you did.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member used the term "false" and I suggested to him that the word "false" is unparliamentary, and I would ask him to reconsider it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, when a member of parliament makes a statement regarding another member, which that other member regards as false, it is not unparliamentary. It is not hypocrisy, either, to say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I think if the right hon. gentleman will recall incidents that have happened before in the house, it will come to his memory that when one hon. member undertakes to suggest that another hon. member has said something that is false, it is up to him to prove it was a false statement by real evidence, and not simply to use an unparliamentary word as a form of innuendo.
My hon. friend from Carleton asked politely for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm to state precisely what he had said that was false, and the hon. member replied by another insinuation and made no attempt whatever to substantiate his charge. Therefore I suggest the hon. member for Carleton is perfectly right in saying it was unparliamentary; but I know the hon. member for Carleton is a generous man and he is not going to waste the time of the house by asking for a withdrawal by the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Carleton said that my statements were in contradiction with those of my leader, but he did not quote any of these statements. Consequently, I advise the hon. member for Carleton that I will report him to Miss Whitton who will cure him of this nasty fault.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion we have spent considerable time on this matter, and it may or may not be an important matter. I propose to examine the English and French texts. There may be a discrepancy between the wording of them, and the meaning of the word as translated into French may not be exactly what was intended. I shall examine the matter over the week end and give a decision on Monday.



MR. NIELSEN    REMARKS IN DEBATE BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, and

Inquiries of the Ministry I do so because I must do so at the first opportunity. However, my question of privilege involves certain actions of the Minister of Justice and I shall make certain charges with respect to those actions, and I would prefer to wait until he returns to the house. If I have unanimous consent to raise the question when he does return, then I will not proceed now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is a real question of order here. The hon. member, like the rest of us, has an obligation under standing orders to be here in the house. The Minister of Justice is not here today; therefore nothing the minister said today could possibly raise a question of privilege. If the Minister of Justice said something yesterday when the hon. member, no doubt for a very good reason, was not in the house, he lost his opportunity to raise a question of privilege under the rules-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and it seems to me that the hon. member should deal with the matter in debate, just as many other hon. members do in these matters.


Erik Nielsen: I was in the house at the time the remarks I intend to question were made by the Minister of Justice. But my question of privilege involves remarks which he did not make but which appear in Hansard. I do not wish to make these charges in the hon. gentleman's absence. I think I do have a valid question of privilege, though I would much prefer to raise it while the minister is in his place.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he should not pursue this matter further in the absence of the Minister of Justice, which is right and proper, and that on the minister's return he should raise his question of privilege and I will do my best to give an impartial decision.


Erik Nielsen: I just wanted to make sure I would have unanimous approval for following that course-


Mr. Speaker:: My suggestion was made for the purpose of doing what was right, fair and impartial, and I do not think the hon. member should insist any further at the moment.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. May

I ask if he stated in Saskatoon on April 3 that the Canadian railways had agreed not to ask for a freight rate increase until after July 1? Also, was the hon. gentleman stating government policy when he said "There are going to be very, very few branch line abandonments in a hurry".


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member's question is perhaps not terribly urgent since it relates to something which happened on April 3, but I should like to answer it, if I may, by saying that I am very grateful to the Canadian railway association for agreeing to continue for another three months the suspension, which has already been in operation for a long time, of a rate increase granted by the board of transport commissioners in the hope that in this three months interval parliament will be permitted to consider the legislation on railways which the government would like to introduce.
With respect to the second matter, may I say it is not, of course, the government which abandons railway lines. It is the railway companies which abandon them after they have been allowed to do so under the law. All I was doing was expressing my own opinion that because of the benevolent policies initiated by the government of hon. gentlemen opposite and continued by this government, the railways had indicated what lines they wished to abandon, but did not proceed with those applications until the new legislation could be dealt with by parliament. It would therefore appear that there would be no abandonments in a hurry. It is also my opinion that even after that time there would be no abandonments in a hurry, particularly when one thinks of the traffic which the railways are carrying in western Canada at the present time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would refer the Minister of National Defence to the item on page 5 of last night's Votes and Proceedings, which indicates that he intends to present a bill to amend the National Defence Act. Can the minister assure the house that neither he nor anyone in his department has disclosed the contents of this bill? I ask this in the light of widespread reports as to the contents of this measure.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I do not think there is any secret whatsoever as to what the bill contains. It is designed to implement the policy set out in the white paper, to replace the present chiefs of staff committee and the chiefs of the individual staffs by a chief of defence staff and entrust him with the powers presently held by the others.



INQUIRY AS TO RECOVERY OF STOLEN ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has the hon. minister anything to report to the house with regard to arms stolen from various armouries in the province of Quebec, as far as their being located and found is concerned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not in a position to add anything further today, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is anything I could usefully say that would help the situation.



REDUCTION IN PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR SEA CADET OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence in connection with the naval economy drive and the resulting reduction of pay and allowances for sea cadet officers. Will the minister consider the effect of this, which takes away one third of the remuneration for which work has already been performed? Is the minister aware that this is daily affecting morale and efficiency and is bringing about resignations? This question is either for the minister or his associate minister.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: May I ask the
Prime Minister a question. We have been waiting for some considerable time now for a statement by the Prime Minister on the hospital bed crisis in metropolitan Toronto. The last time he was asked a question about this the right hon. gentleman said he would consider the matter and make a statement later. May I ask if he is prepared to give us this information today?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the information, and I regret it has taken so long to answer the hon. member's question. This is a lengthy answer but it deals with a most important matter, so with the indulgence of the house I propose to read the reply.
The hon. member asked me to comment on the hospital shortage in Toronto and particularly the federal government's intent respecting federal construction grants to metropolitan Toronto hospitals. Hon. members are aware that the council of metropolitan Toronto and subsequently the council of Scarborough township spoke to ministers of the government-I believe they spoke to the Minister of National Health and Welfare- regarding an increase in bed grants within the last year. At the urging of members on this side of the house from the Toronto area, as well as some hon. members opposite, the government has studied the Agnew report indicating that hospital beds in the metropolitan area presently fall more than 2,000 short of requirements. This has been primarily caused by the population explosion in the Toronto suburbs and accentuated by the fact that the metropolitan government found it impossible to render assistance in this field from 1958 until earlier this year.
The federal government has for some months sought a fair way of assisting in a unique situation. Of course any solution would have to be on an across the country basis and not confined to one locality. The matter has been discussed with the responsible health ministers and in most cases with provincial premiers at the past two dominion-provincial meetings, without arriving at any solution. Indeed, more than one province has indicated strong disapproval of the suggestion of any proposed increase in grants, as providing increased pressure upon provincial treasuries to meet increased federal grants in a field which is considered primarily one of provincial responsibility.
Within the past few months the federal government, through the municipal loan fund, has assisted the municipal government to the extent of $29 million which has been used for projects other than hospital construction. In the opinion of the government, further federal assistance would not be warranted at this time.
Since 1948 more than $19,500,000 has been expended by the federal government for this purpose in metropolitan Toronto. The current commitment, extending for a five year period through to 1968, is augmented by a national health grant to help finance a home care program in metropolitan Toronto, announced on March 26 last, to take pressure off hospital beds for convalescents.
Inquiries of the Ministry
We understand, too, that the government of Ontario, in acknowledgement of its own special responsibility in the field, has developed a new program for low interest loans for construction in Ontario, intended to be of special assistance in the Toronto area.


Reid Scott: I wonder whether in view of the length of that answer we might be permitted to comment on it, Mr. Speaker. I can only say this is an incredible response. Six months of labour, yet no action at all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the question period, not a general debate.


Reid Scott: May I ask the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions so that we can discuss this fantastic answer?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not think, in view of the urgent need in the metropolitan area of Toronto, that more serious consideration ought to have been given to the grave problem he has discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very serious consideration has been given to this matter which is the primary responsibility, of course, of the provincial government.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the Prime Minister tell the house which was the one province which objected to further conditional grants being given for hospital construction?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said more than one province had objected.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Which ones?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Naturally I cannot give the names of provinces without consulting them and getting their agreement, because these objections were made known in confidential discussions between the federal government and provincial governments. However, I would be very glad to approach the provinces concerned and inquire if they would be willing to have their objections made known as expressed to us.


Reid Scott: Would the Prime Minister indicate why he feels that this problem, which is an isolated one mainly affecting metropolitan Toronto, must be treated on an across the country basis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be an opportunity to debate this very important matter before long.



APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister of Public Works through his parliamentary secretary regarding a possible licence in regard to the Peace river dam. I wonder whether today he is in the position to answer my question.


Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question quite often. As the hon. member knows, the first problem involved here was to determine whether at the point of the dam the Peace river was navigable. This question has been disposed of. We are looking into this matter, because at this time we have not received any application from the province.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege to make a correction and to extend my apologies to hon. members of this house for something I said the other day. I think this is something I should do, sir. The other day in the discussion on the supplementary estimates I was most emphatic in discussing the location of the women's penitentiary. I did so because of what I believed to be factual information that I had received from a very high source in the civil service.
I have since discovered, sir, that the information I was given was not correct. Therefore I wish to apologize to the house for having made certain statements relative to the department of psychology and psychiatry of Queen's University. I offer my apologies to the house for being so emphatic, but I believed what I said because of the source of my information. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I sent my apologies to the vice chancellor of Queen's University.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the



PEACE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
minister tell the house whether the government intends to redress the injustice with regard to the number of income tax district offices in Quebec and Ontario, since Ontario has 11 such offices and Quebec only four? four?
Mr. Speaker:: This is a question that should be put on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has now received any communication from Premier Robarts of Ontario that the government of Ontario intends to set up its own provincial pension plan, or whether the government of Ontario has asked the Canadian government for any amendments to Bill No. C-75 that would meet the objections which Premier Robarts stated in his speech to the Canadian club.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not as of 11 a.m. today.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to read the comments of Professor Bora Laskin as reported in the Montreal Gazette of April 9, does he agree with him that the demands by Premier Lesage that Quebec be master in its own house are not in keeping with the British North America Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have now had the opportunity of reading the press report of that statement. I do not think it is very wise to comment on press reports of statements made by private individuals outside this house.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Secretary of State with reference to returns ordered by parliament in the last session. My information is that 45 of these returns have still not been presented to the house. Yesterday the Secretary of State said
Inquiries of the Ministry he would give a reply to the Leader of the Opposition as soon as possible. Can he now reply?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: Unfortunately not, Mr. Speaker; I have not yet received a report.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Recently TransAir again reduced its schedules so that service is no longer provided from Winnipeg to Brandon, Yorkton and Regina. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would care to review the agreement between TransAir and T.C.A. and give a report as to whether TransAir is living up to its obligations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is a contract between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir, and it would not appear to me that I would have any right arbitrarily to review it. But I will be glad to ask Mr. McGregor whether he feels that the other company is living up to the obligations entered into with Trans-Canada Air Lines, and any reply Mr. McGregor can make on that matter I shall be glad to convey to the hon. gentleman.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should just like to point out that this agreement was approved by order in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to exercise any power that I have not got, but if the minister has any authority or any jurisdiction in the matter I will do whatever it seems proper for me to do, and will account to parliament for it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for York Centre in his capacity as chief government whip. Now that the house has appointed the various standing committees, will he arrange for an early meeting of all those committees so they can be organized and some of them, such as the industrial relations committee, can get to work?

Supply-Northern Affairs


James Edgar Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we intend to organize the committees as quickly as possible; and that means quickly.

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



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.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is not in the house this morning, because I wanted, first of all, to congratulate him. I wanted to commend him because yesterday, he achieved a really remarkable feat. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, he succeeded in displeasing everybody, while satisfying nobody. I hope to show how he did this.
For instance, let us take those who believe that jurisdiction over the Eskimos should be transferred from the federal to the provincial government; those people are certainly very dissatisfied with the philosophy expounded yesterday before the committee, by the Minister of Justice. Ottawa has a jurisdiction in this matter but, according to him, that jurisdiction is elusive, inefficient and often illusory-illusory because the federal government does not propose to exercise it.
How could this government sitting opposite give a clearer and more complete indication of its impotency, its weakness and confusion, than by insisting-with the support of a ruling made by the supreme court and of the constitution-on the fact that it has a jurisdiction and, at the same time, attempting, through sophistry-there is no other word for the twisted reasoning put forward by the Minister of Justice-to show that this jurisdiction must not, will not, and cannot be exercised by the federal power invested with it?
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice is trying to justify this transfer by asserting that it is not a constitutional transfer of jurisdiction, but simply the entrusting of a mandate or, if you prefer, of an agency to the provincial government by the federal government.
The minister said: "You know, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government cannot exercise its jurisdiction directly. It exercises it through its officers or other persons . . . "; he

seems to put on the same footing ordinary civil servants or an agency of the federal government, and the government of the province of Quebec, a government which, in its own jurisdiction, is in fact and under the constitution, absolutely sovereign.
Thus, if we accept the philosophy of the Minister of Justice, we must conclude that this provincial government simply becomes a mandatary of the federal government. That is the absurdity to which we must necessarily and inevitably come, if we accept and follow the reasoning of the Minister of Justice.
It is absolutely clear that this theory is unacceptable from a constitutional point of view, because, besides the reasons I just stated, it is clear that the federal government, even under an alleged agreement or convention with the provincial government, cannot alter the jurisdictions of each level of government as definitively set out by sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.
The theory of the Minister of Justice is therefore absolutely groundless from a constitutional point of view. If he cannot justify his theory from a constitutional point of view, surely, he could not justify it under any piece of legislation? In that respect, the minister made a real effort.
He said that such a transfer was not new, that the government had proceeded in the same way for some services to the Indians. Either the minister neglected to consider the question carefully or he abused himself on the meaning of the transfer of services in respect to Indians. For in the latter case, it was a transfer authorized by legislation passed by this parliament, as indeed the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out to the minister during his remarks.
In this case, there is no legislation before the house providing for this transfer. What is more surprising, neither the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) nor the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) indicate that the government intends to introduce such legislation in the house.
So, their argument is fundamentally unsound, if they want to invoke legislation, for in this case there is no legislation. Nothing in the existing legislation concerning Indians provides for the transfer discussed in this debate.
The argument of the minister with respect to the constitution of this mandate is not justified either by an agreement or consent which would have been given by the people concerned themselves, that is the Eskimo people, for the Minister of Justice was again of an amazing, of an astounding

fugacity with respect to this so-called referendum. We have absolutely no assurance on the part of the government in this regard.
In view of the principles I have just put forward, I suggest that everybody, both federalists and provincialists, were disappointed in the speech made by the Minister of Justice.
In addition, I feel that this mandate theory puts the province in an inferior position that it can hardly deem acceptable. I say this, because I am quite familiar with the provisions of the civil code pertaining to mandate. As a matter of fact, a definition of a mandate is given in section 1701 and following sections of the civil code.
Thus, section 1701 defines a mandate as a contract by which a person called the mandator, commits a lawful business to the management of another, called the mandatary. Therefore, in the present case, the federal government would be the mandator and the province, the mandatary, which by accepting the mandate is obliged to execute it.
The next chapter of the civil code sets forth the obligations resulting from the mandate. Section 1709 provides among other things that:
The mandatary is obliged to execute the mandate which he has accepted.
Section 1713 provides that:
The mandatary is bound to render an account of his administration.
It follows therefore that if the province of Quebec is willing to be the mandatary of the federal government in this matter, it accepts a direct and inevitable control by the federal government in this field and agrees to account for its activities.
In other words, if the province of Quebec builds schools and sets up a curriculum, it must submit it to the central government. Can you imagine a more evident intrusion in the absolute jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education?
This federal control in the field of education, if the argument of the Minister of Justice and that of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is accepted, was confirmed yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources himself when he stated, among other things, as reported on page 1976 of Hansard that, for example, the federal government will require:
-the standards.. .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.
And in reply to a question of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) the minister repeated again that the federal government should not exercise that control in such a field.
Supply-Northern Affairs
It is for these reasons that I say the speech of the Minister of Justice has greatly disappointed all those who were expecting a little logic from him on this matter.
It is a fine thing to say that the provincial government will accept such conditions; that it will accept to be the federal government's mandatary or agent, in other words, to be its servant.
I was dismayed, yesterday, when, in reply to my question:
Has the government of the province of Quebec accepted to have conditions thus imposed by the federal government?
The Minister of Justice said:
That is my understanding under the preliminary agreement which has already been mentioned-
In view of the present state of Canadian politics, in the light of today's realities and the stand taken consistently by the successive governments of the province of Quebec and accepted today, 1 cannot see the federal government dictating conditions to the provincial government in such a vital field.
Above all, I cannot see the minister of natural resources of the province of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque, for instance, accepting such dictatorship-there is no other word, dictate and dictatorship are synonyms-from the federal government.
I cannot see the provincial government making such an about-face, especially since the premier of Quebec stated last week, after the failure of the federal-provincial conference in Quebec city, that his government would take legal proceedings against the federal administration to have the student loans and the family allowances legislation declared ultra vires.
I can see it even less after what we heard on the radio today-and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) may be able to tell us whether it is true-that behind closed doors, the Quebec Liberal federation is putting the final touch to the final and complete divorce from the federal wing of the party.
Under the circumstances-


Maurice Lamontagne: What about the Union Nationale?


Paul Raymond Martineau: -it would be ridiculous to think-
The Secretary of State who interrupted me may answer later on when I have resumed my seat. For the time being, I should ask him personally, since he has just walked in, and I would also ask the Minister without Portfolio if, as representatives of Quebec within the cabinet, both of them will approve the thesis of their colleague, the Minister of Justice, according to whom, from now on,
2004	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs the province of Quebec will have to accept the guidance or control of the federal government and will have to submit to the conditions laid down by the latter in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. If they can answer, let them do so but, in the meantime, I would much rather rely on the statements made in that connection by the representatives of the Quebec government.


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I will allow questions at the end of my speech, which is drawing to a close.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made statements-


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has the floor and he has just said that he would answer questions after he has completed his observations.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member said he was quoting the words of the Minister of Justice, but I should like him to quote from the text.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am very pleased to answer the point of order raised by my hon. opposite. It is unfortunate that he was not in the house at the beginning of the sitting for he would know that I did quote the Minister of Justice from the text. If he wants further information in this regard, he could read carefully what the minister said in this connection.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into details. Up to now I have only tried to underline the complete inconsistency of the attitude of the federal government in regard to the transfer of the Eskimos.
Personally, I think I have made my position clear when I participated in a debate on the same question on March 26 last. Here was the stand I took then: the transfer of the "jurisdiction" of the Eskimos' administrative affairs was recommended by a joint committee on Indian affairs in 1961. The matters which were proposed to be transferred came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. The committee recommended certain conditions under which the transfer was to be made, for instance, that the transfer be agreed upon by the Indians themselves and then ratified by the federal and provincial legislatures.
I want to say that, as far as self-determination is concerned, the Eskimos have surely some rights and that we, of the province of Quebec, would be the last ones to deny them those rights.
[Mr. Martineau.l

Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I am convinced that should this transfer be made according to the rules I have mentioned, and in accordance with the recommendations of the joint committee of the parliament of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec, which would then exercise its authority in a field which properly belongs to it, would jealously maintain and completely safeguard the fundamental rights, the culture and the language of the Eskimos.
Mr. Chairman, that is the stand I took in the past and which I still take. That is the issue. The minister of northern affairs said yesterday that the ultimate objective of the federal government was to promote the full and complete emancipation of the Eskimos. I am all for it, if such is the real objective of the government. But then, let the government treat the Eskimos with the respect they are entitled to as intelligent human beings and not try to outsmart them. It should not be wily with them, for they are Canadian citizens.
Mr. Chairman, the government ought not to try and confuse an issue which should be absolutely clearcut. On the one hand, we have the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources telling us that the federal government is at odds with Quebec on the matter and, on the other, the Minister of Justice saying that the provincial government accepts the federal government's conditions and that they have consulted each other. He should rather tell us what is the attitude of the federal government in that respect. There cannot be as many attitudes as there are ministers. If they are unable to settle this matter, they should not endeavour to do it because, instead of finding a solution, they would be getting away from it.
Mr. Chairman, before the end of this degovernment, in dealing with this matter, must respect the Canadian constitution and the sovereignty of parliament, and above all the rights and interests of the Eskimos. Until now, they have given no evidence that they would settle the matter on the basis of standards dear to them. Well, Mr. Chairman, since Eskimos are human beings endowed with keen intelligence, as everyone knows, I feel it is shameful and entirely unthinkable to approach such a vital question that way.
Mr. Chairman, before the end of this debate, I would like the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to answer questions directed to him yesterday by members on this side of the house. We would like him to outline the policy the government intend to follow in that respect.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I will not be very long, and I make no apology for commenting on this item. I think we have before us two of the most important principles with which this parliament has yet had to deal in my memory. There are two things involved. I suggest the first is a denial of natural justice to the Eskimo people. I am not going to deal with that point very much because it has been dealt with adequately by my leader, by the hon. member for Yukon and other hon. members on this side.
It was all very well for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to say last night that no formal agreement has been entered into yet, but having examined Hansard, having had an opportunity to read the questions and answers with respect to this problem, having seen the statements made and having read the press reports, I suggest that no other reasonable interpretation can be placed on the situation but that the government has committed itself to enter into an agreement by which there will be placed in the hands of the government of Quebec certain responsibilities with regard to the Eskimo people. True enough, as the minister said, the fine print has not yet been completed, and I think it is to the credit of the minister that he has seen fit to hold out until he thinks there are adequate safeguards in the agreement which is to be made. However, that the government is committed is, I think, perfectly obvious.
I think we have now gone so far on this question, Mr. Chairman, that natural justice will be denied unless the Eskimo people have the opportunity to express their views by means of a referendum. I leave this aspect by quoting again a statement Sir Wilfrid Laurier made many years ago, which I quoted on March 20 in the budget debate. I think what he said with respect to the people of Quebec applies just as much now as it did then.
Yes, we are too much the sons of France, of that generous nation which has so often shed her blood for the defence of the weak, of the oppressed, not to be ever ready to defend the rights of our fellow countrymen of different nationalities to the same extent as our own.
It is my submission, and I fully believe, that the people of the province of Quebec would not wish any such transfer of responsibility to be consummated without the Eskimo people having the opportunity to express their views by a referendum.
I leave that point and will now deal very briefly with the legal aspect. I say that there has been a denial of natural justice. I add to that by saying that what is proposed to be done is that such transfers as take place will be consummated without due process of
Supply-Northern Affairs law. I posed the question on April 6, when I spoke briefly on the estimates of the Department of Justice. I spoke on purpose at that time, to give the Minister of Justice an opportunity to examine my arguments, which I feel I put before the committee dispassionately and with due regard to the facts and the law of the situation. At the conclusion of my remarks I said this:
Until parliament has given the government the right to give to a provincial government any of its responsibilities in respect of these Indians-
-that should have been Eskimos-
-then the action which the government proposes to take is completely unconstitutional and not within the purview of the government as opposed to parliament.
How did the Minister of Justice answer this question? Yesterday, as recorded at page 1966 of Hansard, he made these remarks:
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.
So the minister is saying at this point that we can do this so far as the Eskimos are concerned because in the past we have done it in respect to the Indians. Further down the page he is recorded as saying:
And in the same way that no one can question our right to deal with Eskimo affairs through agents, representatives, intermediaries... I do not see why, so 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-
I see, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Transport is in the house. At one time he was minister of citizenship and immigration and, as such, had jurisdiction over Indian affairs. I am sure he will bear me out that with respect to Indians, as interpreted and defined in the Indian Act, the act constitutes a complete code, and in that act there are a number of sections by which parliament, having first had an opportunity to debate this issue, having first had an opportunity to express its view, having first in committee of the whole examined clause by clause the provisions of the Indian Act saw fit-and I think properly-to entrust to the government the right by order in council to regulate, to make agreements, and to give in particular to the provincial governments and to local school boards certain agreements with respect to education and other matters.
It is only because parliament, being supreme to do so, delegated its authority to the government that the government has the

Supply-Northern Affairs right, and has exercised that right on a number of occasions, to enter into agreements with the provincial governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman, having brought me into this, would answer this question. The hon. gentleman is quite right that under the Indian Act the government was entrusted with the power, the faculty, of making these agreements. In fact I made many of them. I made an over-all agreement with the Northwest Territories council no different in many respects from what is proposed in this case.
But I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if it is not true either that Eskimos are Indians, and therefore they are covered by the provisions of that act or, if they are not Indians, they are just ordinary Canadian citizens and therefore should be treated as ordinary Canadian citizens? It seems to me they must be one or the other. They are not some third thing. They are either Indians, and therefore covered by the Indian Act, and the minister in charge of Indian affairs has the right to make an agreement as he did with other Indians; or they are not Indians and, if they are not Indians, then they are just ordinary Canadian citizens.


Gerald William Baldwin: With respect, I brought this point up last night but I do not think the minister was here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I was not.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are a third body. Under section 4 of the Indian Act, Eskimos are specifically excluded from the operation of that act. Consequently they are not covered by the provisions of that act, and there cannot be valid agreements made by the government in the same way as agreements can be made by the government with respect to Indians. But equally they are not ordinary citizens in the same sense, because by the supreme court case the parliament of Canada has been invested with exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility.
For that reason, because of this anomaly which may not have occurred to people before but which definitely exists, the Eskimos in northern Quebec covered by the supreme court case are the exclusive responsibility of the federal government, and they cannot be included within the four corners of the Indian Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask another question, purely for information? Does he feel that the decision in 1939, with respect to the Eskimos in Quebec, applies to Eskimos living in all the provinces of Canada, or only to those in Quebec?


Gerald William Baldwin: The 1939 decision applies only to the Eskimos living in northern Quebec because the terms of reference to the supreme court were definitely restricted to those. As the minister understands, there was a conflict over who would have to face the responsibility of feeding, providing for and maintaining these particular people, and it was limited to these particular people. The reasons for the decision were directed to these people exclusively, and the decision applies only to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is evading and not answering my question. My question is, surely the supreme court did not say only this group of Eskimos in Quebec are Indians? Surely the supreme court meant that all Eskimos were Indians? Now, I am asking the hon. gentleman if he does not think this applies equally to any Eskimos living in any other provinces, or does he think it does not?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, the supreme court decision cannot apply to any other than those people to whom the supreme court directed its attention. It had no right, under the terms of reference, to look to the Eskimos in any other part of Canada.


Mr. Turner:: Surely the hon. gentleman, having read the case, would agree that the terms of that decision are wide enough to include the word "Eskimo" as a generic term, as applying right across the northland? More particularly, in view of the evidence produced before the supreme court relating to Hudson Bay documents, Northwest Company documents affecting Eskimos in all parts of the north, how does he find authority in that judgment limiting the definition of Eskimos merely to Ungava?


Gerald William Baldwin: Because in examining this question the court directed its attention to ancient documents, to evidence contained in treaties which dealt with Eskimos in this territorial area alone. It might be wise to suggest to the government that it see to it additional references are made to the supreme court with respect to other Eskimos.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman has the supreme court decision under his hand, if he would read the decision it would be helpful. I have always felt it is much easier to debate things if we have facts to debate rather than opinions, and the supreme court used certain words about the Eskimos. I do not carry them in my head and I doubt if the hon. gentleman does. If he read the decision it would be helpful.


Gerald William Baldwin: The decision was here yesterday but it is not here now. Perhaps while I

am speaking the minister might be able to obtain the decision. But I would say to the minister that what the terms-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not the terms of reference I want. It is the decision of the court.


Gerald William Baldwin: But the court is limited to the terms of reference.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If the hon. member would permit this interjection, at page 421 of the decision Sir Lyman Duff, who was the chief justice and rendered the decision on behalf of the court, stated as follows:
Resolved that upon the transference of the territories in question to the Canadian government it will be the duty of the government to make adequate provision for the protection of the Indian tribes, whose interest and well-being are involved in the transfer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what I want. I want the sentence that refers to Eskimos. It is that I am interested in.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will see the minister's curiosity is satisfied, either now or later. I shall produce the decision and cite from it the particular paragraph which makes it clear beyond any doubt that in coming to their decision the learned judges of the supreme court had directed their attention to the Eskimos within a certain defined territorial limit. The affirmative answer which they gave to the question "Are these Eskimos Indians within the meaning of the act?", and the answer being yes-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member going to be so sophistical as to argue that these particular Eskimos are Indians and that the rest are not?


Gerald William Baldwin: By no means; but they are Indians because the supreme court has declared them to be so, having examined the evidence with respect to these particular people and defined them for the purpose of deciding whose responsibility they are to be. Apparently this question has never arisen with regard to the Eskimo people in the Northwest Territories, but it did arise with respect to these Eskimos in the northern part of what is now called new Quebec. The estimates make this plain. If one examines the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration-I am dealing with the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1965-


John Napier Turner: Before the hon. member goes into that, may I ask him whether he is introducing the estimates as a legal authority?


Gerald William Baldwin: If the parliamentary secretary can contain his impatience he will see where my remarks are leading. He may not
Supply-Northern Affairs be satisfied by my argument now, but I will have a few additional authorities to give him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely we are not debating the estimates of 1965 yet, though it may appear to the public that we are doing so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am simply using the estimates so that the few doubters who remain on the other side of the chamber will be satisfied. The estimates of 1965 for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in connection with Indian affairs provide for the payment of a substantial sum of money and recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves, the education of Indian children and so on. In other words, there is a definite reference to agreements made between the government and provincial governments approved by order in council, agreements which can be made only because the Indian Act authorizes them to be made.
However, when we turn to northern affairs we will see votes providing for moneys to be paid in respect of Indian commercial activities, the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, finished goods and so on, and welfare services for Eskimos. There is no reference whatsoever to agreements being concluded with provincial governments. I say to the government that if they persist in their determination and enter into an agreement with the province of Quebec and pay out moneys for that purpose, the Auditor General when examining such payments is bound to certify that they are illegal payments made without the authority of parliament.
Someone said to me, how is it that in the past, there being no legislation, the government has been able to deal with Eskimo affairs and provide for their education, their welfare and their medical services? The answer is simple; there has been authority from parliament. Each year there are items included in the estimates. Each vote is a motion of this house, and the aggregate of the votes is included in an appropriation act authorizing the payment of those respective sums. Parliament has then authorized the government for the period of the fiscal year in question by implication and directly to pay on these various services the money so allocated. This is the limit of the government's authority. No other authority has been given by parliament to the government. Any attempt by the government to act without receiving such

Supply-Northern Affairs authority is illegal and invalid, and I am Manitoba to carry on some of these tune-satisfied it would be promptly questioned by tions without the prior approval of parlia-the Auditor General.	ment?


John Napier Turner: I wonder whether in the event that there were an agreement concluded-I notice that the hon. member has now desisted from his earlier argument that there already is one-but if there were an agreement, would not that agreement be sufficient legal justification for payment?


Gerald William Baldwin: Depending on the terms I would think it might be, if parliament approved it.


John Napier Turner: If parliament approved the arrangement.


Gerald William Baldwin: As I understand the mood of this parliament there will not be approval, or certainly there should not be approval, of an estimate by which the government is authorized directly or indirectly to enter into an agreement of this kind unless there are certain safeguards established, and I propose to deal with what I think these safeguards should be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member goes on to deal with the question of safeguards, may I ask him this. Has he not completely answered his own question? In other words, if the government made an agreement with the province of Quebec it could not implement its plans and spend any money without a vote from parliament. So, as the hon. gentleman has so successfully demonstrated, parliament will have the final say on this matter whether the government likes it or not.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the hon. gentleman or the minister of northern affairs will rise at this time and say that no such agreement will be consummated or applied until it has been brought before parliament, I will resume my seat this moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was said yesterday.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, it was not. It was said the agreement would be brought before parliament. I am saying it should be approved by parliament and examined by parliament. This is our right. We have been given the responsibility for these Eskimo people and it is our right to examine the terms of any such agreement and, if we dislike it, to say so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me, before he continues, to ask him another question? The government of Canada is spending money on the Eskimos of Manitoba. Would the hon. gentleman argue that the federal government has no right to make an agreement with the government of


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I would so argue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very interested in that answer. Does the hon. gentleman found that answer on the privy council judgment or on the supreme court judgment of 1939? Or on what does he found it?


Gerald William Baldwin: On the principle that these Eskimos are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the ground that they are Indians?


Gerald William Baldwin: On the ground that they are Eskimos who are accepted as a responsibility of the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but I am asking the hon. member this question. He says that in the case of Quebec an agreement cannot validly by made without prior parliamentary approval; he says this is because the supreme court decided that the Eskimos in Quebec were Indians. He also said that the supreme court did not make any such decision with regard to the rest of the Eskimos. Therefore the rest of the Eskimos are not under the jurisdiction of parliament to any greater extent than are any other citizens.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish the hon. gentleman would clear up this point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Certainly; because if a reference is to be made and can be made, the same principles and the same law which was argued in the 1939 case would be applicable. In particular there is a reference in that case to the royal proclamation of 1763, under the terms of which certain ancient and immemorial rights of the aboriginal people of Canada, which includes Eskimos and Indians, were retained in their hands, including the use and occupancy of the land. In confirmation of that, the government of this country from time to time thought it necessary to negotiate treaties with various Indian tribes. Under the terms of those treaties the Indians gave up or ceded to the government of Canada the respective lands covered by the treaties.
That royal proclamation would be applicable, in my opinion, to the aboriginal people, including the Eskimos of northern Manitoba, to the same extent and in the same way as it was utilized by the Supreme Court of Canada in coming to a decision in the 1939 case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not mind answering another question, for information. Does

the hon. gentleman think it is equally applicable to the Eskimos of Newfoundland? Newfoundland is a part of Canada. Does the hon. gentleman think it is equally applicable to them?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Chairman, because the royal proclamation excepted certain areas, including the provinces which were created following the treaty of Paris in 1763, and the crown colonies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is surely aware of the fact that the boundaries were changed on more than one occasion after that. He is not going to say, is he, that we brought any Newfoundlanders into this country as second class citizens of Canada? Surely he is not arguing that the Eskimos in Newfoundland are not entitled to the same protection from this agreement as any other Eskimos; or is he?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am simply referring to the Eskimos of northern Quebec. The minister asked me a question with regard to the Eskimos of northern Manitoba, and I gave him my views in this regard and quoted what I thought was ample authority for this argument. I do not know what the boundaries were of the province of Newfoundland. The eminent minister is a historian and is probably aware of this. He and I might get together and work this out. But without prior knowledge of the facts on which a decision should be based, I prefer to limit myself to the facts of which I have knowledge, which is something I recommend to the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure there is one fact of which the hon. gentleman has knowledge, because he was parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister. He must know, therefore, that in practically every year the former prime minister was in office the government of Newfoundland made formal application for assistance for the Eskimos of Newfoundland, and in every case their request was ignored by the previous government. That is why I asked the hon. gentleman the question, did he and his party regard the Eskimos in one province as second class citizens and those in another province as first class citizens, which seems to be the conclusion of his argument?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge of that fact arising out of my position as parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister. My duties include my presence in the house having to do with the obstructive tactics of the then opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Supply-Northern Affairs


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not saying, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman was not an apt pupil.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I only have five minutes, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to conclude my argument. I shall be glad to answer any questions of the parliamentary secretary either during the lunch hour or this afternoon. I have dealt with the question of the estimates, and I should like to conclude by stating what I think are the four safeguards that should be provided before any agreement is entered into. Let me say that I sat on the Indian affairs joint committee, and it is my considered opinion that in the final analysis and in due course it is desirable that distinctions between citizens in Canada should be eliminated; but let me also say that because of the manner in which this particular issue has been handled it is my view that the government has set back the process of adjustment by at least a generation.
I make these suggestions; first, that any agreement which is to be made must be submitted to parliament and must have parliamentary approval. Second, there should be adequate safeguards in this agreement; third, a safeguard of arbitration by means of reference to possibly a supreme court judge or the Supreme Court of Canada should the Eskimo people feel that the provisions for protecting them are being violated; fourth, there can only be settlement now after a referendum.
I understand the problem which faces the government with regard to this business of a referendum, having in mind that some time in the next few years similar arrangements should be entered into with respect to the quarter of a million Indians now under the Indian Act. But having in mind what has happened-and sitting on the Indian affairs committee as I did, it was by no means unanimous amongst the Indian people that there should be this integration; many of them took exception to it, and I am sure their leaders will be watching with care and scrutinizing with anxiety the actions of the government in this case-I think the only way you can satisfy the Eskimos of northern Quebec and the Indian people, who must be considered so far as the future is concerned, is by means of a referendum.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I have
leave at this time to satisfy the curiosity of the Minister of Transport with regard to the specifics of the supreme court decision? Here are the terms of reference:

Supply-Northern Affairs
Does the term "Indians", as used in head 24 of section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, include Eskimo inhabitants of the province of Quebec?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman; but I would like the answer. That is what I asked for.


Gerald William Baldwin: The answer was "Yes". Perhaps I should read the headnote. This is one of those fortunate references where, unlike the case with questions asked in parliament, there is a yes or no answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not a Pickersgillian answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: The headnote provides the answer:
Eskimo inhabitants of the province of Quebec are "Indians" within the contemplation of head No. 24 ("Indians and lands reserved for Indians") of section 91 of the British North America Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I now repeat my question to the hon. gentleman. Does he really seriously contend that that answer does not mean that all Eskimos in Canada are Indians, wherever they reside?


Gerald William Baldwin: This was not decided. I have no doubt that under the terms of a proper reference, if it was thought necessary, the same answer would probably be given. But we are bound-at least, I hope this government is bound-by decisions of the supreme court, and I hope the government does not decide to go outside these lawful decisions for its own purposes. We are bound by this act and must stay within the four corners of the decision.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may ask one question on the same subject. The hon. member has given his legal opinion on this judgment and related statutes. Would he seriously contend that the purview and effect of the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in this case in 1939 would not be that Eskimos as a generic term, as an indigenous race in Canada, were not similarly defined under head 24 of section 91 of the British North America Act?


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand that the parliamentary secretary practises law, as I do. I am sure he has had the same experience I have had in trying to persuade a court that a decision that has been made extends beyond the boundaries of that particular case, and not being very successful in his argument.


John Napier Turner: Which side of the case do you prefer?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in the discussion which has taken place, but it seems to me that the remarks which have been made are a pretty good indication that there is some agreement as to what are the legal requirements. While I cannot see why Eskimos and Indians are put in the same category, there is probably a legal reason for so doing. However, why is the province of Quebec so interested in reaching an agreement that the federal government should give up its control over the Eskimo population in this particular area?
One question which is asked, and I think it is a good question, is, is this because of the squatters' rights that the Eskimos obviously have in regard to the natural resources in what is called New Quebec? Has this also something to do with the boundary between Labrador and Quebec in relation to the local inhabitants of the area? Is that why the people of Quebec are so interested in them, and particularly the government of Quebec, because there is certainly a distinction between the two which we should draw. For example, Mr. Levesque is interested in obtaining this concession from the federal government, even though it has been said that he still wants some of the administration costs to be paid by this government
The rest of us in Canada have two responsibilities in this regard. One of them is to see that the people who are our native population, whether they be called Indians or Eskimos, have their rights protected. If we are willing to send our troops into other nations across the world to protect their right to self-determination, then at least we should be able to apply this principle in our relationships between the federal government and the provincial governments of Canada. This is very fundamental, and any member of parliament who comes here unprepared to meet this commitment on behalf of the native population of this country is doing a great disservice to the people of Canada and to the idea of a united Canadian nation.
It is my opinion that many of these people have reached the stage where they can achieve self-determination. From talking to people who have visited the Eskimos in some communities I believe that the Eskimos have already made this decision, and the only thing preventing the implementation is that they want to retain their preferred position under the control of the federal government, and have an outspoken objection to being

transferred to the control of the province in which they may reside. They believe they have certain advantages in remaining under the control and responsibility of the federal government.
I do not think we as Canadians are the least bit interested in whether a province wishes to obtain clear title to a particular area in this regard. This should not concern us at all. What should concern us is the welfare of these people. It seems to me very surprising that this government should insist upon us making this decision without taking into consideration the wishes of the people in those areas.
I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman, as many others have concluded, that when all the smoke dies down and the legal precedents have been cited, we will find this whole matter hinges upon the commitment the Liberal government in Ottawa made to the Liberal government in Quebec. I feel it is as simple as that. This problem did not come to the fore until there had been a meeting of the resource minister of Quebec with the minister of northern affairs for Canada.
I had an opportunity some time ago, along with other members of parliament, of seeing a film outlining some of these problems. This film was paid for by certain interests in the province of Quebec and illustrated the conditions under which the Eskimos existed in the Arctic region. The particular gentleman who took the film went up to the Arctic and set up a trading company in that area. This film showed great abuses by employees of northern affairs who worked in that area, particularly where there was a relationship between the Hudson's Bay Company and the department of northern affairs. One example concerned oil declared surplus by the Department of National Defence which was turned over to the Hudson's Bay Company. This oil was not suitable for outboard motors. However, the Hudson's Bay factors would not stock any outboard motor oil on their shelves until this surplus oil had been used up.
This incident was brought to the attention of the department of northern affairs, but nothing was done about it. There were other illustrations. The post office was run by the Hudson's Bay Company, and people in the area could not obtain cash unless this was done through the auspices of the Hudson's Bay Company. This was done on a very discriminatory basis. The gentleman who came back had in his suit coat a number of packages containing bills of large denominations which he had been using while in the Arctic because he was not permitted to have cheques cashed in that area.
Supply-Northern Affairs
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, all these incidents came to the attention of the department of northern affairs. Representatives of that department viewed this film and made very disparaging remarks while the film was being shown. They showed great ignorance in doing so. In view of the fact that this film was being shown to us by the film board in their quarters, these people could have shown courtesy to the other guests who wanted to listen. I am sure these matters must have been discussed within the department. I was interested in ascertaining why certain individuals in Quebec would pay to support such an expedition to obtain this type of film. Since discussing the matter with a number of other people, I am satisfied the reason it was done was that the province of Quebec had already decided they wanted to get control of the Indian population in that area. It was simply a case of squatters rights in connection with the resources that existed in this area.
If this is true, and I believe it to be true, then I believe these Eskimos should be given the same protection that is afforded by the Indian Act. We are all well aware of the fact that if this area were declared to be a reservation for Indian bands, then the resources of the area could be developed for the benefit of the people of the area. I am quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that one major mining company in northern Quebec would more than support in perpetuity the 2,300 Eskimos in that area. In all fairness, if the minister really wishes to protect these people he is going to have to give a much clearer indication of this desire than he has in the past. He will have to allow the Eskimos to determine their own future.
There are other problems which I believe will arise before the committee can give approval to the recommendations outlined in the memorandum the minister presented to parliament. There are matters such as religion, education, language and so on, that will be of concern to the Eskimo people in the future. We must insist that the minister not proceed further with these negotiations with Quebec, Manitoba or the other provinces until the very fundamental problem of the responsibility for these people be established throughout the whole area.


Mr. Herridge:: I have a few words to bring to the attention of the committee. I have been detained in the external affairs committee during the greater part of the discussion of these estimates. I have been asked by friends of mine, and close friends of the minister's, to raise this question. The close friends of the minister reside in the city of Revelstoke. The question relates to Revelstoke

Supply-Northern Affairs park and what people claim is the continued waste of public money in that park. The minister knows that the superintendent's house cost nearly $50,000. It is a most lavish place. There are repairs being made to buildings only recently constructed.
I just ask the minister this question. Will he agree to call the superintendent of the Revelstoke national park and the engineer in charge of the park before the committee on mines, forests and waters, and will he be willing at the same time to hear witnesses who have anything to contribute to a complete understanding of this question?


Mr. Laing:: I think I should make some answer to the hon. member for Kootenay West. I understand he has been making these charges for two or three years now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not making any charges; I am repeating what people have told me.


Arthur Laing: The expenditures in the park
to which he refers were made some three years ago. I have seen some of the results of those expenditures. While he and others may contend that the buildings that were erected were luxurious, I think the fact that we are going to create the most notable mountain park on this continent calls for buildings commensurate with the beauty and service the park gives. If the hon. member has any specific charge to make that waste was deliberate in those days, and he has never made such a charge, I would certainly take measures to investigate those charges.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just one question. The minister knows some of the facts, and does he consider it right and proper that the people of Canada should be called upon to pay close to $50,000 to build a house for the superintendent of a national park?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, the house is built and I am not going to tear it down.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Filibuster.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -the item before us is vote le of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, an additional appropriation of $53,000. I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. I have also taken note of the comments in other sources of communication and public information indicating that this situation is one of very great seriousness, as I personally believe it is. This is the 15 th day on which the house has been debating these final supplementary estimates for the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1964.
As I understand the position of the official opposition, they want assurances from the

government with regard to certain safeguards before passing the item under discussion. The problem which I as a member sitting on this side of the house have to face is in interpreting what the official opposition actually claim should be the safeguards, and trying to reconcile statements in Hansard so that I may better understand why this debate is being prolonged.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River concerning the interpretation of the 1939 decision, and I must confess that he put forward a case that carried a great deal of weight with me personally, although I am not trained in the law, in terms of the scope of the decision and its influence. However, I should like to quote from Hansard for December 16, 1963, page 5975, when the main estimates of this department were before the house. I quote the words of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm:
Mr. Chairman, when Newfoundland joined confederation the administration of Eskimo and Indian affairs was put in the hands of the government of that province. Now, I wonder why the same procedure could not be followed with the government of the province of Quebec?
That is a verbatim quotation from Hansard, Mr. Chairman, and I am wondering whether the hon. member for Peace River has had any opportunity to put forward the same kind of convincing and enlightened argument to his colleague the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the type of argument which he placed before the house so effectively earlier today.
In a cursory reading of Hansard I have located 12 occasions when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has interjected in the debate or has posed oral questions, but I cannot claim that the instances I have found by any means exhaust the quotations I might find. On July 26, 1963, as found on page 2669 of Hansard, this question was posed by the hon. member:
Since the officials have completed their reports in connection with the possible transfer of Eskimo affairs to the government of the province of Quebec, when will there be a meeting of representatives of the federal and provincial governments to effect the transfer?
On July 29, 1963, page 2732 of Hansard, the hon. member put this question to the minister:
Does he intend to meet the Quebec authorities as early as possible in order to transfer to them questions relating to the New Quebec Eskimos, in view of Mr. Levesque's contention that the federal government is putting off on purpose a new meeting between the federal and the provincial authorities?
Again on August 1, 1963, at page 2885 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question? Has the minister read the statement by Mr. Eric Gourdeau

of the Quebec government, who charged the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with insincerity and accused them of having delayed the meeting between the two parties in regard to the transfer of Eskimo affairs to the Quebec administration?
On October 1, 1963 the question became a little more ingenious. It is found on page 3074 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the government Anally transfer to the government of the province of Quebec jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs in New Quebec in accordance with the legitimate wishes of the province and those of his good friend, Mr. Rene Levesque?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Repeat it.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I repeat:
Will the government finally transfer to the government of the province of Quebec jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs in New Quebec in accordance with the legitimate wishes of the province and those of his good friend, Mr. Rene Levesque?
On October 18, 1963 at page 3737 of Hansard, the same hon. member posed this question:
Could the minister tell the house whether he intends to get at the truth of certain press reports to the effect that some officials of his department are putting pressure on Eskimos of northern Quebec or are blackmailing them so that they will refuse and protest against the wish of the province of Quebec to take over the management of their affairs?
Again on November 13, 1963, at page 4693 of Hansard:
Has the Quebec government requested another meeting with the minister to consider the possibility of transferring the jurisdiction over the Eskimos of New Quebec to the government of the province of Quebec?
On December 16 and again on February 19 the hon. member again raised this matter in the same vein. In the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the hon. member was very clear on this point. He said, as found on page 103 of Hansard for February 21 last:
The government should also, Mr. Speaker, entrust the province of Quebec with the education of the Eskimos in new Quebec.
On February 19, 1964 he put this question as found on page 12 of Hansard:
Since federal officials, as conArmed by Mr. Rene Levesque, have the Eskimos of Fort Chimo sign a petition objecting to the transfer of jurisdiction, can the minister state whether the administration of Eskimo affairs will remain under federal jursdiction?
There are many quotations, Mr. Chairman, and I have not by any means exhausted them, but one of those I personally found rather difficult to reconcile is to be found on page 1407 of Hansard for March 24, 1964, where the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-20220-127i
Supply-Northern Affairs somption-Montcalm put this question to the minister:
Could he tell the house whether, according to a statement made by Father Steinmann, an Ungava missionary, and a report published in this morning's issue of Le Devoir, Ottawa is trying to impose on the Eskimos in new Quebec a quick assimilation which, in the opinion of Father Steinmann, would be a true genocide?
We have had a very thorough debate on this item, Mr. Chairman, and some statements have been made by hon. members on the other side which have been well argued, but I find it completely impossible to reconcile those statements with the statements made by the leading spokesman of the official opposition in this house. The question I would put to the hon. member is this. Is he in favour of the transfer or is he not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes or no.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I have read into Hansard some of the statements made by the hon. member. In particular he has on many occasions read extracts from the press. I am thinking, for example, of February 21, 1964 during the course of the throne speech debate, when he quoted from La Presse in some detail. I should like to refer to today's La Presse, an article by Marcel Gingras entitled:

Mr. Pigeon was not there-
Having adopted the views of Mr. Rene Levesque, Mr. Pigeon, since the very beginning of the dispute, has constantly been urging the Pearson administration to comply with Quebec's wishes.

I ask hon. members of the house to judge. Is this a consistent policy which is being put before us by the opposition? I raise the matter of the record which is there for all who want to read. I have submitted a series of quotations that are beyond question with regard to the subject of education and the subject of the transfer of administration, matters which have been raised in this debate; and these quotations cannot be reconciled by any stretching of my understanding with a good deal of what has been said.
I submit that the holding up of these estimates on this 15th day of debate is a true filibuster if we ever saw one, and the purpose of this filibuster will no doubt become apparent as we proceed. But for $279 million we are now in the 15th day, and on an item for $53,000 we are now in the second day of debate.
There is no question but that we are now faced with an organized filibuster, and in these circumstances I leave it to hon. members to judge what we are being asked to agree to, what are the conditions being placed

Supply-Northern Affairs upon us by the statements made by the official opposition and by the inconsistencies in those statements.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) forgot to remind the house that last year the members of his party dealt with the estimates for a period of 26J days, while we have only been discussing them for a few hours, since there have been days when we merely spent an hour or two on them.
Therefore, I would not be surprised if the hon. member for Carleton was trying to mislead the house, as he did yesterday when he suggested that I had slipped away from the House of Commons because I did not share my leader's views on the Eskimo question.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton made a false and dishonest statement which is not in keeping with the courtesy which should prevail in this house.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton mentioned that I, as well as my fellow members, had asked many questions with regard to Eskimo affairs in new Quebec. I think opposition members have the responsibility to question and press the government on this important matter, because we want fair treatment for the Eskimos, who are Canadian citizens.
Mr. Chairman, questions have been put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), and their answers were contradictory. It is impossible to know what the government proposes to do.
We want to protect the rights of the Eskimo people as we are entitled to do; we do not want those rights to be ignored.
Mr. Levesque would like to see Eskimo affairs under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. Last year he stated that by April 1, 1964, Eskimo affairs would be a provincial responsibility.
I fail to understand the position of the Minister of Justice, and I accuse him of being a centralizer. He wants Quebec to remain under the control of Ottawa as all he concedes to the province is the administration of Eskimo affairs. In other words, he wants the provincial government of Quebec to look only after the administration of Eskimo affairs, which means that the federal government would control the provincial government's activities in this respect. I think that this is an infringement on provincial autonomy, and we do not want the government of the province of Quebec to be under the control of the federal government.

I find it very difficult to justify Mr. Rene Levesque's position, who poses as a defender of provincial autonomy. I would rather say that he is insulting provincial autonomy. Who could imagine that such an arrangement between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec could be accepted? The federal government does not want to grant the rights nor the constitutional powers which are essential to the full development of the province. Just half a jurisdiction is to be given to the province of Quebec with regard to Eskimo afEairs. In other words, the idea is to put the government of the province of Quebec under the control of the federal government.
In other words, Mr. Chairman,-


Mr. Choqueite:: Who wrote your speech?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Oh, I hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). We know his loyalty to his party, to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. We have known it for quite some time, Mr. Chairman.
If the hon. member for Lotbiniere has any courage, let him rise after me, and tell us what is his attitude towards Eskimo afEairs. Let him tell us whether the Minister of Justice and the federal government are right at present in wanting to put the province of Quebec under the control of the federal government, as far as Eskimo affairs are concerned, by surrendering only half the jurisdiction.
As my leader stated, we do not want the Eskimos to be bartered like mere chattels. We ask that the transfer be made democratically and that the Eskimos, who are most concerned, be first consulted.
But if there must be a transfer, it should be made through the usual channels. Legislation should be brought forward following consultations between the governments involved. That matter should not be sneaked through without being discussed by parliament. Parliament has a right to be consulted on that matter. In other words, we want the transfer to be conditional and we do not want it to be another intrusion by the federal government in the provincial field.
Mr. Chairman, there are several-


Mr. Lessard (Si. Henry):: Did you ask Mr. Barrette?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I hear the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Lessard) who often has the floor in this house. Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that he spoke twice since he has been in the house? I wonder why his electors keep returning him.
Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for St. Henry wishes to speak, all he has to do is

to rise, and I shall give him the floor so he can have, at last, one opportunity of saying a word.


H.-Pit Lessard: When I speak, I do not talk nonsense like you.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: As far as that matter now before us is concerned, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question.

Why are some of the textbooks and instruction books used in government schools in northern Canada prepared and printed in the United States when equally as good Canadian school books are available?

I should like to get an answer to that question from the minister. I should also like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to revise the status of the Hudson's Bay Company. That company has contributed to the development of the northern sections of Canada and has been doing an excellent job for many years.
I wonder if it would not be possible to revise the status of this company in order to reconsider its powers and pass new legislation or new regulations in its respect.
Those are the few comments I had to make. But before concluding, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner). He made a rather serious statement at a symposium under the auspices of the Arctic Institute of North America, at McGill University; as a matter of fact, he is alleged to have made misleading and irresponsible statements, according to Professor Jacques Rousseau, who denied emphatically the allegation of the parliamentary secretary. We want to hear him on this subject and we want to have his views.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of the opposition to scrutinize this matter carefully. We are surprised to see what I would call an undemocratic attitude on the part of the government.
We on this side of the house are blamed for asking questions, but there is no unanimity in the government on this matter of the transfer of Eskimo affairs from the federal government to the Quebec government. The cabinet now stands divided on this matter. If the minister could speak, he might say that I am right. I repeat, the cabinet now stands divided. There is a desire to transfer Eskimo affairs to Quebec in order to please Mr. Levesque, but without the Eskimos and
Supply-Northern Affairs the government being consulted, which in my opinion would be an undemocratic procedure.
We wish to obtain a specific answer from the minister and the parliamentary secretary. What will be the policy of the federal government concerning the status of Eskimos in New Quebec in the province of Quebec?
We want to know where we stand. I think that we are entitled to such information. If the minister is ready to make a specific and concise statement on this matter, he can be assured that we will fully co-operate in this field.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member? Perhaps he could take time in order to reconcile his point of view with those of the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) in order to attain on their side a consistent position and policy.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the parliamentary secretary to supply evidence to show that we disagree on this matter. In making his allegations, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) relied on questions I had asked in the house. Members have the right and the privilege to ask questions in the house.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add this. If at any time the management and administration of Eskimo affairs is turned over to the province in a democratic and constitutional way, while respecting the rights of the Eskimos, I can assure the house that the Quebec government will respect those rights as it has always respected the rights of minorities, both English and others, in the field of education.


Harold Edward Winch: To the best of my knowledge there is not an Eskimo or an Indian resident in my constituency of Vancouver East. However, we have now had several hours of discussion on a certain phase, and as a member of this committee I should like to have a little more clarification of this question. That is why, without taking very much time, I should like to direct a series of questions to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask him if he will have the courage and the decency to give direct answers.
First, on what basis is it that after approximately 90 years during which the Eskimos have come under federal jurisdiction, consideration is being given to bringing, I understand, around 2,700 of them under provincial jurisdiction? Second, if this is under consideration, is this an admission that 90 years of administration under the

Supply-Northern Affairs
federal government by both Liberals and Conservatives has failed, both administratively and constitutionally, and that the task must now be taken over by the provincial government? Third, what is the actual basis now, in these last few years, three or four years before the centennial, for this discussion, turmoil and fight over whether Eskimos in the Quebec area should come under the control of that province?
What is behind all this? There must be something, and it cannot be only 2,700 Eskimos. If it were 2,700 Eskimos, surely to heaven the federal government could do more for them than a provincial jurisdiction. Will the minister honour this committee by giving it something in the way of truth? Will be also tell this committee, in view of what is taking place, whether, if it is correct that 2,700 Eskimos are to come under provincial jurisdiction in Quebec, he applies that principle to all Eskimos across the northern region of Canada; and if so, will he recommend that there be this extension?
Now let us get down to even a bit more. I count this as a most weird situation which has not been explained in this committee, and I am certain it has not been explained with truth by the government of Quebec or by the government of Canada. Why is the minister now taking the stand he is taking on this issue? Is it because he can now give us some really factual points or is he, with all respect, becoming a bootlicker and an apple polisher for something that Quebec wants?
I put it just that way. You know, Mr. Chairman, there has been an extraordinary situation in this House of Commons in this past year, things that have amazed members here and have amazed the people of Canada. I believe we would do a much better job in this House of Commons if we were given a lot more truth and facts on the presentation of propositions, proposals and policies. I believe that if this were done by the government and accepted by all of us on this side of the chamber we would be a lot further along with the business of the people than we are at the present time.
As I said, there are no Eskimos in my riding, and no Indians, but I have listened to this discussion for hours, and I still do not know what is the government's position as to why they are discussing this matter after 90 years of federal responsibility. The minister comes from a riding very close to me. Will he stand up in his place right now and tell the committee what has been the failure of 90 years of federal responsibility for the Eskimos in northern Quebec and the reason the province of Quebec should take them over? Why would the Eskimos be better off

under Quebec than under the federal government? What is the basis in principle and in fact for this measure now before us? Will the minister get up and give us straight answers to these questions?


An hon. Member:: He is not going to answer.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister will not get up
and make a statement?


An hon. Member:: No.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am glad the minister refrained from answering the hon. member for Vancouver East because I have a few questions to pose to him, too, and he can answer all the questions together. I too come from a constituency which has no Eskimo population, and I have been listening to this interesting debate.
I have followed the career of Mr. Levesque who has tried to assimilate everything in Quebec, and I should like the minister to tell us what reason Quebec could have for demanding that the administration of Eskimos be turned over to that province. Is it to better their living conditions? Is it to preserve their culture and language? Or is it to assimilate them and make them nonentities or nothing in that province?
That is important. We are concerned. I do not think the other provinces which have Eskimo populations have made any such requests. In 1939, as we know from history, the province of Quebec was very anxious that the federal government should take charge of the Eskimo population, provide for them and educate them. Can the province of Quebec make any improvements? I think the minister should tell this house whether the province of Quebec has promised that. If the province of Quebec just wants them so as to assimilate them, why do they not lay their cards on the table and tell us the truth? I think the hon. member who preceded me asked some very pertinent questions, and the minister in all reasonableness should answer those questions. We do not want to be accused of filibustering. We want to know the facts. We want to know the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: If the members on the front benches on the other side of the house did not try to evade the issue and skirt around the questions we have asked, if they would frankly and openly answer these questions, we would save a lot of time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, how sincere.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You get up and make your own speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think it should carry, Mr. Chairman. I think the things that have been said should be either refuted or answered; otherwise everyone will know that the Liberals in Quebec and the Liberals in Ottawa reached an arrangement for support in the last election, as has been charged. I am not willing to support the use of the Eskimos of this nation as pawns in some political arrangement.
We have listened to the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm put forth two particular ideas. I think they put the extremes on both sides of the case. I believe the case that Quebec is putting to Ottawa and the negotiations that are taking place represent exactly the position the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has put forward. I am quite sure this is the position of the Liberal government of Quebec.
I know that the minister who is responsible for these things is enough of a realist and a federalist to wish to maintain the responsibilities of the federal government in regard to this jurisdiction. But I am sure there is one cabinet minister sitting here this afternoon who was in on the discussions before there were ever negotiations; I am sure he was in on the original arrangements. I am sure that most of the ministers representing the province of Quebec are aware exactly what those arrangements were.
I am not like some of the others; I believe the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is being fairly honest with us when he tells us that he is putting up the objection, and that the memorandum which he has approved is not being agreed to because he has not made any further concessions. My point is that I think he is going to have to make further concessions.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Why?


William Arnold Peters: I think the pressure from his own party is going to insist on it. I am sure the Secretary of State will have something to say in this regard.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: So that is the reason.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure they are going to put the pressure on him. That is why I think this matter should be left open and no decision arrived at today. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this item stand and that we go on with the other estimates; because I am in an impasse as far as this matter is concerned in that I disagree very much with the position Quebec is taking and I am not sure that the position the minister has outlined is one he will be able to follow
Supply-Northern Affairs through. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this item stand.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the proposal that this item stand until we can get a really forthright answer from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources as to exactly what is behind this matter. We have not had the situation clarified in any way whatsoever. I too am convinced that there is some kind of a saw-off between the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals of Quebec. I am convinced that this is a disservice to the Eskimos and a disgrace to the federal government; and if we ever allow this to happen it will be a disgrace to any of us who so do. Therefore I sincerely hope that until we can get the real answer in this House of Commons, this item does not pass.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why the minister should not answer the questions that have been asked of him today and yesterday. I do not think there is any real need for the item to stand. The minister, as his colleagues have so often said, has all the answers, and surely he can give the members of this committee answers to the questions put to him during this debate. We have been subjected to the usual evasions, the usual silences and the usual distortions- I suggest, sir, deliberately-to throw a smokescreen around a very embarrassing issue as far as this government is concerned. There is obviously some reason why the government is sitting silent on the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: You're darned right there is.


Erik Nielsen: There are obvious divisions between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who wants to fulfil his responsibilities with respect to his department, and ministers like the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Secretary of State. These divisions are very apparent, and no matter how many infantile and stupid interjections the Minister of Transport makes with relation to the constitutional questions involved here, one fact remains; that is that the federal government is by our constitution responsible for the wellbeing of the Eskimo people of Canada's north.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Including the province of Newfoundland, I ask the hon. gentleman?


Erik Nielsen: I am glad the hon. minister has asked that question, because again this is typical of the smokescreen that he is trying to throw up around this whole issue. With regard to the Eskimo people of Newfoundland, the terms of confederation and the agreement by which they were brought in

Supply-Northern Affairs bear no relation to this question whatsoever. In the first place, as I am sure the minister knows, the government of Canada was responsible for the Eskimo people long before Newfoundland ever came into confederation. Second, the proclamation of 1763 did not apply in any way, shape or form to the Eskimo people of Newfoundland. Third, as the minister well knows, the Eskimo people were specifically exempted from the terms of confederation between Canada and Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not
correct.


Erik Nielsen: Then perhaps the minister will participate in this debate and inform us just how that statement is incorrect, because he was around in the year in which confederation took place between Newfoundland and Canada.
I wish to refer to one or two other matters which have been raised in this house, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here to listen; because I want to show just what type of deviousness has been exercised by the ministers on the treasury benches when dealing with this question.
For some 20 or 25 minutes yesterday the Minister of Justice skirted all around the points raised and did not answer directly one single proposition put to him by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side who dealt with the constitutional issues. I said to the minister, when I was speaking, that he had mentioned a draft agreement. He said he had mentioned no such draft agreement in his remarks, and I said that Hansard would show that he did just that. I said to the minister that no amount of wriggling could get away from those words in Hansard. I want to read them now that Hansard for yesterday has been printed. His words will be found on page 1965, in the left hand column. The minister said this:
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-
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.
They were the minister's words, and within half an hour he denied ever having uttered them.

Again on the same page, six or eight lines from the bottom of the left hand column, he referred to a draft agreement. When I put this question directly to the Minister of Justice and challenged him to deny the existence of a draft agreement, the minister of northern affairs intervened, and as reported at page 1969 he made this observation:
Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Justice has no reason to have any such knowledge of the matter at all;
What is more ridiculous than for the minister of northern affairs to say that the Minister of Justice, who has been in on consultations with the Quebec government officials, has no reason to have any knowledge of the matter at all?
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the government is hiding something. I believe we are entitled to an explanation as to the underlying reasons for this continued evasiveness. The minister has been sitting in his seat throughout this debate and has said nothing substantial whatever in reply to the questions which have been put to him. He has been asked questions by the hon. member for Vancouver East, the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Timiskaming, as well as several hon. members from this party. Not one of those questions has he answered. He did answer one of mine, and I will accept his word for it, although he cannot blame me for being suspicious at his assertion that there is no agreement in existence. But I am suggesting to him that he has to go further than that. I am suggesting to him that he has to tell us how far these negotiations, so-called, have gone with the Quebec government officials. He must also tell us what is the underlying reason for his colleagues and the government transferring jurisdiction.
The Minister of Justice makes a great show of saying that all the government is doing is transferring the administrative control to the provincial authorities. Surely when administrative control is transferred one cannot get out from under the fact that with that transfer of administrative control must of necessity go a transfer of the power to make policy decisions. Let us assume for a moment that administrative control does pass. Surely with that administrative control is going to go the power to make decisions as to the curricula to be taught in schools; as to the standard of health to be maintained; as to whether welfare programs will be applicable. All these are matters of policy, and you cannot say under the blanket of a smokescreen that we are retaining on behalf of the federal government this responsibility and merely transferring the paper work to the province of Quebec. That matter has to be

clarified before the hon. members of this house should be asked to accept any such transfer.
The Minister of Transport in his intervention when the hon. member for Peace River was speaking, which intervention I suggest served more to confuse than to add anything, asked a question concerning the Eskimo people of Manitoba. This too has no relation to the problem at all because there were no Eskimos in Manitoba, as the minister well knows. The federal government transported them from the Northwest Territories into the province. If he is using that as the basis of his argument he might as well say that the federal government could transfer all the Eskimo people from their homes in the north to Prince Edward Island and transfer jurisdiction over them to that province. So that the minister's argument on that point is specious indeed.
Another very important question which the minister must answer before this item passes relates to the dismissal of Mr. Mc-Taggart. The minister rose in the house when asked a question on the matter the other day and stated that Mr. McTaggart did not resign, but Mr. McTaggart himself seems to have another view. In an article appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press Mr. McTaggart is quoted as having said that the Quebec authorities-
-have been carrying on a "smear campaign" aimed at "getting rid of anybody who has any influence on the Quebec Eskimos".
The article continues:
He said that Mr. Laing, on his visit to Fort Chimo, was told by Eskimo leaders that they did not want their affairs to be taken over by the provincial government.
Mr. McTaggart went on to say, after having explained how he published certain of his views in the Northern Star, which is a mimeographed newspaper which he started three years ago in order to knit the Eskimo community of Fort Chimo together, that:
Within a day, word of the article had reached Ottawa and a rocket was heading back to Mr. McTaggart telling him to keep quiet.
It came in the form of a letter from the director of the northern administration branch of the department of northern affairs to the department's acting administrator in Fort Chimo.
The letter pointed out that department regulations prohibit federal employees from writing for publications on department matters without prior clearance from their superiors.
It closed with these words:-
This is the letter from the department as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press:
"In no way whatsoever am I anxious to take any action which could be construed as curtailing the freedom of the press, but at the moment it is
Supply-Northern Affairs
almost imprudent for any departmental employee to publish unauthorized articles on the subject of Eskimo affairs in northern Quebec".
If it was not the intention to limit the expression of free speech, why did the directive not include a specification that there be no opinions published at all without clearing them through the department? Why restrict it to this one problem? Why was he told to be silent only with regard to the Eskimos of northern Quebec? I think there is some explanation required there. The letter continues:
"Mr. McTaggart is, therefore, asked to govern himself accordingly and to publish nothing on this subject or any other matter of departmental business without first obtaining approval from the district administrator".
At the moment, Mr. McTaggart said, that appeared to be the end of it and he prepared to comply with the directive.
A few days later, he received another letter telling him that, since he had broken the directive, he was being transferred immediately out of Fort Chimo. He was told to be out by March 6.
This man was the principal of a school who had occupied that office for three and a half years and was prepared to comply with the directive issued by the minister's department. A few days after receiving this letter-unless there was some intervening conduct of which the members of this committee have not been told-having done nothing further to raise the ire of the departmental officials, he is told to be out by March 6. Why? Was he a disturbing influence on the relations which the government wanted to maintain with the government of which Mr. Levesque is a member? I think some explanation should be forthcoming there.
Mr. McTaggart spent a week in Ottawa and was offered another school in the Northwest Territories. Instead, he turned in his resignation. What other course was there for this gentleman to follow? The department practically said "Get out of the school at Fort Chimo where you have been principal for three and a half years, in the middle of the term, and here is another school." This was in the middle of the winter, and he was tossed out on his ear by the department. The other teachers followed by requesting transfers out of Quebec.
Now, I think we are entitled to explanations today. There seems to be a certain amount of loyalty expressed by the teachers at Fort Chimo school for the actions of Mr. McTaggart, even though they did not appear to be consistent with what the government wanted. When he was asked by the interviewer, probably the gentleman who wrote the article, why he was transferred when the matter had apparently been settled by a warning, Mr. McTaggart said "I'm told it
2020	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs was pressure from Rene Levesque's department." This was Mr. McTaggart's answer.
Now, these questions have to be answered. The minister cannot discharge his responsibility to this committee by remaining silent any longer. Someone	has	to answer	for	thegovernment. Surely it is this minister who is responsible for that. He knows, as well as I do, that by section 5 of the act which sets up his department he is given specific responsibility for	the	administration	andwelfare of the Eskimo people in Canada. Without altering	the	constitution	of	thiscountry, without	an	amendment	to	the
British North America Act, and without an amendment to that specific act, he cannot duck that responsibility. He cannot slough it off as the government apparently wants to do. I am not suggesting the minister wants to do it, but he is confronted with pressures inside of his own cabinet that he apparently cannot resist. We on this side of the house are prepared to support him to the hilt in the discharge ( his responsibility. I know he, in all cow cfence, wants to do that.


Harold Edward Winch: 
Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, when I first visited an Eskimo group in the Northwest Territories I told them, through an interpreter, that at the end of my visit I would be far less concerned about my thoughts of them than their thoughts of me. I am beginning to wonder today, when news of what has gone on in this house in the last couple of days gets back to the Eskimos, what they will think about us. I am going to say unhesitatingly that the administration of the Eskimos in the territories in which they reside is excellent indeed. It has not been excellent merely since April 22 last; it was excellent before that.
I only wish some of the members who are sitting here and talking so much about Eskimos had an opportunity of visiting in those areas that are extremely primitive. We are doing a very good job in ministering to, if not administering, the Eskimos, and that goes for health matters and everything else. A great number of questions have been asked. Some


of them I do not believe are worthy of a great deal of time in answering. My old friend at the far end of the house from Vancouver, who seems to believe that the importance of the things he talks about must be related to the decibels of sound he emits, asked me a question. He used rather rough language, but I am going to assure him at once that I am not going to return his rough language in kind.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you answer the question?


Arthur Laing: We are dealing with people for whom I think most Canadians would admit we have not done a very good job in the last hundred years. I am speaking about Indians and Eskimos. However, I believe at the present time we are doing our best to do a job. So far as financial requirements are concerned, there has not been any limitation imposed by this government on those things that are necessary for these people; nor by the previous government, either.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to them as those poor, untutored fellow Canadians. I want to assure him they are not as untutored as he might think.


John George Diefenbaker: This is what I hope the government finds out.


Arthur Laing: I think he should be told, if he does not know, that a great many of these people are very clever indeed. They have a natural cleverness, let me assure him.


John George Diefenbaker: A natural cleverness.


Arthur Laing: This is shown in connection with their operation of machinery. We find in the schools that these youngsters are making just as much progress as white children.


John George Diefenbaker: They are wondering who is throwing the monkey wrench into the works.


Arthur Laing: I think I can interpret the feelings of the Eskimo people a little bit better than the right hon. gentleman.


Erik Nielsen: He has been in the north more often than you.


Arthur Laing: The whole difficulty with this part of the country is that it is very large. I am asked, why would Quebec want to take it over?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, why?


Harold Edward Winch: Why do you want to let it go?


Arthur Laing: I have not said I want to let it go.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You have not said you do not want to let it go?


Arthur Laing: Should I say either?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I think you should.


Arthur Laing: On which side of the fence is the hon. member for Marquette, or is it a picket fence?


An hon. Member:: Are you with Pigeon or Diefenbaker?


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister permit me to ask a question?


Arthur Laing: No. In this area of fantastic size we have a number of locations and communities. Let me read some of them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you just answer the questions? The descriptive material you are giving us is very good, but answer the questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you allow the minister to speak, as we have allowed you to speak?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not spoken on this yet, but I will in view of your interjection.


John George Diefenbaker: "We have allowed you"; is that the position of the government? Thank you for the permission.


Arthur Laing: Let me remind hon. members that at Fort George we have 1,000 Eskimo people and 33 white people. At Paint Hills there are 418 Eskimo people and no white people. At Great Whale River there are 418 Eskimo people, 225 Indian people and 37 white people. At Port Harrison there are 339 Eskimos and 34 white people. At Povung-nituk there are 460 Eskimos and 16 white people. At Sugluk there are 250 Eskimos and seven white people. At Wakeham Bay there are 122 Eskimos and three white people. At Payne Bay there are 160 Eskimos and four white people. At Fort Chimo there are 400 Eskimos and 75 white people.
Here we have a situation where, as a result of the boundaries decision of 1912, all this enormous area was added to the province of Quebec in very recent years. I am surmising now for the benefit of the hon. member for Marquette what is the wish of the government of Quebec.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I make a correction? I asked why Quebec is so anxious to get hold of these Eskimos and the administration of their affairs. I think the minister knows if he cares to tell us.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member asked why. He asked one way and then he asked another way. He is running both ways, of course.


An hon. Member:: So are you.


Arthur Laing: If he will be a little more patient I think I can probably give him my idea why the Quebec government wishes to expand its administration into the area. In 20220-128J
Supply-Northern Affairs recent years there has been some indication that the area has considerable resources in minerals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Laing: I say there has been some indication; yet hon. members opposite say "oh" as if it was a terrible thing that they should find minerals there. This area is a part of the province of Quebec, and the government of that province are anxious to extend development of their province northward. We know that, among other things, a very important deposit of asbestos has been found at Sugluk, which is on the northwest corner of the extended great peninsula. There have also been other indications. A number of iron deposits have been found and there are other minerals there. The province is looking forward, of course, to the development of the northern part of its territory.
This situation has existed throughout the term of the present government and also the previous government so far as the citizens there are concerned. After all, people are the first asset of the region, and unless you can use the people who are there you are not going to develop the resources that lie there. The citizens are Eskimos whose numbers are added to by a small number of white persons who, almost without exception, have been employees of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I have given figures such as 250 Eskimos and seven white people. The seven white people are employees of ours. I believe these are the reasons the government of Quebec is interested.
With regard to the innuendo that has been thrown at me and the manufactured questions and half-manufactured answers of the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Yukon, I can only say that I stated the actual facts yesterday and if hon. members will read what I said then, they will see what the situation is. There is very little I can add.
The government of Quebec asked us to discuss the matter with them and we said we would. We have met ministers of the government of Quebec on two occasions. Since then the matter has been left to our officials to discuss with officials of the province of Quebec to see whether, on the basis of the memorandum that I put before the house, a draft agreement could be arrived at for submission to the two governments. I said yesterday that we had made almost no progress at all in coming to any draft agreement.
The matter of finances and how they will be handled has to be discussed at the ministerial level by the two governments, and we have not met at all up to this point. So

Supply-Northern Affairs when the hon. member for Yukon says he is suspicious I hope that in this respect at least, if not in others, the hon. member will overcome his suspicions. I was very frank with the house yesterday, and I have been as frank as I can be today. The situation today is no different from what it was yesterday. We have made practically no progress at all in the negotiations. As I said frankly to the house yesterday, the matter hinges on the basis of what is involved in consultation with the Eskimos. I defined what that should be in our view, and we will continue to insist upon the consultation that we propose to have with the Eskimos before any agreement is signed.
The hon. member also dealt with the school teacher. He got up and said the school teacher had been dismissed. The hon. member knows he was not dismissed.


Erik Nielsen: Forced to resign.


Arthur Laing: He was offered another position within our department at Ottawa, not in any school. He came down here and indicated to us, as a matter of fact, that he would accept. He came to Ottawa and then left afterward. If statements picked up thereafter by newspapermen, and probably qualified in some cases by newspapermen, are going to be read into the records of the house as facts and held against us, then we can get nowhere at all, of course. I have attempted to say that this man was a valued employee of the department and I hope he works for the department again. I do not want to say anything about him, and I do not think the hon. member does, which would affect his future. He is still a young man with a very bright future.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you force him to resign?


Arthur Laing: He was not forced to resign, as my hon. friend knows.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you yank him out? Why was he brought out of Fort Chimo?


Arthur Laing: I think the hon. member would not be prepared to argue with me when I say that we cannot have our employees making comments upon policies of this administration or of the department. I think the hon. member has some understanding of business. How would he like to run his business that way, with his employees commenting publicly about the way the boss was running the business?


Erik Nielsen: That is why he was taken out.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member can make any comment he likes. I pay less and less attention to the comments he makes.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask a question?


Arthur Laing: Just a moment.


William Arnold Peters: What will be the basis of consultation?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Arthur Laing: The matter of the constitutional responsibility of the various provinces with respect to these people has been dealt with by the Minister of Justice and other members of the house, and I am not going to deal with it. I think it has been agreed in all corners of the house that in the years that lie ahead of us the best results with respect to these indigenous peoples will be achieved by bringing them into general comity with the other people resident in the areas where they live. If members on the other side are going to say this is not the year to do it in Quebec, that is another matter, but generally speaking I think there is universal agreement that this is the best thing for all concerned.
Instances can be given of agreements made when the right hon. gentleman was in power with respect to education in a number of places in Canada, and I can assure him that the results have been excellent indeed. We have 2,300 Indian children in our high schools in the province of British Columbia today, and I want to say that they are as good students as any others. I think that policy would meet with the approval of members on both sides of the house. But if it is going to be contended in respect of the Eskimos of northern Quebec that this is not the time, that is another matter; and that argument can be made, of course, in respect of any area or group of people in Canada from time to time.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the minister prepared to give an answer to the final question I asked? Can the minister give any indication to members of the house as to what greater care or protection the province of Quebec could give these Eskimos than his department is giving or is prepared to give?


Arthur Laing: The province of Quebec as it expands northward, and in fact the other provinces that are moving north, take their provincial services such as police, welfare, administration of lands and so on with them. I would think any province that is of good heart at all could extend those services to the native people with better results than might be possible through the intervention of a national government.
This is my own opinion, and I was very frank yesterday in dealing with the situation in respect to the Indian reserve in my own riding, where the native children are now going to a white school. This is not of great moment at present, because we have insisted

in the memorandum we set out that the standards of service to these people-where a province is going to take over their administration-be not less than the standards which we have been operating and which we would expect to operate in the years ahead.


Harold Edward Winch: You have set out a memorandum. Are you therefore approaching the government of Quebec on this, and could we have a copy of that memorandum?


Arthur Laing: The memorandum I referred to was that presented to the house on March 4, setting forth the guide lines for the minimum requirements we would insist upon in any dealings with the province in respect of these people.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, unlike the minister, I listen to what he says very carefully indeed. He did say in answer to my hon. friend from Marquette, "I have not said I am prepared to let it go," that is, the administration of the Eskimos in New Quebec. That is what he said just a moment ago, as Hansard will show. Yet on March 4, as recorded at page 506 of Hansard for that date, the minister said, in words with which I am sure he is extremely familiar:
-Canada is prepared to have Quebec administer Eskimo affairs as part of Quebec's general administrative responsibilities in the province-
Now he has said that hon. members on this side are taking both sides of the question; but if he has not done that just this moment then I do not know what he has done. On the one hand he has said that he has not said he is prepared to let the matter go to the Quebec authorities, but on March 4, in very clear words, he said he is.
Again, to point out the deviousness of these ministers, the Minister of Justice said, as reported at page 1964 of yesterday's Hansard:
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-
Yet the minister of northern affairs put on record in his concensus on March 4, the guide lines, as he called them, that will guide any conferences between the two governments in an effort to reach an agreement to transfer jurisdiction over the Eskimo people.
What one minister is saying is quite different from what the other is saying, and what the other minister is saying is quite different today from what he said on March 4.
We are still not getting the answers we sought. For the benefit of members of the committee the minister should stand on his feet and say nobody is trying to impute any veracity to the questions that are being asked of the minister, merely by asking them, and
Supply-Northern Affairs nobody is trying to give a statement, made in the house, the validity of truth simply because the minister is silent. All we want are some answers to questions, and we want direct answers.
I think the minister has already said it, but in view of what he said to the hon. member for Marquette I think we have to have some reassurance on this point, that what he said on March 4 was the intention of the government to reach an agreement with the provincial authorities for the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did not mention jurisdiction in that statement.


Erik Nielsen: Well, the Minister of Justice certainly mentioned jurisdiction yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And he said it was not going to be transferred.


Erik Nielsen: Quite so, but the minister of northern affairs said on March 4 that the government is prepared to have Quebec administer Eskimo affairs.


John Napier Turner: Is there not a difference between administration and jurisdiction?


Erik Nielsen: Oh, is this the hair they are splitting? It is a hair so fine you can hardly see it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. The harbours board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, but the Minister of Transport does not administer the harbours board. The harbours board was an agency created for the purpose of administering the harbours. The Minister of Justice, the minister of northern affairs and every other member of the government who have spoken, have made it perfectly clear that, even if we wanted to, we could not transfer the jurisdiction because it is vested in this parliament. So there is no difference on the part of any of us on the question of jurisdiction. The only question is whether or not some of these things under the jurisdiction of parliament can be administered by another agency, as has been the case with Indians, and as my colleague the minister of northern affairs has pointed out.
My colleague has also pointed out that the government is not prepared to entrust any administration to the province unless the fundamental conditions that were in that memorandum of March 4 are met.


Erik Nielsen: I am very happy to hear the Minister of Transport use the words he did, namely that this matter is the responsibility of parliament and that no jurisdiction can be transferred without the approval of parliament.

Supply-Northern Affairs


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it could, even with the approval of parliament. I think it would require an amendment to the constitution.


Erik Nielsen: I was going on to make that very point because that is what the Leader of the Opposition has said, and that is what the hon. member for Peace River has said all along.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And what everybody on this side said all along.


Erik Nielsen: That is not correct. The Minister of Justice made a great case for saying that the government could, by way of agency, transfer part of the jurisdiction that the federal government has over Eskimos.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the hon. gentleman talks about splitting hairs. I have not read all that the Minister of Justice said, but what he said to me and to my colleagues about this matter was that the government has the authority to make an agreement for the carrying out of certain functions. I am only too happy, as I am leading the house at the moment, to say, as the Minister of Justice said yesterday, that if and when any such agreement is made it will be brought into the house and laid on the table. The life of the government will be staked on it, and no action will be taken until parliament has had an opportunity to challenge it and throw us out if they do not like it. What is more, we cannot spend any money without its being voted by this parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what is happening now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman says that is what is happening. The right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the only money being spent is being spent by my colleague, the minister of northern affairs, and the only money that can be spent, until parliament decides otherwise, is in the way that parliament prescribes that it shall be spent.


Erik Nielsen: The minister talks about splitting hairs. The real trouble is that here we have an expert on parliamentary procedure who does not really understand the distinction of what comes under parliament and what comes under the authority of the government, because he just said a moment ago that it is parliament has the responsibility of jurisdiction over the Eskimo people, and in the next breath he said that the government can, by executive action, transfer part of that jurisdiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not have words put in my mouth. I said the government could make an agreement to have certain functions 
performed, and indeed the government performs practically none of the administrative functions. They are performed by civil servants. They are performed by crown corporations. In many cases, ever since confederation the functions with respect to fisheries, I believe, have in certain provinces been performed by provincial governments under arrangements which were made. It is true to say, as I venture into this constitutional field-and I can see the Leader of the Opposition all but springing up-it is true the courts have decided that a legislature cannot delegate its jurisdiction to parliament and that parliament cannot delegate its jurisdiction; so all it could possibly do would be to make some adminstrative agreement under the authority of parliament and under the authority of the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. gentleman stop right there. He has said the government has the authority, in the same sense as it has with crown corporations and the other examples he has given, to have certain administrative controls-


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Functions" not "controls". Use the words I used.


Erik Nielsen: Let us use the word "functions" then. But in all the cases he has mentioned, including as he well knows, the case of the Indians under section 113, there exists parliamentary authority to do that very thing. But can he say where authority exists for the transfer of any function of the federal government with respect to Eskimo affairs? He cannot do so because no such authority exists.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is the problem, I think it can be cleared up at once. Everybody in this committee knows, I am sure, that no government, however powerful it may be, can do anything that it is not empowered to do by the constitution, by the law and by parliament. Ministers have no power of their own; they have only such powers as as the law gives them. That is why they are called ministers. They are responsible for everything they do, to parliament in this situation, and I know I would not argue, nor would anyone on this side of the house, that any minister could make a valid agreement unless there was legal authority in existence for his making such an agreement. We are not arguing that for one moment. Equally, parliament cannot make any agreement with anyone. Parliament is a sovereign body and it cannot make agreements. Any agreements which are made under the law have to be made by someone entrusted by parliament with doing so or, in a few rare cases which survive, under the prerogative.

But clearly, under our constitution, unless the minister has the power under the law he cannot do anything and there will be no attempt in connection with this matter or any other to try to make any agreement or do anything else which we are not empowered by the law to do.


John George Diefenbaker: The general principles enunciated by the minister a moment ago are certainly in accordance with the facts and the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the right hon. gentleman for saying that.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought it was a fair summary of the situation and nobody is in disagreement with that general enunciation. However, where we do disagree is that there is no power in parliament to authorize the minister to make such an agreement with regard to Eskimos. There is in respect of Indians provision under the Indian Act specifically excepting Eskimos therefrom, and the fight we are putting on is to get the govern* ment to carry out the principles which the minister has enunciated as being proper and appropriate. We do not want to carry on a fight indefinitely. We have responsibility for these people. The government for the time being has a responsibility which we say they are flagrantly and unconstitutionally endeavouring to dispose of outside the law. There is, apparently, a difference of opinion. In 1939 there was a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I make a suggestion, now, in the hope that it will meet the approval of those who have participated in this discussion from this side of the house. There is no rush about this. The Eskimos have got along very well. According to the minister they have received unusual consideration. I gather from his words that every opportunity has been given to them in recent years. The hon. gentleman dealt with the past and said we had not always been considerate of the Indians and the Eskimos. He very fairly stated that, and it is true. But today, in every part of our country and, indeed, all over the world, a psychology is building up that there must be no second class citizens-that everyone must have equal opportunity. He said, as well- and again, I underline the words he uttered at that meeting to which I made reference yesterday-"We want government of laws, not men". But what is being done here, if our view is correct, is the establishment of a government of men, not laws. In other words, we say, and the authorities bear us out if our interpretation is correct, that this government has no power to do that which it is endeavouring to do in these negotiations. If
Supply-Northern Affairs the 1951 case, or the reference to the supreme court in Nova Scotia v. the attorney general of Canada means anything, it means
that this cannot be done under the law. And I now make this suggestion in order that we may move ahead. Let us move ahead. I repeat what I said a moment ago: There is no rush about this; we do not have to accelerate the speed which has been apparent from the government side in this connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would allow me to say, speaking of acceleration-


John George Diefenbaker: In a moment. I am speaking now about the acceleration, the unusual energy with which the government has entered into these discussions. What is the rush? What is the reason for it? The hon. member for Vancouver East asked: What is the reason for this? What are the advantages for the Eskimo? Why the haste? Why these continued discussions which are going on in order to bring about agreement? If there is no real need for haste, and I am sure there is not-the development of those commercial resources of which the minister spoke would not be delayed in any way by following this suggestion I am about to make-why not do this? Why does the government of Canada not submit to the supreme court a reference as to whether or not parliament, or the government purporting to act under the powers that parliament grants, has the authority to do this? We say it has not. We say it is illegal and unconstitutional.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon.
gentleman permit a question for the sake of clarification?


John George Diefenbaker: Let the hon. gentleman wait just a moment until I have finished. I know the haste with which the minister always moves, as he once moved in the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg-but I do not want to go back to that; I saw reference to it in the press only today. I say this to the Minister of Transport, who is senior in so many ways, with the great authority he has had in administration, having been a kibitzer in council for so long-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon.
gentleman tell me what that word means?


John George Diefenbaker: I will tell you. Just take a look at yourself in the mirror occasionally. In view of the declaration of these principles, I ask the minister-he knows the principles; he has enunciated parliamentary law and tradition correctly-to now place this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada and ask the supreme court whether this power exists;
2026	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs and if it does, then the government will be in a position to act. We believe that it does not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a reply to the right hon. gentleman, but I would first like to know what I am replying to. On several occasions he used pronouns that had no antecedents, and I always like to know what I am talking about, if I can. He kept saying "this". What did he mean by "this"? Did he mean jurisdiction, or did he mean the discharge of certain functions that would remain under the jurisdiction of parliament? I could not give any answer until I know which of these two things he means.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the difficulty under which the hon. gentleman operates, and I am not here to try and cast any aspersions on his lack of understanding. What I was endeavouring to place before the committee was this; that the government should submit a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question as to whether the government, carrying out the powers that parliament gives it, can enter into an agreement whereby it will transfer, sublet or in any way assign the control of the administration of Eskimos, as would be the case in the agreement the general principles of which the minister has placed before the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer that question very easily. The government has not the slightest intention, as I understand our intentions-and I think I understand them quite correctly-of transferring any jurisdiction at all to anyone; therefore it would be redundant to ask the supreme court whether we could do it or not. We feel that the legislative jurisdiction exists in this parliament, as decided in 1939. We feel that the Nova Scotia case, to which the right hon. gentleman referred, applies to it and that it would not be possible without an amendment to the constitution; and it seems to me it would be rather needless to make this reference, if we are talking about jurisdiction. If, however, we are talking about the kind of agreement that I made with the Sarnia school board for the education of the Indians in the schools of Sarnia, that is a matter, as the hon. member for Yukon has said, with regard to which there might be some question-whether the government could make such an agreement without being specifically empowered by parliament to do so. I am not a lawyer and I would not like to express an opinion on that point; but I would think that if it was within the power of parliament under the 

Indian Act to give me as superintendent general, and to give Mrs. Fairclough as superintendent general, and to give-who succeeded Mrs. Fairclough?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, you have had so many changes over there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You had so many changes over there. I was referring to one of yours. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could tell us who succeeded Mrs. Fairclough when she was promoted to the post office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Bell.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Bell, oh yes. The bell tolled for him too. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt this serious argument with facetiousness of that sort, but if the right hon. gentleman is asking us to ask the supreme court whether the government would have the power, as the law stands now, to make this agreement, I do not think we should ask the supreme court a question of that sort-


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the right hon. gentleman will listen, because the hon. member for Yukon has pointed out that under the Indian Act the power to entrust certain functions was given to the government.


John George Diefenbaker: For Indians, not for Eskimos.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there is any serious doubt that the power exists, it is within the competence of parliament to remove that doubt. Therefore it would seem to me redundant to ask the supreme court that question too. But I will say this. The right hon. gentleman knows I am not the head of the government; he knows we cannot decide questions like that here in the house. But I will undertake, without any hesitation, to bring this matter anew to the attention of my colleagues and if there is any serious doubt whatsoever that the government has this power, and if we feel that, not having it, we want to have it, we will not attempt to exercise it without having that doubt removed by parliament, if parliament wants to remove it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question of the minister? With whom does that doubt exist? The way the minister expressed it, I think he implied that if the government had any doubt, they would not do it. Could he not put it this way? Will he not inform his colleagues that doubt with regard to the power of the government exists in the minds of a great many people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been expressed in this house by some very eminent lawyers, and some lawyers who are not yet quite so eminent, and I will convey that doubt to my colleagues. There were doubts expressed, as the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will recall, about a power the previous government took upon itself to act by order in council. We made a very serious endeavour to get parliament to pronounce upon that question, and the hon. gentleman used every kind of device to prevent parliament pronouncing upon that question in that last parliament, which did not last very long.
This government certainly has no intention of attempting to do something that we believe we do not have the legal power to do. Since these views have been expressed, I undertake to bring them to the attention of my colleagues. What is more, I reiterate the undertaking given yesterday, that if the law officers reassure the government on this point; if-and these are very big "ifs", as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has already pointed out-after that, any agreement can be arrived at and any agreement is arrived at, it will not be implemented before it is laid on the table of this house and before there is ample opportunity for the fate of the government to be determined with respect to it.
Moreover, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has also indicated that these functions for which we have the responsibility and for which we will continue to have the final, ultimate responsibility under our constitution, cannot be exercised unless someone pays for them; and we cannot pay anything for them unless this parliament votes the money. So there will be at least two, and I suspect there would be a great many more than two, opportunities if ever an agreement is made in this matter- and there is no assurance of that at all-for this parliament to pronounce upon any such agreement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you chuck the whole thing?


Erik Nielsen: Why don't you abandon the idea?


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken in these debates at all with regard to the supplementary estimates, in the foolish hope that if I did not speak we might speed things up a little. There were a number of departments in which I was interested. We have heard a great deal about this particular matter and members of the official opposition have put forward their different views and complaints with regard to the government's
Supply-Northern Affairs handling of this problem of the Quebec Eskimos. It seems to me that the point has been made over and over and over again, and surely the government must understand it by this time. We have not an agreement before us. If an agreement comes before us, these points can all be raised again at that time.
I suggest we will not make much more progress. The point has been exhaustively made. Speaking as an ordinary member I know the views of other ordinary members of other parties, and they are fed up at the length of time that these supplementary estimates are taking. The only purpose to be served by continuing with them is to bring parliament even further into disrepute and to grind it to a halt.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament is never
brought into disrepute when a great principle is being fought on behalf of the people, and I emphasize that fact.


Mr. Howard:: Only when unprincipled
people are dealing with it.


John George Diefenbaker: That comes with the authority of the hon. member for Skeena. I am not referring to the hon. member who has just made a statement when I say this, but there is a remarkable degree of alliance between the Liberal party and the hon. gentlemen to my immediate left in the New Democratic party, who invariably come to the rescue of the government whenever they are in difficulty. I would say this to the minister: Why not submit the agreement containing the generally projected terms which have tentatively been discussed by the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec to the supreme court? The hon. gentleman said that if the government comes to the conclusion that it has any doubts on the question, then it will take certain action. Do you think any government, having determined on the course already determined upon, would have any doubt? It must have had no doubt when it decided on the course it has proceeded on so far. We are perfectly willing to do everything we can to assist in placing this matter in a position which is fair and just and maintains the law and the constitution.
The hon. gentleman says that we will have an opportunity after the agreement is signed to debate the matter. It will be brought before parliament and the government will regard a vote in that connection as a vote of non-confidence. In reality that is what he said, and it is meaningless. What possible defence will that be if the principles of justice under the law and constitution of the country have to depend on a vote in this house on a motion of confidence in the government? We
2028	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs have had that experience over and over again and on a matter such as this. It is no reflection on hon. members when I say that the outcome would not be in any doubt.
This is a matter which touches on the freedom of the individual and the constitution of the country. Mention was made of the right of administration as a result of the agreements, entered into with respect to Sarnia. Those agreements have been entered into, it is true, under law passed by parliament. But there is no statutory authority for what the government purports to do in this connection. It is because there is no statutory authority and because constitutionally we believe this cannot be done without amendment to the constitution that we have asked that the government place before the Supreme Court of Canada a reference in this connection. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. There will not be any delay. There is no rush to secure the implementation of any agreement which may be entered into. And above all, such a course would ensure that constitutionally we will not be playing fast and loose with a matter which today exercises the minds of the people of Canada, namely the preservation and maintenance of constitutional rights and authority. That is the reason for these suggestions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are two things the Leader of the Opposition said which I should like to support. First of all, I support his suggestion that this matter might be referred by the government to the supreme court. Surely-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would not the hon. gentleman, who is usually pretty clear headed about things, tell us what he means by "this matter"? I said that we were not interested in divesting ourselves of the jurisdiction, so the question of jurisdiction is not en jeu at all. Will the hon. member say precisely what he thinks should be referred to the supreme court?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to do that, but I thought we had completely and unanimously agreed that there is no question of jurisdiction involved. Therefore, it is not even necessary that we talk about it; the jurisdiction is settled by the constitution and the interpretation of it. I am referring to the authority to make the kind of agreement the terms of which have been indicated to us. It is the authority of parliament, or of the government which has been given the authority by parliament, to make such an agreement on which I think it would be useful to have the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Transport will give me credit for consistency in [Mr. Diefenbaker.l

that a year or so ago, when there was doubt in this house about an order in council that the previous government had enacted I asked the government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think this would be a good thing to do in this instance.
The other point the Leader of the Opposition made which I should like to support very strongly is that it is not quite good enough to lay on the table of parliament an agreement of the kind in question, and then merely to submit the life of the government to the House of Commons in a vote of non-confidence. If I may go back to what happened in the last parliament, I would remind the Minister of Transport that is precisely what the previous government did in respect of the surcharge order in council, and the Minister of Transport did not like it one little bit. During the life of that parliament many of us called on the then government to do something about that surcharge order in council, but we were told several times by the then government that there were votes of confidence in this house on the issue, that the government of the day had been sustained, and therefore that settled the issue.
The hon. gentleman knows that when we have votes of confidence, whether on the address, on the budget, or on a supply motion, they get pretty confused. We are told that anything which the government may be planning-family allowance payments, if you please-is at stake, so that you do not get a clearcut decision on the matter itself.
I think it would be fair to have this matter of statutory authority for the kind of agreement which is envisaged brought before parliament as a piece of legislation. This other device I realize is legal and is used at times, but I do not think it is good enough in a situation of this kind. The Minister of Transport may tell me that that is what happens with a declaration of war; that a declaration of war does not have to be approved by parliament as such, that all that is required is that the government summon parliament, if it is not sitting, within 10 days and submits itself to parliament. But this is not a declaration of war which requires to be dealt with in those terms. This is something about which there have now been raised some pretty serious questions, and I think they should be dealt with definitively.
It seems to me that there are two ways to do this. Either you get an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada or you bring the matter before parliament in terms of specific legislation. Perhaps I should say that both these things need to be done instead of "either/or". We should get the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, and if the opinion is that the agreement is one which

can be made I suggest it be brought before parliament as a specific piece of legislation, rather than to use this device of saying that we can move an amendment to a supply motion. This is what the Minister of Transport is saying-"We will lay the matter on the table, and then on the next supply motion you can move a motion of non-confidence in the government on this issue". Then of course, when the debate takes place, all the other issues that are before parliament can be brought forward.
We want to get a vote on that issue itself. It seems to me that these two suggestions the Leader of the Opposition has made to the Minister of Transport have validity, and I hope they will be given serious consideration by the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They certainly will be given serious consideration. I should like to say that I do not have any such low opinion of my fellow members of parliament as seems to be entertained by the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The government did not envisage having a matter of this importance mixed up with anything else. When the Minister of Justice said yesterday we would lay this thing on the table and give ample opportunity for a want of confidence vote, we meant a want of confidence vote related specifically to any such agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he undertake, in that situation, that there would not be anyone from the government side who would stand up and say: Now if you vote against us on this you are defeating the government and you are going to have an election before there is a Canada pension plan, before there are increases in family allowances, or any of the other goodies the government has in store. Does the minister undertake we would not be faced with that kind of argument?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if you defeat the government, you defeat the government. Both the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seem to believe we are so secure on an issue of this kind that there would not be a majority of the house to defeat the government. I wish I had the same confidence that they express.
I do admit that there are some-


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister permit a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I would rather reply to one question before another is asked. What
Supply-Northern Affairs was the word the Leader of the Opposition used and which could be applied to the hon. gentleman?-that he is a great kibitzer. If he will just wait with his kibitzing until I have answered the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then I will receive his question.
With regard to the supreme court reference suggested by the right hon. gentleman, I have to repeat that I do not believe anyone has questioned the constitutional power of parliament to do this thing. It has been done with the Indians and, in so far as the Eskimos are concerned, all we would need to do is have an Eskimo act like the Indian Act, and it could be done as well in the one case as the other. I cannot imagine any good lawyer making any other argument. It seems to me, therefore, that if there is any doubt about this power, I think, instead of referring the question to the supreme court the government should introduce legislation into parliament. I must confess I always listen with great respect to the hon. member for Peace River. However, it does not seem to me this is the kind of question for the supreme court, unless we have some doubt about the constitutional right of parliament to do this thing.


Mr. Nasserden:: Parliament is not doing it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nobody is doing it; nothing is being done. We have been debating for days something that is really hypothetical, as the minister of northern affairs has pointed out a dozen times. It is on an if-and-when basis. I do not believe there is the slightest likelihood of the matter being advanced very far before we reach the main estimates. As Your Honour has pointed out once or twice, when Your Honour has been permitted to draw our attention to the rules, this item has nothing whatever to do with the supplementary estimates.
I cannot make any more commitment than has been made at the present time. If it would facilitate dealing with the other estimates, we could suspend consideration of this item so I can consult the Prime Minister. If there was unanimous consent of the committee to that effect, it could be clearly understood that this would be the only point with which we would deal when the item is called again. If that was the understanding, I would be willing to consider, if the minister of northern affairs would also be willing to consider, in the interests of getting other supplementary estimates through, consulting with the Prime Minister and coming back to this item at seven o'clock, no matter what point we have reached in our discussions. If the hour from five to six was used to discuss estimates, I might be able to come back earlier.
2030	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
I cannot do this myself. If there could be a unanimous understanding, I would put the points that have been raised to the Prime Minister, and then either he or the minister of northern affairs would be able to say what the government felt it was able to do. If that would facilitate completing the work of the committee, then I would consider doing it, if my colleague would consider it.


John George Diefenbaker: I will refer to this suggestion in a moment. Before I do, I want to refer to the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He mentioned that during the period we were in office we passed an order in council with reference to surcharges which he and other members of the house considered was beyond our authority. I point out in that connection that we secured the opinion of the law officers of the crown and the law officers said we had that authority.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport or the minister of northern affairs if the law officers of the crown have given an opinion on the agreement covering the administration of Eskimos, and the legality within the constitution of entering into such an agreement? I ask that question before I refer directly to the suggestion made by the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe it would be possible for me to give a precise answer to that question. I doubt if it would be possible for any of my colleagues who are here at the moment. It may be that the minister of northern affairs could answer the question. Frankly, I cannot say for sure, and that is why I repeated the word of the right hon. gentleman about doubt. I will let the minister of northern affairs say whether he has any knowledge of this.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if I may permit-


John George Diefenbaker: Let the minister answer.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I think the fact we have had some two full days debate on this item is compensated for by the fact that the calibre of the debate has been high. I think it has been one of the better debates in which parliament has engaged during this session. However, we have come to the point now where we are discussing whether or not the legal officers of the government have passed upon the authority of the government to do a certain thing with another government. We keep coming back, especially the Leader of the Opposition, to this agreement which is about to be signed, and so on.


John George Diefenbaker: I am quoting the minister from Quebec who made the statement.


Arthur Laing: I want to assure the right hon. gentleman and the committee that there is no agreement about to be signed. I have said that twice and I say it again. We laid down a list of principles which we would insist upon in any negotiations with the province of Quebec, and they must live up to those standards. They involve protection of the Eskimo and his right to live in the so-called Eskimo community of the north, protection of his language and of his schools which, of course, as every member of the house knows, involves religion, and protection of his right to be treated equally as well in regard to all these things as we have treated him. This is all we have done thus far.
I cannot report that a single bit of progress has been made since I put a statement on the pages of Hansard on March 4. That is the situation. We have had a number of meetings between our officers and officers of the province of Quebec, some of them even in the last two or three days, and like one of those steam engines that got stuck on dead centre I want to tell the right hon. gentleman we are on dead centre now in respect of what consultation with the Eskimos means.


John George Diefenbaker: What is meant by a dead centre in consultation?


Arthur Laing: The right hon. gentleman knows as much about those western steam engines as I do.


John George Diefenbaker: Are both sides steamed up? Are the dominion and the province of Quebec steamed up? Is that the reason?


Arthur Laing: Somebody has to take them off centre by hand. The situation is that apparently we cannot come to any understanding in respect of a definition of consultation. I stated yesterday our insistence on what consultation was going to involve. So we are dealing theoretically with something which the Leader of the Opposition thinks exists, which the hon. member for Yukon has persistently said does exist, and which various other members have said they have heard is in the making and have accused the government of keeping something from them. I want to assure the committee that nothing of this nature exists. I am going to wind up by making a very strong plea, as strong as I can make it. I think it will be the best thing for the department and for the progress of the house if we pass these estimates now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we still have not got an answer to the simple question I asked. Have the law officers of the crown been asked for their opinion whether an agreement in the general terms suggested by the minister would be within the power and authority of the government of Canada to

enter into? He made a very general statement and with much of what he said I was in agreement. He speaks with clearness and lucidity always, but the question I asked had no reference to the kind of speech he made in reply. I simply ask: Has such a legal opinion been sought? That is all. It is as simple as that.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, in so far as I am concerned I am quite certain the right hon. gentleman will agree that this is a question which normally he would address to the Minister of Justice, if he were in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister in charge of the department would naturally have an opinion, would he not, before he would go ahead?


Arthur Laing: I would think that the opinion given by the Minister of Justice yesterday would have been supported by his officers, but I would not want to say this in the house without knowing it to be a fact, and I do not know it to be a fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I could perhaps say one thing that might help a little in this matter. On behalf of the government I am quite willing to undertake that we will get a legal opinion from the law officers of the crown, if one has not been got, and if there is any doubt about the power of the government I will certainly undertake that we will not, with any doubt on the part of the law officers existing, attempt to make any agreement until whatever needs to be done has been done to make sure that the government has such power.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the question I wish to ask the Minister of Transport concerns what is a reiteration of the offer of the Minister of Justice to lay the agreement on the table when it is executed and test the confidence of the house and the government by that means. As one kibitzer to another, I wonder whether he could explain how he feels that sort of action would legalize any such agreement, provided an agreement is signed, if in fact entering into such an agreement was unlawful in the first place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never thought it would. It does seem to me they are two entirely separate questions. There is one question involving whether the government would have the legal power to make such an agreement, and there is the second question whether the House of Commons thinks the government should make such an agreement. The government is responsible to the House of Commons and even if we have undoubted power to make an agreement I still think that parliament has the right to kick us out if members think we should
Supply-Northern Affairs not make it. That is what I understand by responsible government. The idea was not that it would give any additional legality to the agreement to do this, but that it would assert the primacy of the house over the government.
I must confess that until I listened to the debate today and particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River it had not occurred to me that there was any doubt about the power of the government to make the kind of agreement we are envisaging, which transfers no jurisdiction but merely entrusts functions. Because of my experience as superintendent general and having made so many of these agreements it did not seem to me that there was any doubt, but I confess that the argument raised by the hon. member for Peace River that the Indian Act has a specific provision in it exempting Eskimos is a point. I do not say that that concludes the matter but it is a point that had not occurred to me before. That is why I felt I would be quite justified, knowing my colleagues as I do, in saying that if after the law officers have looked at this matter thoroughly they entertain the slightest doubt about the power of the government we would not attempt to make any agreement without being clothed with the power to make it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the differences between us are rapidly being diminished. I have just one veto and it is this. When the opinion of the law officers is secured I would ask that before an agreement is signed the matter be brought to the attention of the house by notifying the house that the law officers are of the opinion that it is legal, if that should be their opinion, at which time an opportunity would naturally be provided for consideration by the house. If that meets with the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and brings us together in agreement, I think this debate has been well worth while.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no hesitation whatever in saying that such an assurance would be given in an unqualified way by the government. We do not want to make an agreement with anybody that we have not got the power to make. We want to remove any possible doubt on this matter and I give the assurance that the house, if and before any agreement is signed, will be advised, and if it is not in session we will take the necessary steps to make the point public, that the law officers of the crown feel the government has the necessary authority.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs
Ths Chairman: Order. In order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business according to section 3-
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder could Your
Honour not see the clock and dispense with the formalities?


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest it should be done in the formal way and an arrangement made with the Speaker in the chair. According to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five
o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder would Your Honour see me before proceeding to private members' business, and see whether it might be the sense of the house on this particular occasion that we would forgo the private members' hour and go back into committee of supply. It is conceivable that in doing that we would be preventing having to sit this evening, or too much of this evening.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with that, but with regard to the latter part of what the hon. gentleman said, may I say that he expressed a rather optimistic hope that we will not have to meet again this evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was brought up in the west, and so by nature am optimistic.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then is it agreed that we suspend the private members' hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



[Stage Direction]
55e. Water resources branch-administration, operation and maintenance, $25,000.
Mr. Simpson:: Yesterday in the house I asked the minister whether it was the intention of the department to conduct a vocational training school, or a school of any nature, for Eskimo children at Port Churchill, and when these facilities might be made available to the Eskimo children. Can the minister enlighten us on that?


Arthur Laing: It is the plan of the department to occupy some of the buildings that were occupied by the army at Fort Churchill, as a residential school principally for Eskimo children, but probably for some Indian pupils

as well. Negotiations are now being undertaken with the government of the province of Manitoba in respect to its jurisdiction over education. A very careful survey is being made of the buildings to ensure protection from any danger of fire, because of the fact that it would be a residential school.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is not clear to the Chair how this subject relates to vote 55e, water resources branch. It may, and perhaps the hon. member can help clarify this point.


Robert Simpson: I understood we were still on the first item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, that was passed.


Robert Simpson: Well, since my question was
answered, is it the hope of the government to have this school in operation this coming session or next fall?


Arthur Laing: If the committee will permit
me to go outside the scope of this item, I may say I think it would be 1965.


Mr. McBain:: Several of the hon. members who represent ridings along the great lakes area are greatly disturbed over the continuing lowering of the lake levels, and yesterday the minister promised a detailed report to the hon. member for Grey North. Can he indicate when that report will be ready and when it might be tabled?


Arthur Laing: I am sorry I did not have the opportunity of placing it before the house today, because it is now ready. I shall do so on Monday. It is a very extensive report and I shall be asking leave to have it printed in Hansard instead of reading it.


Mr. Aiken:: Is the report merely an explanation of the problem or will it indicate remedies and give hope that the lake levels will be rectified?


Arthur Laing: It will be principally an explanation of the phenomenon. The lake levels, of course, are determined largely by precipitation and, as my hon. friend knows, precipitation has been low in recent years.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We would be very thankful for a full statement because this is a very serious problem, particularly at Georgian bay, where the water is out to the low point. I am sure the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works must also be concerned about it. One has to walk to a lot of these small docks at present. Perhaps this would be a good time to carry out repairs on them, because they are up out of the water.
It was stated last year that this was a cycle that would come to an end last fall, but unfortunately that did not happen. The majority of the people who are writing to

me, who are forming groups to discuss and consider this matter, are looking for action and will not be satisfied with a statement. I have tried to give them all the information I could gather from the water resources people and the Department of Public Works, but I am sure it is not as complete a statement as the minister will provide.
However, a statement of the problem is not much consolation to them and I hope the minister's will contain something more than an explanation.


Mr. Rock:: Will this report include the water levels of lake St. Louis and the harbour of Montreal? Further, does it propose any solutions for the future?


Arthur Laing: I expect it will deal with the water levels in the entire system, including the St. Lawrence.


Mr. Thomas:: Does the department intend to keep in mind the matter of water pollution in the great lakes?


Arthur Laing: I think I reported the other day I had written the resource ministers of the ten provinces suggesting that this be one of the matters given first consideration at the resource ministers conference in Prince Edward Island next June.


Erik Nielsen: Is the minister or the government in communication with the government of the United States with respect to its proposal to construct the Rampart dam project on the lower reaches of the Yukon river?


Arthur Laing: We are aware of the work of their engineers and the extent to which the proposal has gone.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
5e. Operations, $79,800.
Erik Nielsen: The Postmaster General not being here, is the parliamentary secretary here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that, as was the custom when the hon. gentleman sat on this side of the house, the president of the council will have the answers to most of these questions. The Postmaster General was here most of the day but he has had to leave for an engagement.


Erik Nielsen: Since the president of the council would have the answers to these questions I wonder if he will inform me what decision the department intends to take with regard to the removal of the post office from the village of Carmacks to a point further along the highway.
Supply-Privy Council


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I do not want it to appear that I am not fully appreciative of the problem, but I am afraid any answers I have are related to the supplementary estimates which are before us. There is no such detail here.


Erik Nielsen: I will save the question for the Postmaster General.


James Alexander McBain: I wonder if the minister is able to give us any additional information regarding the unprecedented robberies from mail vans in the Montreal and Three Rivers areas. Can he assure the committee that mail clerks are now being given adequate protection, and are armoured express trucks now being used to carry large sums of money? If that is the case, is this being done only in Quebec or is the practice being followed in other parts of Canada as well?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I shall have to take that question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
39e. Expenses of commission under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire and report upon certain prairie farm assistance administrative matters, $12,000.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the present condition of this commission on prairie farm assistance?


George James McIlraith: I understand that the commission is still being carried on. Its work is at an active stage at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
41e. Expenses of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service, $42,400.
Frank Howard: I wonder if the minister could give us an account of the progress which has been made in providing bargaining rights for civil servants?


George James McIlraith: The department is working quite actively at the moment on this subject. The hon. member will have noticed that the civil service associations on their side have taken certain steps within their own responsibility to modify their organization so as to be in a position, when the legislation is approved, to carry out their part of the bargaining procedures. I realize I am doing a certain amount of forecasting, and perhaps this is a dangerous thing to do, but I would anticipate that the legislation would be ready for parliament to deal with this fall. The question is receiving very active treatment. Perhaps I should not bring this up, but may I say it would have had more active treatment in the last week or so if I had not been required to sit here for longer hours than I had anticipated doing.

Supply

Privy Council


Frank Howard: Would the minister care to forecast just when the summer recess will start and how long it will last, inasmuch as he has got us back here in the fall?


George James McIlraith: I can assure the hon. member that I have ideas on that subject and I suspect that they will be rather agreeable to a lot of hon. members on both sides. But I am afraid that is not a subject for me to deal with here at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: It would be very helpful to have the benefit of the views of the hon. gentleman in this connection and in my opinion the house will look forward with anticipation to hearing those views which are going to bring happiness and joy to our hearts.


George James McIlraith: I think the hon. member for Ottawa West is too cautious to satisfy that curiosity before a collective decision has been made by his colleagues and himself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
43e. Expenses of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, $275,850.
Frank Howard: Before we proceed to pass this vote, inasmuch as it involves the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism I should like to make a few brief comments about that commission and about its origins, and perhaps express some regrets as to the course followed so far in this particular field.
I think all of us as we look back will recall that this royal commission had its founding days when the present Prime Minister sat on this side of the house as leader of the opposition and when he was, I would say, desperately groping for some appealing things to say, rather than looking in depth at the question of the culture and linguistic structure of Canada. I think what happened really was that he stumbled on to the thought of a royal commission on bilingualism without any great thought about it, found it was appealing and so was sort of stuck with it.
In the initial instance, I think without his thinking too clearly about it the present Prime Minister when he was over here as leader of the opposition looked on this as being something which would be appealing to one particular province of Canada rather than as something which might be of benefit and help to all of Canada, and the impression which was received by many people in Canada was that it was a commission slanted in one direction, orientated to one theme or designed to appeal to one group of people in Canada.
It is unfortunate that this happened. I think that if the Prime Minister and his government had done some public relations work and prepared the people in the western part of Canada, as I know them, and in the

east, and in the east in the maritimes, as it has been related to me-if they had prepared people in those areas for the acceptance of the idea of such a commission, it would have been more readily accepted and appreciated as something which might be beneficial to the whole recognition of the culture of Canada.
I might recall the immediate reaction of the premier of Alberta to this royal commission, a reaction which gives some indication of the attitude the people in the west had about it. In one sense, and I do not want to say this by way of derogation, the very terms of that royal commission are an insult to one group of people in Canada-the one we have been discussing for some days now. I refer particularly to the original inhabitants of this nation, those whom we now classify as Indian and Eskimo people. If we are going to have a commission to inquire into the cultural aspects of the people of Canada, surely our Indian people should have been placed in the forefront of any consideration, rather than being relegated, as they are in the commission's terms of reference, to one of the other ethnic groups.
The terms of reference have been referred to many times and they are pretty well confined within the first paragraph of the order in council setting up the commission, which gives them the authority "to inquire into and report"-I am reading now from the terms of reference-"upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution." It is the reference to "other ethnic groups", among them being the original inhabitants of Canada that I say is a somewhat insulting approach.
In addition to that, the commission is charged with the responsibility of recommending what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races. Again, this is completely disregarding the fact that our native Indian and Eskimo population, as we call them now, were the very peoples who founded or participated in the founding of Canada. There must be prime concern given to the culture and history of these people if we are to have any real understanding of what comprises Canada. It is true, I think, that we can inquire into the state of bilingualism, as the commission is charged to do, but I doubt very much whether we can inquire into the state of biculturalism, because

such a thing does not exist and, I submit, cannot exist. We cannot have a "bi" or "tri" or "quadri" or any other kind of multiple culture. You have a culture, and it is not divisible. That is what people participate in. For the sake of argument, I can never become a part of the culture of the people of French parentage who were born and raised in the province of Quebec. I cannot do that because I was not born in that environment and of that parentage. Conversely, neither can anyone else have the culture, in the full sense of the word, of any other citizen or any other person unless he was born into that environment and followed a particular national lineage in his inheritance. To my mind it is rather an anomaly to ask a group of people to inquire into the state of biculturalism.
Marcel Chaput's book entitled "Why I am a separatist" makes reference to this perhaps, in a way, when he refers to bilingualism, although in reading the preliminary part of it he is in fact using the language as a part of culture. He says this:
There isn't a single bilingual people in the world, not even the Belgians or the Swiss. Bilingualism is a meaningless word, a sin against nature. At most, there are nations made up of several unilingual groups joined under a common government, such as Belgium and Switzerland.
The reason is simple-a man can only have one pattern of thought.
Here he refers to the question of a culture:
He is like a tree whose branches all spring from the one trunk. His knowledge of a second language must take the form of an offshoot from his native language. But in our case, bilingualism is nothing more than a pernicious union of two branches, with no trunk at all, which can only result in a stunted and deformed knowledge of our native language.
He is referring particularly there, of course, to the French language; but I submit that in a sense taking those words in the broad sense and referring them to culture in the true sense of the word, it is ridiculous to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the state of biculturalism when no such state or condition can possibly exist. There is only a culture, as I said earlier, and one cannot have the culture of another; he can only come to the point of respecting and admiring the culture of another and hoping that mutual respect and admiration is generated thereby. Perhaps in the light especially of the recently concluded-or perhaps it was adjourned-federal-provincial conference in Quebec we should go a bit further afield and wonder just what is to be the relationship in this country between those who acclaim one inheritance and those who acclaim another. I think it becomes obvious more and more as each day goes by, more and more as each federal-provincial conference is held,
Supply-Privy Council more and more as each question arises over which there might be dual jurisdiction, that the demands-not the demands of Quebec, but the position of Quebec-of Premier Le-sage are for some peculiar political reason almost insatiable. The Canadian government will find itself giving in, time and time and time again to these incessant demands of the premier of that province and of others in his cabinet. Some of us have studied or have read about the effect that narcotic drugs have upon an individual. Progressively, if he cannot get enough his demand increases. He starts off with a little bit and continually day after day, demands more and more and more and greater dosages of the narcotic drug in order to maintain a particular state. This is the condition that exists in the government of Quebec; it is something similar to that of a drug addict.
Normally and in the initial instance there were many people who came from the extremes of east and west Canada who, not having grown up in the environment of and with the history or the knowledge in any intimate way of the history of Quebec and what took place there, had an attitude of great sympathy toward people in Quebec who claimed they had been wronged. There was a desire to understand and work with those who claimed that wrongs had been committed against them, and to right and correct those wrongs. I know this was the situation at home amongst people whom I know, people who were born and raised on the west coast who really did not have any great involvement with people living in central Canada 3,000 miles away, except by way of reading in the newspapers, watching the television newscasts or listening to radio broadcasts, or something like that, and who initially were desirous of wanting to find a solution to what was claimed to be a wrongdoing in the first instance.
Unfortunately this feeling is developing into a resentment; it is developing into a resentment because, as I said, the demands are becoming more and more insatiable all the time.
I think it is time to think not in terms of retaliating, which is what some people are talking about, but to think in terms of accepting the fact that we might as well proceed on the assumption that we are going to have a Canada consisting of nine provinces, and that Quebec will be a separate entity within the geographic area and will fit into the picture in as loose a way as Quebec wants. This is something which the government has not accepted. It is something which the Prime Minister, master diplomat that he is, cannot accept, probably because of his background

Supply-Privy Council activity in the field of diplomacy and external affairs, which consists of attempting to listen to different sides of the question and to smooth things over as much as possible. But this is not possible with the province of Quebec, and the sooner we accept that fact and that we can develop and work together to build a Canadian confederation as I have just indicated, the better off we will be, and the better off they will be in Quebec.
If we do not follow that course the government of Canada, no matter who happens to form it, will find itself saying to Quebec: "Yes, we will give you 35 per cent of the tax revenue". The next day it will say: "Yes, we will give you everything by way of succession duty taxes". Then the next day it will say: "Yes, you can opt out of the hospital insurance program and we will pay you more". As a result we will find out that what will happen will be that Canada will give and give and give until there is nothing left to give. The result will be that the Canadian nation will collapse and no sort of reasonably amicable relationship will exist in the country. But I submit that if we take the other course of accepting the fact that Quebec's demands are insatiable and cannot be met from the pockets of the rest of the people of Canada, the sooner we will be able to go on and build something worth while.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, just one or two remarks on this item. First of all, we have spent $275,850 on the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism, and I presume this amount has been spent on the commission up to the end of March of 1964. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether that is the case, and I should like some detail as to what the money has been spent on.
My second point is this. During the course of questions on the orders of the day and in various other debates the Prime Minister and other front benchers on the government side have repeatedly admonished some members of the opposition to speak of those things which unite Canada rather than those which divide Canada. I agree that this is where the emphasis should be. I do not have before me actual quotations from the Prime Minister, but I am sure all hon. members recall occasions when he has suggested to members of the opposition that some of the statements they have made did not do anything to unite Canada, and that they would have been better left unsaid. If this amount of $275,850 is to permit the chairman and co-chairman of this commission to go about the country saying some of the things they have been saying, then I think this item should be reduced to $1.


I say that, Mr. Chairman, because in today's Globe and Mail and on the front page of today's Montreal Gazette we find expressions by the chairman and co-chairman of the commission to the effect that a parochial or provincial view is going to divide Canada and perhaps lead to her collapse. The headline to the fourth section of the Toronto Globe and Mail is this:
Provincialism could bring Canada's collapse with no one feeling at fault: Laurendeau.
Then in a report of their meeting in Toronto yesterday it is said:
Both reported that the functions of their commission had been widely misunderstood.
If that is true, I think these gentlemen should spend some time getting the people of Canada in all parts of the country to understand what is their function and what are their ultimate objectives, and how they intend to reach their aim.
I should like to make one other reference to this article, a statement attributed to Mr. Laurendeau. He is reported as saying:
French speaking citizens feared the commission would foist English upon them; English speaking Canadians, Mr. Laurendeau said, took the stand that "if those damn French would speak English like everybody else, the problem would be solved".
I suggest that it is precisely this sort of misinterpretation of the attitude of people in many parts of the country which is widening the division between the cultural groups of the nation. If this parliament is allowing public funds to be used so that these gentlemen can go about the country making this sort of statement, it is time the government took another look at the personalities of the chairman and co-chairman of this bilingualism and biculturalism commission and informed them that it is not their purpose to make this kind of statement, or alternatively to replace these gentlemen. I agree with the Prime Minister and with many other moderate and reasonable members of the house that we could far better spend our time emphasizing the matters which unite all of us, of whatever language or cultural group, and I suggest that perhaps we should start by saying to the people who have been appointed by this government to improve relationships that they are under the same obligation to seek those things which unite us, rather than to make ridiculous and inflammatory statements such as I have referred to in this article.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have very little to say on this matter, except that we should have rather full detail from the President of the Privy Council on this very large item of $275,000 which represents, as

the hon. member for Skeena said, the expenditure up to the end of the last fiscal year. This is a large amount in respect to which we are entitled to reasonable detail. I am one of those who took the stand that a royal commission on this subject would not be beneficial to national unity. I took that stand officially in February 1963. My feeling was that it was not a royal commission which was necessary, and instead I endeavoured to bring about the convening of a national meeting of federal and provincial representatives, a meeting not of two or three days duration but a period of weeks and months, and behind closed doors. At such a meeting, men and women could discuss frankly and freely what they believe could be done by the federal and provincial governments, and we would arrive at a general agreement as to what might be done in order to assure unity within our country.
On that occasion I mentioned the question of national symbols. I mentioned the repatriation of our constitution, something we endeavoured throughout the years to achieve while I was prime minister, but without success. We are the only country within the commonwealth of nations which cannot amend its own constitution. It is ridiculous that we should be placed in a subservient position and that every time we want to amend our constitution we must go to Westminster. Certainly the British parliament does not want this vestige of the past retained. We have not attained that maturity of mind that would permit even the return to our own country of the right to amend our constitution in the parliament of Canada.
We tried for months. We met together. We found that there were objections by certain provinces and the result is that, while a royal commission studies this subject we, as a nation, still have not the right to amend our own constitution because of our failure to agree on a matter as simple as that. My view was that a royal commission could achieve nothing but the opportunity for those who are irrational and intolerant, who have a regard for this nation that is not generally held, to place their views before this commission. There are those who have some regard for the constitution of our country. Today we have a hodgepodge developing by reason of this commission being set up which is bringing about in our country a feeling that the hopes of the fathers of confederation cannot be achieved.
We need a little more faith. We need people to speak for Canada, to speak for this nation, rather than to speak for their own purposes. I am one of those who believe we can achieve unity. I think that message must be given to the Canadian people. I find in every part of
Supply-Privy Council Canada today a fear about the future of the country and its destiny. This fear has been engendered as a result of statements that are made that ought not to be made by those who have regard for the tremendous heritage that is ours, and the great destiny that will be ours if we but realize that there are two sides to every question, but that in a community of counsel we will bring about unity within the nation.
I do not want to be critical but I do agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I cannot understand the concept of a royal commission which, while it takes evidence and hears representations, has periodic interpretations made by the chairmen of that commission. I do not understand this. They are supposed to be listening to the views of Canadians. They go across the country. They make speeches everywhere and they interpret their powers and their authority. I think that in doing that they are doing the greatest disservice to Canada and to the cause of unity and, above all, to the achievement of that relationship within our nation without which we cannot attain the greatness which our resources make possible. I think that a word might be spoken to these men.
This has become a commission of peripatetic after-dinner speakers who, wherever they go, interpret what they have heard in the intervening days since the last speech or the last press conference. This is not the purpose for which the commission was set up. This is not the purpose for which the Canadian people have already paid $275,000. This is not a circus parade where, in order to gratify whatever the purpose may be, the performers make speeches wherever they go. Their purpose is to endeavour, out of a diversity of viewpoint, to achieve a common degree of acceptance of principles which will enable the governments to act. After all, when the commission is through, then the work begins.
It is said the commission will continue until 1968, I believe. If we have to endure all the speeches in the next few years that we have in the last few weeks, then indeed that commission is for an unusual purpose and the commissioners are discharging their responsibilities in an unusual manner. The commission was established to try to get a consensus of viewpoint. It was not set up to interpret to the Canadian people, weekly, bi-weekly or monthly, the views of the commission. The commission started off by these commissioners announcing their views before the commission actually sat. It is not their views for which we are asking. They seem to think they speak as a body, ex cathedra to the Canadian people.
If I understand what the government had in mind when setting up the commission, the

Supply-Privy Council commission was supposed to listen to representations and finally recommend, not to make interim and interlocutory statements whenever the spirit moves them. I am not saying my idea was right, and it represented not a consensus, but my idea. It was that we would bring the provinces and federal representatives together in a national meeting. After all, the responsibility will finally rest on these two levels of government. The Prime Minister thought otherwise. The Liberal party went through the campaign undertaking to set up this commission. I want this commission, now that it is set up, to do an effective and efficient job for Canada. I do not believe it can if it continues to have chairmen as loquacious as they have been in recent days and in recent weeks.
I read the joint speeches that were made at the Empire club in the city of Toronto. I am not going to discuss the details of them, but under the circumstances I found those speeches quite beyond understanding. I say no more at this time but I do hope that the chairmen, Mr. Dunton and Mr. Lauren-deau, will come to a realization that Canadians are not interested in their periodic declarations and views but rather are interested in having this commission work effectively. I did not think it would work and I said so. It was not a popular view when I took that stand. Now that the commission has been set up I want it to succeed, but I doubt that it can unless the members of the commission begin to realize that they are not and were not appointed to be the teachers of Canadians in these difficult and trying times.


Mr. Girouard:: Mr. Chairman, I regret not to have had a week at my disposal to prepare a reply to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), but I could not anticipate that a member of this house who, I presume, enjoys a certain degree of education, I am not saying instruction, would make remarks such as those we heard a few moments ago. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that in replying to the hon. member for Skeena, I will not preach in the wilderness-at least, there is sand in the desert

but I will talk to the wind.
The hon. member for Skeena tried to prove to the house that the objective of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism to impose a double culture to every Canadian is unattainable.
I should like to say first of all that the interpretation given by the hon. member for Skeena is all wrong. The purpose of the commission is not to force two cultures upon every Canadian but to encourage the development of two cultures in our country. Moreover, I should like to point out to the hon.
[Mr. DiefenbaRer.J

member that if it is impossible for every Canadian to have two cultures, it is still possible for each and every citizen to participate in a culture of his own, a fact that the hon. member has failed to show.
Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Skeena does not know what culture is, I should now like to tell him that it is the product of a common education, of a common belief and of a common tradition. In other words, culture is a product, and the hon. member has just shown that he has no culture at all.
According to him, bilingualism goes against nature. Can you imagine that. Does that mean that a person who speaks two languages is not normal? You might just as well say that anything which is not a basic necessity goes against nature. I am still wondering whether there is any point in replying to arguments of that sort.
Of course, the hon. member could not help refer to the federal-provincial conference. He states without guile that Quebec keeps on asking for more. He wonders what could satisfy the province's appetite. I should like to tell him that Quebec has never asked anything but what is rightfully its own. I want to say to the hon. member for Skeena that when Quebec is claiming 25 per cent of taxes it is because it has contributed 100 per cent. In that case, it does not claim 25 per cent from other provinces. I would also point out to him that when Quebec is claiming 75 per cent, it is not claiming 75 per cent from succession duties from the province of Ontario or from British Columbia, it is claiming 75 per cent of what it has actually paid.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not endeavour to prove it to him, because it is not worthwhile. The hon. member for Skeena said, mind you, that this inquiry on biculturalism was frustrating the Eskimos because, he added, they had been forgotten.
Here is my answer to the member for Skeena. Were they forgotten in 1534, in 1660, in 1760, at the time of the conquest, in 1840 and in 1867, at the time of confederation? And he now tells us that they were forgotten when the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism was set up.
With such remarks coming from the hon. member for Skeena-and to those remarks he adds words from Dr. Chaput

I am not surprised that people are asking where is confederation going.
I would ask the hon. member for Skeena if he came to Canada in one of the large groups of immigrants, apart from the English group? I would remind him that if there is talk of biculturalism today in Canada, it is because the French and the English nations have built

something in Canada. Immigrants coming to Canada today do not bring Canada anything; they come to get what Canada can give them. And I will prove this to you by saying that I am proud of speaking English and French. If I decided today to emigrate to Germany I would not clamour for French


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that he is straying a little from the item under consideration. I would ask him to confine his remarks to that item, which is the expenses of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.


Mr. Plourde:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. A few moments ago, the hon. member for Skeena was speaking in general terms, and all the hon. member for Labelle wants to do now is to comment on what the member for Skeena said.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no question of privilege in the point raised by the hon. member for Quebec West.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Chairman, I always treat instructions from the Chair with the utmost respect and I shall do so again today. However, you will admit that, since the hon. member for Skeena has been allowed to deal with such a general matter, it is quite in order for another member to rise and reply to him.
By his statements, the hon. member for Skeena greatly helped the cause of separatism. I am not a separatist, and neither are most members of this house. On the contrary, they want to assure the success of confederation. On the other hand, if one day there were in this house only members of the ilk of the hon. member for Skeena, separatism would become an accomplished fact and there would not be any biculturalism. Indeed, if there were only members of the calibre of the hon. member for Skeena, we would not have any culture at all.


An hon. Member:: May I call it six o'clock Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Before the item carries I should like the President of the Privy Council to give us the details with regard to how the $275,000 was spent.


Frank Howard: Perhaps he could do that starting at seven o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman not do it now?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Six o'clock.
Supply-Privy Council The Chairman: Before the committee rises I should remind hon. members that we will meet again at seven o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: At six o'clock the committee was discussing item 43e, Privy Council.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I had been requested to give the detail of this vote. I have it here in precise form, and if the committee is agreeable I would like to have it printed in Hansard.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The document above referred to is as follows:]
Supplementary Estimates (E), 1963-64 Privy Council
Vote 43e-Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, $275,850.
Commissioners' honoraria	$ 47,000
Staff salaries	105,000
Terminable allowances	2,400
Press news services	750
Outside reporting services	6,000
Professional and special services	28,000
Travelling expenses	41,000
Freight, express and cartage	50
Postage	800
Telephones	3,000
Telegrams	300
Publications	4,000
Printing	4,000
Stationery	3,000
Office equipment	16,000
Local transportation	300
Advertising	13,500
Rental of halls	400
Sundries	350


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister has offered to give us details on item 43e and it is precisely what interests me, because I consider that $275,850 is quite a fabulous amount for an investigation which is just getting under way. I wonder what the total expenditures will be once it is completed.
I think that the chief investigators are over paid. Those people already draw a
2040	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council salary, sometimes two and even three. They are paid $100 a day and, after all, it is only a nationalistic movement. It seems to me it would have been wiser to think it over at the start, and I am asking the minister to check the expenditures because I think there is not enough control over them. It may be that another commission will have to be set up to investigate the expenditures of the royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism because at this rate, the investigation will turn out to be a gold mine for some people who were appointed-I am not saying for political reasons because I have confidence in their skill-by the party in office to hold that investigation.
Now, it remains to be seen whether that investigation will give positive or negative results. Only the future will tell. I think the commissioners should have carried out an investigation instead of daily airing their own views on the report they should present to parliament. On this point, I think that I agree with the views stated by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) to the effect that if the commissioners were concerned only with their work, without making comments every day in newspapers or on the air, if they knuckled down to work without assessing their own accomplishments, I think that there would be less misunderstanding. By following such a course, the commissioners would reach the goal set for them by this government and I cannot conceive that one of the joint chairmen should pass judgment at any given moment in this way, more particularly as we know his socialistic ideas.
I think that this is a most dangerous attitude and I ask the minister to put a stop to this and ask that gentleman to do his job without foretelling the business of parliament, because, when the results are known of the inquiry we shall discuss them, and it will be up to parliament to reach a decision.
I realize that frictions which arise are always due to entirely needless balderdash on the part of one of the joint chairmen of the inquiry commission on biculturalism. The aims of that investigation are laudable in themselves, as everybody will admit. It is an ideal opportunity of getting some understanding and benefit from confederation by finding out where we stand after 97 years. At the same time, the inquiry enables us to know which province has most, or least, observed the spirit of confederation.
The objectives of the inquiry are praiseworthy if they are meant to help improving confederation. Today, there is some talk of destroying it and building up another. Let us first begin by considering the possibilities 

of improving what is already built up. I think that this is the aim of the legislators who initiated the inquiry.
Now, what did the inquiry produce to date? It did enable us to find out the good and the bad sides of the matter. We had a sample of it this afternoon when listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
It enabled a few to make their views known. At the same time it also enabled the Canadian people and the house to realize that Quebec is not the only province where there are separatists; they are much more numerous in western Canada.
Even though it would have but one result, that of eliciting statements from people who generally act without speaking, I think that it would be something worth while and that the inquiry into bilingualism and biculturalism would be fruitful. In fact, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing worse than a fellow who never says a word and who always works in the dark.
The statements that were made this afternoon prompted members from certain parties to come out of their cage and I ask those members to come and repeat in the province of Quebec the speeches they delivered in this house this afternoon. They will then be able to observe the reaction of the people from Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be prejudiced. I am not one of those who claims that there are no French Canadians outside Quebec. Indeed not. French Canadians can be found throughout Canada. We should not forget when speaking about French Canadians, that we are referring to the entire country. As stated by the hon. member for Skeena this afternoon, people in the west say: "But we did not know the province of Quebec before." If they do not venture outside their own bailiwick and are like rats in a cage, we are not to blame. The citizens of Quebec are better informed about the various races that make up Canada.
The statements made this afternoon will result in a tightening of the bonds between serious-minded members who still wish to save confederation; they have awakened and realized that some provinces are still more dangerous than Quebec within confederation. This is not due to ill will but it is due to the fact that these Canadian citizens do not know Canada well enough.
Those who came to Canada since confederation, as well as those who are still coming, will make a point of knowing Canada. Indeed, if the royal commission on biculturalism and

Supply-Privy Council
bilingualism has been instituted, it is because Canada did exist before those people came to live here.
It must be well understood, Mr. Chairman, that the two great races who founded Canada, got along very well in 1867. They contributed to the expansion of the country. But since 1867, another group of people entered the country. Immigration was promoted. The other group settled in Canada and it is always the third party which brings trouble into the family because he does not know really the facts of the matter.
That third group must be educated at all costs-and I am serious when I say that- namely the new Canadians who probably never understood the true meaning of confederation. In fact, I noticed this afternoon that several showed a complete lack of knowledge about confederation because they were not born, in short have not lived, within confederation.
That is why we say today that it is essential to amend confederation, not to destroy it, with regard to that group which came here not to take over confederation but to become part of it.
Immigrants who come to Canada undertake to respect one group or the other, to share its way of living.
And when I hear the New Democratic party members talk about multiculturalism, I say to myself right away that they have never understood the true meaning of confederation, never knew why they were coming to Canada.
I feel that we must look at the inquiry into biculturalism in that light, always to bring up to date, amend and improve confederation, so that every one may use a little of his talent, knowledge and intelligence to understand family life, because I am of the opinion that family life among Canadians is like that of a big city.
A city, where every family has independence and self-determination, when it feels itself in security, because it does not feel its independence threatened by the city council, is a city that will live in peace. Such is the situation of Canada's ten families: if each one is assured of its own security, of its autonomy, of its independence, Canada will live in peace.
I repeat it is in that sense that we must consider the future of confederation, so that neither one of the two groups feels wronged in its rights and feels secure in Canada.
I assure you that if we succeed in convincing everybody of that, by intelligent reasoning instead of by stupid arguments, insults or physical coercion, Canada will be the more powerful and productive.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise to speak on this item with some reservation and some hesitation, due to the very touchy part that biculturalism plays in the economic wellbeing of Canada today.
Certainly, we are all concerned about it. Where is it going? What is Canada going to look like by 1967, 1977, and so on, or by 1987, and one could go on and on. Where is it leading us to? What sound purpose is this inquiry going to bring about? I see here in the estimates that it is already costing something like $300,000. The inquiry we are told is going to continue until 1966, and most likely 1967, when we are going to celebrate our centenary. Is it going to be a happy centenary, or a sad one? Is the inquiry, I wonder, going to promote or bring about a happy centenary? When you see the two chairmen travelling throughout the country listening to interested people presenting their own isolated ideas on biculturalism, I doubt it. In other words, is the inquiry seeking out the thoughts and thinking of the average man on this question, or are they going across the country telling the people their views as to what they think a person should be thinking on this question? We read the opinions of the two chairmen in the various papers, one of them in today's Globe and Mail, where they made a co-operative speech, and they have already summarized their findings, to some extent, in this cooperative speech as far as I can gather. I think the inquiry is costing too much and is doing very little, other than trying to bring a tremendous storm in which Canada can mull about until 1967, and then perhaps thresh out after the whole question dies down and the inquiry has brought down its findings.
It is rather odd that I, the member for Acadia, which has a rather traditional name and is often taken for some part of Canada other than Alberta, should speak on this question. These are my views on this subject and I am certain the vast majority of western Canadians feel as I do. We do not want Canada thrown into a vast turmoil on this touchy subject. We do not want to see Canada split asunder. We firmly believe that our forefathers-and I do not speak entirely of western Canada now-came to this country to establish a new country and start a new culture, not to maintain the two or three cultures which existed in the old country or in the fatherland as the case was. Our forefathers came to this country to escape feudalism as it existed in Ireland, England, France and Europe generally. They

Supply-Privy Council came to this country with the hope of improving their lot and the lot of their families to follow them. They certainly were not interested particularly in the maintenance of any culture they may have left.
I think back to my own constituency. Half of it is called the Palliser triangle. Palliser studied that country to see whether it was fit for civilization-to see whether the land was fit for cultivation. Who settled the country in the ensuing years? Alberta did not become a province until 1905. Who settled that country in the 50 years from the time when Palliser said it was fit for cultivation, or the vast majority of it? Incidentally, he said the part in which I am now living was not fit for cultivation. But in any case it took, not necessarily the two cultures which are today proclaiming that they were the two founding nations to establish Canada; it did not take those two cultures to settle that part of Canada. This part of the country was settled by many different cultures who do not make any boast about trying to maintain their beliefs, their ideals or their language. In many parts of western Canada there are different languages spoken. These people came to Canada to better themselves and to better the following generations. They came to establish a new world and to establish it to the best of their ability, not to quibble about the maintenance of old cultures.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that too much of the time of this house is spent in dealing with this touchy subject. We have before us an item of $300,000 which has been spent on this inquiry into biculturalism before the findings of the commission have been made available to us. The cost of this inquiry is likely to run into a million dollars. This commission is not really ascertaining the opinions of Canadians; The members of the commission are giving Canadians their opinion as to what Canada should be like in 1967 and 1968. Certainly we are not going to obtain the co-operation of all the people of Canada by this method.
The hon. member from the eastern part of Canada who preceded me in this debate talked about the inquiry as being nothing less than a gold mine for some people. I do not know who he thought was going to obtain the gold, but it certainly will not be the Canadian people. It may be a political party, it may be the chairmen or it may be somebody else altogether, but it will not be the Canadian people. This commission is doing nothing but harm to the people of Canada. We have heard a lot of talk about the British North America Act of 1867. Certainly this act is a long document containing many words. I have read it all, and I see very little reason to change it in any way. This is 

just my opinion, of course. It deals with the subject of biculturalism, it deals with the French language, French laws and the jurisdiction of provinces and the federal government.
I hear too much talk in Canada about biculturalism, too much talk about two states or two nations. I was talking to a constituent of mine not long ago, and he told me about Switzerland. I believe this is an interesting story and has a bearing upon the problem with which we are confronted tonight. He told me that there are three main languages in Switzerland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Four.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My hon. friend says that there are four. Of course, a half of one per cent of the population speaks the original language, which goes back to the days of the Romans. I am sorry that I omitted it. In any event, I said, if you have three official languages and government documents are' published in three languages, why is it you do not have the problem that is confronting Canada today? He said, "I will tell you why; we are all Swiss first and the language is secondary." I learned something from that conversation, and I think we all have something to learn from it. Let us all be Canadians first. We can be proud of the different part of Canada from which we come, and nobody in this house is more proud of the part from which I come. I let everybody within the sound of my voice know that I come from western Canada. However, I am proud that I am a Canadian first, and I think everyone in Canada should adopt that attitude. We should be Canadians first, and then we can be proud of the part of Canada from which we come. In this way we will maintain one country after 1967 and even after the year 2000. Let us bear that in mind; there should be one nation and one country and we should all be proud to maintain that country.


Mr. Caron:: I am a bit surprised every time I hear a westerner speak about the different languages that are being used in Canada.
Everybody admits it-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Wait a minute; there is no translation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No translation? I am surprised to hear these people coming from western Canada speak about the many languages we have in this country. I am surprised, because when they talk this way they display a lack of knowledge of the history of Canada. In

1867 there was a contract entered into between two nations, the French Canadians and the English Canadians. It is this contract we want to keep in Canada. It is this contract we want to see kept all over Canada, not only in the province of Quebec. The more we think in this direction, the less we will think in the other direction, and the more progress this country will make.

Because only two languages are really recognized in Canada by our constitution. In 1867, the fathers of confederation did not mention the languages of those who would come and settle in Canada. We are happy to have among us the Ukrainians, the Italians and all the other people who wish to come to Canada. I hope that these people will keep on speaking, studying and learning their languages, that they will continue to give us the advantage of their culture which they brought from the European countries or elsewhere. But I believe that we should not forget that there are only two official languages in this country: French and English. It is useless to talk otherwise. It is only that way that we will be able to solve the problem of the Canadian confederation.
That is what I had to say and I hope that it will be understood and that we are going to pass the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS Public buildings, construction and services-
35e. Ontario (other than Ottawa), $1.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to speak on this item concerning public buildings in Ontario. A couple of days ago I rose on a question of privilege in connection with an answer I received from the government concerning the acquisition of a building site in the village of Britt, Ontario. At that time I stated that the answer I had received was wrong, and I am quite satisfied that it was. I do not know if this was just an oversight. I know that the consultant to whom I referred is, in fact, a consultant of the government in relation to post offices and public works. I asked if the minister would make inquiries and correct his answer, if it was wrong.
According to the answer which I received, this particular consultant had acquired a site for a public building at Britt and had resold it to the government. I had particular knowledge of this matter because while the Conservative government was in power this particular site was negotiated for by the government, and I must say I was fully aware of this negotiation. There was some difficulty in connection with a road allowance, which 20220-129
Supply-Public Works
took some time to adjust, and at the time the government changed hands no completed arrangement had been made. Therefore it was with a good deal of surprise that I found the government's consultant had in some fashion acquired the particular sites from two private individuals and had resold them to the government.
I have not made, and I am not making tonight, any allegation that there was an unjust profit made; the details of this behind-the-doors transaction are not known to me and I suppose never will be known. But all in all I feel it is not a proper exercise of jurisdiction on the part of a person to whom the government apparently looks for advice and assistance in political matters, when he is himself dabbling in government sites. It is nothing more than that; it is a case of impropriety, and I am sure if any member of the house did this he would be severely taken to task.
If the government is going to continue this system of having their defeated candidates made consultants, to whom they can write for advice on postal and public works matters, and if the government are going to accept that advice and act upon it, then these consultants must have just as high a standard, and should be required by the government to maintain just as high a standard, as an elected member.
I do not approve of this system. It is extremely irritating to me, and it is irritating to other hon. members to have so many things going on behind their backs. I believe the degree to which this is done is recognized. In some cases there appears to be some political advantage to the government party, and they prefer to deal with regard to political matters with these consultants. However, I give notice now that I am going to keep raising this point until I get an answer. I want to know whether this person is a government consultant on public works and post office matters, and whether the government is satisfied to have this type of thing go on. I think it is wrong and it should be rectified. I have nothing personal against this particular individual, but if he is going to be used as a consultant, then he has to have a much higher standard than has hitherto been displayed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised this matter in the house the other day-I think it was as a question of privilege, was it not?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


George James McIlraith: While the matter itself is not directly involved under this vote, I recognize the importance which the hon. member properly attaches to it. I do happen to

Supply-Public Works
know that the Minister of Public Works is trying to get all the information on it assembled, with a view to making a statement in the house as soon as he has the necessary information to do so. I know that from my personal knowledge of the matter. Perhaps in light of that there is little point in my trying to say much about it now, because I simply do not have sufficient information on it to do so properly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Personally, Mr. Chairman, I do not feel I was out of order-


George James McIlraith: No, I am not raising any point on that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -in raising this matter under this item, because certain jobs are listed here, and then there is an amount to cover anticipated lapses, which might include an item covered by the original estimate. However, I accept the statement of the minister that an investigation is being made, and that is all I ask.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
115e. Ontario, $1.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Here again, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments, and I am glad to see the Minister of Transport here. This afternoon a question was raised under the water resources vote concerning water levels, and the minister of northern affairs assured us that he would make a statement in this connection. There is a problem here. The minister explained to us that his statement would merely be directed toward why the water level was low, but I am sure that this in itself will not be satisfactory. There are many harbours, particularly in the Georgian bay area and on of the shores of lake Huron, which will have navigation problems this spring and early summer. I know my hon. friend from Simcoe North is particularly concerned about Collingwood, and I am concerned about Parry Sound. Both are major harbours which may have navigation problems for lake boats. I should like to have the Minister of Transport give us an assurance that where exceptional measures are necessary this year, in the case of dredging and dock extension, if this is felt to be the last year of low water, these measures will be taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member knows that any dredging which will be required will be done by the Department of Public Works. However, 1 am Minister of Transport, and although I cannot make the rain come-doubtless some of us wish we could at times-nevertheless I am concerned with this problem. I will draw the hon.

gentleman's observations and those I have received from other hon. gentlemen, such as the hon. member for Grey North, the hon. member for Simcoe North and other hon. members to the attention of the minister. I might add that some defeated candidates have spoken to me about this matter-I suppose it is all right for them to talk about it -and we are anxious to do everything we possibly can to meet what is a real problem. I asked the Minister of Public Works to have a survey made of all these harbours as soon as he possibly can, and to do anything practicable to meet the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering services-
169e. Payments in respect of winter maintenance of the Haines cut-off road, northwest highway system, $120,000.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two brief questions to put to the minister on this item. Under the contract which exists between the federal government and the government of the state of Alaska, this amount of $120,000 is to be paid by the Canadian government to the government of the state of Alaska for the purpose of maintaining the Haines cut-off road. Under the contract the government of the state of Alaska is required to submit monthly accounts to the Canadian government. The contract commenced operation last November. I should now like the minister to inform the committee of the total amount of bills received from the government of the state of Alaska by the government of Canada.
Would the minister also advise the house whether the government of the state of Alaska has advised this government of the actual cost, quite apart from the bills which have been rendered, of the maintenance of the road to date? Finally, is the minister now in a position to assure the committee that the road will be kept open next winter on the same basis?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this payment to the United States authorities is that at the time the matter was raised it was so late in the season that the assembling and transportation by Canadians of the kind of machinery required to do the job was not possible, if the job was to be done this winter. The United States authorities had the equipment in position, or relatively close to it. That was the underlying reason for it. I made inquiry two days ago to see if I could get a report on the results because I think, as the hon. member well knows, this was an experimental venture to see how feasible it was to keep that road open in the winter, because of many local weather factors with which he is perhaps more familiar than I am but which I have had occasion to study

in other capacities over the last number of years. These are very severe factors. In any event, I was advised that the reports that would give a reasonable indication as to the success or lack of success of the venture were not available. That was earlier this week, in anticipation of this item coming up for discussion.
As to the detailed bills for each month, I do not have them here. The last question the hon. member asked was whether I would give the assurance that we would continue this venture next year. I am quite unable to give that assurance, for the reason that before a decision can be taken to continue the venture next year, we will want to look at the success or failure of the venture this year, analyse how successful it was, what the likely costs will be over the future years in relation to the benefit provided by the road -that is to say, the added facilities that the road has provided-and how many days, notwithstanding the work being done and the machinery available, the road was closed in any event, and what traffic was going through on the road on the days that it was open.
The whole matter will have to be analysed before the government will make a firm commitment for next year. That was another, added reason why I was seeking to find out how much information we had for this year as to the results, because a thorough analysis will have to be made of this project to see whether it is economically wise to spend this amount of money, or whatever amount will be required in future years to do this job.
Therefore as to the last question, I regret that my answer to the hon. member will have to be a categorical no, in the form in which he put his question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind the minister, if that reminder was necessary, that one of the promises that was made to the people of the Yukon during the last election campaign by those who supported his party was that the Haines cut-off would be maintained during the winter season. What I rather suspect is that this device of keeping the road open this winter on an experimental basis is another exercise in political appeasement simply to establish that the cost of keeping it open is going to be prohibitive and thereby giving the government its out in telling the people of the Yukon next year, "Well, we tried it one year and the cost simply prohibits its being maintained in any subsequent years". Perhaps while the minister is answering that nonprovocative question he might also explain to the committee how it is that a contract which was executed prior to April 1, the date upon which the Department of Public Works took over jurisdiction of the northwest 20220-129J
Supply-Public Works
highway system, involving the expenditure of $120,000, now finds its way into the public works estimates. Should not this sum be under the authorization of the Department of National Defence, which had responsibility for the maintenance of the highway at the time the financial commitment by contract was made between the government of Canada and the state of Alaska?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, as to the inference in the early part of the hon. member's remarks, I can only tell him that I had a great deal to do with this particular matter and am rather familiar with the reasons why the contract was entered into, and all about it. This is the first time I ever heard of any political promise having been made on this subject, or indeed of its having been discussed. I can assure him that if there was any such promise made or anything said on the subject, I certainly did not know about it and it was not known about when this decision was taken; so it has nothing to do with the subject matter.
The question as to whether or not this road should be kept open, is an important one. It is a matter, when we are dealing with these public expenditures, of trying to act responsibly and in a way that will assure that the interests of the taxpayers are protected and their money is used reasonably for the benefit of any section or particular parts of the country. As the hon. member knows, there are very special and difficult problems of transport in the Yukon, and this is a manifestation of one of them.
All I can say to the hon. member is that I assure him this was done to get some experience in this whole field as to whether or not it was feasible to keep this road open in winter. I think it was a very wise and correct decision. It is intended to examine the whole subject before we make a further commitment for another year. All the elements that enter into such considerations will have to be examined before that decision is taken.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister has, of course, not answered the last question that I put to him, and I will repeat it in just a moment. Perhaps while we are on the relevant item I might mention very briefly a matter which has been brought to the attention of the government by other members of this house, notably the hon. member for Skeena, with respect to the establishment of some sort of arrangement with the United States which would get around the impediment of the Alaskan Panhandle, because as the minister knows by reason of his other experiences apart from his governmental obligations and responsibility, there is a problem in reaching tidewater from the Yukon

Supply-Public Works territory. The only route we have now is by the White Pass and Yukon Railway. Many of us in the Yukon believe that we need a road route through to tidewater. This is the only road route available to us at the moment, and of course its all-weather maintenance is of paramount importance to the economic development of that part of the country. I suggested several years ago that perhaps we might get around it by negotiating with the government of the United States with respect to the establishment of free ports. Perhaps one such location which would be ideal would be Skagway, and another would be Haines Junction. The suggestion has also been made that perhaps we should have corridors not only from the Yukon to tidewater but as well through those portions of the Panhandle which border on the province of British Columbia. Perhaps it is time that negotiation between the two governments in an exploratory way was commenced in order to establish whether or not these suggestions are feasible.
The question I did put to the minister, and which he did not answer, was: How is it that this $120,000 finds its way under the heading of public works when the financial commitment by contract was made when the Department of National Defence was responsible for the maintenance of this particular road?


George James McIlraith: I will look into that point, Mr. Chairman, but I should think it is quite clear that keeping it open in the winter was not viewed as part of the defence of the country at all.
It is viewed rather as a maintenance operation for the service of the civilian population in their ordinary activities, and it has no military connotation. I do not know what particular difference it makes which department it is under, but for the life of me I do not see at the moment why it should be under the national defence estimates. I will look into the point and see if there is anything in it, but nothing I have seen so far has indicated to me that it should be under national defence estimates rather than public works estimates.


Erik Nielsen: I want to make it quite clear that I am wholly in favour of the vote passing and of keeping the road open because it is vital to the economy of the territory that it be maintained on an all-weather basis. It simply surprised me to see the estimate under the Department of Public Works since the financial commitment was made while the Department of National Defence was still responsible for the maintenance of the road in question. Therefore it seemed to me that some explanation should be forthcoming with


regard to why the item is under this department, particularly since these estimates were published prior to April 1 when the Department of Public Works assumed responsibility.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could answer that point a little more fully right now.


Erik Nielsen: I will sit down in a moment. I certainly do not wish to create any suggestion whatsoever that I have any objection to the funds being spent. On the contrary, I think they are well spent and in my view the government should continue to maintain the Haines cut-off road on an all-weather basis, even if it means maintaining it by payments to the American government, by wholly American labour at a time of great unemployment in our own country and by the use of American equipment alone.
I think other means could perhaps have been found. We could have employed Canadian workmen on the road. We could have rented Canadian equipment from Canadian contractors in order to maintain the Canadian section of the road for which this money is intended. I know there were particular difficulties that confronted the government at the time and I know that most likely they tried to reconcile matters so they might be able to hire Canadian workmen and equipment for the maintenance of this Canadian road. Nevertheless I am sure that in keeping with the promise they made to the people of the Yukon the government will want to see that the road is maintained next year, and having regard to their desire to reduce unemployment in the country I am equally sure they will want to see it maintained with Canadian workmen next year rather than with American workmen, so that this Canadian money would be going into the economy of that particular part of Canada rather than Canadian funds being paid to a state or federal government of the United States.


George James McIlraith: Of course the simple answer to that part of the question is, as the hon. member knows, that the government which he supported did not keep this highway open and if he held these views he could have had the matter considered and the appropriate action taken that he speaks about. In any event, he has referred to the Liberal government in a critical way for doing this, but I would remind him that what has been done was done by a Liberal government and correctly done, as I think members generally will agree.
The hon. member speaks about this item not being under the defence department estimates. I would remind him that the responsibility for looking after the highway had been in the Department of National Defence because of the construction of the northwest

highway system. This highway was added after the other system was completed, but the military had the kind of establishment there that was capable of doing this kind of work. It would seem reasonable that it was not desirable to put in a duplicate maintenance establishment, so under the former government the military continued to do this work, and correctly so. I think it was the correct decision that they should do so.
As the hon. member knows, the administrative responsiblity for maintenance has been transferred starting with the current fiscal year from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Works. For the life of me I cannot see what was wrong in having the estimate for and approval of the winter work shown under the Department of Public Works, in anticipation of the transfer and having in mind that the removal of snow this winter would take in part of the last fiscal year and part of the present fiscal year. I just do not see anything wrong with that. I think it was a proper and reasonable thing to do.


Erik Nielsen: I was not being critical of it. In my inexperience, contrasted with the great experience of the minister who is giving the explanations, I simply thought he would enlighten the house as to the reasons for having this sum carried under a department which had no fiscal responsibility at the time the agreement was made. The minister has also rather put words into my mouth, something with which I am frequently charged by members on the treasury benches, when he said that I was critical of the Liberal government for keeping the road open. That is not the case at all. I have said not only once but twice that I think the maintenance of this read on an all-weather basis is vital to the economy of the Yukon and I applaud the government for keeping it open. I think they should keep it open in future winters, as they promised the people of the Yukon they would do in the last election campaign.
I was very close to the former minister of northern affairs in the previous government and I can tell the minister why it was not decided to keep the Haines road open during the five years that the Progressive Conservatives were in office. That government was so busy building development roads and roads to resources across the country that they had to deal with these matters in order of priority. I can tell the minister also that in the Yukon in those five years, in contrast with previous years when almost nothing was done with regard to the development of Canada's northland, some $25 million was pumped into the construction of development roads in that part of the country, and as a result-
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Moreau:: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of this tremendous development program in the Yukon can he tell us how many mines were found during that period?


Erik Nielsen: I think the last three words I uttered were "as a result". I was just about to enlighten the hon. member whose interest in geology and mining matters is very acute, I know, and I am sure he will be very interested in learning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether, without being offensive, I could raise a point of order?


Jay Waldo Monteith: He asked a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely I also have some right to speak in the house as well as other hon. members. I am raising a point of order and I think that is competent even to a member on the treasury benches. Although hon. gentlemen seem to object very strenuously when we speak and even more strenuously when we do not, I still persist, sir, in raising my point of order. There was a lot of talk the other night about general debates on the first item, but there was certainly no talk about general debates on the last item. I wonder whether the two hon. members who are so interested in mines in the Yukon could have a private talk and let the rest of the house go on with the estimates according to the rules?


Erik Nielsen: I think I might perhaps comply with the request of the Minister of Transport, but it was the minister sitting immediately to his left who raised this matter in the first instance and apparently another of his colleagues is also quite interested. I am sure other members of the committee are likewise interested, with the sole exception perhaps of the Minister of Transport, although it seems to me a unique situation for him to be holding that portfolio and to express disinterest in the subject of additional communication in the country.
However, as a result of those roads oil was discovered for the first time in the Yukon, tungsten was discovered for the first time in the Yukon, a silver mine was opened in the Mayo area and an asbestos mine in the Dawson area. All of these discoveries were brought about by the increased interest of private investment in a country which hitherto had been neglected so far as the construction of roads was concerned. It was the previous government which created the atmosphere for development.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't forget Arizona
Charlie.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Erik Nielsen: I will come back to Arizona Charlie in a moment or two.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. It seems to me we were doing rather well a few minutes ago, and I wonder if I could have the cooperation of all hon. members to get back to the resolution, and to limit their remarks to vote 169e.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the intervention of the Minister of Transport and the hon. member whose riding for the moment escapes me-as I am sure it will him in the next election-I would have been through; but I just want to point out that it was because of the impetus given by the previous government, and its expenditures on roads in the Yukon, that these investments were made by private industry. That is in direct answer to the question which the minister posed, as to why the former administration did not maintain the Haines road.
While the former administration was in office it was so busy giving priority to developing the country to attract investment, which resulted in these mineral discoveries, that this matter, as well as many others, such as paving the Alaska highway, were placed somewhere in the middle of the list of priorities. I notice now that the order of priorities has been reversed, and that the development of roads has almost disappeared. Only one contract was let this year for road development in the Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lie. Canadian government participation in the universal and international exhibition, Montreal, 1967-to amend vote 786 of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1951 by deleting the words "to he called the Associate Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce" and substituting the words "Commissioner General for the Canadian Government Participation, 1967 Exhibition", and to amend vote 692 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958 by deleting the expression "$16,500" and substituting the expression "$23,000" therefor and to provide a further amount of $50,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is a particularly interesting item and one which has to do with the Canadian government participation in the exhibition in Montreal. This is a matter upon which the committee and the government should have some information.
We have been endeavouring to obtain, without success, or at least the information has not been brought down, the salaries of the various officials such as the commissioner general and the associate commissioner general. I am sure the minister will be able to furnish the fullest information in this connection.

Speaking as one who did everything he could to bring about a national exposition for confederation, and whose government devoted itself to securing the consent of nations and the support of nations on behalf of this very laudable objective, I would now like to know the degree to which the exposition is proceeding, the appropriations being made, and I also point out the fact that, considering the tremendous contribution being made by the people of Canada, information must be forthcoming.
When we entered into this plan it was made clear to us that Canada's contribution was to be $20 million, the contribution of the province of Quebec, as I recall it, $15 million, and that of the city of Montreal $5 million. No other city in Canada made any application to secure this exposition because various representatives said that the amount in question would not meet the needs of an exposition such as was contemplated and such as would be in keeping with Canada's position as a nation.
This project represents one of the largest ever undertaken in this nation. What the total expenditures are to date no one knows, although it has been estimated that the total expenses are-


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would permit me to draw something to his attention before he extends his remarks too far. It is the government's participation as an exhibitor that is involved in this item. This is not the item that has to do with the organization of the world fair, and I want to point out that distinction to him.


John George Diefenbaker: I very much appreciate any suggestion on the part of the hon. gentleman, but I am pointing out the fact that we have not secured any information in connection with the vast expenditures that the people of Canada are being called upon to make in this connection. We have a right to information, and we have not been able to get it.
Complaint is made sometimes, and has been made in the last couple of days by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, that we have been obstructing the business of the house. I make it very clear we have been doing nothing of the kind. We have been trying to get information.
As a matter of fact the Prime Minister, according to a report in tonight's press, has left the suggestion or possibly leaked the suggestion, that our conduct is going to bring about an election. We are not at all frightened of that possibility. He is the only one who has any fear in that connection. Indeed, I am informed that-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The last one put you over there.


John George Diefenbaker: I was waiting for the opportunity to hear what the right hon. gentleman had to say, because within the last 24 hours I understand that members of the cabinet have been giving consideration to this matter of holding an election. There has been every suggestion of it. In fact the Minister of Transport made a pilgrimage to Quebec and there made certain suggestions; the threat being that because we dare to ask for information which is denied us, a smokescreen is being raised-


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; is this discussion of an election related to the item before the committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is another example of the fine co-operation between the N.D.P. and the Liberal party. The only place they are separated is in the province of Saskatchewan.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will agree with me that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Greenwood is well taken, and I am sure he will want to limit his remarks to the item before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I say with the greatest of deference you have always a manner of requesting order that secures the immediate attention and co-operation of all, but these were just passing observations I have been provoked into making. I return once more to the item to which Your Honour has directed my attention. I want to leave this with the minister and the government- that we want full information regarding expenditures being made of the moneys of Canada on this project. There is every indication that for some reason those associated with this project are engaged in making expenditures almost at a gallop. We want to have the fullest information regarding this particular item as indicative-and no doubt it will be indicative-of what appears to be, and to have been in recent months, the seriously wasteful course being followed by those responsible for ensuring the success of this exposition.
We want to make this exposition a success, but we want at the same time to have reasonable opportunities to look into the expenditures so that Canada's moneys will not be wasted. I ask the minister to make a full statement in connection with this item.


George James McIlraith: The item which forms the subject matter of the greater part of the right hon. gentleman's remarks does not appear in the supplementary estimates which are
Supply-Transport
before the committee. The item is not before the committee at all and, for that reason. I am not able to give the full information which is sought, even if it were appropriate to do so.
As the right hon. gentleman knows, provision for this exhibition was set out in the agreement prepared by his own government, and the scheme for control over the expenditure was in that agreement. It is still contained in that governing document. I do not understand the suggestion that the right hon. gentleman has not been able to get information on this subject. I do not understand, because I do not see any questions on the order paper seeking information on this matter. If there are, I will certainly draw them to the attention of the minister having to do with this department on his return to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Just by way of interest, here is one, number 599, and it has been on the order paper since March 31:
1.	Have cars been rented for the world's fair executive?
2.	Was the rental contract let by public tender and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of the firms which submitted tenders (b) what was the amount of each tender?
3.	What is the name and price quotation of the successful bidder?
That is the first one I turn to.


George James McIlraith: There has been a question on the order paper for ten days. I will try to make sure that an answer is obtained as quickly as possible and give it to the right hon. gentleman. When the estimate relating to this subject is before the committee, at the time the main estimates are under consideration, the information can be provided in a full and detailed way. I do not think there is much more I can usefully add at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28e. Canadian government travel bureau, $90,000.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the advertising set out in this item in connection with the Canadian travel bureau is in a new area of endeavour or whether it is merely an additional expense in an existing area.


George James McIlraith: It is an additional expense in an existing area and it is for advertising campaigns in the United States, Britain and Europe to promote travel to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration, $70,000.
Erik Nielsen: I endeavoured to obtain some answers from the Minister of Transport to questions which were, at the moment I asked them, of such a technical nature that he informed me he could not reply. But I am sure

Supply-Transport
he has now had an opportunity to look into the matter which I raised, and perhaps now he will be able to reply in a more satisfactory fashion.
The minister will recall that I raised the matter of the construction of 500-foot towers south of Calgary international airport on the approachways to runways at that airport, and I termed them at that time a hazard to air navigation. We had an exchange which left me in some doubt-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could remind the hon. gentleman that the hon. member for Vancouver South put a question on the order paper which, of course, under the rules was the proper way to deal with this matter, and that this question was replied to long ago. The information is on record in Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, the minister informed me that if I did not put the question on the order paper he would have his hon. friend from Vancouver South direct it to him in the house. I have read the answer and I listened to the minister as he gave it, but it still falls far short of satisfying my concern for the safety of general aviation in the vicinity of Calgary airport.
The Department of Transport, through the press and by personal telegrams, has reiterated that these towers would not constitute in any way a danger to aviation using the international airport at Calgary. This is not true. The observations of the department as to the absence of danger apply only to traffic originating under instrument flight rules, traffic which comprises only one quarter of 1 per cent of the traffic using Calgary airport. The submission I make now concerns the attitude of the department in totally ignoring the danger which these towers will present to V.F.R. traffic which comprises 99J per cent of the total traffic going in and out of the airport. It is this traffic to which the towers will constitute a danger.
Any traffic which originates in the Lethbridge or Cowley areas can legally fly toward Calgary with a ceiling of 500 feet and a visibility of one mile. It is patently impossible to see an object such as a radio tower, and take the appropriate action, in the space of one mile if visibility is impaired, say, by showers or falling snow. I do not know whether the minister realizes this or not. He may or may not have flying experience under visual flight rules, but his deputy minister should have this knowledge. The situation becomes all the more dangerous in the Calgary airport where the department's minima for V.F.R. flights are conditions of 500 feet and three miles. The minister should bear in mind that these towers are to be 500 feet above surface level.

One of the procedures used in coming into Calgary, a procedure which most of the pilots flying single V.F.R. flights use, is going to be explained to the minister, now, in the hope that he will make submissions to his officials and, through them, to the C.B.C., that they should cease their determination to go ahead with the construction of these towers. If he is in the northern quadrant, a pilot reports to the Calgary tower at a place near Third Lake and then he comes in on the outer marker, if he is going to use runway 34, and takes a direct course from Third Lake to the outer marker. This course passes within 2,000 feet of the proposed towers and for the Department of Transport to claim that this situation poses no danger at all to V.F.R. aircraft is patently absurd. It is so dangerous for the Department of Transport to hold these views that I think it is almost impossible to arrive intelligently at the conclusion that the towers would create no danger to general aviation in the vicinity.
Calgary international airport has become an attractive airport of entry, if we may call it that, for visual flight rules traffic proceeding northwest to the Yukon, Alaska, and so on. A good deal of that traffic is increasing each year. Adding 500-foot towers on a recognized V.F.R. flyway into Calgary does in no way at all increase the attractiveness of the Calgary international airport for such traffic. It would in fact mean that in marginal weather pilots who were flying on V.F.R. routes would clear Lethbridge or go on to Edmonton, staying well east of Calgary.
We heard the former minister of transport speak about the operations at Penhold and the safety factors there, and we have heard the Minister of National Defence speak on this subject as well. Surely if they claim that general aviation safety is one of their prime concerns, the Minister of Transport should also take these factors into consideration. The minister, while he was holding the portfolio certainly, if not while he was not holding the portfolio, was made aware of a meeting which was held with his officials in Ottawa in November of 1963. This is commonly referred to as the "Hazards in air space meeting". Perhaps it was the minister in charge of the privy council, but I cannot recall. At that meeting it was understood and agreed by all groups representing general aviation that the grouping of radio and T.V. towers near any large city into one quadrant or area was a desirable philosophy.
This proposed C.B.C. tower in the vicinity of Calgary international airport violates the principle adopted at that meeting. The contention of the C.B.C. that the Shepard location is the only possible location for their transmission towers is absolute balderdash.

If the state of art of radio wave propagation in Canada is at such a level that the C.B.C. engineers are unable to design a transmitting system in that huge area lying south and west of runway 34 of the Calgary airport, which now contains only five towers, we are indeed suffering a drought of engineering talent, and I do not believe this is actually the case. I think the C.B.C. can find an alternate location which will not present a hazard to general aviation in the vicinity of Calgary international airport, and I think the minister should insist that the C.B.C. engineers look for an alternate location.
It might be argued that V.F.R. pilots will have to change their approaches to Calgary because of these towers. My contention is that this violates the principle that the overall system of controls of airways, regulations and the like, exists for the pilot, not that the pilot exists only for the system. Air line pilots have been reported as saying that these towers will present no hazard to aviation in the area; but I point out to the minister that these air line pilots constitute only a quarter of 1 per cent of the traffic that uses the airport. These V.F.R. pilots put forward a plea, which appears to be falling on deaf ears since not only in this regard is general aviation in the country being neglected but in many other areas as well.
I ask the minister, before this item passes, to give me his assurance that he will accede to the pleas of the several aviation organizations which I know have been in communication with him asking that these towers be relocated in the many, many acres of land available in the vicinity of Calgary international airport. The Alberta aviation council has made representations to the minister, as has the Canadian business aircraft association, the western division of the Canadian owners and pilots association, the international flying farmers, the royal Canadian flying clubs association, and others. Surely these associations that are well versed in aviation matters should be listened to and their recommendations should be considered by the minister in the most favourable light.
Rather than going ahead and insisting on the construction of these towers I think perhaps the minister would be well advised to sit down again with the engineers, or have his officials sit down with the engineers of the C.B.C. to see whether an alternate location cannot be found.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one more point to make to the minister before concluding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to hear that some hon. members on the other side of the cham-
Supply-Transport
ber are also interested in the safety of general aviation in the country. The other point I have to make concerns the slow dismantling which seems to be occurring with regard to radio aids to navigation in this country. I will pinpoint a few of them for the minister and I hope he will take into consideration the serious problem that it represents to the small aircraft operator in Canada-not the huge air lines flying D.C.8's and aircraft with all sorts of radar equipment-


An hon. Member:: And the D.C.9.


Erik Nielsen: -including the D.C.9's, but rather the small, charter operator who cannot afford expensive radar and radio equipment. The department is slowly dismantling the directional radio facilities in this country. I mentioned Kenora, Pagwa and Armstrong, which has not yet been dismantled but which is going to be changed. All these are now directional units which assist an aircraft operator in finding his way across the air highways of this country. They are being converted into non-directional units. For the small aircraft owner and operator to have the minimum radio aid equipment in his aircraft he has to lay out between $900 and $1,500, which gives him what we call A.D.F. and a radio compass. These radio aids to navigation are completely safe if they are directional, because if the radio compass in the aircraft fails, the pilot of an aircraft can determine his location and navigate on radio signals alone. But if the directional facility is not there and the radio compass fails, he is lost; he has had it. So that the value of these directional facilities to the pilot is very great indeed and I think the minister should stop now and reassess-


An hon. Member:: Mind you don't get lost.


Erik Nielsen: I know that a good many members on the opposite side would like to see me lose my radio compass, but I am afraid I check it before I crack off on every journey I make. I am extremely disappointed each time I fly across this country to find that another directional facility has been abandoned. I think it is a very sad state of affairs, because general aviation in the country is being made less safe. One of the hon. members opposite might one day find himself in an aircraft that has been chartered by himself or by another group, and he is going to be very sorry that these directional facilities were abandoned by the department. I think the government, and the minister particularly, should sit down and reassess this whole policy which seems to be implemented now. These directional facilities should not be abandoned; they are one of the few remaining aids to air navigation.

Supply-Transport
I did not quite hear what the intellectual member for Consolidated Mining and Smelting had to say. I wonder if he would stand up and say it. I would make this personal plea to the minister, as one who is very familiar with flying small aircraft in the country, and ask him to assure me that he will cause his officials-or perhaps he himself will take a personal interest in this matter-to see that these aids to navigation are retained. I realize that the big air lines do not need them any longer because of the improvements in radar and other aids to navigation, but the operators of small aircraft, whether they be private owners or small, charter operators, are still in great need of these facilities and the cost of their maintenance is well met if they save but one life in aircraft that are flying the air highways of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could reply immediately and very briefly to the hon. member, because I want to correct a mistake I made. I inadvertently referred to my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra as the hon. member for Vancouver South. Of course the minister for northern affairs is the hon. member for Vancouver South, but long ago these two constituencies were one riding, and even though they are now two constituencies their representatives were always on this side of the house.
I should also thank the hon. member for Yukon on behalf of the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Bow River for making speeches in connection with the airports in their constituencies; I am sure they will be grateful to him. I may say that the wealth of knowledge of the hon. gentleman is quite overwhelming to me, although I do not know about his directional guides. I would be quite incompetent to reply to him now, but I have taken careful note of both points which he made, and out of my great regard for the hon. gentleman's knowledge I assure him that I will see that the points he has made are very fully considered.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, this is the first item on this department and I should like to raise a question of great concern to me and to the city of Medicine Hat. I have on occasion during the past few weeks attempted to ask questions on orders of the day about this matter. Perhaps that was not the proper place, but I am happy to see both the present Minister of Transport and his immediate predecessor in the house tonight. The matter I wish to discuss concerns the southern prairie air run.
I have to go into a little history about this air run which is presently completely without

service. As long ago as November 1962 Trans-Canada Air Lines made application to the air transport board to suspend their air service or to be relieved from the obligation to provide a service on the southern prairie air run. The chambers of commerce and city councils of Regina, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and most of the other places concerned raised very serious objections to this at the time. As a result of the air transport board hearings- their findings and recommendations-in February 1963 Trans-Canada Air Lines was granted permission to withdraw from this service because it required the use of two piston engine aircraft, and they claimed they had now converted completely to turbines. Furthermore, TransAir was granted the right to provide this service, particularly from Regina to Swift Current to Medicine Hat to Calgary.
To make a long story short, when TransAir took over this run they were given something like $500,000 worth of equipment by T.C.A. Now, less than a year later, they have suspended the entire service from Regina to Calgary and I understand have reduced the service from Brandon, Dauphin and Yorkton to one flight a week. This is on a Thursday and it used to be a daily run.
Under the agreement between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir there was a transfer of two DC-3 aircraft plus one Viscount aircraft, plus a large amout of other equipment, all for the sum of $1, provided TransAir operated this service for three years. This service has not been provided.
I should like to ask the government what they are doing about getting back this $500,000 worth of equipment, or about demanding payment by TransAir for not fulfilling the terms of the agreement. All of these places I have mentioned are now without air line service of any kind. It happens that in the city of Medicine Hat the federal government is spending $600,000 to renovate one of the runways at the airport, and as I say there is no air line service being operated at the present time. Despite all the representations which have been made to Trans-Canada Air Lines and the air transport board, as well as to the Minister of Transport, no assurance has been given that even after this expenditure has been completed and the renovations concluded air line service will be resumed.
There is something very intriguing about this whole deal, because I know of no indication by Trans-Canada Air Lines that when TransAir applied for the run they would be given any equipment or any subsidy. It is grossly unfair to all of the other air carriers who applied with TransAir for this run in

November 1962. Many of the carriers had laid out some sort of schedule which they were prepared to follow provided the federal government gave them some kind of subsidy. But no subsidy was forthcoming and TransAir offered, according to the decision of the air transport board, the most acceptable kind of service. As I say, when they were granted this franchise, or whatever it should be called, to provide this service T.C.A. transferred to them these three aircraft plus other equipment worth $500,000. If there was some kind of agreement between TransAir and Trans-Canada Air Lines before that date- and I happen to be one who is very suspicious that this was the case-then the submissions made at the air transport board hearings in Regina are shown to be nothing more or less than farcical. Here is $500,000 given to TransAir, and none of the other companies which bid for this run were even aware of it.
Since TransAir has now abandoned this service we have asked Trans-Canada Air Lines if they are prepared to resume it, particularly into the city of Medicine Hat. I have before me a letter addressed to the mayor of the city of Medicine Hat from the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and it says this:
Thank you for your letter of February 18 in which you ask that serious consideration be given by T.C.A. to re-establishing its service to Medicine Hat as and when the airport is made suitable for Viscount operations.
To come to what I feel sure is the unwelcome truth at the outset, I can hold out no hope whatever that T.C.A. could resume service to Medicine Hat even if the related airport was made suitable for Viscount operation.
I do not want to read the whole letter, but further on Mr. McGregor says this:
I will not pretend to you that the service represented to T.C.A. anything but a net loss, due to paucity of traffic, but we would have been prepared to continue with cross-subsidization as we do in several other cases, if we had been put in a position where we could use Viscount aircraft.
This is exactly what is taking place in so far as the $600,000 expenditure to extend the runway is concerned. Then, he goes on:
However, now that our ground organization has been disbanded, and in every sense of the word our bridges burned, we could not give serious economic consideration to resuming service to one or more of the original "prairie run" stations.
I want to know if there was some kind of deal between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir, some kind of intrigue, before TransAir was given the right to operate this run so that Trans-Canada Air Lines could get out from under it. It is obvious from the answers we have been getting lately that this was a convenient way for Trans-Canada Air Lines to turn over this operation to TransAir and give them $500,000 worth of equipment so that Trans-Canada Air Lines could 20220-1304
Supply-Transport
get out from under, knowing full well that TransAir was going to let go a little later.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the application of TransAir for this run and the kind of service that they intend to give was completely ridiculous, unless something had been promised to them in addition to what was made known at the hearing. We know that there was $500,000 worth of aircraft and equipment transferred. I want to know from the minister what the government intends to do about getting this equipment back from TransAir or making TransAir pay for it. Clause 13 of the agreement between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir reads as follows:
If TransAir fails to commence the said operations pursuant to clause 12 hereof, TransAir undertakes to pay as liquidated damages to T.C.A. the sum of $500,000 or at the option of TransAir shall return to T.C.A. all the equipment already delivered to TransAir by T.C.A.-
Then, paragraph (b) of that clause reads as follows:
If TransAir commences operation of the aforesaid services pursuant to clause 12 hereof and thereafter discontinues such operation within three years of the said commencement of operations, TransAir undertakes to pay to T.C.A. that proportion of $500,000 which the period from the date of such discontinuance to the date three years after the commencement of operations bears to three years, or at the option of TransAir shall return to T.C.A. such equipment delivered to TransAir by T.C.A. hereunder-
As I said, Mr. Chairman, this area now has no air service. TransAir has a half million dollars worth of government property. This company operated the service for less than one year, and the agreement says they shall return the equipment or pay for it unless they operate the service for three years. I should like the Minister of Transport to tell me now what he is going to do about it. I do not want to be given the same excuse he gave earlier today to the hon. member for Mackenzie, namely that this is a deal between T.C.A. and TransAir and that he should not interfere.
I know that the present Minister of Transport did not enter into the deal or endorse the deal between TransAir and T.C.A., and neither did the government because it was entered into on February 16, 1963 before the government took office. I am not blaming him for entering into the deal. In fact, I am not even too critical of the previous government for entering into this deal because this represents subsidization of one kind or another. However, I am critical of the fact this company has disbanded the service, has violated the terms of the contract, and I think there is a definite obligation on the part of the government to see that TransAir either pays for the equipment or returns it.

Supply-Transport
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the responsiblity of the present government to see that some kind of air service is re-established for these cities. I have written a rather extensive memorandum to the Minister of Transport outlining how a reasonably satisfactory air service could be re-established for the city of Medicine Hat with very little, if any, cost to Trans-Canada Air Lines. The city of Medicine Hat has forwarded to the Minister of Transport a brief outlining how this important service could be provided. The method would be to require T.C.A. to extend the run they now make daily from Calgary to Lethbridge to include Medicine Hat in the circuit. This would not require any more air crew or any more aircraft. It would require about 45 minutes additional flying time, plus one landing and one take-off. It happens that this flight takes off from Calgary and goes to Lethbridge, and could be extended to include Medicine Hat and then go back to Calgary in time to meet the transcontinental runs in both directions. This would provide desirable service for both freight and passengers. There are a lot of cut flowers and other greenhouse products that could be hauled from Medicine Hat if connections were made with the transcontinental runs.
TransAir, in my opinion, deliberately established schedules which nobody would use. During the first part of their operation they had something like three or four passengers per flight on an aircraft that would hold 26. I am not saying this would be profitable business. They changed their flight plan after they had been in operation for three months, specifically on July 14, 1963, and after that the passenger load was reduced to less than one passenger per flight. The reason is very simple. Their flight arrived in Calgary in the morning at 9.50 a.m. and the flight going to Toronto was at 4.45 in the afternoon. The flight going to Vancouver is a little earlier in the day. You even had to wait in Calgary for some time to get a flight to Edmonton. As I have said, this appears to be a deliberate attempt to discourage traffic so the company would be justified in abandoning the run. I suggest it is time we made them pay up or give back the equipment.
I do not want to take a lot more time in the committee, but this is a serious matter for the whole southern prairie, which is without any kind of satisfactory air line service. The hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Dauphin have told me recently that the service on their lines has been reduced to one flight per week. This is not a kind of service we expected to get when the franchise was transferred to TransAir. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Min-
[Mr. Olson.l
ister of Transport to use his influence to insist that T.C.A. re-establish some service into Medicine Hat on the basis of extending the Calgary-Lethbridge circuit. I think this would provide a satisfactory service and I believe it would generate business both in freight and in passengers. This service might even be profitable, rather than costing Trans-Canada Air Lines any money. I am not going to pursue the matter any further tonight, but I am going to insist, because of these suspicious circumstances, that TransAir be required to live up to the agreement. Since they have now abandoned the line, they have either to pay for the equipment or return it.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I am prompted to say a few words, and they will be very few because I happen to be a man of brevity. I am prompted because I am in receipt, as I am sure the Minister of Transport is, of a resolution passed unanimously by the legislative assembly of Prince Edward Island. I am directing my remarks to what might be called the general item. The resolution of the legislature of my province calls upon the government of Canada to take immediate action to fulfil its commitments, its promises, to provide, with a top rate priority, a car ferry as promised 13 months ago in many arenas of discussion, and to move forward too on the causeway.
It is not for me on these items to make comparisons between the present government and the former government, nor to recall that on the question of the causeway no less a person than the prime minister of the day committed the government and the country unequivocally to giving us that which we had long desired, a continuous communication link with the mainland. Nor shall I point out that since the present government has taken office we have been left in silence, so far as these important commitments are concerned, except for the occasional press release from the Solicitor General, who does not have administrative responsibility either for the causeway or the ferry.
In my desire to expedite these items and reserving my right to speak at length and with feeling when the main estimates come before us, I will say only that I hope the Minister of Transport, who in his halcyon days as a member of the opposition when there were no Liberals from Prince Edward Island was regarded as somewhat of a spokesman for our province, and expressed great interest in the causeway and the ferry, will bear in mind the resolution of the Prince Edward Island legislature which was endorsed as strongly by his political associates as by the members supporting the government of the great premier of that province, Hon. Walter Shaw.

I want to be brief but I hope to be allowed to make a few comments in a general way. I will almost promise not to say anything further on the items before us because like a good Presbyterian I go to bed early too, particularly on a Friday night. I was gratified when one of the minister's predecessors corrected an error which we in the Atlantic region had felt keenly for a long time. It involved the matter of the Trans-Canada Air Lines terminal. For years visitors from Europe and the United Kingdom have landed in Canada at Montreal, toured the great west and Ontario and Quebec but never found the time to come to the maritimes. Under one of the minister's predecessors, a member of the government which I had the honour to support for six years, it was arranged that there should be a terminal at Halifax and flights were arranged to arrive at Halifax. Although I am not given to extended silence, I was shocked beyond speech when I discovered that various departments of the present government, in their advertising in the United Kingdom describing the beauties and glories of our wonderful country, have ignored the Atlantic provinces completely.
It is not for me on a specific item such as this to compare the treatment which the Atlantic provinces receive from the present government with that received from the government which I had the honour to support, but I would ask the minister to note that T.C.A. does land in Halifax and that people from other parts of the world will find much beauty and charm and much worthwhile activity in visiting all four of our provinces by the sea. I think the minister is sort of an adopted member for one of them.
I should like to say too that in recent months the great railway hub of the Atlantic provinces, Moncton, has had a new terminal spring up, and I wish that the minister would ask Canadian National Railways to look into the matter of this terminal. Someone in the other place has called it a monstrosity. It may be a monstrosity but it is also one of the smallest I have ever seen. It is an insult to the people of the Atlantic provinces who, willy-nilly, must regard the city of Moncton as one of the great transportation depots in our area. There are more people coming through on one given train than the new station can accommodate, as far as seating capacity is concerned. I will not go into how far they must go to find a place to sit down. However, with the minister's erstwhile interest in our province and the maritimes generally I would ask him to look into the facilities we have in the C.N.R. depot to service that great area, "The Bend", as it was once called.
Supply-Transport
I pass quickly to the subject which has concerned Prince Edward Island parliamentarians of both parties. I may say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we have been very mature in Prince Edward Island. We have only had two parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your day is coming.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But all through the years we have been tremendously concerned about that vital link between ourselves and the mainland. I am still young enough to remember vividly the promises a year ago of immediate action on a car ferry linking us with the mainland, but now I find as a result of questions by my colleague, the other member for Queens, and myself, that the icebreaker is in a sort of deep freeze as far as plans are concerned for providing us with this vital link. I would ask the genial and occasionally hotheaded minister to do what he can to thaw out that deep freeze.
There are many other things I could say about the question of transportation to our province. I could say how fed up we in Prince Edward Island are with having the C.N.R. deficit on the car ferry operation charged against Prince Edward Island, whereas we all know that years ago it was transferred to an item in the consolidated revenue fund. I could tell the minister how concerned we were about the rumours, not so insubstantial, about an increase in rates on both of our ferries and the attitude of the present government and the reaction thereto. I am not given to partisanship but I must say that the government has engaged in another revision at which it is such an expert.
I would ask for the consideration of the minister as a man who used to be interested. As a matter of fact, I will not say he is not interested. I am not so partisan as to say that the hon. member, formerly from Ontario, for a long time from Manitoba and now from Newfoundland, is not interested in our problems but I would say to him that when he deals with the problems of Prince Edward Island and comes to the question of transportation he is dealing with something much more than a political matter. He is dealing with something that is vital to us and of a constitutional priority at least as great as any of those matters which his Prime Minister has mentioned in his various discussions about priorities in the constitutional scheme of things.
It was the great problem when we reluctantly entered confederation. We applauded the efforts of his predecessors in providing us with some of the most up to date and speedy ferries we have ever had. We applauded the action of the leader of the government I supported in stating in the house

Supply-Transport
unequivocally that we would get a permanent link. Our people are disturbed, upset, querulous and wondering about the lack of a concise statement on this matter. I have invited the minister, I have invited the Minister of Public Works, I have invited the Prime Minister, but we have not yet received a statement. I hope that we shall.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in reference to port facilities on Hudson bay at Fort Churchill. Over the years the western farmers have been asking for larger port facilities and bigger terminals in order to ship their grain through Fort Churchill. Last year, more than ever before, the Hudson bay route association, farm organizations and other people sought strenuously for consideration to be given to this very serious problem.
Just recently the Hudson bay association passed a resolution requesting that these port facilities be enlarged, as all the prospects indicate another big year for the export shipment of grain from the three prairie provinces.
The excuse has always been used that the port facilities there are not large enough to handle more than 20 million bushels of grain a year, and if that be the case I want the minister to give serious consideration to building other terminals, these so-called inland terminals. Not so long ago I had a chat with one of the grain commissioners, and he informed me that if grain could go out to these port facilities clean, like for instance in Vancouver, shipments through this port could be increased by 100 per cent. If that is the case in Vancouver, then certainly inland terminals could serve the same purpose in this case, and grain shipments from Hudson bay could be increased many times.
I bring this to the minister's attention because I understand the national harbours board comes under his jurisdiction. In that connection I ask the minister, does the harbours board have to have authority from him, or the department, to have the port facilities, elevators or terminal facilities built, or must the minister seek the money for such projects in the estimates of his own department? I am very much interested in this question because I was given to understand, the first time I had a question on the order paper about it, that the harbours board did have authority to build these things without their having to be approved by the department. That is all I have to say, and I do not intend to hold up the discussion any longer.


Mr. Clancy:: I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as I too am interested in the prairie

milk run. Since Medicine Hat seems so ungrateful about it, I ask the minister to transfer that $600,000 to Yorkton and, if he does, I will meet him at the front steps every morning and escort him into the house.
At Yorkton our service is down to one plane a week because our airport is substandard. It will not take a Viscount except on an emergency landing, but we would like to see the prairie milk run kept in operation, and to do that we need facilities.
There is another question I wish to ask the minister. Why are the fees for hangar and the the apron rental per foot the same for commercial companies or commercial flying clubs in Regina as they are in Yorkton? Regina has a first class airport while Yorkton has not, but the department charges the same rental per foot for the Yorkton Flying Enterprises as it charges for similar companies in Regina.


Stanley James Korchinski: I also would like to say a few words on this question of the TransAir-T.C.A. agreement which was signed recently, and which was intended to provide service for three years. I am happy the hon. member for Medicine Hat has taken the time to explain the details of the agreement, and I may say I am somewhat familiar with that run because this is the nearest airport to my riding. I have used it on numerous occasions travelling to and from Ottawa.
When TransAir first took it over they had a run which was operated previously by T.C.A. and that provided plane service every day. However, shortly after that TransAir decided that for three days a week the planes would go in one direction and on another three days they go in the return direction. That immediately resulted in a loss of traffic.
This morning, as I pointed out to the Minister of Transport, I expected he would look into this quite serious problem. I told him I expected a report from him. I hope he will provide us with it because now TransAir has decided not to go into the city of Regina. I dare say one of the reasons is loss of passenger traffic, but how can passenger traffic be maintained if no one knows the schedules? TransAir does not even bother to print schedules. They run off mimeographed copies because the schedules change almost every other week. That is the reason passengers are not using the service and I understand that very shortly TransAir will provide service on only one day a week.
I do not know how long this is intended to go on, but I think this is just one of TransAir's ways of getting out of their agreement, and they hope no one will look into the problem. I think the agreement was signed in all sincerity, but if there was something

underhanded about it, or it was made for some other purpose, then the minister should investigate it.
Recently the minister went to Saskatchewan and in the city of Saskatoon indicated that the rail line abandonment problem is well in hand. I know legislation will be brought down dealing with this matter, but I notice that after July 1 the railways will be allowed once more to make application for an increase in rates. I do not know the magic surrounding that date, but it may have something to do with a by-election. It seems to me that here is a magic date which will serve to pacify the people, to throw farmers off their guard, into believing service will be provided and that there will be no loss of railways lines.
Those who have been interested because their lines have been designated for abandonment have set up committees and have been working. Now, because of the minister's statement, they will perhaps sit back, feeling secure. If the hon. gentleman is making these statements because of what is happening in Saskachewan, or will happen on April 22; if he is making those statements because of a by-election which will be held there, I say he is doing a disservice to those people. If a line is to be abandoned it is his responsibility to deal frankly with those people who will be affected. I am sure they will be willing to co-operate wherever this seems the proper course to take. But to expect them to throw down their guard is to do them a disservice if lines are to be abandoned.


Edward Nasserden: I have very few words to say tonight. First, I should like to remind the Minister of Transport of the matter I brought up on a previous occasion. This has to do with whether or not the government is developing a policy with regard to increased assistance to promote local civic air strips across the country.
The other matter which has engaged my attention arises out of the development which has been taking place on the railroads whereby trains today are much longer than they used to be in days gone by. In many cases, crossings close to towns, villages and cities are closed due to the length of freight trains today. Sometimes they have upwards of 200 cars, and this causes a bottleneck in local transportation on streets and highways. I wonder if the minister and the government are giving any attention to an accelerated program to provide for overpasses and underpasses in this regard.
I was glad to see the hon. gentleman appointed to his present portfolio because I believe he has that sense of history which was mentioned by the hon. member for
Supply-Transport
Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) in regard to the constitutional aspect in this country. I refer, of course, to the guarantees which were given to western Canada in the Crowsnest pass rates years ago, an integral part of the charter to that part of the country from the parliament of Canada. I was pleased to hear the assurance the minister has given to people in western Canada that there will not be the measure of abandonment of rail lines which the applications presently before the board of transport commissioners would indicate. I am one of those who believe that if you take a look at the history of both the historic parties in this parliament there is room for a policy which will alleviate the situation which appears on the surface, when you take a look at the applications which are before the transport commissioners today.
Like the hon. member for Mackenzie, I hope and I believe that the minister is sincere in the representations he has made-that he is sincere in those things he has said in western Canada regarding rail line abandonment. Without saying anything further I should like to hope that the government will give consideration to introducing the other policies I have mentioned here tonight, because I believe they are very urgently needed at this particular time.


Mr. Pugh:: A few short words. Over the last six or seven years the Kelowna airport has grown. The government has been most helpful but there is one small point of urgency at the present time. That is the completion of the installation of the lighting to the north and south end of the field. The reason for urgency is that Canadian Pacific Airlines which flies into that airport is now using Convairs. They are changing over to DC-6s, and the changeover is to be made next fall at a season when darkness comes earlier in the evening. The schedule may have to be curtailed unless the installation of these lights has been completed by then. I would ask the minister to look into this, as I know he will, and expedite the matter.


Mr. More:: I only want to say a word. Last year I saised the question of the milk run with the former minister. If I remember correctly-he is here and can correct me-he said at that time that in regard to the milk run it was being examined and they hoped there could be a realignment of service which could give good service and the service could be continued.
Subsequently, of course, we all know what happened. The minister was good enough to provide me with the order in council and the agreement which was reached. I think it was reached in good faith. I do not accept the insinuations of the hon. member for Medicine

Supply-Transport
Hat. I talked to T.C.A. and the other party-involved. T.C.A. had a problem with regard to servicing and they said it was a good deal for them, and therefore perhaps for the government of Canada. I think it was accepted on that basis. I do not place a value on the equipment which was turned over-$500,000 or $600,000. It was never offered to anybody else, and it is an arbitrary figure. It could be a million dollars for that matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is the exact amount stipulated in the contract.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I say it is an arbitrary figure and no one can give me a basis for arriving at it. The equipment was never offered to anybody else. I do not have any axe to grind and I do not represent any former carrier, but I do say that the result of what has happened seems to me to be that TransAir has come out of this, abandoning a service which it was under an obligation to provide altogether for three years, realigning the schedule if that could be done. They are going to end up with the profitable part of the run-Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert. They have abandoned the service to Medicine Hat and I am concerned that they should have ended up in a position where they have reaped a profit during the length of time they operated the run, to the detriment of the other air service which was interested in having it.
I think this is wrong and I believe the government should see to it that T.C.A., the government party to the agreement, one might say, should perform or pay. I believe this is only right. I have heard of the company's big losses but only last week I saw a statement in the press that TransAir had increased its profit on its total operation this year. It was not very large, but the amount of which I am speaking was part of it.
Traffic from the Yorkton area is naturally orientated toward Regina, but the TransAir service has orientated it to Winnipeg, now, and I do not think that should be so. I do not think it right that a Saskatchewan community, naturally orientated to the capital city of that province, should, by reason of the air service provided, be encouraged to orientate toward Winnipeg. I object to this and I am concerned about it as are the chamber of commerce and the people of Regina.
I ask the minister to see to it that TransAir should perform or pay, and that the arrangement is fair to everybody. I hope the examination which the minister said was taking place, and the ideas he had about continuing the air service to the prairies, can be worked out and that we shall have some kind of air service. I think it is too bad. I understand that the present service of TransAir, which they said was reorientated, was to

connect with the jet service from Winnipeg, eastward. You took it and got in an hour after the service had left. This is something that came with the railways trying to get out of the passenger service for a time. Thank God the C.N.R. seems to be staying in and trying to provide better service and schedules now. I appreciate there being an agreement. I think it discloses everything and I do not have any suspicions in that regard. But I do say that because of what has happened since, it is up to the government to see that the terms of that agreement are carried out by the parties to it.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would be right to have the item carried without my saying a word about some of the points that have been raised. Since this is the last item on which there could possibly be a general debate, perhaps it is safe for me to do this. Most of the points that have been raised on this particular item are appropriate for the supplementary estimates and not for the main estimates; therefore I shall try to deal very briefly with them.
The hon. member for Mackenzie asked me today about the contract between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir, and in his supplementary question he did remind me that the contract had to be confirmed by order in council. For that reason I would assume that the government would have some responsibility in the matter. Whatever responsibility the government has, I can assure hon. members it will be discharged; and, as I said earlier today, I will ask T.C.A. to give me a report at once on this matter and anything and everything I can properly disclose to the house will be disclosed. I am very much concerned about this matter, as I think everyone is who has lived in a part of the country that has enjoyed air service and then finds it curtailed. There is a very great deal of concern about the curtailment of service on the prairies and I hope that some solution can be found to provide a decent service to these communities. The matter is one, of course, that the government directly cannot settle. Parliament has put this matter in the hands of the air transport board and it would be quite impossible for the government or myself to attempt to do it directly. But I think hon. members do know that whatever time I can possibly find from urgent, day to day duties, I am devoting to a consideration of over-all air policy. One of the biggest elements in that policy is to provide a proper system whereby regional carriers can serve those communities which bigger and more expensive aircraft

cannot reach. There is a need for feeder service in these areas and to provide local services. I am very anxious that we strike a proper balance between regional services, main line services and international services. I do not think we have it at present, and assuming we do it right, the sooner it can be done, the better. I am trying to do this just as diligently as I can.
I noted what the hon. member for Yorkton said about the character of the airport there and about the rents. I will make some inquiries about those matters and let him know about them. I have had information brought to my attention already, and I am glad the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary repeated it, about the airport at Kelowna. Even this week I happened to see someone from Kelowna who spoke to me about it. I am having that matter looked into. I noticed what the hon. member for Regina City and other hon. members said with regard to the subject about which I have already spoken. With regard to the subject raised by the hon. member for Rosthern, namely the civic airstrip policy, I will attempt to do something about that when my main estimates are before the house on another occasion.
A number of hon. members have raised the railway question and I should like to say three things in this connection. First of all, so far as the Crowsnest rates are concerned, they are not going to be touched, period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as rail line abandonment is concerned, it was the previous government, as I have said four or five times already in the house, that asked both railways to indicate to the board of transport commissioners every line they had any thought of abandoning. The C.N.R. has done that; I do not believe the C.P.R. has. It may be to the detriment of the C.N.R. that they did it, because it has created a great deal of quite unnecessary apprehension. It is perfectly obvious that many of these lines, and perhaps most of them, and may be for quite a long time all of them, are not going to be abandoned. In any event, the notice of the legislation that was given by my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council last December indicated that we were going to set up a railway rationalization authority to consider this matter and that a fund was going to be set up. It would not be right for me to go into the details now, but the fund is for a purpose, and the purpose is to see that lines are not abandoned that are needed for economic and social grounds merely because those particular lines cannot necessarily pay. That is the position. That does not say there will not be some rail line abandonment, and I do
Supply-Transport
not believe there is any member from the prairies who would say that every mile of railway that is now there should be there forever. But as 1 have indicated four or five times before, the position of this government is that the needs of the people should be served and, above all, the needs of the farmers and of the wheat growers shall be put in first place and the question of balance sheets of the railways in second place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will be just as true in the second part of 1964 as in the first half; it will be just as true in 1965 as in 1964; and it will be just as true in 1966 and 1967 also. With regard to railway rates, hon. members will recall that I also said something about this earlier today in answering a question, and I was rather surprised that it was raised in the way it was by the hon. member for Mackenzie, who is generally very fair about these things. I expressed satisfaction that the railway association-that is, the two railways -had voluntarily agreed to extend for another three months the suspension of the increase in rates which was granted to them by the board of transport commissioners. This additional three months will give us that much more time to deal with this problem. I hope that in these next three months-and, of course, in regard to one of them ten days have already been expended-this House of Commons will see fit to deal with that legislation and to deal with it conclusively.
I finally come to this matter. Well not finally but penultimately I come to my hon. friend from Tisdale. I take the third part of his constituency because it is the part 1 like best, the reason being that the name came from Norfolk county. The hon. member for Tisdale will be interested to know that last Saturday I was in Churchill and I was enjoying myself much more than I have been today. The weather was fine; there was a south wind blowing; it was about 40 degrees. I examined the terminal facilities; I looked at the airport, and I also went to see the Eskimos, who incidentally are going to the provincial schools there. I believe that with good organization even more grain can be shipped out of Churchill in the coming season than was shipped out in the last season, which was the best season that Churchill ever had.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, and I am sure everybody else on the prairies, can be reassured when I confess that I was one of the original supporters of the "On-to-the-bay association", at a time when most hon. members on the other side of the house were not yet born.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my interest in travel around Hudson bay; at least it is historical.
I now come to my honourable, genial and constitutional friend from Prince Edward Island, the junior member for Queens, who looks younger than ever. I may say I am surprised that the junior and alert member for Queens missed the speech I made in North Sydney the other day when I said the causeway would be built, period. And it will. The ferry will also be built. In fact, it would have been built a lot faster if the senior member for Queens had been able to prod his colleagues a little more successfully than he was able to when they were on this side of the house. The trouble was that there were no Liberal voices in those days from Prince Edward Island to prod the government and we had to wait for a change of government to get this thing started. But it is going to go, and it is going to go pretty fast.
I think that deals with all those points which have been raised, except those matters of broad policy that I will be glad to make a long and tiresome speech about on the main estimates, if we ever reach them.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to be more than two minutes. I want to say to the minister that his promise to raise with T.C.A. the matter of the contract made with TransAir and which was not fulfilled by TransAir, and the failure to take the ordinary precautions which any good business management would have taken to see that the other party to a contract fulfils the contract, has left most of us with a good deal of concern. It is not my intention to keep the committee tonight. I want the minister to be on notice, however, that we think this is a very strange piece of business which T.C.A., the very efficient management of which we have heard so much about, permitted to be transacted. After all T.C.A. made an agreement with TransAir by which in effect T.C.A. subsidized a private company by giving them equipment worth $500,000. A condition of that agreement was that TransAir would carry on the "milk run" through western Canada for three years. TransAir fulfilled their part of the contract for less than one year. T.C.A. may not have been very worried about that contract; after all, they got out of what they thought was a pretty poor deal, and that is all they were worried about. But the people who worked on this aircraft in Winnipeg are very concerned. The people who are not getting any air service are very concerned. Those of us who think that $500,000 is a pretty large sum of money and that TransAir should pay the money back or return the equipment are also very concerned.

All I wish to do tonight is to put the minister on notice that when his estimates come up in the regular way-and I am sure they will -he is in for a good long, hard discussion. The minister might pass on to the president of T.C.A. the promise of members on this side of the house that the first time he gets before the proper parliamentary committee he will have to explain in considerable detail what happened to this $500,000 before he gets back to his fancy office in Montreal to run his regular business.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, it will take me not two minutes to say to the minister that I am glad he has now accepted some responsibility for seeing to it that an investigation is made into the T.C.A.-TransAir agreement. If he will also assume some responsibility to require Trans-Canada Air Lines-or Air Canada as it is now called-to carry out its obligations to provide air services in Canada, a responsibility which was given to that company by their charter and the initiating legislation, and so on, a comprehensive air service including regional and feeder lines as well as the main transcontinental runs, then I will be satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
B5e. Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment-to extend the purposes of vote 65 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the vessels detailed in these estimates, $1.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the committee but I should like to ask the minister a question regarding the extra amount for the Wood Islands and Caribou services. I presume this is for the new ferry which will come into service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the president of the council has the information.


John Angus MacLean: While the Minister of Transport's colleague is looking up this information, may I say that I realize the Minister of Transport is new in his portfolio and therefore I do not want to go into the matter in detail. However, when he becomes a little more familiar with the history of his department I think he will find that over the years both parties when in power have had a fairly good and consistent record as far as the transportation facilities to Prince Edward Island are concerned. If he will look at the situation completely fairly, perhaps by chance or by the circumstances prevailing at the time I think Conservative governments have contributed more by way of vessels. However, I am not going to go into that point at this time.

During the term of office of the last government the minister will find that there were two new ferries built on Prince Edward Island, one for each service. Also initial steps were taken in the construction of a third, the one we are looking forward to coming into service as soon as possible. I know this will be a large vessel, the design of which will take a considerable time, but I should like to make one suggestion. I understand that modern dayliners cannot be carried on the present ferries; I believe trials were held in this regard. I should like to see a new ferry built which will accommodate modern dayliners, because this would provide a fast passenger service to Prince Edward Island which, if it would not pay for it, would at least reduce the deficit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
230e. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, $540,000.
Thomas Miller Bell: I want to ask a question of the minister. I am not sure I will get the information but at least the question will serve to prove that I have been patiently sitting here for the last 16 days. The minister knows I have been asking questions about this matter before. Without any preamble, I should like to ask if he has any more information about when a decision will be made as to a possible increase in tolls on the seaway. The minister knows what effect this will have on the maritimes and other areas. We hear reports every day from the United States to the effect that the senate is against tolls. I think it is important that some indication be given from time to time of our thoughts on this subject. When will the matter be brought forward? When will a decision be made, and what are we thinking about this important matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under the statutes, of course, there has to be a review before July 1 of this year. Discussions are going on at the present moment between the St. Lawrence corporation of the United States and the seaway authority on this matter. I hope to be able to report quite soon on the subject, but I cannot at the moment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Supposing an organization wished to present a brief outlining their views on the effects of an increase in tolls, will they be able to do this, or will the minister make an interim report before the details are announced?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think any interested party could make representations at any time to the seaway authority. I believe however
Ways and Means
it is contemplated that, in certain circumstances, there would be public hearings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, the sum of $143,702,715, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllrailh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-89, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1964.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time, now?


An hon. Member:: By leave.


George James McIlraith: the second reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this bill is read the second time, there is just a brief word I should like to say. I say it with the best of good will and I say it expressing the concern of all members in the House of Commons. I merely want to express the hope that we do not soon again get into the kind of situation that we have had recently. It is not my purpose to assess blame, other than to say I think there is blame all around, and that includes all of us.


An hon. Member:: Let us get on with the business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This kind of situation can be avoided if this type of legislation is not delayed until the last minute but is introduced in sufficient time for the house to be able to deal with it. None of us knows when the next supplementary estimates will be laid before the house. However, all of us know that at the end of next month the government will require interim supply. I plead with the government now that it not leave the next interim supply bill to the end of May, but that they introduce it not later than May 15

Ways and Means
so that we can give proper attention to these Mr. Macquarrie: Since hope springs eternal, matters without feeling that a gun is being I have always a built-in solicitude for the put to our heads.	other place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I simply cannot allow the hon. gentleman's remarks to pass. The legislation we are now considering was brought before this house on March 13 which, according to the best information I am able to get, is the earliest date before the end of the fiscal year this has happened in the last ten years. Interim supply was also announced for consideration on that same day and was brought forward at the earliest possible moment thereafter.
Whatever disposition the house may have made of it, the record should not be distorted to suggest that the initiation of this matter was not early enough. I am not going to prolong the debate, but I have some really remarkable quotations from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre concerning the length of time we ought to take in dealing with supplementary estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My name has been brought into the discussion, and I was not going to say a word except to express my disappointment that the subject has been raised at all at this stage. We were getting on rather famously and co-operating as we used to do. I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport has recovered some of the good humour which he used to display when he was house leader. However, this is not a subject under discussion at this time and I suggest we get on with the business.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I wonder if any member of the government might be able to indicate to us when the other chamber will be able to deal with this measure which we have dealt with so expeditiously and in such a statesmanlike manner?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could do that when we get into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Although perhaps it is not strictly in order, I ought to try to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). I was informed by the government leader in the other place that they had adjourned subject to recall on 24 hours' notice. I do not imagine, however, they will be sitting either tomorrow or Sunday. However, it would appear they are prepared to deal with this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose it is the same old story, but the Minister of Transport having said he could not allow the remarks I made to pass, I must return the compliment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It always happens.


An hon. Member:: Some compliment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Transport drew the attention of the house to the fact that debate on these supplementary estimates began on the 13th of March. That is correct. The inference was that this left plenty of time for them. May I remind him that between that date and the time when the house was expected to recess for Easter there remained only nine sitting days including the Thursday before Good Friday, but the government chose to have the house devote four of those days to discussion of the budget. I suggest it is this kind of thing that put us into the box we got into, and I think a little better planning another time would be a good idea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can have the last word.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is not the
intention of the government in the time remaining to proceed with the other item of business that was suggested for this evening, but since the house has been in such a good and co-operative mood I wonder whether with unanimous consent the house would like to pass the motion to set up the special committee on defence so that it could get to work at once.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the former house leader has reverted to his old and bad practices. I wonder whether he would announce to us the business for next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can announce, of course, what the government would like to do and I only hope that we will have the kind of co-operation we have had in the last hour in getting it done. 1 think it would not only impress ourselves but it might even impress the country. I suggest that on Monday and Tuesday we complete the budget debate, and I think the regular house leader will indicate on Monday evening what the further business will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of previous announcements made by the regular house leader, can we not take it for granted that
Business of the House
the next item will be the Canada pension plan?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would imagine that would be so, and I would hope that on Wednesday there will be more time for government business than there has been on some Wednesdays so far this session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:

[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.
Water resources branch-
55e. Administration, operation and maintenance, $25,000.
Northern administration branch-
95e. Welfare and industrial divisions-Construe-tion or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $57,000.
106e. Yukon Territory-Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council during the 1963-64 and 1964-65 fiscal years in respect of expenditures incurred for the Dawson city festival, $225,000.
llOe. Northwest territories and other field services-Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $30,000.

[Stage Direction]
5e. Operations, $79,800.
lOe. Transportation-Movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, $1,287,000.
PRIVY COUNCIL Privy council office-
5e. General administration, $29,800.
Prime Minister's residence-* lOe. Maintenance operation, $2,800.
Special-
39e. Expenses of commission under Part I of the the Inquiries Act to inquire and report upon certain prairie farm assistance administrative matters, $12,000.
41e. Expenses of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service, $42,400.
43e. Expenses of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, $275,850.
44e. Expenses of the royal commission on government organization, $11,200.
B-Economic council of Canada-
65e. Administration, $165,000.
Public printing and stationery- lOe. Distribution of official documents, $15,000.

[Stage Direction]
Public buildings construction and services-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, but the amount within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased, subject to the approval of treasury board-
5e. Newfoundland, $1. lOe. Nova Scotia, $1.
20e. New Brunswick, $1.
35e. Ontario (other than Ottawa), $1.
75e. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds-To extend the purposes of vote 75 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the W. Clifford Clark Memorial centre in Ottawa, $1.
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, but the amount within the vote to be expended on the individually listed projects may be increased or decreased, subject to the approval of treasury board- 90e. Newfoundland, $1.
95e. Nova Scotia, $1.
105e. New Brunswick, $1. llOe. Quebec, $1.
115e. Ontario, $1.
132e. Payment to Canadian Vickers Limited of a subsidy in respect of a dry dock in Montreal, Quebec, in accordance with the Dry Dock Subsidies Act (chapter 91, R.S.), as though it were a dry dock of the first class described by section 7 (a) of the act, $1.
Development engineering services-
169e. Payments in respect of winter maintenance of the Haines cut-off road, northwest highway system, $120,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
(Responsibility transferred to Minister of National Revenue) -
206e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pursuant to section 35 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1963 to December 31, 1963 for housing research and community planning as contemplated by Part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,084,353.
207e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to section 5(5) and section 24(b) of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, for net losses resulting from the sale of mortgages from its portfolio during the calendar years 1962 and 1963, $966,265.
208e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for losses sustained by it during the calendar year 1963 as a result of the operation of federal-provincial projects undertaken under section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,390,294.
209e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for amounts loaned under section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, to municipalities and municipal sewerage corporations, and forgiven by the corporation during the calendar year 1963, pursuant to section 36G of the act, $5,798,706.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administrationle. Departmental administration-To amend the terms of vote 1 of the main estimates for 196364 by substituting the expression "International coffee organization" for the expression "coffee study group", $1.
lOe. Trade commissioner service-Construction or acquisition of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings, $54,000.
15e. Exhibitions branch, $30,000.
17e. Canadian government participation in the universal and international exhibition, Montreal,

1967-To amend vote 786 of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1951 by deleting the words "to be called the Associate Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce" and substituting the words "commissioner general for the Canadian government participation, 1967 exhibition", and to amend vote 692 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958 by deleting the expression "$16,500" and substituting the expression "$23,000" therefor and to provide a further amount of, $50,000.
28e. Canadian government travel bureau, $90,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Northern administration branch-
L35e. To increase to $800,000 the amount that may be charged at any one time to the Eskimo loan fund, established by vote 546 of the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, as amended; additional amount required, $200,000.
Northern Canada power commission-
L40e. Advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with subsection (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $1,427,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation- (Responsibility transferred to Minister of National Revenue) -
L51e. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection (4) of section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing and land development projects, undertaken jointly with the governments of provinces during the calendar year 1963, $8,000,000.
L52e. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection 2 of section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of loans to municipalities and municipal sewerage corporations, for construction or expansion of municipal sewage treatment projects during the calendar year 1963, $33,500,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
L61e. To extend the purposes of the account mentioned in vote 481 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1959, to provide for working capital advances to departmental field offices in Canada as well as to posts and employees on posting abroad and to increase to $700,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to that special account; additional amount required, $350,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Railway and steamship services-
L64e. Advances to the lakehead harbour commissioners, on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to defray the cost of construction of trackage and related work at the lakehead harbour, $500,000.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
L75e. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $13,000,000.
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-*
le. Departmental administration, $70,000.
Marine serviceslOe. Aids to navigation-Administration, operation and maintenance, $130,000.
35e. St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers ship channels-Construction or acquisition ol buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,768,000.
40e. Canadian coast guard-Administration, operation and maintenance, $700,000.
50e. Marine regulations including pilotage and marine reporting services-Administration, operation and maintenance, $20,000.
52e. Payments to the province of Newfoundland arising out of agreements between the province and the St. John's harbour and pilotage commission prior to the act of union, $8,500.
Railway and steamship services-
60e. Newfoundland coastal services-Construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment and harbour facilities, $105,000.
65e. Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 65 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the vessels detailed in these estimates, $1.
72e. Payment to the government of the province of Prince Edward Island in accordance with an agreement entered into with that government by the Minister of Transport, with the approval of the governor in council, providing for the demolition and removal by or on behalf of the province of the bridge over the Hillsborough river referred to in the said agreement, $4,900.
77e. Bell island-Fortugal cove, Newfoundland, ferry service-Repairs and improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland, $8,000.
87e. Canadian National Railways deficit, 1963- Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1963, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, $43,013,517.
lOOe. Maritime Freight Rates Act-Payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1963, $795,000.
107e. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company, in accordance with an agreement entered into with the approval of the governor in council, providing for the termination of the collection of tolls on the Victoria jubilee bridge, Montreal, $390,000.
108e. Payment to the Canadian National Railway Company of interest on the amount of $11,752,504.37 being the cost and expenses of construction of the rail diversion on the Victoria jubilee bridge,
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Montreal Including modification of the alternative bridge to carry rail as well as highway traffic, pursuant to order in council P.C. 1963-572 of April 11, 1963. as amended by order in council P.C. 1963-1140 of July 3, 1963, estimated at $2,816,000. Pensions and other benefits-
125e. Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunications services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $13,500.
Air services-
Telecommunications and electronics branch-
193e. Payment of the difference between revenues and expenses arising from the operation and maintenance by the Canadian National Railway Company of the northwest communication system from Whitehorse to Mayo and Dawson city in the Yukon Territory via intermediate points; the amount not to exceed $95,000 per year for five years, $69,700.
General-
203e. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $129,900.
B-Air transport board-
205e. Salaries and other expenses-To extend the purposes of vote 205 of the main estimates
for 1963-64 to include the expenses of the conference of aeronautical authorities held in Ottawa in July, 1963, $6,783.
207e. Subventions for air carriers as detailed in the estimates, $2,862.
C-Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada- 214e. Further payments in respect of the period from the 30th day of April, 1962, to the 31st day of March, 1963, to companies as defined in the Freight Rates Reduction Act in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as payments made pursuant to that act in previous fiscal years, $14,800.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
220e. Steamship subventions for coastal services as detailed in the estimates, $929,171.
F-St. Lawrence seaway authority-
230e. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, $540,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Depart jnentle. Departmental administration, $3,000.
5e. Companies and corporations branch, $7,100. lOe. Trade marks office, $5,000.
15e. Translation bureau, $31,400.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 13, 1964