1964-09-18

Mr. Speaker:: May I ask leave to table the following documents: (a) extract from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on Monday, September 14, 1964, authorizing salary revisions for employees of the House of Commons in certain classifications; and (b) extract from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on Thursday, September 17, 1964, relating to annual leave for the staff of the House of Commons, both regular full time and sessional.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, would it be in keeping with our practice to have these documents made appendices to today's Votes and Proceedings? Perhaps Your Honour knows whether or not this has been done in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested to me that while it is not customary to make this an appendix to Hansard-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggested Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: -we could, if it was the wish of the house, include it in Votes and Proceedings. Does the house so agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: May I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to convey on behalf of all members of the house, I would hope, on this occasion our felicitations and congratulations to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I can do better than convey to him the traditional wish of many happy returns, with an abundance of health and happiness. There is certainly no 20220-517
doubt whatever, Mr. Speaker, about his health, and I can only think of one thing that might make him happier. It is a source of continuing regret on my part that I am not able to co-operate more wholly in his achievement of that objective.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nevertheless, on this day there are no party differences between us, and I am sure we all join in wishing him the very best in the days and weeks and months ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate the members of this party with the remarks which have been made by the Prime Minister. We would like to extend to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition our best wishes for many happy returns of this day. We trust that his health will continue to permit him to serve his party and his country; that he will have many more years in which to keep the government on its toes and to make the very excellent contribution which he can make to the public life of this country.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition is fortunate in his good health; it can be said of him, as it was said of one of old, that his eye has not dimmed nor his natural force abated. He is still in good health, and we hope that for many years to come he will be able to continue his public service to the people of Canada whom he has served with such distinction in the past.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure that we in the Social Credit party associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other groups in the house in conveying our very sincere wishes on the birthday anniversary that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is today celebrating. We likewise wish him much happiness and good health. We are certainly mindful of the fact that as he enters his seventieth year time is something that none of us can hold back, and as the years approach for all of us we are specially mindful of these birthdays that come around. Thus we offer him

Inquiries of the Ministry our very best wishes. I would say to him, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have any more gifts to offer him than those I have already given him during the past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to add the voice of my own group to that of the others in wishing the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) a happy birthday, good health and many happy returns.
May Divine Providence keep him with his family, first, and then with his party for a long time to come, for he is a perfect gentleman and it is a real pleasure for us to have him as Leader of the Opposition.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply touched by the gracious and kindly words of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Charlevoix. I am particularly impressed, as always, by this spirit of friendship in the House of Commons that transcends all partisan considerations. I say to one and all, touched as I am by what they have said, that I hope to be here for a long time. I was also particularly appreciative of the fact that the Prime Minister promised co-operation in the days ahead as in the past.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's)
presented the second report of the special committee on a Canadian flag, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the
approach of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to inform the house as to the general program, and in particular whether any consideration has been given to the suggestion I made the other day that the Queen

address both houses of parliament. I know this would be an unusual course to follow, but when one considers the importance of this visit which celebrates the one hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the meetings which led to confederation I am sure this gesture on her part would be gratefully appreciated by her loyal Canadian subjects.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the details of the program will be made public within a day or two. The details of the Prince Edward Island and Quebec program have, I believe, already been made public, and one reason for the delay in completing the details of the other part of her visit is to give consideration to the suggestion made by my right hon. friend for the Queen to address parliament during the one day she is in Ottawa.
This may not be possible, Mr. Speaker, though I will reserve the final announcement on the matter until next week; but I can assure my right hon. friend and members of the house that in any event arrangements will be made for the Queen to meet members of parliament while in Ottawa.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the letter which appeared in yesterday's edition of the London Times written by Mr. Campbell Stewart, a well known Canadian, been drawn to the Prime Minister's attention, in which Mr. Stewart suggests that Her Majesty's visit should be cancelled in view of the general atmosphere; and would the Prime Minister care to make a comment in respect of this communication?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on the letter which I have not seen, though I have read a report on it in the newspapers.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforf-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated that when Her Majesty the Queen is in Ottawa members will be given an opportunity to meet her. To look our best and not so tired out, would the Prime Minister not consider a two weeks' holiday before this event takes place?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister had an answer and you did not give him a chance to make it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to say the question is of such urgent and immediate importance that I should give the most careful consideration to it before answering.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet made any decision regarding the request I made on Monday for an independent investigation into the charges of unnecessary brutality on the part of R.C.A.F. guards in dealing with peace demonstrators at La Macaza?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have asked for a report on the whole matter, which is now on my desk. Having just returned to Ottawa I have not had an opportunity to read that report, but I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the minister of defence and I propose to talk to him about it again when I have studied the report. Then I will be in a position to announce whether any further steps should be taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to press statements in which at least five or six of the persons who took part in that demonstration have given statements to the press which would indicate that in their opinions there was unnecessary harshness in dealing with these demonstrators? If these charges are true it would seem that some type of independent investigation is called for.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not had a chance to see those press reports but I am sure they will be included, Mr. Speaker, in the documentation which I am going to study during the day. I assure my hon. friend that I am as anxious as he is to correct any mistreatment that may have occurred. I would deplore as much as he would any action of the kind charged, but I have to satisfy myself before taking any further steps that the charges are justified, and I propose to make a very strict examination of all the evidence on that point.
20220-517i
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the minister's expressed belief in the efficacy of prayer with regard to weather, and his urging members to pray for rain recently, does the minister accept any responsibility for the heavy rains that prevented the Prime Minister from giving his prepared speech at the ceremony held in connection with the ratification of the Columbia river treaty?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that it was said at that ceremony that that was the same water we were selling to the United States.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether it is true that the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, has offered money to the federal government to make up the deficit for 1964? [Text]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. I am wondering whether the minister's attention has been drawn to a resolution adopted earlier this week by the maritime provinces boards of trade that an eastern feed grain agency be established by the government similar in concept to the Canadian wheat board, and will the minister give urgent attention to this forward looking resolution?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not as yet been drawn to this resolution, but this problem is before the committee on agriculture and we expect a report some time before Christmas.
8166	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



NUMBER OF INFORMATION OFFICERS TO BE ENGAGED BY DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, I believe so. I would like to check, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that is the right answer.']
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. A week ago today the minister denied in an answer to a question I asked that his department would be hiring 35 information officers, and he agreed to make a statement on Monday. To the best of my knowledge he has not made this statement, and I am wondering whether he would care to make it now.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the past week either the hon. member who asked this question or myself have been outside the house, and I am glad today to be able to take this occasion to correct a misunderstanding which appears to have arisen regarding the information staffs of the Department of Industry and the Department of Defence Production.
As I have indicated previously on a number of occasions, the Department of Industry looks to the Department of Defence Production for the provision of the majority of its supporting services. This includes the information service which relates to the preparation of pamphlets, the editing of reports and the dissemination of booklets prepared within the Department of Industry. The information division of the Department of Defence Production serves both departments, industry and defence production.
At the present time the information division of the Department of Defence Production, serving both departments, has eight information officers, three technical administrative staff and five clerical and typing employees. Four more information officers have been appointed and will report for duty shortly. There are, however, no plans to augment the present staff further in the next few months. We will only add to staff as need becomes evident and, of course, within the approved establishment.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the
[Mr. Sauve.l

views expressed by a distinguished American visitor, Mr. Livingston Merchant, in favour of a multilateral nuclear force for NATO, would the Prime Minister reassure the house of the Canadian government's unchanged opposition to this plan, and on a suitable occasion make a statement on the government's position and its reasons for opposition so there will be an occasion for comment or debate in the house on this highly important matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government in this matter remains as set out by me in the house on June 7, 1963 when I said, as found on page 790 of Hansard:
-I do not think that it will be likely that we would wish to add to our existing responsibilities and commitments by participating in this kind of multilateral nuclear force.
There has been no change in that position.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Has the administration of the United States at any time in recent weeks pressed Canada to follow the suggestion made by Mr. Merchant in the gratuitous advice that he gave to Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no approach made to me, or to my knowledge to any member of the government. At the moment I can only speak for myself, but there has been no approach of any kind on this matter by the United States government.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister does not think that in addition to stating merely that Canada does not want to add to its commitments, some statement as to why Canada does not think this would be a particularly useful addition to the forces of NATO might be made to the house and through the house to the public.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to take this into consideration, Mr. Speaker. It might be a useful thing to do. I think it is also fair to point out that Mr. Merchant, who is not a member of the United States administration at the present time, was speaking as a private individual and to a non-official conference of the Atlantic treaty association.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I deal with a question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam when he asked me last week and again this week, I believe, to clarify the contracting out arrangements as they will apply during the interim period to programs of a primarily social character such as hospital insurance, old age pensions, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances and so on. I should like to confirm what I said last week in a tentative answer, that the present provisions of these joint programs will be maintained in all respects throughout the duration of the interim arrangement.
The hon. member also asked what amounts of money were involved in these major programs. Only the province of Quebec has so far indicated that it wishes to enter into contracting out arrangements. On the basis of the estimated federal contributions for the current fiscal year, the amount of money that would be transferred to finance the programs listed in category B in my letter of August 15 will be some $209 million in the case of Quebec. I do not know as yet what position the other provinces will take in this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question to the one answered by the Prime Minister in respect of the opting out provisions, I am sure hon. members will be pleased to have the Prime Minister's assurance with reference to the maintenance of reciprocity and uniformity up to the end of the present agreement. Does transfer of payments also apply only to the term of the present agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I believe so. I would like to check, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that is the right answer.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I posed a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I wonder if she has a reply ready today.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked a question with respect to the licensing of private airplane pilots who possess monocular vision. I am advised by my department that the physical standards for civil pilots are set up by the Department of Transport and that these follow closely the international civil aviation organization standards and recommended practices for personnel licensing.
In these standards pilots are required to have vision in both eyes. However, there are some applicants who have vision in only one eye, as a result of which we are asking advice from the defence research board panel on visual problems, which I understand has such an item on the agenda for its meeting in Toronto on November 7. We understand the defence research board is working in close co-operation with the R.C.A.F. institute of aviation medicine.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that prospective Canadian citizens are required to swear an oath of allegiance involving the Bible and the phrase "so help me God", and in view of the fact that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has requested the Department of Justice to consider affirmation as an alternative to swearing the oath, will the minister indicate when he expects to render a decision on this matter?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say right now when I will be able to make a decision on the matter, but I shall be giving my attention to it so that it may be disposed of as soon as possible.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat on September 10, as recorded at page 7828 of Hansard, asked the Secretary of State about the


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: As a supplementary question, did the parliamentary secretary ascertain that the allocation the C.B.C. has now come up with is in keeping and in compliance with the formula he is going to table?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this is accurate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question either to the parliamentary secretary or to the Prime Minister, can we be informed whether the half hours of last Sunday and Monday enjoyed by two of the party leaders are part of this allocation, or are they in addition thereto?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I shall ascertain what the view of the C.B.C. is in relation to those particular broadcasts.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the 60 days have now expired during which applications were to be received in connection with the disposal of the Kitsilano property, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether any proposal has been received from the city of Vancouver.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The mayor of Vancouver has sent a telegram indicating that the city has a proposal for the setting aside of a downtown site for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Vancouver to be put together, I understand, under the urban renewal scheme. He has asked the Prime Minister whether it would be possible for representatives of the city council to come to Ottawa to discuss details of this particular scheme. A reply has been sent to the mayor of Vancouver inviting him down at the earliest possible moment.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production.
Could he tell us whether the representatives of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and the municipal council of St. Hyacinthe have reached an agreement on the purchase of the federal buildings which have become surplus in that city?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that particular case, but I will have an investigation carried out.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.

In view of the fact that we are rapidly approaching the hurricane season on Canada's east coast, which increases the hazards for all maritime fishermen, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether immediate consideration is being given to changing the regulations governing the duties of our Canadian coastguard, so that our Canadian fishermen can expect to be towed to the nearest port by the coastguard if they become disabled on the high seas?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into that matter and discuss it with the Minister of Transport, whom I shall be seeing tomorrow.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Can he inform the house whether the negotiations respecting the Eskimos are still going on between the federal government and the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there have been no recent negotiations or contacts made, either by myself or by my officials.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of a report in Wednesday's Winnipeg Free Press, arising out of the alleged beating of an Indian child, in which it is said that the zone superintendent of the Indian northern health service in Winnipeg declared that homes are not investigated before Indian children are placed in them because there is no authority for such investigation. Will the minister have this looked into, and see if such investigations cannot in fact be made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I was most distressed and surprised to hear
Inquiries of the Ministry of the report, and I have already asked my department for a full report on why an investigation did not take place.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in both his capacities as minister and member for his constituency. In view of the fact that the 15th of this month was the deadline for purchase or acceptance of higher rentals in the Fraserview veterans housing project, can he tell us whether non-acceptance means eviction, and whether such orders are now going through?


Arthur Laing: This, of course, is a matter concerning Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does not come under my jurisdiction. I have read the statement made by the leader of the group who says they have no intention of paying the increase. This concerns a small number of people within the area-120 or so, I think-but I would not care to predict at this time what action C.M.H.C. may take in the circumstances.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. May I ask the acting postmaster general or the parliamentary secretary, in view of the fact that this minister has some responsibility for C.M.H.C., whether any orders have gone out for the eviction of veterans who had not signed agreements by the 15th of this month. [Translation]


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as the Postmaster General is not here today, I will consider the question of the hon. member as notice, in order that an answer be given to him early next week.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, may I answer a question put to me by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau)?

Inquiries of the Ministry
A few days ago the hon. member asked me whether the national capital commission had changed its policy in connection with the transfer of buildings to the city of Ottawa.
There is no change of policy. The only change to take place recently concerns fees for easements.
It is true that recently the city of Ottawa was billed for $100 because from now on a $25 minimum is required.
However, there may be additional amounts added to this minimum because of technical surveys, legal research, travel and other administrative costs.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I know the concern the hon. gentleman has for the promotion of industry in this country, and I should like to ask him this. Now that we know that in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan no tax is imposed on production machinery, will he approach the Minister of Finance in an effort to have this tax withdrawn so that Canadian companies may be competitive?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to discuss the desirability of that suggestion with my colleague the Minister of Finance. I would, however, point out to the hon. member for Peterborough the remarkable success in expanding the manufacturing industry which has been experienced in the past year.



DISPOSITION OF OFFICE FURNITURE OF FIRST WOMAN MEMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, most sentimental in nature and affecting the members of this house, I think. It was some months ago that the Minister of Public Works did me the courtesy of placing in storage the original furniture of the first woman to sit in the House of Commons, namely Miss Agnes MacPhail. It was my understanding that everything was moving satisfactorily until the member who presently represents that riding stuck his oar in; and

I should like to know, as a result of the confusion he confounded, whether the Minister of Public Works can now tell us what has been the disposition of the furniture of the first woman to sit in this House of Commons.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The last time I heard of this was a month or two ago, but I think the leader of the New Democratic party will remember that I contacted him and told him that because of the sentimental value attached to this furniture we were ready to dispose of it, and we were charging him to see that it was disposed of in the best interests of those concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister tell us to whom he said that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I might say that the first request was received from the hon. member who has brought up the matter today.
A little later we had another request from another hon. gentleman, and I thought in the circumstances the best thing to do was to dispose of the matter through the leader of the New Democratic party. At that time, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Vancouver East was not here; otherwise I would surely have told him about it. I intend to inquire on Monday about this matter, because I thought it had been disposed of and that everybody was satisfied. I see today that this is not the case, so I will have a second look at it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works, and ask him whether my request to him was not almost identical to that of the hon. member who raised this question, inasmuch as my request was that these particular items should be given to the museum in the county of Grey, in which my predecessor lived, for the purpose of preserving them for posterity. I did not in any way confuse the issue. If it was confused, it was confused by one or both of the other two hon. gentlemen who dealt with this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member had not stuck in his oar the museum would have had this furniture two months ago.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have to agree that both requests were made with the same objective in mind.

Supply-Northern Affairs Mr. Winkler: Would the minister say, then, nection were provided. In the light of the that the last statement by the hon. member minister's answers in this regard, Mr. Chair-for Vancouver East is entirely false?	man, perhaps I may ask some more questions.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will let the hon. member deal directly with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES National parks-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including wildlife resources conservation and development, administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and payments to land owners who maintain migratory bird habitat in accordance with agreements entered into on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, payment to the national battlefields commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec and grants as detailed in the estimates, $11,485,600.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister how far his department has progressed with the development of service centres in the Banff national park and other national parks adjacent to the trans-Canada highway. We know this program is being developed, and I think we can expect from the minister a progress report in this regard. In addition I would ask the minister what are the future plans for general access to Jasper national park and the provision of service centres in regard to it. As traffic develops, what provision has the government made for these service centres?
I would also ask the minister whether he can give us a forecast of developments with regard to connections with the Jasper-Banff highway, the Columbia icefields highway, from the east as an extension of the connections from central Alberta, from Red Deer and Rocky Mountain House. This is of particular interest to us in northern Alberta, because I suggest to the minister that many more people would visit the splendid facilities of Jasper national park and those adjacent areas that are so attractive to Canadian tourists-not necessarily only to foreign tourists-if we could establish a shorter circuit. Very many people have told me they would go to the mountain parks much more frequently if the round trip, Jasper, Lake Louise, Banff, around to Calgary, were not so long. It is too much for even the long week end. Therefore it would be so attractive if some central con-20220-518


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up too much time of the committee, but I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a matter to which I referred in debate on May 10, 1961, when the estimates of this department were taken up. My particular reference is to historic sites and to Fort Ellice in my constituency. Some 133 years ago a fort was built on the banks of the Assiniboine just five miles down from the junction with the Qu'Appelle river, and this fort served for 50 years as a stop-off between Winnipeg and Edmonton. Red River carts coming in for furs travelled from Winnipeg to Edmonton. It was a stop-off place; it was on a waterway between Winnipeg and Fort Ellice. It also served as an Indian trading post. Perhaps I may briefly mention that it had a trading post, a carpenter's shop, men's quarters, belfry, cottage, blacksmith's shop, chief factor's house, dairy, storehouses, warehouse and flagstaff. It was fully equipped to serve the area before it was opened to settlers from eastern Canada or Europe.
This site, which I consider to be an historic site, has been considered a number of times by the historic sites and monuments board of Canada. In 1936 the board considered it and for some reason or other decided to do nothing about it. In 1958 Monsignor A. d'Eschambault was instructed by the board "to study the situation especially in connection with the role played by Fort Ellice in supplying pemmican for the fur trade economy". I believe the board received a report in this connection. In 1960 the board considered Fort Ellice among ten other sites, and placed it in ninth position.
This is either an historic site or it is not. Placing Fort Ellice even in ninth place is an admission that it is an historic site, and nothing at all has been done about it in so far as the historic sites and monuments board is concerned.
However, Mr. Chairman, the people of that area have tried to do something to preserve their past. This fort is only a mile or so from the village of St. Lazare, which is settled by good Canadians of French ancestry. In 1930 St. Lazare and the municipality of Ellice erected a cairn just off the traces that are left of the stockade, and have developed a picnic ground thereon. I ask the minister to find another community in Canada that has on its own tried to preserve what we

Supply-Northern Affairs consider to be an historic site, and which the board has admitted to be an historic site by putting it in ninth place.
Just this year Fowillard Brothers, a firm of businessmen, of St. Lazare decided on their own to rebuild this fort at their own expense. I hope the minister is paying attention, Mr. Chairman. The material for the stockade is there. They intend to rebuild the warehouse and convert it into a museum. They have some 60 or 70 museum pieces already gathered in and around St. Lazare to put into this building.
These people are doing this on their own. As a matter of fact the property on which this fort is situated is registered in the name of Fowillard Brothers. However, they would be prepared to turn it over to the nation, and they are doing this rebuilding on their own without having received a broken nickel from this board which decided to place it ninth on the list. Perhaps the board is waiting until all traces of this fort have disappeared, but the local population is not going to let that happen.
I have visited the site. The area where the stockade was is still visible, as is the foundation of the big chimney and the stone foundations of various buildings that were on the site. I refer to the buildings I have already mentioned. There is a badly neglected cemetery there, one portion being where the Indian dead were buried and a portion where the whites were buried.
The minister's department finances the historic sites and monuments board of Canada, and according to vote 15 some $840,000 has been allotted for this purpose. When we come to vote 15 I should like the minister to tell us to which historic sites this money is allotted, and whether we can expect some consideration in this regard if for no other reason than the fact that the local people and businessmen are anxious to preserve this site for posterity. This site in west central Manitoba is just as important, I feel, as any other historic site in Canada.
With these few remarks I would close by saying I hope the minister will give this matter some consideration, if not in the 1964-65 estimates then at some future time. I have old pictures of the fort which I could show the minister. I could show him the remains of what is left. If the minister were to see those sunken graves he would find just pieces of boards marking the spots. He would not even be able to read the names of the dead buried there. Instead of continuing to neglect and ignore our past and to spend

money on other parts of Canada, I contend that Fort Ellice, which played such an important part in the fur trade of central Manitoba, deserves careful consideration by the minister.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to delay the deliberations of the committee. I have informed the minister that I do wish to draw a certain matter to his attention, but first and foremost may I say that I think the brief exchange which took place this morning during the question period is quite relevant to this particular item.
I regret that the exchange regarding my predecessor, Miss Agnes MacPhail, took place because we all know the contribution she made on behalf of the women in Canada so far as parliament is concerned. I am sure we are all aware of the era which she opened up for representation in this house of the fair sex. We in the constituency of Grey-Bruce are proud in that she made such a valuable contribution here and such a deep impression on the country and, generally speaking, on many other countries of the world.
The hon. member for Vancouver East implied that somehow or other I had confounded the issue when in fact my efforts were directed only to assisting that which he himself thought was necessary. Granted he fell upon the situation as it existed, and if there is some kudos here I am perfectly willing to allow him to have every bit of it. On the other hand, inasmuch as he might not have known at that time that there was a county museum in the city of Owen Sound, I felt that this would be the proper place for these items of furniture to be preserved for prosterity in honour of the lady referred to, and I make no apologies at all for that which I did, which was merely to assist and to see that these items were placed in the proper hands.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member permit a question. I do not want to get into any fight about this, but did he not receive the information that in the weeks which followed the steps to preserve this furniture which belonged to Agnes MacPhail, the first woman member of the House of Commons, an arrangement was made between, shall I say, the Liberal party and the council that it should be handed over for the purpose of being placed in the museum? That was the understanding, and if I had the opportunity I could bring down from my office all the files on this matter which would show that

the decision that the furniture should go to the museum had been absolutely agreed upon.
However, after that agreement had been reached something happened, and that something was you yourself, sir, coming into the picture. Did you not know that agreement had been reached?


Eric Alfred Winkler: As I said in the course of the question period, that is entirely false. I wrote one letter to the minister which would support the views which have now been expressed. As far as I am concerned I saw nothing of an arrangement. However, I did discover that it was the hon. member himself who first noticed the fact that this furniture might be disposed of, and I am sure on investigation he would find that my letter in support of his action was written long before a determination was made by the government and any other interested parties.
If that does not satisfy him he must then investigate further, and I am sure he will find that what I am saying is the truth and that he was endeavouring to make something wrong out of the effort which I have put in. If that transpires to be the case then I think a successful conclusion will have been reached, and I extend nothing but my thanks to the hon. member and the ministry for having worked it out in this way. I do not wish to enter the question from the point of view of arguing it; if somebody else is using it for other purposes, then that is fine by me.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member permit one further question. There is no use carrying on this debate, so will he and I agree, kudos or no kudos, that this furniture goes to the museum?


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is absolutely agreed upon, and all I want to say is that I did not raise the question.
To proceed with my further point on these estimates, the matter I want to raise I have brought up on numerous occasions previously. At the outset may I say that in this matter I have the concurrence of the hon. member from the constituency of Bruce. It concerns the establishment of a national park in the province of Ontario in the area known as the Bruce peninsula. The reasons for the establishment of a park there are well known, as I have laid them out in detail prior to this occasion. The minister is well aware of the representations I have made. The question has been discussed with him in detail as well as several reports which were produced; and if he mentions this matter in his reply I would 20220-5184
Supply-Northern Affairs ask him not to allude to them because of the nature of the reports.
I mention this so the committee and the people of that area will know that with a considerable amount of effort I did at one time bring the government of Ontario and the government here at Ottawa together to consider this matter, and it was under serious consideration at the time of the 1963 election. It took me some time to bring these two levels of government together at that time, but roadblocks did exist to stay this proposition.
I would ask the minister to give us some information in this regard as soon as possible. I do not suggest that he do so within 60 days, but I certainly hope that in the course of this year, or perhaps early next year during the preparation of further estimates, in the interests of those facilities that should be maintained in national parks for the service of the metropolitan areas in southern Ontario which have easy access, and considering the number of tourists from both Canada and the United States who visit these areas each year, some even by boat, he would consider it most desirable to expedite the establishment of a national park in this area.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I should like to draw to the attention of the minister some of the representations that have been made over the years in reference to the attitude of the province of Alberta toward some of the national park areas in that province. First, several months ago the minister answered a question I asked on orders of the day and said he was going to bring forward a new statement of policy respecting the development particularly of tourist accommodation within the national parks. If I have missed having this policy drawn to my attention I am sorry, but so far I have not heard of it, I think there is some confusion, particularly in Banff national park and Jasper national park, regarding what will be allowed and what will not be allowed, and how much discretion certain officers of the department have in making decisions as to what is in fact going to be acceptable and what is not acceptable in this field of tourist accommodation development. I hope that policy will be announced fairly soon in order to clear the air in respect of this situation.
The other subject I should like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, is the application the province of Alberta has made to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources

Supply-Northern Affairs respecting Wood Buffalo park in northern Alberta. That park may not be well known, but the provincial legislature passed a resolution, I think unanimously, during its last session requesting the federal government to turn back this land area to provincial jurisdiction.
There are many good reasons for this, probably the most important of which is that the province of Alberta wants to proceed with some development of the natural resources existing within this very large park area. We must also take into consideration the fact that this area is at the extreme northern edge of Alberta, with a part of it extending into the Northwest Territories. It lies in an area that will never, or at least in the foreseeable future, attract large numbers of tourists because at the present time there is no road into this park of the kind tourists will travel. It lies in an area of Canada where the summer season is short. Circumstances are such that I feel safe in saying that for a long time this area will not be suitable for any kind of development which might attract great numbers of tourists.
I should like to point out that there are some very important and valuable deposits of minerals in this area that could be developed very profitably for the province of Alberta. I might say I appreciate the attitude of the department of northern affairs in its belief that the people of Canada want more rather than fewer national parks, and I agree with that feeling. It is so obvious that more and more people are travelling around the country making good use of national park facilities, particularly for camping and holidaying, that it hardly needs to be mentioned; but I do think that in pursuing this policy which, as I have said, is certainly desirable as far as I am concerned, the department ought to be directing its efforts toward developing more national parks in areas which lend themselves to the prospect of attracting tourists.
At the present time any potential development reasonably close to the trans-Canada highway ought to be given prior consideration, and I suggest to the minister that his department give some consideration to taking over what is known as the dinosaur park in southern Alberta. While I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the province or the government of Alberta in suggesting that the province might be willing to transfer this park area to the national parks board, I think perhaps the province of Alberta would be will-

ing to consider exchanging this area for the Wood Buffalo park in northern Alberta.
There are some unique features about this dinosaur park area which would make it far more suitable as a national park than as a provincial park. It is the only area that has been set aside anywhere in Canada with this kind of historical significance so far as fossils are concerned, and it has attracted the international attention of those people who are interested in the vertebrae remains of dinosaurs several million years old. There certainly is a great potential tourist attraction in this area, and it seems desirable that it be administered and developed by the national parks board. Perhaps I should also mention that this area is located only about 20 miles from the trans-Canada highway, so there is certainly no difficulty in respect of building access roads for the massive flow of tourists travelling across this country every summer.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I want to say at this time in an attempt to make known to the minister and Canadians generally that the province of Alberta does take the attitude that Wood Buffalo park should be turned back to the province, because it will not be developed for a number of years, and that there are other places in Alberta that the minister ought to consider in so far as developing additional park lands which Canadians generally seem to want.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to know that other members of this house are interested in Wood Buffalo park. The greater portion of this enormous land area, approximately 14,500 square miles, is situated in my own constituency of Athabasca. There has not been much publicity given to this park over the years, I suppose for the perfectly good reason that it is not and never will be a playground in the sense that Banff and Jasper parks are. However, this park is the home of a very large herd of plains buffalo which were put up there some years ago as a result of the farsightedness of some members of the federal government. These buffalo have flourished in this area, and it is a pity that they are so far off the beaten track they are practically unseen.
At this point I should like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that Elk Island park, just east of Edmonton, is also the home of a herd of buffalo, but does not receive the publicity it deserves. I suggest that more money be spent in advertising our buffalo herds, especially in Elk Island park. This area is in the constituency of the hon.

member for Edmonton East, and he asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the minister in order to speed up the passage of his estimates.
As early as 1958 I took it upon myself to look into the question of returning Wood Buffalo park to the province of Alberta. I am delighted to hear, though in a roundabout way from the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that the province of Alberta are taking a new look at their attitude with regard to cooperation in this matter, because in all the overtures I made in contacts with officials of the province on several occasions their attitude has always been all or nothing at all. They want the whole of Wood Buffalo park that lies within the province of Alberta turned back to the province without any consideration for the interests of the federal government in preserving Wood Buffalo park as a national playground and as a home for wildlife.
As hon. members probably know, the only flock of whooping cranes in the world nests every summer in Wood Buffalo park. Those who like to use wildlife as a complete argument in favour of the federal government retaining the whole of Wood Buffalo park will say that 14,500 square miles are needed for some 30 whooping cranes to nest. This, of course, is patently ridiculous. We do not even need that much land to pasture the two magnificent herds of buffalo. At the same time I think some of this area should be retained particularly for the wild woods buffalo, but it would be quite possible to turn back the major portion of Wood Buffalo park to the province.
There are vast mineral resources in this area. At the present time no commercialization whatsoever is allowed under the National Parks Act. I am inclined to agree with this as a general principle for our national parks; but if the size of Wood Buffalo park were decreased, which I think is sensible, we would not have to change the National Parks Act. It would then be possible to make an assessment of the mineral and other resources, once a large portion of the area was turned back to the province.
However, I want to say again that before the federal government can act in this matter I think it must have a very firm commitment from the province indicating that the provincial officials are at least willing to meet the federal government half way, so that a long view can be taken of the whole national parks problem for the purpose of arriving at some sensible adjustment. This
Supply-Northern Affairs can only be done, of course, by open and friendly discussion. The closed door attitude which I encountered in this regard over a period of five years achieved absolutely nothing. The former administration finally did get the door open by offering the provincial government a sizeable portion of Wood Buffalo park as a basis for entering into further discussions. However, the election unfortunately interfered with this matter, and I am not sure what the present situation is with regard to taking a new look at our national parks.
I think a great deal more can be done with respect to setting up national parks farther south. In my view the province should cooperate in some kind of land trade. It need not necessarily be acre for acre; in fact a much smaller area might be provided as a new home for the buffalo, perhaps in the Cypress hills or at Wainwright or at Red Deer. Instead of going up a blind alley by talking about whooping cranes, this might be a very fair exchange from the recreational point of view for people who would want to go to such a place for their summer holidays.
I think I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to Mr. Olsen, the superintendent of Wood Buffalo park, for his magnificent work in caring for both the plains buffalo and the wild woods buffalo which inhabit that region. In the last few years there has been some difficulty because of the ravages of anthrax, which could presumably destroy the whole of the buffalo herd if it were not kept under control. Mr. Olsen and his staff, with the co-operation of the health of animals branch, have been able to keep the disease under control. At the present time they are faced with the rather large and difficult task of inoculating these wild animals. I am quite sure that any expense to which we may be put to preserve these last two significant herds of buffalo will be well worth while, inasmuch as people for generations to come will be able to enjoy seeing these herds.
With regard to the question of accessibility to parks, I should like to urge the minister to use his influence with the other members of the government to make sure that when trans-Canada highway No. 2 is built, as it will be, it will go far enough north to link our magnificent northern parks all across Canada. I suggest that this might be pressed now as one of our national centennial projects. I should like to see trans-Canada highway No. 2 or confederation highway, as I prefer to call it, well on its way, if not completed, by 1967.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I suggest it should link Riding Mountain national park in Manitoba, Prince Albert national park in Saskatchewan and a new park in the Cold Lake area where there is a magnificent lake which is the equal of any other in Canada. I suggest that the highway should then bypass Edmonton to the north, proceed to Jasper park and perhaps fork somewhere in the Whitecourt area with one fork leading to the Alaska highway.
One difficulty that is encountered in setting up national parks in Canada is the temperature of the water in the lakes. With natural gas so readily available in northern Alberta it seems to me it would be a very easy thing to develop large outdoor swimming pools, heat them by natural gas jets and perhaps raise the temperature of the water by 20 degrees. The people who live on the prairies and visitors would then be able to take advantage of these beautiful northern parks for purposes of family swimming at temperatures which are not too cold.
I do not wish to delay the passage of the minister's estimates any longer. I hope he and his department can get together with the provincial authorities of Alberta and take a new look at the readjustment of the size of the parks and the permitting of commercial development. I think also some attention should be given to the creation of new parks farther south in order that we may have a complete chain of national parks serving our people.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a few words, not about Wood Buffalo park but with regard to one of the most popular parks in the country, Prince Edward Island national park, about which I have not noted a great deal in earlier statements emanating from the minister. I have been most impressed with the growth of this park and its use during the tenure of office of the minister's three predecessors. Tourism is the most rapidly expanding and most expandable industry in the province of Prince Edward Island, and the federal government is able to contribute mightily through its parks policy.
There are developments of late which have caused me some concern. The Prince Edward Island park is largely a beach park and is recreational because of the bathing facilities it provides and its very fine golf course. It used to have a program which drew appreciative comment from hundreds of thousands of visitors, and I have been alarmed to discover that this program has been abandoned under the present government. It was a re-

creational program, and for many years we had a fine recreational director there.
I have now found that the recreational hall is locked up, and on August 7 I wrote a letter to the minister to which I received no reply. This discourtesy to myself I do not mind, but I must protest on behalf of the people concerned. It is extremely important that the recreation program be not abandoned, but that it be developed. More and more tourists are coming to P.E.I. every year. Local tourist operators are providing more facilities, and there is never any trouble about accommodating visitors. But it behooves the park authorities to provide the best possible recreational program.
I would hope that some imaginative leadership might produce a little more development in the Rustico section of the park. It is an historic village, very old, and one of the unique fishing centres in the maritime provinces. I am also interested in what is happening in the Fort Amherst historic park, which was set up just a few years ago. Fort Amherst reflects not only the English regime but also the French regime, and I find it difficult to see significant or tangible marks of development in recent months. I would hope no opportunity will be missed to develop this park.
Another problem which I have discussed with the minister's predecessors is the enlargement of the present park by giving it greater width or breadth, whichever word is preferable. It is a long strip taking in a great deal of beach, but for many purposes greater depth is required. I believe the P.E.I. government was prepared to turn over land to the dominion government and the department in order to increase the width of the park and provide for greater development, but it is my understanding that this has not been accepted and I would like to know why.
I am also extremely anxious to know something about the second national park promised by the government some months ago, and I would like to know particularly where it is going to be established. Because I want to see the present session end some day before we begin another one, I shall terminate my remarks but certainly not my interest in this subject.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a plea with the minister of northern affairs on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, and in the interests of cabinet solidarity I at once declare that my plea is

entirely gratuitous and not based on any behind scenes arrangement with the minister. My plea is that the minister do something to rescue the Minister of Public Works from the dilemma in which the national parks administration has placed him in respect to the operations of the trans-Canada highway.
This highway runs through several major national parks in the west, and under existing arrangements the national parks administration levies a toll on vehicles entering national parks. This has forced the Minister of Public Works to depart from the concept of a national toll-free highway from coast to coast.
I myself have travelled this highway from Alberta across into B.C., and on the basis of an informal calculation I believe it is the most expensive piece of toll highway in the world, particularly that section in the eastern part of B.C. and the area adjacent to Banff national park. Toll costs amount to roughly $1 per hour of driving time. I have travelled on turnpike roads in the United States, and I know it is possible to travel on them for a whole day at modern highway speeds for less money than that.
I made reference to this matter when the estimates of the Department of Public Works were discussed last year, but inasmuch as the basic decision apparently lies within the jurisdiction of the minister of northern affairs I suggest to him that it is a matter which requires rectification in the interests of the comfort of his colleague, if for no other reason. As a matter of fact I made reference to this problem when speaking to the courteous young woman on duty at the park gates. 1 asked her why we had to pay a toll on the trans-Canada highway. She replied in a most adept manner and I pressed with a second question, whereupon she said "Why don't you take it up with the Prime Minister?" I was sorely tempted to identify myself as a member of parliament but I decided not to, and merely said that perhaps I would do just that.
This may not appear to be a weighty or serious matter. The levy is $2 per year, which entitles one to travel through any of the national parks in the country. Nevertheless it is a matter which should receive immediate and serious attention in the interests of those of us who use the trans-Canada highway for the purpose of travelling across Canada and not for the purpose of visiting national parks.
The minister knows I come from a part of B.C. that has scenic aspects exceeding anything to be found in Banff or any of the other parks in that region. If we in the coastal areas
Supply-Northern Affairs of B.C. want to enjoy scenery we have no reason to travel to Banff.


Mr. Byrne:: That is a matter of opinion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member for Kootenay East says that is a matter of opinion. I am not trying to decry the scenic beauties of the Kootenays, but before these estimates pass I hope the minister will give us some indication of what plans he has to deal with this question, and to return the trans-Canada highway to the purpose for which it was designed. This is a nuisance which is bound to increase as the volume of traffic using the trans-Canada highway grows, unless the tolls are removed.


Reynold Rapp: My remarks will be directed mainly to the subject of the Prince Albert national park. I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that during the summer a number of university undergraduates apply for employment on the golf courses and in other places. I know that a number of my constituents, as well as students from other areas, sometimes have difficulty in getting these jobs. The Waskesiu golf course is a great attraction not only to the people of Saskatchewan and neighbouring provinces, but also to a large number of tourists from the United States who visit it for a week or two on their way to lac la Ronge, particularly in the fall, to fish for trout.
Sympathetic consideration should be given to applications from students who wish to work on this course and, in addition, every effort should be made to provide adequate accommodation for visitors. I have heard tourists say they found great difficulty in getting proper accommodation. As the minister no doubt knows, a year or two ago the golfing fees at the Waskesiu course were increased. Later, as a result of complaints from tourists, they were reduced to the amount originally charged.
Many people have applied for posts as park wardens. It seems to me the qualifications required for these jobs are very stiff, and perhaps consideration could be given to making these qualifications less difficult to achieve than in the past. My main point, though, is that undergraduates who wish to obtain work during their vacations should be given a chance to do so. It is sometimes difficult and expensive for students to apply for jobs in other provinces far away from their homes. I think these circumstances should be taken into consideration. I am told that at lac la Ronge itself everything possible is being done

Supply-Northern Affairs to attract more tourists from the United States. This is obviously needed, because these people come thousands of miles and sometimes they find it difficult to obtain lodgings which offer them all the facilities they need to enjoy their holidays.
This is all I wish to say at the present time. I hope the minister will look into the questions I have raised. I would appreciate any action he can take in this regard.


Mr. Fane:: May I take the opportunity to make a few brief comments and ask a few questions of the minister at this time. My remarks all concern Elk Island national park, which lies wholly within my constituency of Vegreville. I suppose I should thank my hon. friend from Athabasca for putting in a plug for this area, one which I had intended to make. He has helped me that much. I do agree that a park such as Elk Island should receive more publicity, as he suggested. May I suggest to the minister that if I am not in my place when he rises to reply to this discussion he should answer my questions and put the answers on the record in full, because as the result of another engagement I shall probably be out of the house when he replies to the points raised in the debate.
The heading of this item, item 15, is "national parks, historic sites and monuments-administration, operation and maintenance of parks". This is the only place where Elk Island national park is mentioned. The estimates contain an item of estimated expenditure amounting to $326,200 to cover all those things I have mentioned and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that considering all the expenditures which are needed in the parks this amount will have to be spread out pretty thinly. It would look as though Elk Island national park is again becoming the Cinderella park of Canada as it was in 1958, when I came here. After a great deal of hard work-and I certainly bothered all the ministers-this Cinderella park of Canada reached a stage a year ago where that title was no longer applicable. I should like the minister to give us a breakdown, an itemized statement showing what expenditures within that park are included in this sum of $326,200. As I have just said, it will have to be spread pretty thinly; there will not be very many extras this year.
Elk Island national park has been through several phases. It began as a park set aside solely for buffalo. As time went on it became a recreation centre, and because of the extent of wildlife there-buffalo, elk, moose and deer-and also because of the severe winters

occurring from time to time, it became necessary to develop a farming phase so as to provide fodder to keep these animals alive throughout the winter. At one time the herd of buffalo in the park numbered between 1,200 and 1,500. I have no official information, but I have been told that excluding this year's calves the herd numbers fewer than 500 animals at the present time. I do not know how correct my information is, but assuming it is correct I think this is a very small number of buffalo to have in a park the size of Elk Island. The feed situation is always very good there, and I think that park should be able to pasture somewhere between 500 and 1,000 head all the time. I would like the minister to take note of this point, because I have been asked many times how many animals the government intends to keep there.
For quite some years there has been a project afoot in regard to building a museum in Elk Island park. This is something that I think should be continued. I worked very hard on this during the years when the party to which I belong formed the government, and I seemed to be getting somewhere. I just do not know where that item has been relegated to at the moment; sometimes it is rather difficult to find out.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is a small museum there. It is contained in a house of the original type that was built by the people from central Europe when they came to this country. It is very well preserved and well looked after, but it is very small and can house very few of the items that a museum should be able to house. In my opinion this project should be continued and carried to completion, because this area is very productive of museum pieces and there should be somewhere in which they could be housed. There would not be any trouble in getting somebody to look after a museum of that type.
There is also very great need for a large swimming pool close to the lake at Sandy beach. I know that a swimming pool is quite an extensive project, but we must have one because at times the water in the lake is not too good for swimming; there is a great deal of algae, leeches and things like that in the water, and it is just not satisfactory. Provision should be made for a large swimming pool there because most of the water that is available at the present time is not very satisfactory. Water could be provided through the purification system that was installed there in the last few years.

I have also been asked about a second golf course on the park. There is one nine hole course that I believe is very popular; it is supposed to be a very good course. I would not have the slightest idea what makes a good golf course, but many people who play there tell me it is very difficult to get a game on a holiday, Saturday or Sunday because the crowd which lines up to play is so large and is more than one nine hole course can handle. It has been suggested that another golf course of similar size be provide in order to give these facilities to a great many more people. I realize very well that extra things like that will certainly take away from the amount of land available on which to raise buffalo. However, Mr. Chairman, another nine hole golf course would not take up that much room and would not make very much difference. Again I would ask the minister to answer the questions I have raised when he deals with points which hon. members have put forward. I will not be in my seat when the minister replies, but I hope he will deal with these matters at that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak at length, but I wish to raise a few questions with respect to the administration of Mount Revelstoke park, at the request of a number of residents of Revelstoke including some well known members of the minister's own party. I raised these questions when the former minister was in office. I did get some information, but apparently a number of people consider there is justification for criticism of the administration of this park.
I might say that I do not know the superintendent and have never met him, but I have known the park area very well ever since I was a young man. The previous inquiries were directed to me by the residents of whom I spoke, and I put questions on the order paper. The residents were talking about the waste of public funds and so on, and I believe their contention was proven when as a result of questions that I asked I discovered that the superintendent's house cost $48,000. It has cost more since; repairs and alterations have been carried out on the house since that time. I would like the minister to inform the committee how many park superintendents' houses in Canada have cost $48,000 plus, and whether this is government policy in this respect; because it has been the cause of considerable criticism and I think justifiably so.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether it is the custom in the parks for the employees to cut the wood for the park super-
Supply-Northern Affairs intendent and put it in the woodshed. This was brought to my attention, and I asked questions about it. It was discovered that the wood was cut for the superintendent at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. The feeling apparently was that this poor park superintendent could not afford to buy his own fuel or anything like that, poor chap; so they cut the wood and put it in the woodshed. On one occasion his wife did not like fir and made them take it all out and put birch in the shed. I would ask the minister, is it customary for the taxpayers of Canada to supply the fuel for a park superintendent who lives within a quarter of a mile of a city?
I know a good many employees in this park, and I have been informed that they were set to work helping a contractor build houses while their salary was being paid by the government of Canada. This was proven to be correct; the answer was that there was some quid pro quo, or something of that sort; the park labour was donated and then the contractor did a bit of work for the government of Canada. But no figures were given in this respect.
I want to ask whether it is the policy of the park, and I have been informed that they at the expense of the government of Canada with respect to the building of houses and other works in parks. I also want to know how much free labour the government of Canada is supposed to provide with respect to looking after the gardens and lawns of the officials of our parks. If they do not get salaries sufficient to pay for such things like any ordinary citizen, then it may be justified. I also want to ask about salaries. I want to know what is the salary of the superintendent, what are his academic qualifications for the post, and what previous posts he has held. Also, what was his experience prior to being appointed superintendent of the park? I just ask these questions of behalf of these ladies and gentlemen so they can be published in the Revelstoke Review with the minister's reply.
I now come to the administration of the park. In recent years some quite expensive log cabins have been built on top of mount Revelstoke, and I have been informed by someone who worked on them that they cost about $15,000 each. I am also informed that it is now the intention of the administration to tear down these log cabins, which have been very well built. I should like the minister to tell us what is the policy of the administration of the park with respect to these log cabins on top of mount Revelstoke, and to tell us, if they are to be torn down,

Supply-Northern Affairs why they are being torn down and what was their purpose in the first place, this money having been spent on them. I should also like to know what was their actual cost, because I was informed that they cost about $15,000 each.
A new road is being built to the top of mount Revelstoke which I understand is being done by contract. I should like the minister to inform the committee who are the contractors and what is the total amount of the contract. I know a little about road construction, having been concerned in the building of a good many miles of highway a few years ago. Also what is the total yardage of earth, rock and shale, and so on, which is to be moved? I would also like the minister to inform the committee whether under present circumstances any of the employees who work in mount Revelstoke park render any assistance at any time to the contractors, their services being paid for by the government of Canada.
1 expect the minister will not be able to completely answer these questions today, but I did promise to ask them. The point has now been reached where some people are watching the administration of the park almost daily with a microscopic eye, as are some of the well known members of the minister's party. However, I always bring up complaints whether they come from Liberals or Conservatives. While these particular complaints did not emanate from my own party, I did tell these ladies and gentlemen concerned that I would raise them at the first opportunity on the minister's estimates, and I shall look forward to some comprehensive replies. I am confident that it is not his idea that we should be so lavish in our expenditures on homes for superintendents, engineers and other officials of our parks. We want adequate accommodation, but we do not want luxury.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to refer to an application which has been before the national historic sites committee for a number of years concerning Fort Walsh in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Marquette say a few moments ago that there is a priority list which this committee uses in designating these historic sites. Although Fort Walsh is not recognized by the committee as an historic site, I think all hon. members of the committee who know their Canadian history will recognize that it is one of the most important historical sites in the history of Canada. It is maintained at the present


time by the R.C.M.P. as a special place to raise their famous horses.
According to a letter which I have from the Minister of Justice, this application has been before this committee for a number of years. I would ask the minister whether he could give me the reason a decision has not yet been made in this matter. I am of the opinion that possibly because of pressure, if I may use that word, from the Department of Justice on behalf of the R.C.M.P. this matter has not been decided to this date. If there is a priority list I should like to know where this application stands on that list. I have had representations from that community, which is in my constituency. It lies in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan in an area known as the Cypress hills in the Maple Creek district. The site itself has natural beauty and is an attraction to tourists. Other speakers on this item have made reference to tourism, and I suggest to the minister that if he wants to gain tourist dollars for Canada this is one area which could be opened up to tourists.
Recently the chamber of commerce in Maple Creek has attempted to make representations to the government in connection with making this an historic site. The members of the chamber of commerce are wondering whether there is anything they can do as an organization to persuade the R.C.M.P. to permit visitors to the fort. I understand why the R.C.M.P. are reluctant to receive visitors at that site, because it is a nuisance. I do not suppose that the budget of the R.C.M.P. provides for looking after tourists, but when I see an item of $728,000 in the minister's estimates relating to this particular activity I do wonder what portion of that amount has been allocated to the province of Saskatchewan.
These people are not asking for very much. All they are asking for is a guide and possibly for some improvement to the road from Maple Creek to the site. I suggest to the minister that this is a less costly project than some of the others which have been suggested today. No request is made for swimming pools and such things-not that I want to detract from anything which another hon. member has said in that regard. However, it seems to me that the request of the chamber of commerce and the people from the Maple Creek area is legitimate, and does not involve high cost.
As I said before, the officials of the R.C.M.P., though not intentionally, are discouraging the opening up of this site, and

some of the excuses they have given in this respect cannot be accepted either by myself as the member representing that area or by the constituents I represent. The R.C.M.P. say there have no guides and there are no parking facilities. I realize that there are no guides, and possibly they have not the manpower to provide them; but as far as parking facilities are concerned, the area itself is vast with plenty of range land. I suggest that one of the greatest worries of the officials in that area is that a fire hazard could be created on this grazing land, but I think that could be overcome.
The suggestion of the chamber of commerce in the Maple Creek area is that if this site were in the United States there would be a four lane highway to and from the site, with hot dog stands all along the way. That is not what the chamber of commerce are requesting; they just want recognition of the site by the committee, a few dollars to provide a guide or two during the tourist season, and an improved road. This would not cost very much.
I wonder whether the minister would inform the committee if there has been any consultation on this matter between his department and the Department of Justice. My representations in the past have all been made to the Department of Justice because the R.C.M.P. come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. However, I have now come to the point where, although I understand the position of the R.C.M.P. officials, I also feel it is time this site is recognized and is opened up to tourists. In the not too distant future I am sure this is going to come, and if the minister agrees with me I suggest that he talk to this committee and put this application high on the list.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the minister's attention to an historic site known as Fort Cahiaque in my area, located in a very beautiful setting, approximately seven miles from Orillia and one half a mile off the trans-Canada highway. Professor Emerson of the University of Toronto has been doing considerable work in this area and has unearthed some very interesting objects. I was there one day when a heel of a shoe worn by a Frenchman approximately 250 years ago was unearthed. He is also outlining various buildings that existed in that area, including the longhouse. This is a beautiful setting which gradually slopes down into an area that 250 years ago was a lake but which
Supply-Northern Affairs today has gradually receded into a marsh. This area was once the location of one of the largest Indian villages in Ontario, and substantial evidence indicates that it was inhabited by approximately 10,000 Indians. In addition, Champlain stayed for some time in this area. Professor Emerson will be appearing before the board of historic sites later this year, and I ask the minister to give full consideration to his suggestions.
Considering the things we have done in the field of historic site development I think we have overlooked the outstanding contribution made by Champlain, who played a great part in the development of this country. When we consider the hardships that Champlain had to undergo, living in this area infested by mosquitoes, flies, and all sorts of diseases, I think it rates highly as an historic site and further consideration to the re-establishment of this site as an historic site, should be seriously considered, thereby helping to give Champlain his proper place in history in this area, and historically show the build-up of that area. As I say, this site is located near Orillia, one half mile off the trans-Canada highway in a beautifully wooded area in the township of Medonte.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and his department, one of which concerns generally the province of Alberta and the other concerning my own constituency. The hon. members for Medicine Hat and Athabasca have already referred to the Wood Buffalo park which is located par-partially within the Northwest Territories, but I should like to draw the minister's attention to certain facts in greater detail relating to this park, because I think there is an urgent situation which requires a decision in respect of policy and action coming from that policy as soon as possible.
It is rather interesting to know the part of Alberta that is presently under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Of the total national parks area in Canada, Alberta presently provides 58.8 per cent, and this does not include the Wood Buffalo national park of which we are speaking, that portion in Alberta which is much larger than Prince Edward Island. In other words, this park is so large it exceeds the total national park areas in the rest of Canada. All the national parks in Canada including those in Alberta, other than the Wood Buffalo park, could be placed within the boundaries of the Alberta section of that park and there would still be 1,700 square miles of park area unoccupied.

Supply-Northern Affairs
These figures are even more interesting when based on population. Alberta has approximately one seventh of the population of Canada, and by comparison, Ontario with a high density population, has only 11.8 square miles of national park, while Alberta has 7,042 square miles, not including the Alberta section of the Wood Buffalo national park.
Mr. Chairman, we in Alberta are not against national parks as such because we feel they play a very important part in Canada and will play an even greater part in the future. However, in view of the size of the area now occupied by Wood Buffalo national park, withdrawn from the provincial administration and from natural resources development which would normally take place, this matter becomes extremely important. It is also interesting to note that 10 per cent of the total area of Alberta is taken up by national parks located within that province.
The suggestion made by the minister relating to some policy concerning the Wood Buffalo national park relating to an exchange of areas elsewhere in Alberta at least some of the area taken up by that park is a bit irrelevant. It appears to me that we tend to regard negotiations between the province and the federal government like negotiations with a foreign power, where there is a necessity to drive a hard bargain. I do not think there is any question of trading acre for acre involved, but a question of facing the facts concerned with the problem of working out a solution to the mutual benefit of both the federal and provincial governments, as well as the citizens of the province. Therefore I do not think the suggestion that has been made is realistic at all, particularly if the minister is suggesting that because the buffalo preserve was named as a park in 1922 by the government of that day, Alberta must now be penalized by the request that it provide a total alternate of 20,717 square miles of national parks. This is far out of proportion to the 4,933 square miles in the eight other provinces. I do not include Quebec in those figures because Quebec has not given land for national parks as such.
I believe it is the responsibility of the government to take a very hard second look at this whole matter, and to do so rather quickly.
I do not think any change in policy regarding Wood Buffalo national park need jeopardize the policy of the government in relation to other national parks. The transfer of natural resources to the provinces in 1930 prohibits federal development of the resources. In Wood Buffalo national park, at the present time the federal government is in the business of grant-


ing timber leases. More than ten million board feet of timber are being taken out of this park annually. Trap lines are being licensed, and fur is exported from the park area. The value in 1961-62, the latest figure I have, amounted to more than $77,000. The total production from commercial fishing during that same year amounted to something like 114,000 pounds.
When Wood Buffalo national park is returned to the province, as I think it should be, the many other resources there, waiting for development can be developed. This cannot be done at the present time because of the area being within a national park. That is why I believe it is urgent that the government take some action on this matter.
There are only a few areas within Wood Buffalo national park that lend themselves to park purposes, and I am thinking specifically of recreation facilities. Those areas are on the Slave river, on the Peace river and at Pine Point some 45 miles south of Fort Smith. These areas could well be protected under provincial park legislation. The provincial park could be extended on the east side of the Slave river and take in some of lake Athabasca, which extends beyond the present park boundaries. With rapid development foreseen in northeastern Alberta there is no reason at all why park facilities in this area could not be supplied by the provincial government.
In relation to the administration of the park, I would join with the hon. member for Athabasca in paying tribute to Mr. Ed Olsen, the superintendent of the park, because I think he has done an excellent job. He is truly interested in the preservation of the buffalo and is certainly willing to co-operate in every way, but the problem at hand goes far beyond what he can do as the one responsible for administration of the park, and falls squarely upon the department.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister several important facts that have been brought before the government of Alberta by Mr. Fimrite, the member of the legislature representing the area concerned. I put this information before the minister not only because I believe it is most relevant, but also to indicate that for some time now the Alberta government have been trying to get some action from the federal government in relation to this park.
Forty-two years have passed since Wood Buffalo national park was established as a sanctuary for the last remaining herd of buffalo. I am taking this information from a speech made last April by Mr. Fimrite in the

Alberta legislature. The preservation of buffalo in the park has been a very successful project. One error that was made was that the buffalo preserve was established under the National Parks Act. Unfortunately the government at that time gave little thought to the development of the natural resources in the days to come. This area does not lend itself to national park purposes, and it certainly cannot be said to be a tourist attraction. So it is logical that the Wood Buffalo preserve should be taken out of park jurisdiction. To insist stubbornly that the area is a park because it was so named in 1922 certainly does not make it so at the present time. That is why it is necessary to look at the matter in the light of the present situation.
Mr. Fimrite went on to point out in his speech that there are a number of things required to make this area commercially important. One is the construction of the necessary transportation facilities in that northeastern part of Alberta. The building of roads is of prime importance to the development of the entire area. It is urgent that a road be built from Fort Smith to Peace Point on the Peace river continuing west to High Level on the Mackenzie highway, a distance of 285 miles. Certainly the federal government, particularly the parks branch, is not going to be interested in building that kind of highway.
Not only is transportation important to this general area, but there are great natural resources in the form of minerals located in the area. The Peace Point gypsum deposits are well known, and they need only to be removed from the authority of the national parks branch to excite the interest of developers. The relatively pure gypsum in these deposits is exposed in cliffs rising from the Peace river to a height of 100 feet. The thin overburden makes its mining a very economical matter. Conservative estimates of the gypsum deposits are that there are more than 100 million tons. This is of extreme importance to the developing industrial strength of Alberta and all western Canada.
There are other types of minerals in the park area whose existence exploration has revealed. Paleozoic outcroppings along the west bank of the Slave river indicate that there are large lead and zinc deposits similar to those at Pine Point, which were sufficient to warrant the building of a railway to that area. There is a possibility that petroleum will be discovered in the southwest portion of the park area. Uranium is an additional possibility. With the development of the Athabasca oil sands near Fort McMurray, cer-
Supply-Northern Affairs tainly a great deal of commercial and industrial activity is going to develop in the general area in which the park is located. The oil sands development is just beginning, because it will extend much farther north as well.
As I have already mentioned, there is a great deal of timber in the park area. The national parks branch has sold to private companies one and a half billion board feet of ripe timber. This was disposed of under a sanitation regulation that applied to national parks. Production is in excess of 10 million board feet per year at the present time. Because of the isolation of the area and the difficulty of access so far as transportation is concerned, this timber is producing a royalty of only $1 per thousand board feet. This is quite inequitable when compared with timber sales under provincial control, and the result is that the difference in policy creates quite a problem for the provincial government.
Among other national resources in the park is commercial fishing. The lake Claire waters within the present park boundaries are said to be capable of maintaining a flourishing goldeye fishery. The present catch has reached a maximum of 105,000 pounds annually. Fort Chipewyan immediately east of the park on lake Athabasca has been selected as one of the sites for the new provincial community development program, utilizing both the human and natural resources of the region, and commercial fishing is certainly a part of this program.
As far as the management of the buffalo herd is concerned, at the present time the herd is estimated to number over 20,000. A large number have migrated into the Northwest Territories. The anthrax infestation that the federal government is attempting to control is not limited to a region inside the park. Fortunately the disease is confined to a small area, and it may now be under control. However, the buffalo herd within the park is not free from disease. There is a high incidence of bovine tuberculosis as well as brucellosis among the herd, and the purpose of food supply for the Indians is not logical in the interests of public health. It seems to me it is quite a wrong argument that the management of these buffalo herds could be carried on equally well whether this area is a park area or not.
I am not going to spend more time talking about the development of certain recreational areas of community development programs, except to say again I believe these would fit into the provincial program, in the light of

Supply-Northern Affairs the location of the park, far better than under any national parks administration.
I would refer the minister to a press release which I am sure he has in his possession, issued by the provincial minister of lands and forests, Hon. Norman Willmore, ini Alberta, in regard to this, as early as December 1962. I draw to the minister's attention again that the provincial government has been trying for a long time to get action from the federal government, and the reasons the provincial government feels action should be taken on returning this area to it are listed as follows in Mr. Willmore's release:
1.	The development of the natural resources is clearly the responsibility of the provincial government and we believe this can be properly accomplished under the multiple use concept of resource management.
2.	The area does not lend itself either presently or in the future to development for national parks purposes.
3.	The government of Canada now holds a disproportionate amount of land in Alberta compared to the other provinces for various purposes, including national parks, which in all totals approximately 23,500 square miles. For example, in Ontario national parks comprise a total of 12 square miles, although this is the area of Canada which is most heavily populated.
4.	Alberta has developed an extensive system of provincial parks and recreational areas as well as establishing wilderness areas and we have reserved and designated many other areas of crown land for future development as our population grows.
Therefore the government of Alberta feels that the Wood Buffalo park area should be dealt with on the basis of return to the province rather than in the light of any exchange of lands. It is our belief that this proposal will serve the best interest of the people of Alberta and Canada as a whole.
I would urge the minister to set up a provincial-federal commission to deal with this matter and to lay out a policy and pursue the action that is necessary, and I urge him to do this immediately because this problem has gone on far too long already.
The second point I would like to refer to briefly concerns my own constituency, and specifically the historic site that centres on the original location of one of the earliest forts in western Canada, the fort named Fort Rocky Mountain House. This is one of the oldest and most important forts west of Manitoba. It was in existence long before forts such as Fort Edmonton. In fact as early as 1799 both the Northwest Company and the Hudson Bay Company operated forts at Rocky Mountain House. Basically they were fur trading forts, but also represented the very terminal point of the fur trading route at that time, coming eastward from the west,


with Rocky Mountain as the western boundary.
At the present time the North Saskatchewan river has deviated from its original course, to the extent that the entire site on which these forts were located is threatened with being washed out of existence into the river bed. The actual remains of the last fort to be built on this site are now just on the edge of the river bank. The old chimneys still stand, but within a matter of a few years they will be washed into the river. Already the tunnel that led down from the fort site to the river bank has been washed away, and it is urgent that the historic sites branch take a very close look at this particular site with the idea of preserving the remains of the original forts before they are completely destroyed.
I have had it checked by engineers in the area who tell me it is not a difficult problem. With modern equipment it would be a simple matter to clear out the original river channel, which is some several hundred yards to the south, so that the river could be diverted into its original channel instead of being allowed to erode away the north bank on which is located the fort ruins.
I have been concerned at a communication I received from the department relating to the historic basis of these old forts. In it it is pointed out that the chimneys and ruins which are now standing were built as late as 1864, and abandoned in 1875. There is some error in that information. We know there were several fort sites. Both the Hudson Bay and Northwest Companies had forts there and these forts were burned down at different times and rebuilt. There were several different sites, and the Glenbow foundation has done much work, and will do more archaeological work next year, digging up some of these older sites. However the fact remains that the present ruins go back much earlier than 1864, and moreover they are the last evidence of this historic site. Whether they were built in 1798 or 1825 really does not matter. They should be preserved, and I urge the minister to consider doing so because as we approach our centennial we are concerned about our early history and are trying to preserve as much of it as we can.
One of the proposed projects now before the centennial council is a re-enactment of the old fur trade convoys from the west to Montreal. The plans presently proposed would have a canoe convoy begin at Edmonton and

take some three months to travel over the old fur trade route. It would be much more true to history if this trip should begin back at Fort Rocky Mountain House, and I am sure those responsible for suggesting this project would agree to that, particularly if the department were to take the initiative and restore this site.
Further I would urge the minister to use his influence, so far as government policy is concerned relating to centennial projects, to support this convoy re-enactment that is projected as a centennial project. One of the ways in which he could do this is to pay very close attention to the historic sites along the route, not just the one at Rocky Mountain House but all the others as well. Since I became interested in this project I have come to realize how it could be one of the most practical ways of teaching history to all our young folk, and to our older folk who do not realize the tremendous wealth of history this country has. Canada has a dozen Davy Crocketts who could be the heroes of our young people at school as they study the early years of Canadian history. All this enters not only into the celebration of our centenary but is vital to the building of the national spirit we must have if Canada is to be the nation we all expect it will be.
I was most grateful that during the past summer the Minister of Public Works was able to take a couple of days off duty and travel over part of the ancient route which the great explorer and map maker, David Thompson, travelled nearly 200 years ago. We travelled together through the Rocky mountain pass known as the Howse pass which connects British Columbia with the fur trading route I was talking about-past Fort Rocky Mountain House and Fort Edmonton, through north Saskatchewan to lake Winnipegosis and then on through the Lake of the Woods to the great lakes, connecting with the Ottawa river system which flows right past parliament hill.
I am sure he shares with me a knowledge of the historical significance of this general area. In closing, I would urge the minister and the government to pay close attention to the responsibilities allocated to the department of northern affairs as they relate to the restoration and reconstruction of these important historical sites linked with the earliest days of Canadian history.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a question of privilege. I realize we are sitting continuously in consequence of an order of the house and
Supply-Northern Affairs that you have recently arrived in the chair, but I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention that it would appear to be desirable if we could reach an agreement which would enable the minister, at least, to have time for a sandwich and a cup of coffee. I realize that the rest of us are free to go and come as we choose. Nevertheless there are some of us who wish to be here when the hon. gentleman replies to the questions which have been addressed to him, and I am wondering whether there would be a disposition on the part of the committee to rise and report progress. Perhaps there would be unanimous consent to recess for half an hour or so during which time the minister could get a sandwich and a cup of coffee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: I deeply appreciate the consideration of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but I am in great shape; I am not hungry. However, I do think it would be of advantage to the committee if I were to attempt at this point to deal with the considerable number of constructive contributions which have been made with respect to this item.
We are dealing now with the subject of national parks and historic sites. I think it is obvious to us that not only on this continent but everywhere in the world the preservation of outdoor spaces is of greater concern than it has ever been in the past. We, in Canada, with our relatively small population today, could do ourselves a great deal of good by studying public opinion in the United States in this regard. I do not think any single subject at the present time has been brought so forcefully to the attention of the people of the United States as this need to preserve places of recreation in the open air for future generations. Scientists, doctors and psychiatrists are now becoming authorities in telling us that we have to preserve our countryside-that the rapid pace at which most people live today has to find some compensation and that this is best provided by preserving intact our forests, our lakes and all those places outdoors where the public may go for recreation.
Before I resume my seat I intend, Mr. Chairman, to ask permission to have printed in Hansard a statement showing the attendance at our national parks over the past number of years. I was astonished to learn that it was only in 1947 that the total number of visitors to the national parks reached
8186	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs one million persons. Yet last year the attendance reached nine and a half million. The whole nature of the attendance at our parks has changed and we are confronted with a crisis inasmuch as we have a flood tide of people arriving by automobile who say: Where do I park the trailer; where is the camping ground; where do the tents go?- and so forth. We find there is a marked change in the nature of the traffic. As well as using motels, in the last two or three years people have been using sleeping bags, and roughing it-in comparative comfort, of course. There has been a great change in this regard. While we are doing our best to take care of the new demand in this direction we must remember that we have a responsibility for doing things now for generations which may be many hundreds of years away. Generally speaking, due to the interest in the United States where many hundreds of millions are now being called for by the President and by the secretary of the interior, it would seem to me we cannot lose by setting aside at the earliest possible moment as much land as we possibly can for this purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Laing: We shall not go wrong in this regard because I am confident that the areas which we set aside will never depreciate in value. As a great natural resource they will increase in value, so we shall always be on the safe side. In addition, we shall be providing a requisite for the future.
I was very happy when, on Wednesday of this week, secretary of the interior Udall, in the President's plane, took over the loudspeaker to describe the beauties of the area we were crossing. He told us the point had been reached, now, at which the population of the United States felt it had a particular responsibility for the fantastic beauties of the Canadian region which the hon. member for Kootenay East represents, among others. I was delighted, too, to hear Mr. Udall admit that this was a matter of very great importance to Canada's balance of payments situation.
Bearing all these things in mind, I wish to thank members of this committee for the large number of constructive criticisms which have been made of the department and for the fine suggestions which have been put forward. I wish to dispense with the subject of historic sites by saying that members who have called the attention of the committee to particular historic sites in their areas can be assured that those sites will be given the
[Mr. Laing.)

keenest attention by the board on historic sites when it meets.
I wish to deal with a suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West who is concerned, as we all are, with the orderly development of Banff and Jasper, particularly the service centres. We are concerned with the provision of a road through the park to the Yellowhead pass. We are completing as fast as we can the highway between Banff and Jasper and we shall be making a statement with respect to the Oberlander report, I think, on October 19, to the Jasper chamber of commerce. We will provide them with a copy, and the board of trade of Edmonton will also be provided with a copy so that they may study it and make suggestions to us when our ideas as to how the report can be implemented are announced in Jasper. We are of the opinion that the next great explosion of demand for service will be at Jasper and we are making strides as rapidly as we can to provide new facilities there to take care of the impending rush of people. Our figures seem to indicate that the same thing that has happened to us in Banff is imminent in Jasper, and we hope to be ready to deal with it. I assure the hon. member that we have now in the works a highway program involving all the complexes within Jasper over the next three years and amounting to something in excess of $3 million, which should put the highways in pretty fair shape in that particular area.
The hon. member for Marquette dealt with historic sites, and what I said on this subject applies also to Fort Ellice. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce raised the matter of another national park in Ontario. What I said in this connection applies equally in his case. We find this difficulty, that under our act the provinces have to acquire the land and turn it over to us free of encumbrance. I will be dealing a little later with the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer, who says that Ontario has only 12 square miles of national parks and Alberta has 23,000 square miles. I can only suggest to him that I know how happy the province of Ontario would be today if it had one or two of those magnificent parks that are in the Rockies opposite the tremendous population of the United States; because if those parks were opposite the great cities of New York, Philadelphia, and so on, it is quite obvious what the first industry of Canada would be. It would be tourism, of course. But here is the difficulty; the provinces are required to turn over this property to us free of encumbrance. That is why I made the statement yesterday that the best

time for the establishment of a national park was yesterday morning, because the cost of these properties is going up all the time. At the present time we are working very, very closely with the province of Ontario in this connection. Our parks people are working harmoniously with the very excellent parks people of the province of Ontario in respect of the selection of a national park in that particular province.
I wish to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. We have already had brought to our attention the proposal of a park in the general Drumheller area; that is, Dinosaur park. I will now deal with his remarks with respect to Wood Buffalo park, as I will the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer.
Wood Buffalo park is an enormous park of some 17,000 square miles. I have been somewhat disappointed in that I thought it was a park of such enormous size that no matter what happened to our other national parks, some day we would be able to build a highway in there and this would take care of the overflow of all the parks visitors to Canada. Well, Mr. Chairman, it has not happened that way. This is an area with regard to which I have said that I think the space of time between unbearable insects and frost is too short. In addition to that, it seems to be awash with water in parts. It is not a park that will satisfy the requirements for the outdoors for a great number of Canadians. We are fully conscious of this. We are conscious, also-and this has been brought to our attention by the government of the province of Alberta-of the fact that the provincial government wants to get in there, take over the resources and exploit the park, at least in part. It appears to me-and I am going to face this point-that the government of the province of Alberta is a little more commercial than some other governments. That is not against them.


Robert Norman Thompson: If you said "more progressive", perhaps that would be better.


Arthur Laing: Yes, they are making progress. I have said in my own province that they are fortunate in having the richest province in Canada. I have said that in British Columbia, so having said it in that province I think I can say it here. I would like to draw to their attention the fact that the parks themselves are a tremendous part of the progress and prosperity they are experiencing. We have figures to show that $15 million was expended on the national parks
Supply-Northern Affairs in the Rockies last year, and they are a tremendous drawing card for visitors. The beauties of the mountain parks of Alberta are a magnet for the tourist.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? Does he mean by his remarks that he is putting this vast 17,000 square miles area in northern Alberta in the same category as the Banff and Jasper parks? I mentioned the points that I did to show this was not a park in relation to recreational facilities. Therefore I think it is very unfair for the minister to be drawing the conclusion he is at the present time.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member is trying to help me, but I was just getting around to my argument in this regard. I realize we should never class Wood Buffalo national park in the same category as the other magnificent mountain parks we have in this country. At the same time I wish to tell the committee that I am convinced that public opinion in Canada would take this stand: "Don't diminish or reduce any park area in Canada, but increase it". In the negotiations we will be having shortly with Hon. Mr. Willmore, the minister of lands and forests, we are going to put the proposition that there should be something in the way of exchange in respect of that park. So far as the buffalo herd is concerned, we think it would be best for us, and probably best for the buffalo, if we retained it as a national herd.


Robert Norman Thompson: The buffalo are not much concerned about that.


Arthur Laing: In other words, we would establish something in the nature of a game preserve within the park and at the same time permit the development of the gypsum deposits under provincial administration, and so on. We are working, in a spirit of exchange, to the establishment of still another national park in Alberta closer to the great veins of traffic to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred. We think this would be profitable to Alberta as well as profitable to Canada.
I want to say a word of thanks to the hon. member for Athabasca, who also dealt with the Wood Buffalo national park and with the Elk island buffalo herd. With respect to the Elk island buffalo herd, I am of the opinion that if more people knew that herd of 600 or 700 buffalo was 30 miles from the city of Edmonton, we would get a great many more than the 176,000 visitors who

Supply-Northern Affairs visited the park last year. I have a great deal of admiration for our manager there, Mr. Webster; I think he is the best animal husbandry man we have. He is doing a splendid job and is supplying us with many thousands of bales of hay for other parks as well as for the animals there. There are 600 or 700 buffalo in one place there. I never saw a single buffalo when I visited the park. It was a hot day and they were all under the trees. I am quite sure that any visitor who went there on that day did not see a buffalo. These are plains buffalo, and I am sure they can stand the heat better than I. I suggest we should open up some space for them and let the public see a herd of some size.
There is trouble there with Astotin lake, I think it is called. This is a reedy, marshy lake. The hon. member for Vegreville and I were there on one occasion. We were not girl watching that day, but we saw people emerging from the lake with reeds hanging all over them, and so on. If we had a clear water lake there, it would be an extremely popular park. The hon. member suggested that a swimming pool be built there. I do not know whether that would work. We are spending $376,000 for 176,000 visitors. I have an idea that that is as large an expenditure per capita as we make in any of the parks. We will do our best to develop this park. It has been suggested to us that we get some help in clearing the water there, in other words destroy the weedy growth at the bottom. If we had a good lake it would be very attractive, and we will also try to make the buffalo there an attraction as well.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) dealt with Prince Edward Island park which substantially and unfortunately is composed principally of sand dunes and coast line. It is one of the most beautiful extended beaches in all Canada without a doubt. Last year it attracted over a million visitors; it has a splendid beach but very little depth. Here again we have a situation where we should have had the national park the day before yesterday, because today with the development behind this extremely narrow park it would be expensive for Prince Edward Island to expand it. However we will keep in touch there and do the best we can to expand the park. We are now engaged with the province on a joint survey and working closely together to see what can be done with respect to giving more depth to the park, or probably look at some other area in another part of the province for a second park.


The hon. member for Comox-Albemi wanted me to endeavour to get out of the confusion or difficulty that I am in with the Minister of Public Works, owing to the fees charged on the parts of the trans-Canada highway which run through national parks. We have established the principle of a fee in the national parks. This is a practice which has been established in most other countries and we do not want to drop it for a number of reasons, one of the main reasons being that it produces over 30 per cent of our total revenue from the parks. I think last year $960,000 from vehicle fees was collected out of a total revenue of $2,889,000. I am not going to insist that these are all the revenues which a park can provide. I think our national park revenue should be higher than this. We might then discuss the opportunity of abolishing fees across Canada. Probably before that we will be discussing the possibility of making fees universal in national parks across Canada, which is not the case today. But the matter of revenue is extremely important to us. We have the occasional person who is called upon to travel between Calgary and Vancouver or Winnipeg and the Pacific coast and who complains about paying when travelling through the parks. This complaint is generally quite lighthearted and is usually made at the gates to the attendant.
It is a difficult matter for us, but I want to remind the hon. member that we are in the process of expending in the national parks on highways alone $73 million, and we have expended to date over $50 million in building highways which are of a standard which I think exceed any of the standards insisted on by the provinces. I am of the opinion that after looking at the Rogers pass area, the highway that runs from Banff to Jasper and the highway which will be completed down to the Kootenay national park, we have three highways there which will defy competition from any location anywhere on the face of the earth. What we want to do is to bring more people to Canada to enjoy our parks, and of course to pay a fee, too.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale dealt with employees in the parks and the advisability of providing them with some better accommodation. We are quite aware of this problem and it is one of the difficulties with a seasonal enterprise operating for three or four months. Accommodation has to be set aside for them of a suitable nature, bearing in mind that you can look forward to its being closed six, seven or eight months of the year.

However, we will do our best to take care of this situation.
The hon. member for Vegreville spoke of Elk Island national park, with which I have dealt, and the Ukrainian museum. There is a very splendid museum representing the early days of this extremely important segment of the Canadian community and I am certain that the people from the area are extremely proud of it. I think he is now probably calling for an extension. I was present in Elk Island park when the monument to the Ukrainian pioneers was unveiled. The hon. member also wanted a swimming pool there. These are some things we will have to bear in mind as the parks develop and as demand for these services in the parks increases.
The hon. member for Kootenay West dealt again with the superintendent's house. I think this must be the eighth, ninth or tenth occasion on which he has dealt with this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The fourth time. Whenever I see waste I shall continue to try and prevent it, especially when it is in connection with this sort of thing.


Arthur Laing: I dealt with this on one occasion myself. I reminded him that the house in question was built under a dispensation prior to the term of office of the present government. I also reminded him that the house was up and it was not my intention to tear it down. Since I uttered those remarks I have been a visitor to the superintendent's house and more than ever I am determined not to tear it down.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What about the expensive copper lining to the living room?


Arthur Laing: It is a beautiful house. I see the hon. member has also visited the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He has not.


Arthur Laing: Then he has been peering through the windows probably. All I have to say is that it would appear to be a magnificent house for the superintendent of a national park. I would tell the hon. member that we are now getting demands or requests that when a notable visitor comes to Canada we should turn him over to the superintendent of the national park if and when this person passes through. That is a matter which I am not very happy about because our superintendents were certainly not appointed to entertain visitors, however notable, and I would hate to have a great deal of their time expended on that sort of thing. But certainly when someone of some significance to Canada
Supply-Northern Affairs comes to see us, there seems to me there is a little bit of merit in having the superintendent of the park entertain him in a house that is at least commensurate with the object in hand. This is the only defence I make of that particular house. I do know it was built in the term of office of the previous administration, and it seems to me well built. If it cost a lot of money probably the value is showing in the house itself.
The other detailed questions asked by the hon. member I will have to take as notice and write him. They concerned the salary of the superintendent, his administrative experience, and so on. However, I would say to the hon. member that when the task of building the new highway there is completed, which we hope will be at the end of next year, and when we develop the top area we will have in Mount Revelstoke park undisputably the best mountain park in North America.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I agree.


Arthur Laing: At the present time the private investment people are aware of that and are building a great number of splendid motels in Revelstoke. Revelstoke is expanding extremely rapidly. It is booming, as a matter of fact, as a resort area at the present time. While the hon. member is remembering the costly house I would like him to think of the ski jump which we are renewing this year where world records of all kinds have been made, as well as a splendid road we are building up to that magnificent mountain park.
The hon. member for Red Deer dealt with the extent of area in Alberta that is set aside for parks, and I have attempted to explain that situation. He dealt with the resources that could be taken out of Wood Buffalo national park, and I agree with him in this regard, but I would hate to think that many people would agree with the implication that in providing national parks for Canada Alberta is making a sacrifice. I do not think Alberta is making a sacrifice in this regard, in view of the gas tax and money spent by tourists as a result of these tremendous assets.
In my own province of British Columbia I should like to see some of these national parks developed between Calgary and Vancouver, because we both have like or similar areas, and the tourists who come to the west coast from Seattle or from Vancouver island always ask as their first question, "Where is Banff; we want to go there at once." I think if we divided the traffic we would not have the tremendous pressure that exists in Banff at

Supply-Northern Affairs the present time, to the point that it is very difficult tor us to serve that area.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I interrupt the minister to ask him why he stopped at Vancouver? What about Vancouver island for a national park?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have received representations recently from Vancouver island, and there is one area in the constituency of the hon. gentleman which I think would make a magnificent park. I do not know the size of this area, and I refer to-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Strathcona?


Arthur Laing: You may call it Strathcona, but there is another name. You have so many there it is difficult to remember. The Forbidden Plateau area is the area I have in mind. Other representations have been received in respect of parks for the west coast, and we have had several discussions in this regard. It is public knowledge now that we have the Garibaldi area in mind, and when we find five national parks on the Atlantic coast with tremendous attraction for visitors, and none on the Pacific coast, I think it will be obvious that we will not drop any of our efforts to obtain a national park there. I think the establishment of such a park on the Pacific coast would be tremendously advantageous to us.
The hon. member for Red Deer spoke of the Rocky Mountain House historic site. We
have some information to the effect that the old fort No. 1 of which he spoke was built in 1799 and the site is now unknown. Fort No. 2, which was built in 1846, is three quarters of a mile away from fort No. 3 which was built in 1864 to 1875. Our information is that fort No. 3 is being eroded very badly and it would be extremely costly to repair. Perhaps some attention should be given to the No. 2 site.
I want to assure hon. members that all these splendid representations made in respect of historic sites will be given every consideration by the historic sites board. I want to pay tribute to that board for the very fine work it has done on behalf of Canada. We are now approaching our centennial of confederation when more and more attention is being given to the road by which we have travelled, and the greater extent to which the local people living at these sites can be incorporated in the maintenance of and the enthusiasm for these places, the better for all of us. We have found everywhere across the country that that is the case, and we will take this opportunity at this time in our history of consolidating as many of these sites as we possibly can with the money available.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask permission to incorporate in Hansard the graph showing visitor attendance to the national parks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[The graph above referred to is as follows:]



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
n
w
w
*
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs
8192	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
Arthur Laing: Before I sit down I want to make an important statement in respect of national parks. We have for some time foreseen that we would have to make a statement on national parks policy in Canada. That policy has been established now and this is the first opportunity I have had to present it to the House of Commons. The announcement that the government has approved a policy for the national parks will be received with gratification, I am sure, by all members of the Commons and by the citizens of Canada.
A statement of policy on the preservation, development and administration of the national parks of Canada has recently been approved in principle by the government. This statement expresses the government's opinion on the best manner in which the parks can be best operated, developed and administered to serve the public interest.
There has been urgent need for at least three decades of a clearer, definite and firm statement of policy in this field. This need was recognized by the royal commission on government organization which recommended in its report that a complete review of national park policy be undertaken, and I quote:
.. .that operational patterns be developed which may best harmonize the twin objectives of meeting the recreational needs of the people and preserving the natural beauty and character of the environment.
Since 1930 the national parks have been administered under the provisions of the National Parks Act. This legislation, while durable and capable of being applied to most park administrative situations that will arise, was not designed as a full statement of policy. Section 4 of the National Parks Act defines the general purposes of the national parks as follows:
The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to the provisions of this act and the regulations, and such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
This section of the act provides the only broad guidance for the policies of the government for the public use of the parks and for their preservation. Knowledge of the intentions and principles behind the substance of this section has enabled the government to set out a policy for the national parks.
Park policy until now had been an unwritten policy, based on precedents and usage. Being unwritten, it was unavoidable that minor variations and inconsistencies appeared.


The statement of a unified, coherent and comprehensible national park policy became imperative with the greatly increased public use of the parks over the past several years. This volume of public use has attracted the attention of private enterprise and resulted in pressure for the development of recreation and entertainment facilities that, while unobjectionable in other places where the public meets, are unsuitable for national parks and, if allowed to expand unchecked, would destroy the parks' ability to contribute to the public benefit in the way they were intended.
The national parks of Canada have reached a critical stage in their development. Though it is a "quiet crisis", as my United States opposite number, Stewart L. Udall, has described it in his book of the same title, it is none the less a crisis deserving of public recognition and participation. Our national park system is the greatest single area that has been established for the outdoor recreational use of all of the people of Canada, and very great care must be taken to assure that it will not degenerate. National park policy cannot contribute to a solution of the crisis if it is based on one of the two extremes, maximum preservation on one hand, or maximum public use and development on the other. One would deprive the public of the benefits they receive from national parks; the other would destroy the special enjoyment and pleasure the public receives from lands kept in a near natural state. The objective of national park policy must be to help Canadians gain the greatest long term recreational benefits from their national parks and at the same time provide safeguards against excessive or unsuitable types of development and use.
I propose to explain briefly the main points of our policy for the national parks.
The traditional definition of national parks is confirmed as natural areas of nation-wide interest, in which are preserved for all time the most outstanding and unique natural features of Canada. These areas are preserved for the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment. By underlining this definition of the act we accept the view that national parks are not conventional parks or ordinary areas for outdoor recreation, but very special areas in which the finest examples of scenic beauty and natural wonders, both living and inanimate, are kept in their natural state for the people of Canada to see and marvel at, and to gain that mixed experience of understanding and inspiration that comes when one is confronted with a

physical expression of the finest of the Canadian scene.
Our understanding of the national parks as sanctuaries of nature where people can relax and enjoy themselves amid a natural environment precludes the exploitation of the natural resources for their commercial value. Canada is a land still rich in natural resources. We have not yet reached the desperate stage in our growth where every cubic yard of the land must be squeezed for whatever material potential it may have. To preserve as national parks lands that altogether make up little more than 1 per cent of our total land area is not a waste of natural resources, particularly when these lands together with their complete resources give our people the opportunity to find some solitude and freedom from care, to rediscover an easy relationship with nature, and to understand the beauty and significance of the natural features that express Canada's very individuality.
A quotation from a speech by Senator Clinton B. Anderson of New Mexico is relevant:
Wilderness is an anchor to windward. Knowing it is there we can also know that we are still a rich nation, tending to resources as we should- not a people in despair, searching the last nook and cranny of our land for a board of lumber, a barrel of oil, a blade of grass, or a tank of water.
The national parks have provided their benefits to the people of Canada only because the kinds of resource use that have scarred, destroyed, and diminished the scenic values of large areas of the country have not been allowed. Benefits of future generations will be even greater if the natural resources within the national parks remain in their natural state, untouched. Mining, lumbering, prospecting, commercial fishing, oil exploration and production, even hunting-these all would rob the people of Canada of all that is unique within the national parks and much of their attraction and beneficial purpose.
Development in a national park must be considered solely on the direct effect it will have on increasing the public's enjoyment and use of the national parks and on maintaining them as sanctuaries not only of nature but for nature. It does not follow that the government does not wish further development undertaken in the parks. Certainly adequate and appropriate developments are needed to enable the public to use the parks more and gain a better appreciation.
Where best to locate such development and the intensity of development permissible without the impairment of natural values are matters best decided by reference to a land
Supply-Northern A fairs zoning system. In any large area such as a national park, every point does not have the same scenic quality, the same potential for public use, or the same practical advantages for development. The areas that now remain as superb wilderness and are unlikely to be heavily used by the public in future because of their isolation from the routes followed by most visitors will be defined as wilderness zones. The type of development allowed there will be slight, mainly trails or canoe routes and primitive overnight shelter, the barest facilities that will allow access to these areas for the few park visitors who wish a true wilderness experience.
Other areas that are the objective of most park visitors and can be reached easily by extension of present road systems will be developed, but in a careful manner that will assure that all scenic points of interest are not obscured by buildings and parking lots and that the primitive natural beauty of the national park landscape remains to give the scenes depth and meaning.
Visitor service centres will be established in these heavily used areas. Like an urban shopping centre, a visitor services centre will be a grouping of all those services a park visitor wishes-a camp ground, motels, restaurant or coffee shop, gas station, information bureau, a store where supplies can be purchased. These will be located at less scenic locations, convenient to the main points of visitor concentration and yet close enough to scenic viewpoints and other places of interest that visitors can drive there quickly.
The establishment of visitor service centres in the national parks will inaugurate an orderly development pattern, faithful to the purpose of the parks. It will end the scattered development of services that is so irritating to park visitors, the situation where visitor services are scattered haphazardly along park roads and highways so that a visitor desiring a number of different services must make several stops and often drive farther than necessary. In terms of this policy, the present park townsites can be considered only as visitor services centres. Their only reason for being is that they provide essential services to visitors or services to the national parks and its staff.
The government does not intend that national parks attempt to meet every recreational need. To do so would destroy the special purpose they serve in allowing the public to enjoy nature and engage in activities that can be carried out enjoyably only in a natural environment. In future, only such activities

Supply-Northern Affairs as photography, sightseeing, hiking, swimming, riding, skiing, nature observation, fishing and boating will be encouraged by the national parks branch. There are many other types of entertainment and recreation Canadians like to engage in on holiday, but if these are unrelated to a national park and its special purpose and do not require a natural environment for their enjoyment they should be sought elsewhere. Because a national park generally has lots of space, attracts large numbers of people and is public land, many people think it can be developed to its maximum potential by allowing it to become a series of private or commercial resorts. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the national parks.
The policy we have adopted regards the national parks as a national asset protected by the national government, and a public service provided by the national government as a contribution to the health and happiness of the citizens. Therefore all basic facilities in the national parks, such as roads, trails, camp grounds, and public utilities, and the costs of administration and protection, are provided out of public funds rather than being paid entirely by the persons who use the parks.
Beyond that, all facilities needed to serve visitors are the responsibility of private enterprise to provide and operate. Commercial visitor services such as hotels, motels and service stations should be provided by the private sector of the economy. Where the public demands special facilities for their use, such as swimming pools, golf courses, marinas and fully serviced camp grounds, those who use these special facilities should pay charges that will at least cover the costs of operating and maintaining these facilities.
The policy regarding those who live and carry on business in the national parks is that they should enjoy no particular economic advantage or disadvantage because of their special place of residence or business. In general, they should be subject to the same financial responsibilities as those who live or carry on business elsewhere. This policy will be applied when charges, rentals and fees paid by national parks residents to the federal government are being reviewed.
A change in policy toward residence in national parks has long been required. In earlier times, when the national parks were not so heavily used nor so easily accessible as they are now, it was reasonable to allow persons to take up permanent or temporary residence, especially when they were regular
[Mr. LaingJ

park visitors whose place of work or primary point of residence was in the vicinity of a national park. Long term leases were granted to these individuals and buildings erected that served them as either permanent or summer homes. In some national parks, residential subdivisions were established to provide for the summer cottages of local park visitors or for the homes of persons who had no reason, other than a personal wish, to be living in a national park. The effect of this policy has been to give special benefits and advantages to individuals who were fortunate enough to live near a national park. National park land is public land that must be used for public park purposes, not for private residential development; it must be used in a way that clearly contributes to public enjoyment and service, not for the private benefit and convenience of individuals.
For this reason, we have adopted a policy that will eventually exclude private residential occupation of park land unless it is required by persons who provide services to the park and its visitors. No new uses of park land for summer homes, cottages, or permanent residence will be allowed unless it is clear that the permanent or temporary resident is providing some essential service to park visitors, or engaged in the administration, operation and protection of the national parks. Such improper occupation of park land by individuals as now exists will be eliminated gradually.
The over-all policy that we have adopted toward the national paries is aimed at achieving maximum public use and benefit consonant with the maximum conservation of the recreational resource. The growing use of the national parks by the public, the expanding demand for more outdoors recreation space that will serve both present and future generations, and the need to preserve with respect and in dignity all that expresses Canada's heritage demand a positive, clear and uniformly applicable policy.
The national parks policy of this government is intended to fulfil the aspirations the people of Canada have for their national parks. They have made it clear repeatedly that they are opposed to excessive commercial development and the types of use that make it difficult for the average family to enjoy a relaxing and restorative holiday amid natural surroundings. It is to the public of Canada as a whole that the national parks are dedicated, and it is to the public that the government is ultimately responsible for the

manner in which it manages the national parks.
As public property the national parks are worthy of the interest and attention of every citizen of Canada. All decisions affecting development by public or private enterprise in the parks must be governed by the national interest, and it is the national interest that our policy is intended to serve. Public understanding and support are necessary if the government is to continue its stewardship of the national parks under a policy that serves the national interest. I sincerely trust that not only every member of this committee will support in principle that policy we are following on the national parks, but also that every Canadian will assist in preserving his national heritage by understanding, responsible and appreciative use, and vigilance.
If hon. members desire to proceed with the debate on this particular item I would be entirely agreeable. I shall have a cup of coffee behind the curtains but I shall still be listening.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister goes would he mind answering a question on the matter I raised? First of all I want to thank him for the information that it is now policy for park superintendents to entertain V.I.P.'s, but let me tell him that in the Arrow lake parks the residents entertained royalty a couple of weeks ago and did not have to thank the minister's officials for doing it. In answering the question I raised, would the minister also give me the dimensions of this house, the number of rooms and their size?


Arthur Laing: Yes.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks to make on this item, but for the sake of more orderly discussion if there are members who wish to discuss the minister's statement on national park policy I would be agreeable to let them precede me, so long as the item does not pass before I have a chance to speak again.


Mr. Webb:: I am sure the minister is aware of the closing down of the last uranium mines in the Bancroft area. I am also certain he and other members of the cabinet are aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister, when speaking to the Bancroft chamber of commerce, that one of the first duties of the government, and particularly of the Department of Industry, would be to study means of developing some assistance to help the economy in that area. It is because of this I would ask the minister and his department to consider the developing of a natural geo-20220-519
Supply-Northern Affairs graphical asset, known as the Eagle Nest rock in Bancroft, as a park.
Several factors make this worthy of the minister's attention, both from the point of view of its value as a tourist attraction, and the practicability of its construction. The small park there, known as the York River park, is inadequate for the rapidly growing tourist industry of the region. Bancroft is the centre of a large and potentially rich tourist area, and I am certain that if the minister and his officials visited the area they would agree that this is a reasonable request and that an effort should be made to develop this natural tourist attraction centre.
The site is very accessible by two routes. The owners of the property are willing to sell it for this worth-while project. Recently the closing of the mines has insured an ample supply of labour in the area, and it is hardly necessary to suggest that the construction of such a park would be an important step in the readjustment of an area which has suffered from a slump in the mining industry.
I am also certain that such a project would reflect very favourably with the people of Bancroft, the district and the county as a whole. Before I take my seat I want to state that I am aware of the administration of parks in Ontario, but I would suggest that a generous contribution to such a project as I have outlined would be very helpful, would be appreciated, and would certainly coincide with the remarks made by the minister just a few minutes ago.


Mr. Soulham:: I am sure members of the committee were very interested to hear the minister's statement on new national parks policy. I agree with the principles outlined in that policy and I hope the minister will translate it into action at the earliest possible date.
If the minister has read previous debates on the estimates of his department he will know I have discussed the matter of national parks on previous occasions, and more particularly the development of another national park in Saskatchewan. The minister emphasized the terrific growth in the tourist industry, something I myself drew to the attention of this chamber on several previous occasions. In 1945 we had 1 million tourists and by 1963 this number has risen to 9J million. Canada is a veritable gem as a tourist attraction, and tourists who have travelled the world have told me they can see in Canada everything that is to be found anywhere else.

Supply-Northern Affairs
The tourist industry is now our third largest. The wood pulp and paper industry is our biggest, and agricultural exports hold second place. Last year we derived something like $500 million tourist income and I anticipate that in 1967, with the Canada expo in Montreal, it is quite possible tourist income will reach the billion dollar mark. Therefore anything we can do to develop this industry will be of the greatest importance to the national economy. I place such emphasis upon this, that in the past I have suggested we should consider the possibility of reorganizing this Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources so as to have a minister, or at least a deputy minister, with special responsibility for assisting the tourist industry in this country.
I believe the department should consider the development of another park in Saskatchewan. We have 18 national parks in Canada now, five of which are in the province of Alberta. I can understand the preference for Alberta because of the natural beauty of that province. But because of the part national parks play in the drive for income from tourism I think it is time we should consider providing another park in Saskatchewan. The one we have, the Prince Albert national park, is a very beautiful one, but it is some 500 miles north of the southern boundary of the province. It is interesting to note that in western Montana, North Dakota and western Minnesota-states which lie to the south of the border-the terrain is prairie land, similar to the prairie land of central Saskatchewan; there is little vegetation and little parkland. A large population which appreciates the beauty of Canada lives in these areas and many of these people hie north during the summertime to take advantage of what parkland we have in Saskatchewan. We find there is an ever increasing demand by tourists from the areas of the United States I have mentioned and also from areas of Saskatchewan adjacent to the constituency of Moose Mountain in which I live. This demand is overtaxing the resources of the provincial park of Moose Mountain. I have suggested in the past that the department should take a look at this area, an area 25 miles long by about 12 miles wide, to see whether it could be developed as a national park. The present parkland area could be developed still further by reforestation-plantations of evergreens, and so on.
I know there are problems which are likely to arise in connection with such a development. In the first place, the province of
[MT. South am.]
Saskatchewan has been responsible for a beautiful development of the section known as Moose Mountain provincial park. Naturally, the provincial government would have to turn over this area free of encumbrance to the federal government. I did take this matter up with the provincial government several years ago. At that time the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was premier of the province. He seemed very interested in the project, or at least he led me to believe he was. I had an interview with the provincial minister of natural resources, Hon. Mr. Kuziak. He agreed with the principle of my suggestion and said it was worth looking into, but that is about as far as the matter got at that time.
There is another problem-the fact that the Indian reservation known as the White Bear reservation is situated in the southern part of this parkland area. The Indians, naturally, are jealous of their rights. On the other hand I believe they are well aware that anything by way of a national park development would lead to an improvement in their economy. At the present time they derive a great deal of benefit from tourists visiting the reservation from the Carlisle lake resort. I might say that in this mountainous area there are 11 or 12 lakes, three of major proportions -the Carlisle lake in the southern section, the Kenosee lake in the centre of the provincial park, and another, the Kennington, I believe it is called. So there are plenty of possibilities as far as the development of water recreation is concerned, and there would be no difficulty in providing for the beach areas which would need to be developed in national park. I think that any difficulty which might arise with the Indian population could be ironed out through the Indian affairs branch.
Another problem entering into this picture is that which arises because of the 99 year hay leases given to pioneer settlers in the early days in case of years of serious drought. One such year was 1961 when the possessors of these leases were allowed into the areas adjoining the Indian reserve to cut hay in marshes and sloughs. This privilege has, in times gone by, been of great importance when emergencies have arisen due to drought. But I believe this problem, too, could be overcome by compensatory measures.
Another problem arises because of the attitude of some of the pioneer settlers living around the lake shore of Carlisle lake. They are people who established their cottages many years ago. A large number of them are getting along in years. They like the privacy

and the quiet of the lake shore and are not enthusiastic about the prospects if the park is developed to a greater extent. However, the provincial government has already incorporated the village of Carlisle lake resort in order to develop, to some extent, the tourist potentiality in and around the lake, so I believe the animosity on the part of the village is gradually decreasing.
I mentioned the restriction of the geographical area as possibly presenting a difficulty. If the government saw fit to take it over as a single national park, I think the development of this area, 12 miles by 25 miles in extent, plus a concentrated planting of evergreens, with some Manitoba maple, would really enhance the attractiveness of the whole area. In the light of what the minister has said and in view of the statistics showing the increased demand for recreation facilities in parkland within reasonable proximity of centres of population, I think serious consideration should be given to the proposal I have outlined. Parents with young families do not like to travel 700 or 800 miles to a lake-shore if they can travel 200 miles or less. I think it is our responsibility to develop all the park areas we possibly can. I think it is an act pf providence that we should have this beautiful parkland area of Moose Mountain centred in the southern plains of Saskatchewan.
It is surprising, right now, the number of tourists from the United States who are coming into this area clamouring for accommodation to such an extent that the provincial government finds the existing facilities overtaxed. I believe that if this matter was investigated the provincial government might be ivilling, and indeed glad, to co-operate with the federal government if they decided this project was feasible. With the heavy demand ay the public for holiday facilities there are many places in Saskatchewan now, other than ;his area, that are clamouring for provincial ievelopment on not as large a scale as this, and the province might well divert some of ;he funds it has appropriated for further ievelopment of the Moose Mountain provincial park to some of these smaller projects, md spread the wealth, as it were, to other ireas of Saskatchewan. Mr. Chairman, those ire all the remarks I want to make as far is the development of a national park there s concerned.
I would now like to say a few words with [DOT]egard to historic national monuments. Dur-ng previous discussions under this particular tern I have mentioned the possibility of an listoric monument at Cannington manor. I 20220-5191
Supply-Northern Affairs refer to the old manor of Cannington north of the town of Manor, Saskatchewan. I might say that the provincial constituency of Cannington, in the province of Saskatchewan, was named after this landmark. This manor was developed back in the latter part of the eighteenth century and the turn of the nineteenth century. This manor house, or community, was organized and populated by a number of old country people. These people came from England, and the early settlers referred to this area as a wee bit of old England. When they set up the community there they built a very beautiful stone church, a beautiful school, and a three-storey manor house. They also built carriage houses, a blacksmith's shop, and they developed a racetrack. They even rode with the hounds. It was a real piece, as I say, of old England when it was in its heyday.
Some of these buildings are still in a relatively good state of preservation. I believe the school and church are still being used. But the manor house, due to its being such an old building, has fallen into a state of disrepair. It is in the centre of a beautiful piece of very rich farmland, but it is fenced off and is a little more isolated than people looking at it from a tourist attraction point of view like to see at the present time. The word has got around in that part of Saskatchewan, and in fact all over Canada, of this particular Cannington manor area and people at the present time during the summer season come down on highway No. 9 or through highway No. 16 and inquire of the people in the immediate area where they can get into this particular site. Visitors are coming to this area in quite large numbers, so much so that I believe the people occupying the land at the present time have had to put a lock on the gate in order to keep the tourists from over-running the buildings that are there and are not in a very good state of preservation.
I was very glad to notice in an article released by the provincial government three or four weeks ago that the premier of the province has recognized the significance of Cannington manor as an historic site and has allocated a certain amount of money for preserving some of the old foundations. This money has been allocated, not to repair or rebuild some of these buildings but at least to keep them in their present state of preservation. I was naturally very pleased to hear this, and the people in that particular area are very pleased about it. But I do not believe this is enough. I think the federal

Supply-Northern Affairs government should reconsider this manor as an historic site, particularly if they decide that the park area I have mentioned could be developed as a national park. I believe that a certain appropriation should be made by the historic sites board to assist the provincial government to maintain, repair or restore the Cannington manor area. If it were properly exploited by advertising and publicity, I am sure it would be one of the chief tourist attractions in that part of Canada. I would like the federal government and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to take these suggestions under consideration. I am sure that if they do, in the long run it will become the attraction I have suggested it could be.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre wishes to speak on another aspect of these estimates, and I shall not be very long in my remarks. I have only one complaint to make concerning the national parks, and I would join my colleague from Comox-Al-berni in putting forward a complaint about the $2 charge. It is not a very great charge, and I know it applies in all parks. Nevertheless, I do not like the principle of charging a fee for admission to public parks of any type. Perhaps a case can be made out for charging campsite fees. That is a different matter, and these fees should be collected separately. But I simply do not like the idea of paying for entrance to public parks, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal.
I listened to the minister's statement on parks policy generally, and I liked it. I think he has the right approach. I will be interested in reading it later in greater detail. I was also interested in the minister's comments concerning the Wood Buffalo park in Alberta. He mentioned the possibility of giving up that park, provided other lands are given in return. The minister mentioned that public opinion in Canada is against giving up even one acre of parkland or reducing the total amount of parkland by even one acre. He is quite correct in his assessment of public opinion, I am sure, in this regard. Even though Wood Buffalo park may not be a very good one for tourist development, I would certainly urge the minister to retain it until the government can get something in return. If they do not get something in return, retain it anyway. I see nothing wrong with keeping certain sections of land in this country in their completely natural state as nature parks; there is no reason why

every park has to be fully developed for tourist purposes. I think it is quite important in the whole scheme of things that certain areas should remain in their completely natural state.
The minister said he would like to see another national park between the Pacific coast and Banff. I realize some efforts were made in this direction. It seems to me that about a year ago the minister, on behalf of the government, made an offer to the province of British Columbia that if the Garibaldi provincial park, which is very close to the coast, with magnificent mountain scenery, were turned over to the federal government free of encumbrance, quite a large amount of money would be spent on its development. The government of British Columbia has refused this offer, and the reason for the refusal is what disturbs me. The government of British Columbia and the government of Alberta are not against the idea of limited exploitation of provincial parks. I deplore this attitude. I prefer the conservative or, if you like, the conservationist approach, that the parks should be used for tourist purposes only, with no exploitation whatever. This trend on the part of the government of British Columbia and the government of Alberta is, I think, a disturbing one.
Recently the Canadian Olympics committee met to choose a site for the winter Olympics of 1972. I believe Banff was chosen. Garibaldi park was advanced by a committee in British Columbia, and it really would be a very good site. It is very close to the main centre of the population of the province and to the main centres of population in the northwest states. However, it was not selected. I dc not think the government of British Columbia gave any assistance in this connection, because I feel that if the federal government had been able to acquire that park last year, when the offer was made and there was a commitment to spend a large amount of money, it might have had some influence on the choice of the site for the 1972 Olympics
The policy enunciated by the minister generally seemed to be an excellent one. The possibilities in the future for the development oi the national parks for the enjoyment of Canadians and for the amount of money they car earn by bringing in tourists is very great Although I think I could find some fault ir the details, in general I think at the presen' time the development policies of these park: are the right ones and are certainly preferabk to the attitudes which are taken by some o; the provincial governments.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I add a few words to those of the previous speaker. Coming from the city of Vancouver I am naturally most concerned with the development of the Garibaldi area. It has always been my understanding that the provincial government of British Columbia might be prepared to turn over Garibaldi to the federal government as a national park if they were allowed to withhold the right to natural resources findings and development, which I presume would be of a mineral character. In the last year in particular the provincial government has at long last been spending money developing access roads to Garibaldi and one company has been doing further development.
In view of the situation and the decision, which I imagine is conclusive, not to develop Garibaldi as a sports area within the next four years, could I ask the minister whether, in view of the most magnificent value of Garibaldi, in its being not only adjacent to Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster but also within an hour and a half drive from Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, there is a possibility of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to develop what I am absolutely convinced would eventually become one of the most remarkable and fantastic recreational areas on the North American continent. Could I ask the minister whether there is a possibility of this type of planning, co-operation and development between the two governments?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I think I could deal with the remarks of the last three speakers now, and I would ask the last two speakers to permit me to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Mountain first. He referred to a project at Cannington manor. I would advise him that it is now our information that this project has been adopted by the province of Saskatchewan as a centennial project, which would seem to take care of his representations in that regard. I might say that in connection with the discussions I have been having with the province of Alberta-and I give credit to the minister from Alberta, Mr. Willmore-I said to him that because this is a public matter and the public wants to know, it would be just as well if he and I had a public discussion before we met in October. I said to him certain things and he replied, giving the view of the province of Alberta. We had made representations both to the government of Alberta and to the government of Saskatchewan to the effect that we would be interested in developing the area known as the Cypress hills, which is in
Supply-Northern Affairs both Saskatchewan and Alberta. We have received a letter from the premier of the province of Saskatchewan informing us that he is most interested in this suggestion and part of the negotiations with the province of Alberta will be concerned with whether we can include the Cypress hills development. It is particularly distinctive. It is so distinctive that I am told the national museum has recently made it one of the objects of a new diorama there, depicting the particular type of territory, the animal habitat, and so on.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and the hon. member for Vancouver East have raised again our pet dream in the province of British Columbia. It has been my pet dream for a long time and I am certain would generate an enormous amount of visitor interest. It would provide winter sports unprecedented and unparalleled in Canada for the great population of greater Vancouver, and it would probably rehabilitate $2 million annual investment presently going into mount Baker. I would assure them both that we have not considered this by any means a dead issue. We have again been in touch with the minister of British Columbia, Hon. Mr. Kiernan, and told him that it is now our opinion, as a result of our most recent surveys, that we would not insist upon receiving all of Garibaldi park, instead probably 33 to 35 per cent of the area, including the specific northern area of Whistler mountain, I think it is, the Black Tusk area, which is a magnificent winter sports site, and also the most desirable parts of the summer range and a plateau of wild flowers in the summertime. We have not yet received a reply but I am fully aware that there is a very great desire, not only on the part of British Columbia but on the part of members of the provincial government as well, to do something in that respect. I can only assure these two hon. members that we will renew and redouble our efforts in this direction.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Harold Edward Winch: I desire to ask a question about Vancouver city itself, if that is permissible now. I appreciate this opportunity, and I am proud of the fact that I can now address this question to a minister of northern affairs who comes from the city of Vancouver. Without going into detail may I ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to give serious consideration to the development of New Brighton park in Vancouver as a national

Supply-Northern Affairs historic site. This is a matter which I have raised in the House of Commons for many years. This park is the original establishment of the city of Vancouver, the third city of Canada, with the first hotel, first customs, first post office, first everything in British Columbia. The previous minister turned me down. I am asking whether or not the present minister from Vancouver will have this matter reinvestigated.
The second matter is this. Boundary road divides three ridings between Vancouver and Burnaby. They are my own riding of Vancouver East, the riding of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the riding of the hon. minister, Vancouver South. The Boundary road area is the actual hub of the population of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. The park area on Boundary road, taking in the provincial girls industrial school land, the existing area along the site of the senior citizens home, which is municipal, right down to within half a block of the Grandview highway, is without doubt the finest and most magnificent location for a park recreational and athletic centre in the entire lower mainland, and I should like to ask the minister to consider seriously some assistance in the development of this area. If this development is to proceed as a centennial project it will require the co-operation of the federal government, perhaps through the physical fitness council, in the form of a grant. Whether or not the minister, who knows the area of Vancouver East, will admit it or not, this is one of the most deserving areas for this kind of a project, being almost the illegitimate child of Vancouver as far as the availability of recreational and athletic centres are concerned. As a Vancouver member, and as a cabinet minister, I hope he will lend his support to the development of this available area as a centennial project for recreational and athletic purposes. I hope the minister will make some comment in regard to this suggestion.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I am not unfamiliar with the Brighton beach area and of its situation in respect of Vancouver, but the hon. member will recall that we are representing a city that is only 77 years of age, yet with its suburbs today it has almost a million people. We will do very well if we do the things that he has suggested, and make commitments in this regard for the preservation of as many of these historical spots as we can. We in British Columbia have as our representative on the national sites board Dr. Margaret Ormsby, and I am sure the


hon. member will agree that we could not have a better person in this position. I certainly will see that this matter is referred to her. but we hesitate to give even a nudge in this regard, as the hon. member can rightly understand. If I can give half a nudge in this case I will do so.


Harold Edward Winch: You are referring now to the Brighton park, is that right?


Arthur Laing: Yes. I am not unfamiliar with the history of the hon. gentleman's riding. It was not so many years ago that my father owned 20 acres on the top of capital hill for which he traded a stud horse. After paying taxes for about eight or ten years he gave it up, letting it go for taxes. My hon. friend talks about an illegitimate child and I cannot agree with him at all. I was up around Wall street the other day and noticed some very splendid homes, with a tremendous view.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, I said this area was an illegitimate child of Vancouver as far as parks and recreational facilities were concerned.


Arthur Laing: Of course I agree with him in that regard, but the hon. member only a few days ago received the agreement in respect of everything he has said of the mayor of the city of Vancouver-that Vancouver East had been neglected in the matter of parks. We are of course a federal administration, but as far as we possibly can we will work with the provincial and city parks authorities. This year we are contributing $20,000 to assist the development of the national-provincial parks association, which is doing a great deal and has a tremendous opportunity to combine the efforts of those people at the three government levels who are interested in the development of parks.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the minister one further question. Will the minister support a plan for a major recreational and athletic centre on Boundary road, which is the hub of the metropolitan area in the lower mainland?


Arthur Laing: We will certainly be interested in co-operating in every way possible within our sphere.


Mr. Rock:: Mr. Chairman, it seems that all our national parks are located in either Alberta or British Columbia and I am wondering whether there is any land left for anything else.
I should like to know whether there is any intention on the part of the government

to convert the property in the Gatineau hills, which at this moment comes under the jurisdiction of the national capital commission, into a national park under the jurisdiction of the department of northern affairs. I firmly believe that the eastern part of Canada is lacking in national parks, and in view of the close proximity of that area to this capital city I believe it should be converted in that way in order that at least the people in central Canada may enjoy it.
I believe that certain navigable lakes, such as lake St. Louis and the lake of Two Mountains surrounding the island of Montreal, should be considered for development as national park area to accommodate yachts and other craft, as well as beach facilities. In this area there is a population of nearly two million, although there is not one national park. These people on week ends travel to the Plattsburgh area around lake Champlain In the United States to enjoy the park facilities there. I should like the minister to seriously consider these two lake areas I have mentioned for the development of national parks so that the people of the congested Montreal area may enjoy the recreational facilities that could be established there.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I only rise at this time because of the absence of my colleague for Cape Breton North and Victoria who is at this time at home on other Important business. I hope what I say is accurate because I have not had an opportunity to check it with the hon. member. Is the minister aware of the intention of his department to construct a clubhouse on the golf course at Cape Breton national park? I think that the need for a clubhouse is going to become most apparent very shortly. This golf course, the most beautiful in Canada, though some members may want to challenge that statement, is very much in need of such a clubhouse.
All hon. members are aware that in addition to the production by the C.B.C. this year the Shell Oil Company chose this course for one of its productions on their program "The Wonderful World of Golf". Without a doubt these programs will mean a tremendous boost to the tourist industry of Cape Breton. If the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria were here I am quite sure he would have something to say about the proposed clubhouse which I understand was in the planning stage, but was later cancelled. With the tremendous publicity we expect from these two television programs which will be shown later this year, the need for a club-
Supply-Northern Affairs house will become most apparent and I would ask the minister to keep this in mind.
I would also ask the minister to try to encourage more rapid development of the Louisburg fortress project. It will mean a great deal to the tourist industry of Cape Breton and the speeding up of the project would be of great advantage to our part of the country. There are a few more arguments I would like to put forward, but having regard to the fact that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre yielded the floor for a moment about an hour ago and is probably still waiting to put his views on record I will not say any more at this time.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to ask the minister a few questions concerning the Akamina highway. As he comes from British Columbia I am sure he is familiar with this project which has been the subject of discussion not only by the present government but by the former government. I understand that the policy of both governments has been to stand behind the construction of the Akamina-Kishinena highway.
For the benefit of those who may not know where the proposed highway is located, may I say that it would start in the southwestern corner of Waterton lakes national park, extend into British Columbia about 18 miles and link up with another highway coming in from Montana. The governor of Montana and a posse of Montana officials came to Alberta some three years ago and meetings were held at Waterton Lakes to discuss the possibility of getting the governments concerned to construct this highway, which would be a tremendous asset to Waterton Lakes national park. It would permit people from the United States to make a circuit tour starting in Glacier national park in the United States and going through Waterton Lakes national park. If they desired to do so they could then visit other parts of western Canada.
The people of the United States immediately to the south of Waterton Lakes national park have asked our government to take action on this matter. Meetings have been called at the instigation particularly of the Waterton Lakes chamber of commerce. This organization, now headed by Mr. Craig, sponsored meetings as recently as the past summer to see if some action could not be obtained with regard to the construction of about one mile of the Akamina highway in Alberta and about 18 miles of the Kishinena highway in British Columbia.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I am sorry to say that the project has been held up because of certain federal-provincial snags. Let us get them out on the table and look at them. The federal appropriations which we are discussing today do not permit of the spending of any money for the construction of this highway and I can find no item in these estimates. No money appropriated by parliament for a highway under these estimates can be used to construct a highway or road outside of the boundaries of a national park.
If this highway is to be built, one way of doing it would be for the province of British Columbia to give a strip of land to the federal government. It would have to be possibly 160 feet wide and 18 miles long. A second solution would be for the provincial and federal governments to trade adjacent pieces of land which they now own. The province of British Columbia could give the federal government a piece of land in the southwestern corner of British Columbia so that it would then be federal territory, with the result that federal funds could be spent for the construction of the highway. In other words, the details with regard to who is to pay for the highway and how the project is to be worked out are still unresolved.
The result is that the people of Waterton Lakes and the people of the United States who have been co-operating with us so well are still wondering why the federal and provincial governments cannot get together and find a solution for the problem. I know the minister is fully cognizant of the problem and how serious the matter is to the people affected. I should like him to take this opportunity to explain to the people of Waterton Lakes and southern Alberta what is holding up the project. Why can he not get action on it?
I know that the former government sent representatives to Victoria and substantial progress was made, but I want to know from the present minister whether the project is in jeopardy. Has he given up on it? There is no item in the estimates to go forward with the project. I should like him to tell me, the Lethbridge chamber of commerce and the Waterton Lakes chamber of commerce, what the views of the government are and what plans he has for action to get the Akamina-Kishinena highway under way.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I certainly get no satisfaction out of saying it is the fault of the other government, but we have made it very clear to the province of British Columbia that if they will turn over to us the


Kishinena watershed, which is what we are discussing, free of all encumbrances it would then be our responsibility to see that the area was suitably developed. We would build the highway at once if that were done. However if the province should decide to construct its 18 miles of road we would at once find the funds to complete the one mile of road within Waterton Lakes national park. We have suggested to the government of the province of British Columbia that they turn over the watershed to us but they have not yet decided to do so.
As I say, I do not take any pleasure in saying it is somebody else's fault, but I want to assure the hon. member that we have done all we can to bring about action on this road. I was told in Lethbridge the other night of its importance not only to Waterton Lakes but to Lethbridge and the area as a whole, and I am quite certain that its importance to that area would be matched by its importance to the province of British Columbia if the road were completed.
I should like to respond to the statements of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle who pointed out that unfortunately there are no national parks in Quebec. We have had certain correspondence with Quebec and we have offered to co-operate in making surveys of certain areas. It has been suggested it might be a good thing if the Gatineau hills in Quebec were established as a national park, but I believe the Quebec department of resources would not think this would be an adequate area in which to create a national park. Quebec has a great number of very fine provincial parks, but I think there is now evidence that they would like to have a national park within the province because a great number of Quebec people travel to other parts of Canada, particularly to the maritimes.
I want to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton South for having, on behalf of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, said something about the park in Cape Breton. I agree with him that this is one of the most beautiful parks in Canada. The Cabot trail is simply magnificent, and I agree with everything the hon. member said with respect to the golf course.
Plans were drawn two years ago for rebuilding the clubhouse, but they were withdrawn because it was decided certain adjustments were necessary to the course itself, and at that time attendance at the course hardly justified the investment that was proposed. I agree that the magnificent adver-

tising we received this summer, and which will be shown on television this winter, will attract more people there, and that we have to get a new clubhouse very quickly. While provision for it is not included in the estimates for 1964-65 I am quite certain it will be coming along very quickly.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South also dealt with Louisburg, and I may say the progress there has made me very unhappy. It is very difficult to combine the work of archaeologists and builders at the same time, because an archaeologist does not do what a builder does. A builder is supposed to put down foundations and an archaeologist is supposed to undermine them. This is a tremendous fort, extending over an enormous area, and until we get the detail that is required, by excavation, it will be impossible for us to restore any part of it in a veritable manner. I think the people of Canada would not wish us to build anything unless it were a genuine reproduction of what had existed previously. In the meantime, we have spent a considerable amount of money and have not got a great deal to show for it. We expect to have a great deal more to show next year when a lot of work will be done above ground.
I might mention that there were 90,000 visitors to Louisburg this year as against
23,000	last year. This, together with the tens of thousands of artifacts discovered, dating back to 1732, has been of tremendous benefit to the tourist business and hence to the economy of the area.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I yielded the floor so that all speeches dealing with parks could appear consecutively in Hansard, and now I would like to discuss something else which it may be thought has only local application but actually is of general public interest and applies to a certain extent to parkland development and preservation.
The hon. member for Athabasca referred to whooping cranes. I would like to deal briefly with the perennial problem of sandhill cranes and the efforts of the government to help farmers protect their crops from excessive damage by these birds who feed on grain on their way south to their wintering grounds. The minister may recall that I raised this question last year, when he gave a very descriptive answer, saying they were going to bash these birds down in Texas before they started flying north. Apparently they did not bash enough of them because 20220-52C-
Supply-Northern Affairs according to reports there are just as many birds this year as before.
I have not been home recently but I have read that for the first time in 47 years the authorities have declared an open season on the shooting of these birds. There was a ban on the shooting of them in other years, because of the danger of shooting whooping cranes, which occasionally come with these birds and land in the area around the north end of Last Mountain lake. I also understand from reports that daily checks are made to see if any danger has been caused to whooping cranes. The shooting season opened on September 1 and is to close tomorrow, September 19. I would like to know whether the minister can make any report on how this new policy of shooting sandhill cranes has worked out, and whether it will be continued, rather than reverting to the previous policy of using explosives to scare the birds off farm crops?
Last year I referred to the fact that there was a bird sanctuary established on the north end of Last Mountain lake. In fact this bird sanctuary was the first one established on the North American continent and was set up by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald in the 1890's. Last year I asked the minister what was the possibility of extending this sanctuary so that birds would flock into it and not bother farmers' crops so much. At that time he indicated his department was looking into the feasibility of extending the sanctuary, and I wonder if he has any statement on the progress made to date. I suggested it would be a good centennial project, and I still think so.
Dealing with whooping cranes, I wish to refer to a press release issued by the department on May 12, 1964, outlining what was called a co-operative Canadian-United States whooping crane management project. Announcement of this project was made jointly by the minister and by Stewart L. Udall, secretary of the United States department of the interior. It was indicated that under this new system of whooping crane management it might be possible to have an annual addition of 100 young whoopers to the total world population, which is now just around 32. The plan calls for a captive breeding stock of eight to ten birds being built up in the United States by incubating up to six eggs a year obtained by the Canadian wildlife service from the whooping crane nesting ground in Wood Buffalo park in the Northwest Territories. This is how I tie this in with the present estimates; there has been

Supply-Northern Affairs a great deal of discussion about Wood Buffalo national park. I should like to ask the minister whether he has any information with regard to a possible build-up of the number of whooping cranes as a result of this project.
There is one other subject I should like to bring up. We have heard a great deal of discussion about buffalo. In Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, we have a local park where there is a herd of buffalo roaming in their natural habitat, as they did before the white man came. This is a great tourist attraction. Every year a large number of visitors come to this park. A plan is on foot now to develop a modern zoo in conjunction with this buffalo herd, and I hope the minister will give some consideration to any application which may reach him from Moose Jaw for assistance in establishing a modern zoo as an additional attraction to this buffalo park.


Arthur Laing: In reply to the hon. member may I say we have had no reports about the incubation of whooping cranes. I know it takes 21 days for chickens to hatch; I do not know how long it takes a whooping crane. As to sandhill cranes, while we have sought the co-operation of the Americans we find we cannot instruct them to destroy sandhill cranes when the birds are down there; apparently it is not too much fun shooting them, because there seem to be more than ever this year. There has been a gradual rise in the numbers of these cranes and we are aware that unfortunately a great deal of damage has been done in several places in Saskatchewan.
I may say that the province has increased its contribution to Last Mountain lake area and have purchased more land for the protection of that particular sanctuary. In 1964 we agreed with the province that permits should be issued for the destruction of sandhill cranes, provided a competent biologist certified that no whooping cranes were in the vicinity at the time. I think this covers the point raised by the hon. member and I thank him for his intervention in the debate.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I have no intention of taking up a lot of time. I should like to bring it to the attention of the minister-and I have spoken to him personally about this as well as to his parliamentary secretary-that centenary year is only a stone's throw away. I know the department has worked toward this. I just wanted in my small way to add a little more pressure to that project, and the project is this-that we should have a series of national parks right across Canada. I do not think any project carried out by a depart -
CMr. Pascoe.l
ment of government would be of greater value to the generations coming along-to our grandsons and to their grandsons and granddaughters in the future. We are very fortunate today that we are able to go out and fish and see wildlife and take part in the shooting of it, if you want to say so. I think everyone recognizes that land in its natural state- and which not long ago we thought was so extensive that there was no need to worry about it-is fast disappearing.
I understand that the tourist industry is today ranking about second in Canada, bringing in about $600 million. Each year the importance of tourist revenue will become greater and it is obvious we must have facilities for our visitors as well as for ourselves. I would therefore like to impress upon the minister the need to make every effort to provide these facilities. I fully realize that this is not always easy, and that the department has to work with the various provincial governments. But I sincerely hope that the provinces, mindful of the needs of our people in the future, will in turn work together with the federal department of northern affairs so as to provide the parks that are needed.
Just one more thought. We have a number of parks which are not kept as they should be in respect to wildlife. I know there are enough places where we get sand kicked into our sandwiches and people spilling our coffee as they go by. We certainly do not want any more of them, though they have their place. I sincerely hope the department will see to it that there are always areas where no one will ever be allowed to build homes or put up commercial structures-areas left open for those who wish to explore, or paddle canoes or, if they happen to be in western Canada, pack their horses and wander freely among the beauties which this nation has to offer. I think we have a wonderful country and I think we should keep it. That is why I want to put these few thoughts on record.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I feel it is very encouraging that such great interest has been shown in this question of parks today. I think it is just as well a number of speakers have intervened between my own observations and those of my colleagues from the Vancouver lower mainland area who spoke earlier, urging the minister to take action with regard to an area with which he is himself perfectly familiar. Perhaps he has been reminded by some of those who intervened that he is also minister of national resources.

I certainly do not wish to indicate that I do not share the enthusiasm of the minister and of my colleagues from Vancouver with regard to the potentialities of Garibaldi park. I intervene again in this discussion only because of a brief exchange between myself and the minister on the question of park potential on Vancouver island. I think the minister will agree that whoever was responsible years ago at the provincial level in British Columbia for setting aside Garibaldi, and Strathcona park on Vancouver island, as park areas should be commended for his wisdom and foresight.
There seemed to be some confusion in the minister's mind as to just what area I was referring to when I suggested Vancouver island area. I think perhaps I should attempt to explain briefly my own conception of what might happen on Vancouver island. Strathcona provincial park was set aside in many thousands of acres in the very heartland of Vancouver island, with an eastern boundary that was set by the line of the original Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway land grant, and represents perhaps the most rugged and beautiful section of Vancouver island. Adjacent to that, but outside the boundary of the park is what is known as the Forbidden Plateau area in the vicinity of Courtenay in the Comox valley.
As the minister may know, there is a growing interest on the part of people on the west coast of Vancouver island in the development of a marine park on a large scale. As I see it, there exists the possibility for the development of a very major wilderness park area which would embrace some of the most beautiful mountain and seashore area to be found in Canada. There certainly is a growing interest and a growing concern among the residents of Vancouver island that action be taken toward a development of this kind, a development which would be completely in keeping with the policy for national parks which was outlined earlier to us by the minister.
I have been explaining to people on a number of occasions what the minister has said many times in this house, namely that the initiative in this matter must come from the provincial authorities of British Columbia. I have suggested to those who are particularly interested that they should seek to initiate an interest on the part of the provincial authorities in this matter. For some reason the government of the province of British Columbia up until now has certainly not displayed any great interest in the idea of na-20220-520J
Supply-Northern Affairs tional parks development in the coastal areas of the province. This to me is a matter of personal regret. It is not that I would suggest for a moment that in the minds of those who are responsible for parks administration in the province of British Columbia there is not a proper concern for the maintenance and development of the wilderness park idea; nevertheless, the fact remains that there is increasing pressure for the exploitation commercially of the particular heartland of Vancouver island which is included within the boundaries of the present Strathcona park.
I feel the time has come when there should be a reassessment and reappraisal of those boundaries so that a certain area which might be less desirable might be turned over to normal commercial development, but certain areas such as the Forbidden Plateau area and some of the seashore areas on the western coast of Vancouver island might be incorporated within the redrawn boundaries of a park. I believe that this natural wilderness heritage could be best preserved and protected if it were turned over to the national parks administration. I think it has been recognized that because it is a national administration with concern for our national heritage as a whole, it is therefore less vulnerable to the kind of pressures for commercial exploitation which can be put from time to time upon provincial governments.
I believe that the minister should be equally interested in the preservation of this area of Vancouver island as he has already indicated he is interested in the preservation of at least the best parts of the present provincial Garibaldi park. I should point out, for the benefit of members of the house who may not be familiar with the area, that this is a mountain area where mountains rise to the height of between 6,000 and 8,000 feet. There happens to be within it what I believe is the highest waterfall in Canada. I refer to Della falls, which drops some 1,443 feet from its mountain elevation down toward the drainage basin of Great Central lake. In the light of the general interest that has been shown today in the question of our national parks, and in the light of the statement the minister has made concerning parks policy, I wanted to put on the record as briefly as I could my own views in connection with the potentialities of this part of Vancouver island.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks that have been made about the growth of our population and the increasing need to think of not only today but of tomorrow, and possibly of a century

Supply

Northern Affairs or more that lies ahead, I would like also to draw to the attention of the minister and the house the potentialities that lie within the large area of the mainland in the northeastern part of my constituency. Most people think of Comox-Alberni as being a Vancouver island constituency. Actually, however, in the number of acres there is probably as much of it on the mainland of the province of British Columbia as there is on Vancouver Island. In this almost unknown northeastern corner of Comox-Alberni lies the main mountain mass of the coast range of British Columbia. Within its area we have what in the days of my youth was known as Mystery mountain, which was explored by the Mundays who were mountaineers and with whom I am sure the minister is quite familiar. This is now known as mount Wad-dington, named after one of the early railway surveyors. This is a mountain that is higher than mount Robson.
There lie within this area icefields that are known to be much greater in extent than the more well known Columbia icefields in the Rocky mountains. I am not suggesting this is an area-because it is inaccessible at the present time-that should be the subject matter of any immediate plan for development, but I am suggesting that the people who are concerned with long range planning for the future and the preservation of wilderness areas in this country of ours should not overlook this tremendous wilderness area which now remains virtually untouched by man, except on some of its fringes along the coast line. I felt that in view of the line the discussion has taken I would like to take advantage of this particular opportunity, when we have had what to my mind has been a most facinat-ing discussion on the question of parks, with contributions from hon. members from all across this country, to point out what I consider to be some of our richest potential heritage in this field, which happens to lie within my own constituency.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that his remarks with regard to our province of unsurpassed beauty will be taken due note of, as will be his references to those areas of Vancouver island. While I am on my feet I should like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Norfolk. I think no member of the House of Commons has contributed more to Canada's standing in amateur sport or our admiration or appreciation of the outdoors than he. The hon. member made a plea that I think has probably been repeated in a number of places in the

house today, namely for a wider Canadian appreciation of these assets with which we are dealing. I think that both the hon. member for Norfolk and the hon. member who has just spoken are making a plea more to our provincial and civic governments than to us. I remind them again that we are prepared, wherever a province provides this property free of encumbrance, to ask this House of Commons for the funds necessary for its development. I am quite certain that in the present mood of this house, representing the people of Canada, those funds would be forthcoming.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National museum of Canada-
25. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,489,600.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting vote on which there was quite a discussion last time. Would the minister give the committee some information as to what has happened to the reorganization of the museum and its administration?


Arthur Laing: We have already assured the committee that this matter will be dealt with in the estimates of the Secretary of State. It has been decided to turn the museum over to the Secretary of State. The legislation to take care of this matter is not yet before the house.


Mr. Churchill:: Is this item then to be carried in his estimates or in the minister's?


Arthur Laing: It will be carried in his estimates under transferred duties.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then we stand this item now?


Arthur Laing: Yes.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Dube):: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I understood we were standing item 25. Is that not right? If this matter is to be transferred to the Secretary of State it would only be open for discussion when his estimates come up.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Is it agreed that item 25 stands?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Water resources-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, and authority to make recoverable advances

in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of lake of the Woods and lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $2,097,200.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on our water resources. Canada has the largest bodies of fresh water in the world. We also have a great source of supply from the great lakes which is extremely important to industry, recreation and sanitary facilities. Industries and populations have settled in the great lakes area and this has created the problem of getting rid of the waste from industries as well as disposing of sewage. The international joint commission was formed, I believe, around 1910 and along with the provinces, states and municipalities has done a reasonably good job over the years. But this great resource of water is gradually being lost. I realize this matter has been referred to previously. It affects the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec as well as the states of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, both directly and indirectly. It also affects the prairie provinces, in an indirect way.
At the present time the water levels are the lowest in 100 years, and while some people say that precipitation will bring some or all of it back I think that is foolish thinking. Anyone who looks at this situation will realize that today far more water is being used by industry, agriculture and the population in general, and it is ridiculous to say that precipitation will restore what is used, when it is being used far faster than in other years. To my mind precipitation only meets part of the problem.
It has been suggested that a committee of this house be set up to consider the matter but I think probably that is not good enough. This is an international affair and should be considered on an international basis rather than just by a committee of this house. It is not only a federal concern but provincial and international as well. Every avenue must be investigated. I think as far as the provinces and the federal government go they can deal with the tributaries and the water which runs into the great lakes. But when it comes to controlling the great lakes themselves, a committee appointed by this house would not be able to deal with that problem. If a committee is set up I would suggest to the minister that representatives from the provinces and the United States government
Supply-Northern Affairs sit in on the committee; otherwise the committee could not deal with the matter fully and do the work it should do as quickly a,s it should. First one reference and then another reference would be made until the matter reached the international just commission; at least that is the way I feel about it.
There are a few things we do know in this connection. I think we have controls on lake Superior-this may be rehashing matters which have been gone over before, but I think it worth recalling-and on lake Ontario, but broadly speaking we have no controls on lake Huron, lake Erie, or lake Michigan. Therefore any rise in the level of lake Superior would be very quickly dissipated in the vast reservoirs of lake Huron and lake Erie. As a matter of fact I think the minister prepared a paper on this subject for his parliamentary secretary which stated that in three years only 50 per cent of the water in lake Superidr would get down to the port of Montreal. '
There are certain facts which stand out here. If the control of water going out of the port of Montreal could be controlled by dam and lock, as it is partly controlled now in one branch of the river by stones piled across it as a stopper, we would find the run-off would be partly contained. I have reviewed this matter at some length and I cannot see any reason why it should not be done. I think the same efforts put in on lake Ontario and lake Huron would control water run-off, and if that water run-off were controlled I am sure there would be lots of time to investigate the other possibility of the grand canal project and other projects. I do not think there is much time on hand at present because in my area the water level this year was down very drastically, some said as much as five to six feet. This loss of water represented a great economic loss to the people running tourist establishments. One of the reasons the water was down this year was that not only was the water situation itself bad, but all of the frightening things said about it here and there which appeared in the press and elsewhere had an adverse effect too. I do not want to see this happen again next year. I want to see this problem well on the way to being solved before the next tourist season comes along. I want to see something definite done so that people can say we are working on the matter.
I would go further and ask the minister to ask the Minister of Transport, who from what he said last night is very sympathetic, to get busy and do a little more dredging, as a helpful measure. The minister is aware of
8208	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs the tremendous need for dredging in those areas. Many of the boats coming into these ports must carry smaller than capacity loads, and many cannot get into the marinas. As a result of this situation there is a great economic loss not only to the immediate area but as well to the heart of western Canada in respect of the freight carried by those boats on the great lakes which is destined for western Canada.
I know the minister is working, and studying this situation in an attempt to find a solution, but I do not think we have as yet grasped the urgency of this problem in this house. It is urgent because of the number of people concerned who have invested all their money in tourist resorts business in this area.
I leave those suggestions with the minister who I am sure has listened sympathetically to what I have said on behalf of my constituents who live on the great lakes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in participating in the discussion of these estimates because they provide for water resources. I am speaking on behalf of a party which has been interested in the conservation and development of natural resources both on a federal and provincial scale ever since its formation. I have also put forward a federal-provincial program in this house repeatedly throughout the years urging the government to take action on some aspect of conservation of our resources whether lands, forests or waters. On behalf of the party I have moved a resolution in this house for a number of years urging a national-provincial conference to consider a national resources policy. I give credit to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who, when the former government was in power took action which resulted in the conference held in Montreal, and the formation of the council of resources ministers. I think this was made easier for the government on that occasion, because prior to that the premier of Quebec had not been in favour of this program, and since Mr. Lesage became premier he has shown a willingness to consider such a conference.
Arising from that action, as I have said, was the establishment of the council of resource ministers who I think are going forward with this problem in the right way although very slowly, and I acknowledge all the difficulties there are in respect of ten provinces agreeing to an agenda and a pro-
[Mr. Rynard.l

cedure for an investigation of the development of any of our resources.
Today I wish to draw particular attention to the need for a national water policy and I know the minister is very interested in this subject. This is a subject in which I have been interested, as have my colleagues, for a good many years. I remember when we first brought this subject to the attention of the house in 1945, 1946 and 1947 at which time we were considered to be rather visionary in some respects. I remember the interest taken in respect of the question of conservation and development of our renewable resources immediately following the second world war, and the representations that were made to the government through members of the House of Commons by the Canadian federation of agriculture, trade union organizations located at various places in Canada, chambers of commerce and by numerous community groups, as well as scientific organizations such as the agricultural institute of Canada.
One resolution that was adopted and endorsed by some six of this type of organization, at a meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, reads as follows:
Business and community interests in soil, forest, water conservation and land use are reflected in the chamber's policy declarations on agriculture and natural resources. In these declarations the chamber:-
(a)	Says loss of soil fertility, and erosion by wind and water are among the most important problems facing agriculture.
(b)	Urges government and business to extend educational programs on forest fire prevention, value and necessity of reforestation, and
(c)	Asks for national policy for control and development of nation's water resources.
Almost identical resolutions were adopted by various organizations including labour organizations from the prairie provinces which were particularly interested in the development of a water policy which would provide water for irrigation and other consumptive uses in the prairie provinces. At that time some of these representations and proposals were considered to be somewhat visionary. We hear that the same sort of suggestion today, that we should wait for 10, 15 or 20 years, but the problem grows more acute throughout the years.
I remember in 1954 speaking on this subject. I had moved for a number of years urging a federal-provincial conference on resources, and I recall that hon. members of all parties supported the principles of the resolution and the proposals. I remember particularly former prime minister St. Laurent stating that he supported the principles and admitted

that mistakes had been made here and there in the past. Prime minister St. Laurent said that on the over-all picture we were not doing too badly and that a good healthy warning had been sounded in respect of the depletion of Canada's resources, but that this should not induce too deep pessimism. As a matter of fact, the prime minister in my opinion was far too optimistic. We have done very little since that time and in some respects we have done some things to which I have taken strong exception, and of which there is growing awareness in this country.
I am very interested in the development of a national water policy, and have been following the minister's statements in this respect in this house, as well as statements made by his parliamentary secretary and other prominent members on the government side. I think it is about time that this government announced to the people of Canada a national water policy, indicating its immediate and long term objectives.
Recently I read a release of a speech made by Mr. John A. Turner, M.P., before the water level seminar sponsored by the Montreal port council at the Windsor hotel on June 30, 1964. There is quite a lot of good material in this speech. Quoting from page 2 Mr. Turner says:
It must be clear to all of us that the development of a national water management policy is a priority which must occupy us for the next generation. I want to say to you at the outset that Canada has had such a policy for many years but that, to my mind, it must be revised and sharpened.
While I agree with Mr. Turner's remarks in respect of the need for the development of a national water management policy, I cannot agree with his suggestion that we have had such a policy for many years and that it just needs to be revised and sharpened. I do not think we have had an over-all national water policy in any sense of the word, and certainly a great deal more has to be done than just revising and sharpening the policy we are supposed to have.
Later I read a news report of a speech by the parliamentary secretary to the minister made, I think, as proxy for the minister. The report is to be found in the Gazette of Saturday, September 12, and it is headed "Canada's Water Going Down the Drain?" I agree that it will be going down the Columbia pretty soon at a fast rate.


An hon. Member:: It has been for many years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right, and we should do something to conserve some of it for our-
Supply-Northern Affairs selves. I am more interested in the needs of Alberta farmers apparently than is the leader of the Social Credit party. I presume this is a fairly factual report of the parliamentary secretary's speech. I took it for granted that it reflected the minister's approach and I was very pleased to read some of these observations. I am going to put some of them on the record so we will have them there for the future. Here is what it says:
The price which the public pays for confused policies, haphazard programs and ill planned projects is staggering.
I agree with that. Then it goes on to say:
It is paid in the form of: Floods, causing immense property damage, which could have been better controlled in many cases, avoided altogether in others.
That is quite correct.
Shipping, stranded or wrecked on a nation's waterways.
Another accurate statement.
The depletion, often to perilously low levels, of those secure supplies of fresh drinking water without which great cities cannot exist.
In my opinion that is an accurate statement.
The virtual destruction of once great commercial fisheries.
There is a lot of truth in that.
A pollution problem that is only beginning to be faced.
Mind you, this question has been dealt with in the house frequently since the end of the second world war. Yet it is admitted by the minister himself that we are only beginning to face the problem. The article continues:
Calamitously low water levels in great inland harbours built to accommodate the world's shipping.
The previous speaker dealt with that question and he is more informed than I am as to the need in this respect. It is obvious that this is one of the problems we face.
Abbreviated navigation seasons attributable to a hit and miss attack on Canada's winter ice problems.
An acute shortage of water for irrigation and other purposes in farm areas.
You should not think so from the way we have disposed of our water to the United States over long periods of time.
Spoilage of increasingly important recreational areas due to pollution or shortsighted drainage.
That is an increasing problem in eastern Canada and it is one that is beginning to raise its ugly head in some of our western river basins. It is one that is causing some concern to my constituents with respect to
8210	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs the Kootenay and Columbia rivers where some pollution has commenced. This problem cannot be solved by any small municipality or village affected, or by a provincial government and these villages. It will require a national water policy that will provide for the co-operation of all these levels of government if we are going to tackle this problem in the immediate future, and successfully.
The construction of costly public works which need not have been built at all or which have been planned so inadequately that they make necessary other remedial and expensive public works.
That has to do with river protection, breakwaters and things of that sort, and it is quite an acknowledgement after 22 years of Liberal rule and Liberal planning.
A costly and improvident contest for available water by the various classes of users-farmers, commercial fishermen, power companies, industry, lumber companies, transportation interests, governments and the general public-with scant regard for the modern concept of water as a multi-use resource to be handled for the benefit of all.
How true. The article continues:
A dangerous tendency to allow Canadian water resources to be diverted outside our borders on a first come first served basis, before Canada's own future requirements have been studied, let alone assured.
I am sure all members of this group will agree with that contention and observation. Then the parliamentary secretary went on to say:
Water remains Canada's most important natural resource. It is a resource which has always seemed plentiful and about which we Canadians have devoted altogether too little attention, except at times of crisis-flood or drought.
Then he goes on to deal with the various problems that face us in this respect. He deals with the various authorities that are involved, and I agree that it is an excellent analysis of the situation. He outlines all the various departments that have something to say about the administration of our water resources, and they are too many to mention. There are some two or three dozen at least. Then he goes on to say:
Even those agencies which come under a single department Jostle one another for pride of place in the sprawling federal bureaucracy and a bigger share of the departmental budget. They compete for the right to direct departmental thinking about water resources along the lines most advantageous to themselves.
Rival agencies from different departments behave on occasion in a less inhibited fashion, squabbling over methods and objectives, denouncing one another's reports and plans, purloining key personnel, blocking or stalling important projects assigned to other agencies in the hope that time may produce


a beneficial change. This buccaneering approach to the nation's water problems is not universal. It is, however, all too common.
The jungle-like atmosphere which prevails in the water resource field is attributable less to the agencies themselves than to the unsystem-like system under which they are required to perform. Operating under the watchful eye of no single department, acknowledging the over-all authority of no single minister, exposed to no coherent policy, the agencies are scarcely encouraged to work together co-ordinating their efforts. With authority fragmented from top to bottom the ordinary decision making machinery is short circuited. The consequences are serious.
Then he goes on to deal with a number of consequences of this fragmentation of administration. I am very glad to see that brought out in the open because the members of this group have dealt with that aspect of the question while not being as well or as fully informed as the parliamentary secretary. This is a problem that has to be faced if we are going to deal with it successfully and give effect to a national water policy.
In view of this speech by the parliamentary secretary I trust this is the line along which the minister is thinking. We are very glad to see this because first of all we must have a purpose and objective, we have got to have a policy and then we must have an administration that can give it effect instead of having our water resources dealt with by so many agencies. I have had several experiences in my own constituency where the conflict between various departments with some limited jurisdiction over certain aspects of our water problems was very obvious. That is that.
I was also very pleased to note that there are others who are concerned about this matter. The Kingston Whig-Standard of Tuesday, September 15 last contained a very interesting editorial which I wish to bring to the minister's attention because I trust it will stiffen his back so that he will stand up for Canada in the days ahead. It is entitled "The Columbia Money Game", and the last paragraph reads in part as follows:
The real winners-as we predicted years ago- are the successful Americans who talked this country into handing over those sovereign rights for a paltry few million dollars-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I continue:
-which have not left the U.S.-and Premier Bennett, who can hardly wait to start collecting his 5 per cent.
The hon. member for Kootenay East does not like to be reminded about this but I could not resist mentioning-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -the observations of this very intelligent editorial writer. I read the report of the excellent speech of the minister's parliamentary secretary and I thought that we were on the road to a policy. Then I got a manuscript of a speech delivered by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. It was entitled "The Great Northern Water Plan", and was a luncheon address delivered at the 52nd general conference of the Pacific northwest trade association at Prince George, B.C. on September 14, 1964. Possibly the parliamentary secretary was affected by the spirit and mood of the gathering, because a great number of the people in attendance at this luncheon were United States businessmen interested in the development of Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho and other states in the northwest.
I forgot to mention that while I was very critical in previous statements-at least I asked certain questions previously with respect to the superintendent in one of the minister's parks, at the request of some of his friends-I do want to emphasize the fact that, with the exception of two former deputy ministers who are widely condemned, and not including Major General Young, who is a real man, I have heard nothing but commendation for the officials of the minister's department, and I was very sorry the estimates for national parks were passed without some reference to the good work being done by the wildlife branch.
I judge the parliamentary secretary's speech was delivered on the basis of the recently announced policy of Premier Bennett in B.C., and to meet the feelings of the persons who were listening. I want to quote some paragraphs from his speech and contrast them with the speech I previously quoted. He began:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen-
I can imagine the young man standing up and saying that.
Today I want to talk about water. I want to talk about water resource development on a grand scale. I also want you to look ahead 50 or even 100 years. By then, we will be diverting our northern rivers southward. Advancing technology will help us to skim off their flood waters in order to meet the urgent requirements of people who live in the south.
Is this not what we were foretelling when Premier Bennett proposed taking over the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and when some hydro officials in B.C. are look-
Supply-Northern Affairs ing forward to the development of the various rivers in the north? He went on:
Man's inventiveness is, no doubt, our greatest resource. It is turning mountains of granite into fuel for our atomic furnaces. It is erasing the fear from our minds that mankind will ultimately run out of energy. It is putting more food on our tables. So mass starvation is no longer the spectre that it once was.
Replying to questions in the committee on external affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that regardless of the foreign aid given by Canada and other countries, to India and similar countries, the gap between their standard of living and ours was still widening. But here the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister talks about-
-erasing the fear from our minds that mankind will ultimately run out of energy. It is putting more food on our tables-[DOT]
-and so on. He continued:
Even the metals are becoming cheaper to produce with each passing decade. So why worry, unduly, about water? It, too, can be used over and over again or drawn from alternative sources to meet our expanding needs.
I want to draw the minister's attention to the conflict in philosophy between his speech and the one given by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. Mind you, we are used to him shifting his ground on occasion. He was very critical of the Columbia river treaty during the election. Later he supported it then he disappeared from the house when the vote was taken. One can ask, where does he stand? At page 4 of his speech he said:
Nor do I under-rate the difficulties of repatriating our water supplies. Once committed, we may never be able to terminate exports of certain Canadian waters to the United States. We must face this prospect and face it head on. Treaty arrangements will be necessary. They must be spelled out in the clearest possible terms. Otherwise we will be involved in misunderstandings which will be harmful to our international relations for generations to come.
As a North American I cannot, however, ignore the fact that the demand for water is rising and rising rapidly. We are told by your federal experts-
And this indicates he was talking to a United States audience.
-that U.S. requirements will have risen fourfold between now and the end of the century. Billions of dollars will have to be spent on water diversion and water recovery projects of one kind or another.. . .You, in other words, will be prepared to pay and pay heavily for new sources of supply.
You see-buy Canadian water.
Under these circumstances, we in Canada, are unlikely to let our great northern rivers flow forever and without interruption to the sea.
What should we be going now? I suggest we should be already thinking in terms of a great
8212	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
northern water plan. Its concept is simple. Its execution, I believe, is inevitable. In effect, we will be turning our northern rivers around. Some part of their flood waters will be diverted southward- southward and eastward-to meet the more urgent needs of Canadians and Americans in the big cities and towns whose growth would otherwise be hindered for lack of this vital, life giving resource.
Think, if you will, of a great continental water plan. Project your mind ahead to the time when the consumptive uses of water-irrigation, domestic and industrial-have become even more important than the generation of hydroelectric power.
I just want to quote another paragraph or two which appeared to me most interesting. Toward the end of his address he said:
There is only one place for the water to come from; that is the north. The flood crests of our northern rivers perform no useful function at the present time. They can, and I believe eventually will, be skimmed off and directed to the regions of greatest need.
Engineering studies are required. Means of financing must be explored. And finally a treaty or treaties may have to be negotiated between Canada and the United States.
Here he is suggesting a treaty should be negotiated between Canada and the United States before he is even thinking of ways and means of getting this water out to the people in B.C. who require it to the Okanagan, and to the people who require it on the prairies and in other parts of the country. He went on:
All of this will take time. But we must start somewhere. I therefore urge that more of us turn our eyes northward; that we plan against a background which is essentially continental in scope.
Not Canadian in scope, mind you-continental in scope; and this fits completely into the ideas advanced by some of these people in the United States in recent weeks in regard to the continental development of water. It is all right to have a continental scope so long as our government makes certain that all future requirements of water by the Canadian people, requirements for all its various consumptive purposes, are protected and met. That is the first consideration and until we have done that we are not in a position to deal with any other nation in respect to the sale of surplus water. I suggest the minister has a better approach to this problem than the parliamentary secretary, who went on to say:
An exchange scheme linking Alaska with the United States has a great deal to recommend it. Canada, besides providing a land bridge joining Alaska with the other states, may also be able to dispose of some of its cyclical water surplus for lump sum payments made in advance to cover the work involved.
This is the Columbia river treaty over again -we will give you some money to build the


dams so long as you sell us all the water we require in the future.
The entire plan may take decades to put into effect. Certain projects-elements of an over-all plan-may however be completed in your lifetime and mine.
Then he went on to deal with the Parsons plan and said:
I know that Washington has launched various investigations, several of which look to the possibility of importing water from Canada. The Parsons plan (known also as the North American water and power alliance) is now before the U.S. senate committee on public works. The question of low water levels on the great lakes has been turned over to the international joint commission.
Then he went on to deal with the necessity for planning and so on.
There is no doubt about it, there is a conflict of philosophy between the minister's approach to this question and the approach taken by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the minister and of the committee because of the great concern we feel about it. We are not opposed to co-operation with other countries as long as it is on a basis of equity, as long as the Canadian government protects, first of all, the needs of this and future generations with regard to water for irrigation and other consumptive purposes, and any other needs which may develop. Water, as the minister himself said a week or two ago, has become our most valuable national resource.
On behalf of the members of this party I urge the minister to develop a national water policy in co-operation with the provincial governments so as to provide Canadian water for Canadian soil, Canadian water for Canadian power requirements, Canadian water for all other consumptive purposes. In doing so he will provide jobs for Canadians not only in the limited period of the construction of dams but for generations to come.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Contributions to the provinces toward the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $8,950,000.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I wonder whether the minister would give us an outline of the agreements which are in force at the present time with the provinces under this program. I am of course interested chiefly in my own province, if an agreement exists.


Arthur Laing: Under the Canada Water Conservation Act we have at the present time agreements covering the upper Thames, On-

tario, at an estimated cost of $9,640,000. This is the federal contribution only. Then there is the Parkhill project in Ontario at an estimated cost of $825,600; metropolitan Toronto and region, a project involving dams and reservoirs for flood control on the Humber and Don rivers and Black creek at an estimated cost of $24 million-that is the total cost. Our contribution is 37J per cent.
I would have to draw the hon. member's attention to the presence of agreements under special authority concerning the Winnipeg floodway which involves a total anticipated expenditure of $84 million. I am informed that two thirds of the cost of the excavation work will be paid by the federal government, and 37J per cent of the balance. I think the principal cost will be incurred in the movement of earth. The federal contribution will therefore exceed 58 per cent of the total cost.


John Angus MacLean: In addition to these projects, are any negotiations under way at the present time for further agreements with any other province in respect of programs to be carried out during the next fiscal year? If so, can the minister indicate which provinces have made applications? I am not speaking of course about proposals which have already been rejected.


Arthur Laing: The provisions of the Canada Water Conservation Act are, of course, available to all the provinces. As I have said in certain parts of Canada, I cannot put up an advertisement saying: We have money, come and get it. The use of this act appears to have been largely restricted to Ontario, and indeed to metropolitan Toronto. I wish to pay a tribute to Dr. Lord who is chairman of the appropriate organization in metropolitan Toronto, an outstanding engineer who is doing, in my view, a tremendous public service by accepting the chairmanship of the board. He is leaving a great monument behind him in that area. Within ten or 12 miles of the centre of that great city they are providing park lands and areas for recreation which are unprecedented anywhere. However this legislation is available to other provinces, and I understand we are now about to receive an application from the province of British Columbia in respect to the north shore where some flood damage has occurred. I believe British Columbia will apply for assistance in raising the levels of the dikes in the Fraser valley to the extent of about $4.9 million in all. They have indicated they would prefer to use the act also in stage 2 of the plan for protection against
Supply-Northern Affairs flooding in the Fraser valley, which will be the building of dams in the upper reaches of the tributaries of the Fraser. We have not yet agreed with participation in this area. There is a provision in the act that where electric power is incidentally produced the federal contribution will be reduced haying regard to that power generation.
The act we are considering seems to have been of tremendous benefit to those who have used it. I think there are other areas in Canada where it could be used to great advantage. But, as I say, there are some people who do not know of its existence.


John Angus MacLean: I know the minister cannot advertise to the provinces that there is money available under this legislation, so I was trying to do a little advertising on his behalf. This is an act which I think has a great potential. It can be used to a far greater extent than it has been used since it was passed by this parliament a good many years ago-I have forgotten how many years, but I think it was at least ten years ago. I think the provinces are now realizing the necessity for doing more water conservation work and I hope that in the future the growth of activity under this legislation will be considerable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, without asking the minister to go into any detail on the subject I should like to inquire whether any application has been received or whether any negotiations are under way at the present time between his department and British Columbia in respect of any other project under this act, in addition to the one to which he made reference in connection with the Fraser river.


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Chairman, except that I said I thought we had one in course of preparation between the north shore municipalities and Victoria. Indeed, I think it has been submitted to Hon. Mr. Williston's department, because he has spoken to me about it. That is the only one, involving the three municipalities on the north shore, other than the application of the province of British Columbia joining with the municipalities of the Fraser valley in respect of raising the dike levels there.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There has been no application with respect to any area on Vancouver island, as far as the minister knows?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
8214	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
Jean-Eudes Dubé: This completes the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $12,114,500.
Jean-Eudes Dubé: Order. The committee is considering vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965. Shall the vote carry?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman,
surely the minister is going to make an opening statement; or was it made on a previous occasion?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have made my statement, Mr. Chairman, and we are resuming the study of the estimates today.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house, but I may perhaps say a few words at this stage of our discussion.
I have to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) who is always assisted by very qualified advisers, fully conscious of their responsibilities, for the good work he has accomplished.
Before making any specific remarks, I want to thank the minister for the projects which will be carried out in my constituency, and more particularly at Newport Point, Sandy Beach, and Riviere-au-Renard, the most important one being at Chandler.
Mr. Chairman, a breakwater will be built at Chandler at a cost of $3 million. The Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Company Limited will have to contribute a sixth of the cost of this project. But though the manufacturing of one ton of paper is more costly at Chandler than elsewhere, the Gaspesia Company recently invested over $18 million in a newsprint machine.
With the construction of a deep water harbour, the company intends to invest further capital in the district in the near future.
When the company decided to build a newsprint mill at Chandler, the plant was planned so that the output could be doubled, and increased even more, if the demand should warrant it.
I want to repeat what the minister has already told the house: the planned construction of a breakwater in Chandler, at a cost of $3 million, is an example of the co-operation between the federal government and


private concerns towards the progress and development of designated areas.
I want to mention to the hon. members that the Gaspesia Company Limited is not a local concern-it does not belong exclusively to Chandler-but it depends on the whole Gaspe coast and, in fact, most people in the Gaspe peninsula depend on it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like now to deal with another matter.
As you probably know, the general economic survey of the Gaspe peninsula, requested by a number of groups in the area, shows that there is an urgent need to do everything possible in order to take advantage of our resources.
The eastern Quebec development board, in Mont Joli, is preparing a planning program for 1966, and I suggest to the minister to send the highest officials of his department to Mont Joli so that they might see for themselves the planning work which is now being prepared under ARDA. I suggest further that the summaries of any survey of the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe peninsula areas which are in the possession of his department should be placed at the disposal of the eastern Quebec development board.
The work now being carried out at the eastern Quebec development board for the pilot area of the lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula is unique and discussions between the economists of the public works department and those of Mont Joli would certainly be profitable to both groups.
I also wish to bring to the minister's attention the situation of wharves and harbours in some communities of my riding. It is a known fact that the Gaspe riding has a coastal area 288 miles long.
Some ten years ago it was claimed that there was no room left in the Gaspe peninsula to build wharves and develop harbours. At that time, Mr. Leopold Langlois, former member for Gaspe, in co-operation with the Department of Public Works, had met all the requests of the local authorities. Today most of those commercial wharves can no longer meet present needs. Those wharves were built for shallow-draught ships, such as schooners used for carrying wood and freight. The wharf needed no more than 15 feet of water.
Since the deepening of the St. Lawrence small boats are not being built and the tonnage of new ships will increase year by year. Therefore, the Department of Public Works has to spend large sums of money to meet the wharf requirements in eastern Canada

because everything has to be done over again, such is the case in my region.
Mr. Chairman, may I call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to some letters I have received?
Quite recently, on August 31, 1964, I received the following letter from the Frank Byrne Pulp wood Inc. company:
If my memory is good, I wrote to you last year to ask whether it was possible to get much needed improvements at the Madeleine and Marsoui wharves, in the Gaspe peninsula.
From Matane to Cloridorme, I buy several thousand cords of pulpwood and we are at the point where none of the companies with which we do business want to use those wharves. I am talking about the L.S.T. boats of the Anglo Canadian Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. They have no protection from the wind and do not have the required space.
I do not request wharves for sea-going ships, but merely a sort of shelter which engineers could no doubt build to serve our purpose, at a reasonable price. We are ready to indicate to your engineers the sites and what would be required for the boats. The matter of schooners is not taken into account, because they do not use them much, although I am convinced that they would be pleased to use those wharves.
Mr. Chairman, I have also received a letter from a Marsoui manufacturer, A. Couturier & Fils Limitee, from which I would like to quote a few excerpts.
-our company here in Marsoui paid more than $600,000 in salaries in 1963, and we expect that this figure will exceed $1 million in 1964 and during the coming years.
We have a lot of lumber and pulpwood to ship; we also have a logging camp on the north shore where we will cut 5,000,000 feet of logs this year and 10,000,000 feet every year in the coming years.
All those logs will have to be transported to Marsoui by boat and, this year the transport should begin in early August at the latest, and stop at the end of the shipping season.
The vessels which will carry the wood draw about 12 feet of water; with the water around the wharves at its present level, the ships will run aground at the least surge or swell, and they will not be able to unload. The five million feet of logs we are going to cut this year will represent about 60 boat loads.
Mr. Chairman, last year the sawmills of north Gaspe almost had to close down as they were unable to get boats to ship their lumber overseas, for lack of adequate and protected wharves. Some insurance companies now refuse to take the risk of ships stopping alongside some wharves such as in Cap Chat.
Last year, thanks to the co-operation of the Minister of Transport, a tugboat was ordered to stand by to protect the ships.
In order to help S.S. M.V. Dadmar, the James Richardson Company, of Cap Chat, had to pay $3,750 to the Foundation Marine Ltd., of Halifax, for the services of the tugboat Foundation Valour.
Supply-Public Works
It is hardly reasonable that in 1964 a private firm should have to disburse any amount for tugboat services, because of the inadequacy of the wharves.
At Cap Chat, the wharf runs out directly into the gulf; it has no protection whatever against winds and high seas.
The result is that it is impossible to load heavy tonnage boats on days of strong winds, which occur frequently in that area. The maximum draught is 20 feet, which does not favour deep-draught traffic toward the Atlantic.
At Cap Chat, Ste. Anne des Monts, Marsoui, Madeleine, Grande Vallee and other important municipalities of the coast, the Department of Public Works will have to consider heavy expenditures during the forthcoming years for the improvement of wharves so as to retain in the area the few industries which are operating at present.
The situation is nearly the same in the fishing harbours. Most of these ports were built for little fishing boats 20 to 35 feet long, and the fishing boats are now nearly 80 feet long.
In the last few years the department has co-operated closely with the fishermen's union and the Quebec united fishermen in order to meet the present situation as well as possible and so that the structures which are being built meet future needs of the fishing industry.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the active part he played in the negotiations with the Quebec government, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), concerning the project of renovating highway No. 6 in north Gaspe for which the government will have to contribute $13 million.
I wish success and good health to the minister and I wish he could accompany his officials in Mont Joli and visit the eastern development board.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say but a few words about one very important aspect of the minister's departmental operations, as they bear on the province I have the honour to represent. Over the last seven or eight years there has been a good deal of talk about the causeway which the previous government indicated would be built between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I should like to report to the minister on something of which he should be aware, and that is that there is considerable disquiet and unrest in Prince Edward Island over the lack of a definitive and comprehensive statement on this particular and very

Supply-Public Works important project. As the minister well knows, alert historian that he is, the very nub of the relations between our little province and the dominion has been communications and transportation. This was at the forefront of the negotiations which brought in our province in 1873, and we have constantly sought and pleaded for continuous and efficient communication with the mainland.
We were quite elated, Mr. Chairman, when with the advance of technology and engineering skill we reached the stage where a continuous land link with the mainland was possible. We were all the more thrilled when the government of the day declared that that which was possible, a causeway, would be constructed.


Robert William Prittie: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Well, all right.


Robert William Prittie: It is just a brief one. I wonder if the hon. member could tell whether the people of Prince Edward Island are convineed that a causeway would be a good thing? Would this not destroy the uniqueness and charm of that province, flooding the island with hundreds and thousands of motor vehicles coming over from the mainland every year? Is he not better off the way he is now?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I can only say that I should have liked the company of my hon. friend last Sunday when I made a very fast trip from Sackville, driving far too fast, in order to get to the ferry terminal, and then discovered I had to sit there and wait, owing to insufficient room, while three boats left. I thought at that time that I would have loved to have with me some of the people who think that it is a charming thing to have the boats. We have arranged, with our Prince Edward Island canniness, that when the causeway is built we will still have the ferry service between Wood Island and Nova Scotia, and anyone who wants a sail can carry on his trip. However I do appreciate the remarks of the hon. and learned member.
Let me say in all seriousness that we recognize the role of the tourist, and as I said this morning this is the most expandable and rapidly expanding industry we have. But more important than that is the primary producer, the farmer and the fisherman, and his ability to get his goods rapidly to market by a sure and certain communication. The means the causeway would provide I think vastly transcends the charm of the boat sail.

We are nautical people and we love boats, but we are also very hospitable people and not afraid of being overwhelmed. We welcome strangers, be they from British Columbia, be they Liberals, Social Crediters or even members of the N.D.P., and over the years I do not think there has been any indication that we have lost our own cultural uniqueness. I do not fear that at all, any more than Cape Breton has reason to worry about losing its individuality. I would not like the minister to entertain any suggestion that he is protecting Prince Edward Island's culture by not moving forward as rapidly as possible with the causeway.
When the former government was in office we were delighted by the forthright statement of the leader of that government that thecauseway would be built. We are looking to this government for a reassertion of the same positive and definite intention. I am not going to say that they have welshed on this arrangement, or that they have backtracked, because I make no accusations that I cannot back up, but I think they would be in a much better position, vis-a-vis our people, if they would forthrightly indicate their intention.
Another thing which has caused us much concern is the seeming veil of secrecy which surrounds the reports which have been elaborately and, I may say, Mr. Chairman, expensively prepared. I can recall when the member for Bonavista-Twillingate used to criticize the then minister of public works for not divulging, not indicating, not tabling and not presenting a report at that time; but the report then had not been completed. As I understand the situation now, the report has been completed and we know that it is vast, exhaustive and tremendous, but still we do not know what is in it. Considering the importance of this to Prince Edward Island, considering the vast expenditure of taxpayers' money, surely it is incumbent upon the government to indicate in considerable detail, whether replete with technical information or not, what is the present thinking of the government.
We are constantly reading statements by the Solicitor General to the effect that consideration is being given to building the structure without rails. We would like to know whether the government has had anyone investigate the feasibility of interprovincial travel by means other than rails, how much Price Edward Island would suffer if the railway was completely abandoned, and what would be the costs.

We would be interested to know the government's reaction to the suggestion-indeed, the positive offer-by a very prominent and reputable private organization, headed I believe by Mr. A. D. Margison, a man of wide repute, in reference to the building of this project. This is a tremendous offer. What is the government doing about it?
I have heard about mysterious meetings of the Minister of Transport, the Solicitor General and the provincial minister of highways. I did not hear of these meetings from the minister of highways but from someone who happened to be at the airport at Charlottetown. Surely this is not a matter of high secrecy, but a matter of tremendous public importance to the people in my province. We are interested in receiving the fullest possible information, and we wonder how much investigation has been carried out in reference to a similar project at Chesapeake bay. Have the people who made that feasibility report been consulted? Have other private offers been made other than that made by Mr. Margison?
In other words, to put it very simply, I say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that we should like him to indicate to this house and to the province just exactly what is going on. It is not for me to comment on the relationship among ministers of the cabinet, but I am a little surprised that his name does not figure more prominently in discussions, in view of the fact that it is his department that is responsible. He is a minister with a tremendous reputation and we know of his concern for all parts of Canada. We wonder why he is not more prominently in the picture and mentioned perhaps more frequently than the Minister of Transport.
It is in respect of some of these matters that we want to know the government's stand and attitude towards offers that have been made. We want to know what the thinking is in reference to rail traffic. Has the government decided that it cannot and will not build a causeway with rails? Let the people know the answer so that they can make a judgment. This matter has been under consideration for a long time and is of tremendous importance. It is one of the great challenging public works projects of our time. I want to co-operate with the minister in every possible way and it would not injure my pride at all if the whole thing were built and completed as soon as possible-I was going to say, even while this party was in power, but I suppose even modern technology is not that rapid. We are not inter-
Supply-Public Works ested in political partisanship in respect of this matter. We want to wish the minister well and assist him in any way possible because this is a very important matter. I suggest to him, and even advise him, to be a little more forthcoming with information for the people of Canada generally, and particularly those people in Prince Edward Island who are especially concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I made my general observations when the minister's estimates were before the house but I should like to ask a question or two on this occasion.
I suppose the minister is aware of the fact that in the Arrow lakes region, owing to the proposed building of the High Arrow dam-I hope they do not even find the foundation satisfactory-there will be 12 or 13 wharves displaced, which are very important and serve various communities at this time. Some of these communities will be flooded completely and others only partially. Can the minister indicate to the house whether any survey has been made by his department of the needs for wharves after the High Arrow dam is complete? Will there be a relocation of various wharves, or the building of new wharves after this dam has been constructed, and has there been any co-operation whatsoever between the B.C. hydro power authority and the minister's department in respect of planning to meet these needs in the days ahead? If there has been a survey, who will be responsible for the cost of these new wharves, the minister's department or the B.C. hydro power authority? I would appreciate very much the minister letting the house know what has been done to date in this respect, and what the department intends to do in the way of investigation, and at whose expense.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be repetitive but I should like to say that I associate myself with the remarks that have been made by my colleague, the other hon. member for Queen's, Prince Edward Island.
In respect of the remarks made by that hon. member, who just asked a question, I am under the impression, as I think all Prince Edward Islanders are, that this government intends to honour the commitment of the previous government that a causeway would be built, and that there is no longer any question as to a decision in that regard, but only a question as to how quickly, and what type of causeway it will be.

Supply-Public Works
I should like to point out that under the present system as traffic increases it is carried at a deficit, and the cost to the federal government of providing this service increases roughly in proportion to the amount of traffic available. The traffic has increased a great deal in the last few years and I believe it will continue to increase at an accelerated rate. Very soon it will reach the point where in my judgment the present system will be a more costly way of providing that service than will a causeway. When a causeway is built it is the initial capital cost, the capital charges for the money invested, that are the greatest expense; but once it is built it will be able to carry a volume of traffic much larger than that now offering, and there would be no increase in cost in proportion to the increase in traffic, at least for a very long time. I am interested in having as clear and precise a statement as the minister can make on this matter.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have promised that.


John Angus MacLean: I am aware that the minister has promised to make such a statement, but time is passing and the people of Prince Edward Island and no doubt of other areas are most anxious to know what the situation is. The minister may recall that when he sat on this side of the house, his colleague, the present Minister of Transport, was extremely anxious to see that progress was being made as rapidly as possible, and because the rate of progress was not as great as the present Minister of Transport thought it should be at that time he was everlastingly asking questions of the then minister of public works. I remember that on one occasion he got up and asked if the causeway was now under construction. I am aware of course that it is not even yet under construction. On one occasion he saw fit to rechristen it "the pauseway", not the causeway. In passing I point out that the last few months have been the longest period there has been without any very illuminating statement from the government as to what is taking place.
I do not want to be political in any way because this is a great construction project and a great national undertaking. It will be unique in North America, indeed in the world, having regard to all the difficulties that exist in this area such as the ice problem, the tidal problem and so on. The Chesapeake bay causeway is similar in many respects, but there are some ways in which the Northumberland strait crossing will present additional problems. In that regard I should like to be sure that the Department of Public


Works has taken action to make certain that all the knowledge gained from the construction of the Chesapeake bay causeway can be exploited by the designers and the department in considering the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway.
There is a great deal of doubt in people's minds, of course, as to what form it will take. I believe I am correct in assuming that if it involves tunnels in part it would then be impractical or at least very costly to accommodate a railway line. This has grave implications. If that is so we would like to know what the thinking as to an alternative is. Would it be considered advisable to continue to use one ferry for rail service only for a period of time? It is most important at this stage that a study should be made with regard to whether it is economically feasible, and feasible in other ways, to contemplate having Prince Edward Island do without rail service entirely. I know of course, as everybody knows, that there is a trend toward the abandonment of railway lines; but whether or not it would be feasible to carry on a developing economy in the whole of Prince Edward Island with no rail service at all is something that should be studied. A conclusion should be reached one way or the other before consequent decisions are made. If it is decided that rail services are not necessary there is the question of alternate road construction to take the place of railway services. I do not want to prolong the discussion and I have nothing more to say at the moment.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased that the Minister of Public Works visited the west last summer. He did manage to get out there. In the house last year I suggested to him that he might visit southwestern Alberta and familiarize himself with the road situation there, with the idea that in his consideration of a second or alternate trans-Canada highway he might see his way clear to name the route from Lethbridge to Nelson as the best alternative to the national No. 1 trans-Canada highway.
I do not know what the minister did while he was out there. I had hoped he might get in touch with me so that I would be able to carry out the promises I made to him to take him around. However, he never showed up. I am afraid he only talked to certain people and did not see the right people. Nothing has happened with regard to this highway and we expected something more tangible. We would be only too glad to take

the minister fishing and extend to him all of the hospitality which the resources of that great region enable us to offer, but we also wish that he would familiarize himself with the problems of the area and talk to the people who know most about the problems there so that he would be in a position to act on them.
So far the people of Lethbridge and the Crowsnest pass area have heard nothing with regard to his views as to a southern highway. I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and as I have not finished what I wanted to say I would ask to be allowed to call it five o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I interrupt, Mr. Speaker, to ask about the business for next week?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as announced by the Prime Minister there will be a supply motion on Monday, and as was agreed and set forth in an order of the house it will be the last supply motion for the present session. Consequently any department which has not been entered in previous supply motions will be deemed to be entered on that occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.
Order No. 1, Bill No. C-5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stand, at the request of the government.


An hon. Member:: Order No. 2, Bill No. C-9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stand, at the request of the government.


An hon. Member:: Order No. 3, Bill No. C-16.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stand, at the request of the government.


An hon. Member:: Order No. 4, Bill C-41.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stand, at the request of the government.


An hon. Member:: Order No. 5, Bill No. S-43.
Railway Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stand, at the request of the government.


An hon. Member:: Order No. 6, Bill No. C-46.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stand, at the request of the government.



RAILWAY ACT


Robert William Prittie: the second reading of Bill No. C-55, to amend the Railway Act.


Norman Platt Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret you were able to get on to this item, but a few years ago a practice was adopted of balloting for a place on this particular section of private members' business, so that hon. members were able to get a place at the head of the list with some prospect of having their bills debated.
During the last two years we have seen that this priority established through balloting seems to have become more or less meaningless. Many hon. members are interested in what appears in the order of balloting, but frankly one has to spend about half an hour or three quarters of an hour chasing around on Friday afternoons trying to find out what bill will be proceeded with. There are hon. members in the house interested in particular bills as they appear on the order paper and who are prepared to make contributions, but they cannot find out what bill will be dealt with until the very last.
There are hon. members interested in speaking on certain bills, but who actually leave on Friday mornings as they cannot find out whether tnose bills will be dealt with or not. At present there is a queue up from the beginning of the session, and I suggest there should be 24 hours notice of which bill is going to be debated at this time on Friday afternoons.
I suggest that this practice of standing bills has made a mockery of the balloting for priority and that we should not continue this practice. If there is going to be this wholesale standing of public bills, then there should be 24 hours notice given of what bill will actually be dealt with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if I could speak to that point of order. When I was government house leader I instituted a procedure whereby when a private member's bill was called for the first time it was permitted, without any question, to stand. On the second oc-

Railway Act
casion it was called it was permitted to stand if there were a valid reason for so doing, if the hon. member were inexcusably absent or suffered from illness. On the third occasion it was called, then only if there was a very special reason for its retaining its position on the order paper was it so retained, but not otherwise. The result was that bills, having been called the second time and not proceeded with, dropped to the bottom of the order paper, and on a few occasions it was after they were called a third time that they were dropped to the bottom of the order paper.
Now you have bills standing on the order paper in the same position for the entire session. The result is that we never know what is coming up, and there should be some correction made to this procedure.


Guy Favreau: If I may be allowed to speak to that point of order, it is quite true that there is likely to be some annoyance caused by the fact that bills might be stood for an indefinite period, but as we all know there are no definite rules covering the matter at the moment.
I am advised by the government whip's office that it has always been possible for a member inquiring from that office to ascertain in proper time, and well before the date, when a bill to be called will actually be discussed. There might be the odd exception, but I agree this would very probably be a good subject for discussion by the special committee of the house on procedure, and I should hope that one day we will reach a solution which will not only be empirical- like the one consisting of calling the whip's office, which is always at the disposal of hon. members-but a solution which will be written into the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my hon. friend from Edmonton West I suggest that there is no point of order in the sense that any rule is being violated. The hon. member is making a suggestion as to a change that might be made, and I think there is merit to his suggestion, but I am sure Your Honour will agree that there is no point of order on the basis of which you can rule that we cannot proceed with the order now called.
We are acting under standing order 19 (1) and (2), a request having been made and concurred in by the government that certain bills might stand. All I am saying is that I think the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has validity,

but it is validity only as a suggestion, as something we should look at, not as something on which Your Honour can rule at this stage. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me, and as a member of the special committee on organization and procedure I for one accept the suggestion that we should look into his proposal in that committee.


Norman Platt Lambert: I would readily state that as a point of order I am not asking Your Honour to make a ruling on anything, but I am drawing something to the attention of the house, and that is the only way I could do it. I would point out to the house leader that the bills are stood at the request of the government, in conformity with the rules-


Mr. Walker:: Yes, in conformity with the rules.


Norman Platt Lambert: -because it is only the government which can ask to have them stand. As indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), the government house leader has the remedy in his own hands. It is for the government to decide whether or not it will request to have a bill stood. It is for that reason I have raised the point of order this afternoon. I think Your Honour and other hon. members will recognize there are many other bills which have queued up behind the first 50 and which might have a chance to be debated if the ones in front were not stood en bloc. Some of these have now been stood 12 or 15 times.


Guy Favreau: I am afraid that this point of order which, in fact, was a well taken suggestion and not a point of order, will soon become a question of privilege as far as I am concerned. I must add in due justice that there is also the empirical solution of the whips getting together and negotiating to convince the government not to stand a bill, if it is shown that there may be some prejudice. I repeat that on our part, and I think the feeling will be the same on all sides of the house, there is willingness that this suggestion should be transmitted to the committee on procedure for consideration. Indeed, it need not be transmitted formally because the learned chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is here and will have heard the suggestion.


Mr. Nasserden:: I am afraid I must question the propriety of the suggestion by the leader of the house that anyone wishing to find out what is likely to happen should get in touch with the government whips office. With all

due respect to the hon. gentleman there is a question as to the propriety of such a course of action and I think this should be taken into consideration.


David James Walker: I should like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) if he did contact his own whip's office in connection with the business before the house during the private members' hour today. We take the initiative. We may slip up sometimes, but we try to advise opposition whips of what is likely to be up for consideration. I have heard from my own office that the opposition whip's office was advised of today's business on Thursday at twelve noon.
As to the standing of some of these bills, as the hon. member knows, a rule of the house states that this must be done at the request of the government. We take this action in accordance with requests which come from other parties in the house; I think it is important, in my position, that we do retain some good will among ourselves concerning what goes on in the house.


Norman Platt Lambert: In reply to the government whip may I say there have been many afternoons when at three o'clock the hon. gentleman or his assistant have been running around madly trying to determine what was going to happen. This may be a classic example of an occasion when the government whip can assume a mantle of virtue, but I suggest it is an exception.


Donald MacInnis: May I point out in this connection that I inquired of my whip this afternoon what would be coming up during this particular hour and he informed me that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) would be dealing with one of his bills. I looked at the order paper with that understanding, and Bill No. C-9 was the first which came to my attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I can
understand the concern of the house over the procedure which has been followed since five o'clock today and on a number of other afternoons but I would say to hon. members that whatever procedure is adopted the Chair is guided by standing order No. 19. Possibly I could say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that I will take note of the suggestion he has made and as chairman of the committee bring it to the attention of Mr. Speaker.


Robert William Prittie: If I may just say a word on the subject of procedure before we go on to consider the bill before us, let me point out that the whip's office asked me on Tuesday of this
Railway Act
week whether I was willing to proceed with this measure.
I am concerned about the amount of time which is being taken up during the so-called private members' hour for the consideration of this and similar matters. Last week discussion of the estimates cut into consideration of another bill in which I was interested for 12 minutes or so and now, I see, it is 18 minutes past five. As long as we continue with this so-called private members' hour I suggest it should really be 60 minutes and that in future, Mr. Speaker, you do not call it six o'clock until 60 minutes have expired. The committee on procedure might well come up with some change in our rules to make this possible. I would prefer the system they have in the United Kingdom where there are fewer bills but more time is allowed in which to discuss them. With those remarks I will move on to the subject of the bill before us.
This is an act to amend the Railway Act by requiring transportation companies operating under the Railway Act to file a copy of their reports with the House of Commons. My idea is that such reports should be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where they could be examined. Officials of the companies in question could graph lines where they could be examined, by members of the committee as is done in the case of the Canadian National Railways.
I wish to comment on the work of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in this connection. Prior to this session, the work of examining the annual report of the C.N.R. was done by a special sessional committee. This year we made it the work of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I think this was probably a sensible change. If hon. members will examine the most recent report of that committee they will become aware of some of the topics which were brought up by members. I will refer to a few of them now. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) spent a considerable time questioning the management of C.N.R. about their policy in relation to rail line abandonment. He took, I thought, a great deal of time on this, but the subject was important to him, and no doubt to other members from the three prairie provinces, so I think the time was probably well spent.
The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) asked the president of the company questions about railway service to a steel complex which was contemplated in the province of Quebec. Both the hon. members

Railway Act
for Halifax brought up the question of rail traffic in that important port. The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar) asked the management of the company questions concerning their policy regarding employees who would be laid off as a result of the closing of railway shops at London, Ontario. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) had questions to ask about run-throughs on the northern line of the C.N.R., on the effect of automation on employees and the impact upon the communities concerned as a result of changes in running schedules. A number of members asked questions about railway lines to various company plants.
These are important questions which affect the people in the ridings represented by the members I have named. I think this committee serves a very useful function. The work of the committee is uneven. Some members do not attend very well, others attend regularly. Some do not come well prepared; others do. They have read the reports and made themselves well informed on transportation matters. However, as I say, the committee serves a useful function because its members have a chance to meet face to face with the management of the railway company and ask questions directly. I think this is much more useful than putting questions on the order paper, speaking on the estimates of the Department of Transport of putting questions to the Minister of Transport (Mi*. Pickersgill) which may ultimately be answered after lengthy correspondence between the department and the railway company.
This is a direct way of putting questions and obtaining information. The president of the company is there; the comptroller is there, as is the secretary and other officials. They are ready to answer questions and the information comes forward quickly. I know the committee has been the object of a good deal of publicity in the past, but I maintain that a good rapport has been established between its members and the management of the company because of this direct personal contact.
I know the reason for Canadian National Railways coming before the committee; it is of course because it is owned by the government, and the government has to supply capital funds for the company and supply money to cover the operational losses. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the other railway companies in this country are not really private enterprises in the strict sense of the term. I said "other railway companies"; there
[Mr. Prittle.l
are quite a few in which hon. members may be interested. There is the Algoma Central, I believe it is called, in northern Ontario; the Northern Alberta, the Pacific Great Eastern, and some of the American lines which run into Canada. But I refer particularly to the Canadian Pacific Railway and I would not try to disguise the fact that I would like to see this railway company's officials appear before the committee.
The Canadian Pacific is a private enterprise in the sense that its shares are not held by the government. But it is very much a public institution. It was established as a result of public policy; public lands were granted to it, and it still receives public moneys. All the railways in this country receive a great deal of public money. There are the bridge subsidies, the maritime freight subsidies, the other freight subsidies, the proposed Crows-nest pass subsidy-which I believe we will be dealing with later-and the proposed passenger subsidy. All the subsidies amount to a very large sum of money. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that public money is being spent here and the representatives of the public ought to have the opportunity to question the management of the railway companies. Some operating rule may have to be worked out. Perhaps we should question the officials of those railway companies receiving subsidies of $5 million a year or more; I am not sure. But again, the point is that public moneys are being spent, and these railways affect the communities in this country and the lives of its people.
I said a few minutes ago that I should like to see the Canadian Pacific Railway Company management appear before the railway committee of the house. It seems rather incongruous that we have Canadian National appearing before this committee, where all its operations are subject to question-its railway operations, its steamship operations, its hotel operations, its trucking operations, its express operations and its telecommunications operation. All these matters are subject to questioning by the representatives of the people. But the other large transportation complex of this country is free of such investigation. I think it would serve a useful purpose to have these other companies appear before the committee, so they could be questioned about their operations by the representatives of the people who in one way or another pay the costs of the operations.
There is one particular point about the Canadian Pacific operation which I think is interesting and which is beginning to develop

at the present time. As is the case with the C.N.R., the Canadian Pacific has, besides its railway lines, steamship lines, trucking lines and telegraph operations. It owns lands from which revenues are received from the production of oil and gas. In my own province it owns land from which revenues are received from the cutting of timber; and it has a great many non-rail operations. According to the financial reports that I have read, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has set up another firm, an associated firm, called Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, and they are gradually turning over to Canadian Pacific Investments Limited many of their non-rail holdings. I should like to read a sentence or two from the September, 1964 report of the investment company of McLeod, Young, Weir & Company. They have this to say in part:
As the result of the transfer of many non-rail assets to the recently created subsidiary, Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, C.P.R.'s real earnings are now considerably understated, since C.P. Investments earnings are not consolidated with those of the railway company.
I do not want to make too much of that, Mr. Speaker, because I really have not investigated it very thoroughly. I have read this report by McLeod, Young, Weir & Company and I have read reports in the Financial Post and Financial Times on the same subject. I am simply trying to point out that this is a very important topic in which the members of this house might be interested; because I think some of us would be concerned if the company was not showing, in its railway operations, its total revenues. After all, the revenues and profits

the earnings, in other words-of the railway company certainly have some bearing upon the freight and passenger rates which are set.
The company received public lands at one time-a very large acreage of public lands; over 25 million acres, anyway-in western Canada. It is from these lands that revenues are being received from oil and gas production and in the sale of real estate, in some cases. In the city of Vancouver they are realizing large amounts of money from the sale of real estate. They would not have received these lands had they not been a railway company; and I contend that all these earnings should be taken into account when we are assessing the earnings position of the railway company and the relation they have to the freight and passenger rate structure within the country.
From time to time in the past we have had set up royal commissions to investigate trans-
Railway Act
portation. It seems to me that if there could be an annual review of the operations of our major transportation companies, the members of the House of Commons could meet the management directly and ask questions. Then there would be less need for investigation, less need for boards of inquiry. The information would be readily forthcoming each year and, despite the newspaper headlines which have attended the meetings of the railway committee at times, I still maintain there is a very good rapport between the members of this house and the management of the railway. We meet Mr. Donald Gordon; we speak to him; we see the other members of his staff. We can meet these people every year, and I think this is an excellent thing. I believe it should also be done with the other railway companies. I do not think the railways should be unwilling to appear before the committee, because whenever a royal commission has been set up and they have wanted to present their case they have been quite eager to appear before them. I think it would be good for them, as well as for the House of Commons.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because the major transportation companies-the major railway companies particularly-affect the economy of communities throughout this country and the lives of individuals, and because the Canadian people have put up so much money for their operation, I think it is only right and proper that the representatives of the Canadian people in this house should have an opportunity of questioning and examining the management of these companies each year, as is now done in the case of Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Jean L. Rochon (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech just made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).
I appreciate that the hon. member's remarks were in the interest of the people and were not made for any political consideration.
I understand he is only looking forward to the protection of all concerned, and I want to commend him for his good intentions. But, as it happens so often when one wants to do something too well, one loses sight of one's goal; that is, unfortunately, the case with this Bill No. C-55. I fear it is exactly what would happen should the house pass such a piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, this could cripple any

Railway Act
action on the part of those who are engaged in or who favour private enterprise.
By submitting them-more specifically the Canadian Pacific-to such legislation, they would be compelled as is the case for publicly-owned companies, to submit to government interference in the internal administration of their affairs.
Many would no longer care to serve the community well, even while expecting a fair retribution.
I am not against some form of control, especially when people are being exploited, with regard to the conditions under which they work, the hours they work or the salary they are paid, far from it. But today, labour unions are so well organized and efficient that abuses are seldom to be deplored.
The purpose of this bill, according to the explanatory notes, is to permit parliament to inquire into, as is done with the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways, the financial structure and the operations of those private railway, telegraph and express companies and water carriers which come under the board of transport commissioners as public utilities.
I share some of the views of the previous speaker but I should like perhaps not to dispute their validity, but to express my concern over a far reaching socialism, a provident state that paralyses or tends to annihilate personal efforts without people realizing it.
Besides, it is provided in the charter of railways or public utilities having to do with transportation, that annual reports must be submitted to the board of transport commissioners and also to the dominion bureau of statistics, and I fail to see the need for such government interference as provided for in this legislation. I realize that some companies are virtual monopolies, but the brain behind them belongs to an individual at the service of a private organization, most often his own. His talent is put at the service of those who benefit from his activities; he pays salaries and in many cases, his employees, at least the most qualified, get fringe benefits according to their qualifications or years of service. In many cases, they are considered as partners rather than employees and relations between employees and employer do not have the tendency that is too often observed among the employees of an organization that is public property.
I would not go so far as saying that the C.N.R. personnel, and especially the express employees do not carry out their duty. Far

from it; but I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the interest in one's job, in those public companies, is very often limited, strictly to the terms of the contract agreed to. In this age of automation, everybody must face realistically the facts of life. Like many others, I would look unfavourably upon government control of private enterprise which always remains the best incentive for individual effort, the best way to think and believe that if the government must help the individual, the latter on the other hand must not expect everything from the government.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few remarks on behalf of private enterprise, which should not be destroyed, which should be allowed to live if we are to have good understanding and to get results in our world.
Such are the remarks I wished to make and I made them not in the interest of one company or of one organization but in the interest of every one of us, namely of the people of this country.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few very brief comments on the bill before us this evening, Bill No. C-55 to amend the Railway Act. I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the mover of the bill, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie;. As 1 understand the bill, the explanatory notes and the explanation of the hon. member, its purpose is to enable parliament to look into the financial structure and operations of private companies doing business in the field of transportation, telephones and telegraphs. The bill would add an additional subsection (5) to the other four subsections of section 384 of the act. This proposed amendment would make these companies submit an additional copy of their returns to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who in turn would have to lay such copy before the house within a certain period.
I must agree with the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Rochon) that the proposed amendment to the Railway Act is unjustified because the Railway Act already provides for the filing of annual returns. The annual reports of these private companies already have under the act to be filed with the board of transport commissioners as well as with the dominion bureau of statistics. We can see why the C.N.R., the Canada Council or other crown corporations such as Trans-Canada Air Lines, or I should say Air Canada, would have to make annual reports to parliament. They are

822S
crown corporations. But I fail to see why private companies should be investigated by parliament. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that by poking our parliamentary noses into private business we are transgressing, reaching beyond our duties and trespassing on a field which lies entirely outside our proper jurisdiction. If we start snooping into the books of private firms, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line between private companies and crown corporations; between free enterprise and socialism? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment before us would simply tie another governmental string and another yard of red tape around the neck of the private business.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, which is an act to amend the Railway Act, would force all private railways, telegraph, telephone, express companies and carriers by water, which now come under the board of transport commissioners, to be investigated each year by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Little does the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), who is the sponsor of this bill, realize that all these companies must appear before the board of transport commissioners each time they intend to change their tariffs. All the pros and cons in respect of such a change are investigated, studied, and subject to a judgment after all witnesses have presented their cases. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond is not satisfied with the operations of any of these privately owned companies, and can support his case, he has the right as a Canadian citizen to appear before the board of transport commissioners.
I am very strongly in favour of private enterprise. Since I have visited many countries of Europe, and particularly some of the socialistic countries, I am even more strongly in favour of private enterprise. Our high standards of living and our way of life is the result of a private enterprise system and not the result of any socialistic measures in Canada. I will always be against anything or anyone who wants to socialize private enterprise in Canada.
In fact, I even believe that the C.N.R. should not be government owned, but should be owned privately. I feel the government should only enter into business activity in Canada when private people are not able to provide efficient service. The Canadian Pacific Railway has done a wonderful job in Canada in providing transport throughout the country.
Railway Act
I do not believe the government has any place in the ownership of the Canadian National Railways, but that it should be put back into the hands of private enterprise so long as it can be run efficiently.
I think also that the government should relinquish its ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines to private enterprise. We have other air lines operating in Canada, such as the Canadian Pacific Airlines, which is carrying out an efficient operation. I strongly believe that the government should get out of the ownership of transportation services and allow private enterprise to own these companies, as long as the services are continued on an efficient basis.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and I agree with him that private enterprise, in initiating the system we have today, has built Canada for the most part into what it is today. I think this practice should be continued and encouraged because this is the most efficient way of developing a country.
I believe I should say that I do not agree with him in some of his arguments, for the very reasons he has advanced. If the C.P.R. was in effect running its operation as a free enterprise company and was not coming to parliament for subsidies I would support the kind of action which would keep what has been referred to as our parliamentary nose out of its business.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) presented a very good case in support of making the financial affairs of the Canadian Pacific Railway known to parliament, and I agree with many of his reasons. We are now paying to the Canadian Pacific Railway something like $70 million annually in unconditional subsidies. Surely the members of this House of Commons have a right to know why the C.P.R. requires this kind of assistance. A few days ago when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) was introducing a resolution respecting the new Bill C-120, he said that he hoped to reach the position where all subsidies paid directly to railway companies will be paid for specific purposes, and that massive unconditional subsidies will no longer exist.
Before the end of this session I think we shall have the opportunity of examining the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway in respect of that company's financial affairs, because no doubt those officers will be pre-
822S

Railway Act
senting themselves to a parliamentary committee, along with their briefs and requests for assistance. However, following the meetings of that committee this session I feel, as the hon. member who supports this bill has advocated, that in view of the fact the C.P.R. does require government subsidy, parliament should have the right to examine its financial structure, its profit and loss statements and balance sheet, as it should have the right to examine the financial structure of any company which comes to parliament asking for millions of dollars in unspecified or unconditional grants. As long as these subsidies are being paid to the C.P.R., or to any other company, even though I am in favour of free enterprise I feel as a member of parliament I have a right to know that they do in fact require this assistance. How can I satisfy myself in that regard unless I have the opportunity to examine their statements and crossexamine the officers of the companies?
If the railway companies, and this includes the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. as well as air lines, as the hon. member has said, carry on operations efficiently and provide the services required by the Canadian people without requiring subsidies from the federal treasury, they should be able to operate without our sticking our parliamentary nose into their affairs. However as long as we are required to pay literally hundreds of millions of dollars out of the public treasury to assist these transportation systems, I feel we have a right to know what their financial structures are. I might say also-


Mr. Choquelfe:: Would we have time to examine it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, we would have time to examine it.


Auguste Choquette: It would be a 12-month session.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I might say also that, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) pointed out, there were certain cash grants made out of the public treasury, along with public lands and so on in setting up the Canadian Pacific Railway in the first place. However, when they come back to parliament wanting to raise freight rates, for example, they only present a picture of their financial affairs which is specifically confined to the railway operations. There is the Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Company, what I believe is referred to as the Canadian Pacific investment fund and so on. A large part of the assets that were turned over to Canadian
[Mr. Olson.l
Pacific when it was established in the first instance are vested in these separate companies. Whether you want to call it free enterprise, public enterprise or any other kind of enterprise, if justice is to be done all of these things, because they were a consideration in the first place, need to be taken into consideration before any further support for the railways from the public purse can be justified. Therefore I think it is a perfectly justifiable demand that the officers of these companies should be called before a committee of parliament so that we can examine the whole of their operations, rather than having to be content with just what they choose to give us.


Mr. Yves Forest (Slanslead):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) was certainly well intentioned in introducing his bill. Nevertheless, there are a few comments I should like to make, inasmuch as I am against its principle.
What the hon. member said about his bill in no way convinced me that it ought to be supported. Of course, in the case of the Canadian National Railways or Air Canada, which are crown corporations property of the Canadian people, it is perfectly logical and legitimate for members of this house to have the right to look into their financial operations. When those companies appear before a committee of this house, members can get information about their financial structure, their development and their programs. We recognize that there are cases where such a thing can clear things up. The Canadian people certainly wish to be informed about their activities through members of parliament.
If we recognize this principle in the case of crown corporations we cannot do so, however, so far as private companies mentioned in the bill are concerned. The hon. member referred especially to the C.P.R. in support of his bill, mentioning that this company had obtained public funds for its operations. He only referred to that company, but on the other hand, his bill goes much further. As a matter of fact, it mentions private railway, telegraph and transportation companies already coming under the board of transport commissioners. Now, those private companies are already required to submit returns to the board of transport commissioners which has jurisdiction over a great number of their activities. It would be quite another thing, as suggested by an hon. member, if those companies published each year a report

which, to all practical purposes, would be a public document because it would come before parliament. Thus all companies could find out the assets, liabilities and operating costs of all other companies, which would certainly be harmful to the latter's interests.
Private companies have to comply with a lot of regulations, they are obliged to submit statistics and reports to the federal and provincial governments, and I think that we must not go any further in that field. Companies already have to hire experts to prepare all the statistics and other information required by regulations and federal as well as provincial laws. They must not be forced to appear before the railway committee or the board of transport commissioners to answer publicly all sorts of questions on their operations.
Of course, nothing stops the committee from making certain suggestions when it considers the reports of crown corporations, but it can do so only up to a point. Private companies cannot be influenced substantially
Railway Act
as far as their operations are concerned nor can their reports be examined, because such a study must be carried out by experts of the board of transport commissioners. Those people are the only ones who can scrutinize the operations of the companies in question. At any rate, such an examination would be too heavy a task for the committee; the latter would have to sit all year round to make a detailed study of the balance sheets and operations of those companies.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this bill will be a handicap to private enterprise which has done so much for the country. Furthermore, it is not only premature, it serves no useful purpose.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The
hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
-521
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general-
1.	Departmental administration including federal share of the expenses of the secretariat for the Canadian council of resource ministers and $120,000 for grants for northern research and for northern scientific research expeditions, $1,591,500.
la. Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1964-65 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 hut not exceeding $50,000, $1.
5. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the provinces, to assist in the development of roads leading to resources, $8,625,000.
10. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for campground and picnic area development, $200,000.
National parks-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including wildlife resources conservation and development, administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and payments to land owners who maintain migratory bird habitat in accordance with agreements entered into on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, payment to the national battlefields commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec and grants as detailed in the estimates, $11,485,600.
15a. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $62,000.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,253,600.
Water resources-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $2,097,200.
30a. Administration, operation and maintenance- To extend the purposes of vote 30 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include federal expenditures in connection with investigations of the Fraser and Nelson rivers and to provide a further amount of, $1,080,000.
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $304,500.
35a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $20,000.
40. Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $8,950,000.
Northern administration-
45. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, authority to sell electric power and fuel oil (and to provide services in respect thereof), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to private consumers in remote locations where alternative local sources of supply are not available and to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide, in respect of Eskimo commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $22,524,700.
45a. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,468,600.
50. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, authority to make recoverable advances in respect of services provided and work performed on other than federal property when only the department is capable of performing such service or work, and authority for a program of construction or acquisition of housing for Eskimos and the sale of houses to Eskimos on such terms and conditions and at such prices as the governor in council may approve, $13,067,400.
50a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 50 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include payment of compensation, as the governor in council prescribes, to persons affected by the relocation of the town of Aklavik, $16,900.
Loans, investments and advances-
Northern administration branch-
L24a. Loans to the government of the Northwest Territories (hereinafter called the "territories") in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, to enable that government to make mortgage loans to residents of the territories for the purchase or construction of low cost houses in the territories, $330,000.
Northern Canada power commission-
L25. 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, $6,450,000.
L30. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $8,384,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 21, 1964