1964-10-02

IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. C. O. Cooper (for Mr. Ormiston) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-127, to amend the Immigration Act (foreign intervention in industrial disputes).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Clarence Owen Cooper: The purpose of this bill is to prevent foreign interference in domestic labour-management disputes and such intervention in subsequent negotiations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Justice. When he spoke on television last night at eleven o'clock and stated that he had no knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. Banks, did he not at that time have the information that Mr. Murphy, a radio man connected with station CFRA, I believe, had had a radio discussion with Mr. Banks, and that Mr. Reguly of the Toronto Star just walked down by the dockside and was able to see Mr. Banks there along with his car bearing a Quebec licence? Would the minister be able to explain that rather incongruous position?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, of course, one does not appear directly on television on the eleven o'clock news. These interviews are taped, and the interview in question was taped around 4.30 yesterday afternoon. I learned of this alleged interview with Banks at the time the interview was taped and I had no way, of course, of ascertaining to what extent the facts as alleged were accurate and especially no way
of ascertaining who tipped off the reporter. Whether or not it was Mr. Banks himself I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister, having tried for so long to find the location of Mr. Banks, is now able to give us information with regard to whether the elusive Mr. Banks, the waltzing Matilda of Canadian politics, has been discovered.


Guy Favreau: I do not have precise information as to this yet, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that I shall tell my right hon. friend whenever information is obtained.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the information the Minister of Justice gave the house yesterday in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that the proceedings to which he referred could have been commenced five years ago, could the minister explain why those proceedings were not commenced during his tenure of office in the Department of Justice, which did not cease until 1960 after he had been there six years through two administrations?


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the information came to the Department of Justice in 1958, a period when a Liberal government, I am told, was not in office but rather a Conservative government; and the first positive statement came in February, 1962, at a time when a Liberal government was not in office.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This does not answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to prevent anyone asking any reasonable and proper question at this time, but I suggest we are getting very close to starting a debate.


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct an inaccuracy. It was not February, 1962 as I have just stated, but February, 1959.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the point the minister raised yesterday is important and should be cleared up. Since the minister was serving as assistant deputy minister in the department in 1958, will he inform the house
8668	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry what advice the law officers of the crown gave to the government of that day?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is improper.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Justice not think that in 1958 and 1959 it rested much more with the minister of justice than with the deputy minister to make the appropriate decisions in such cases?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to say-and I thank the hon. member for Lapointe for his suggestion-that in 1958 or 1959, I was not responsible for the policy of the department.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the obvious secrecy which has surrounded the whole matter of Banks' escape from Canada, as well as the obvious interest in this matter of all members of the house, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would cause an independent body to inquire into and make findings upon all the surrounding circumstances which have enabled Banks to blatantly flout the law of Canada and escape out of Canadian jurisdiction.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no such inquiry is necessary.
I think the facts are quite clear, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served at this time in establishing that kind of inquiry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for an answer from the Minister of Justice. Is he now in a position to say whether any inquiry was ever made of the immigration authorities in the United States as to Banks crossing the line with car attached? Second, can he say whether the S.I.U. office or Mr. Hall was ever communicated with to find out where Banks was?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I myself, of course, do not perform the actual investigations subsequent to demands for information. I never said in this house that a formal demand had been made to the immigration authorities of the United States. On the contrary, I said it was most unlikely that these would be the authorities who could supply us with information. What I did say in this 

respect was that the R.C.M.P. had asked the F.B.I. to supply us with information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, did the minister notice the statement made by Paul Hall that he had never been asked where Banks was? Why did not the minister in the discharge of his responsibilities, if he was really trying to do something-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -get in touch with this man?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I should think it was more appropriate to go to the authorities concerned, namely the F.B.I., rather than to Mr. Paul Hall.


John George Diefenbaker: Blaming the F.B.I. for
your negligence.


Erik Nielsen: A further supplementary
question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister seen this morning's report in the Globe and Mail where it is set forth that packages from a convertible with Quebec licence 323-983 were transferred to Banks' Cadillac in New York? If so, does he intend to take any investigative action to see whether an offence has been committed by any other Canadian in this conspiracy?


Guy Favreau: I have not yet seen the item in the paper, Mr. Speaker.



QUEBEC-REPORTED SECRET CAMPS FOR GUERRILLA TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and ask him if his attention has been drawn to a statement made in the courts by Marcel Tardif to the effect he received guerrilla training in a secret camp last summer near Shawinigan? He says In his statement that this camp was used to give military training against "the enemy" and when asked by the judge as to who the enemy was he said "the federalists". I should like to ask the minister whether the R.C.M.P. have any knowledge of this alleged secret military camp or of any other secret military camps, and whether an investigation is being made by his department into the statement of Marcel Tardif.


Guy Favreau: I have no knowledge personally to date of the facts as just stated. However, I shall take that question as notice and shall inquire.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Justice or the R.C.M.P. any knowledge of one Frangois Schirm who, according to Marcel Tardif, is a one time French paratrooper and who was the commander in charge of this camp? Has the R.C.M.P. any knowledge of this man or his activities, or is any attempt being made to question him?


Guy Favreau: I think this is a question that ought to be put on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely when a man is named in the courts as being the commander of a secret military camp, that is something that ought not to be put on the order paper where it may lie for two or three months. Surely this is a matter which the Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P. ought to be looking into. When I ask the minister if his department or the R.C.M.P. know anything about this man, surely I ought not to be told to put the question on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has stated the question twice now and the minister has said he will take notice of it and investigate. I think, although the question is extremely important and that is why it was allowed in the first place, the minister should have an opportunity to make a full and complete investigation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say he would look into the matter of Frangois Schirm, who was allegedly the commander of this secret military camp. He asked me to put the question on the order paper. I am suggesting that this is a matter of too great urgency to be put on the order paper. If the minister will undertake to look into the question and report to the house, I am satisfied. However, I am not satisfied to put the question on the order paper.


Guy Favreau: The reason I suggested that the question be put on the order paper was that I thought Frangois Schirm was one of the three persons arrested and presently detained in Montreal in connection with a murder in an arms dealer's store. I shall inquire and, of course, any of these allegations or facts stated in newspapers are automatically and immediately inquired into by the R.C.M.P. Once the result of the inquiry is brought to my attention I shall report to the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL VISIT



MEASURES TO ASSURE SAFETY OF HER MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is really related to the question that has just been asked and is directed to the Minister of Justice. In his opinion are the arrangements for the protection of the safety of the Queen properly in hand, in view of the fact that there are printed instructions being circulated through the publication La Cognee telling how best to plan action against the Queen's visit, how to infiltrate crowds, touch off riots and cope with the police when they attempt to restore order? It seems to me this is all related, and that there should be some statement that such activity is being adequately taken care of ahead of time.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, my answer to this is a definite affirmative. Definitely, yes; all the necessary measures have been and are being taken, and I can assure this house that the safety of the Queen is completely assured and that facts such as those which have just been brought to the attention of the house are being investigated and measures have been taken in relation thereto.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
monTreal-benefits to striking

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell us whether a decision has been made by his department and the unemployment insurance commission in order to allow the employees of La Presse who are out of work on account of the strike at this newspaper, to draw unemployment insurance benefits as of early June?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it this matter is before the board of referees. I shall check to see whether a decision has been reached by the board.
8670	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN TORONTO CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which perhaps the acting minister or the Prime Minister would answer. Are any members of the federal government taking part in the Canadian pensions conference being held in Toronto and, if not, has the department full time observers or participants at the conferences?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, on behalf of the minister, I could take notice of this question, check into it today and give the hon. member an answer.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's suggestion, but the conference will be over by next week.


John Carr Munro: I said I would supply the hon. member with an answer after orders of the day.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have the
answer to a question posed earlier today by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka. The Department of National Health and Welfare was represented by a delegate at the Canadian pensions conference held in Toronto on Wednesday, September 30. That conference terminated yesterday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberf Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is it his intention to propose alterations to the expensive and unsuccessful older workers program and, if so-


Mr. Robichaud:: Order.


Robert Muir: I see the little man is piping up again. If the minister is proposing alterations would he outline them to the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no information as to any unsuccessful winter works program operated by the Department of Labour.


Robert Muir: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister is it not a fact that under his older workers program $200,000 was spent to put approximately 2,000 people to work?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put this on the order paper as it requires a detailed answer.



QUEBEC-APPLICATIONS UNDER WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of several mayors of municipalities in my constituency, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us why application forms for the 1964-65 winter works are not yet distributed to Quebec municipalities? [Text]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These forms are presently being processed by the queen's printer, and we hope they will be available for distribution next week.



D.E.W. LINE-EQUAL WAGES FOR U.S. AND CANADIAN PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it relates to the basic labour problem on the distant early warning line. Has the government of Canada made it abundantly clear to the government of the United States that it is unacceptable that Canadians employed on the distant early warning line by the United States Federal Electric Corporation should receive substantially lower wages than United States citizens with whom they are working in identical jobs?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice and find out whether I can give a proper reply.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in the absence of the

Postmaster General. Since the postal employees at Fort William feel that peepholes in the building constitute an invasion of their civil rights, will the minister assure the house that the peephole situation will be rectified, or that these men can seek redress under the bill of rights?


Guy Favreau: Apparently if there is a peephole situation, Mr. Speaker, it began some time before the last federal election. I shall take the question as notice for the Postmaster General and discuss the matter with him.



FLOOD CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It arises out of a story in this morning's Globe and Mail that an urgently needed $5 million flood control scheme for the Credit valley is being held up because approval cannot be obtained from the minister's department. If there is a delay what is the reason for it, and when can we expect approval of this very urgently required flood control scheme?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The only delay is dictated by the fact that the economic studies involving the relation of the benefit to the cost have not yet been completed. I can assure the hon. member that we are proceeding with these studies as rapidly as possible; they relate solely to the benefit anticipated in comparison with the cost.


Reid Scott: The hon. gentleman will understand that the parties concerned are urgently in need of some indication as to the length of time which may be involved. Can the minister give any indication when these studies will be completed and some decision rendered?


Arthur Laing: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker. SHIPPING



MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF MARINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works.
When I was elected at a by-election last February, the minister told the population of Montreal that a definite project had been agreed upon for the construction of a harbour station for the city of Montreal.
Since that time, as far as I know, no work has been undertaken toward the construction of that station.
Could the minister tell the house if his department intends to pursue this project and when?


Hon. J. P. Deschafelefs (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will contact the Minister of Transport in this respect, and under the circumstances I shall consider this question as a notice.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport and ask him whether he would make inquiries to see if it is true that the proposed withdrawal of the dayliner service between Havelock and Toronto will be carried out in order that the coaches may be transferred to the Montreal area.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of Transport):: I will look into the matter further. I am aware there is a proposal by the railway company to discontinue dayliner service between Peterborough and Toronto, and representations have been made to the board of transport commissioners on behalf of the municipalities directly concerned. As the hon. member knows, the board has the responsibililty of deciding what should be done in these circumstances. When I have any further information I will bring it to the attention of the hon. member.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Will the minister use his influence with the board of transport commissioners to make sure there is a public hearing on this matter before the dayliner service is abandoned?


George James McIlraith: I do not think I can undertake to try to influence a quasi-judicial body such as the board of transport commissioners, but I will find out what the responsibility of the minister is in this regard and

Inquiries of the Ministry
make sure that any representations which are made to me are brought to the attention of the board. But I would certainly not undertake to try to influence the board.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question concerning the proposal recently made to a United Nations committee by United States Ambassador Plimpton which, if adopted, would in effect give a bigger voice or a weighted vote in peace keeping decisions to the great powers and those members who are large financial contributors to the United Nations. Could the minister indicate the government's attitude toward this proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member gave me notice of this question the day before yesterday. The Canadian government through its ambassador at the United Nations supports the suggestion that there should be a special committee of the United Nations to give consideration to the problem of the financing of future UN peace keeping operations. This suggestion arises out of a proposal made by the government of the United States in the working group of 21. I do not believe the hon. member is right in saying the proposal involves the question of a weighted voting principle. However, we support the establishment of a committee for the purpose I have mentioned.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Having in mind yesterday's report by the special defence committee regarding the failure of civil defence to gain public acceptance in the fields of fallout shelters and population evacuation, can the minister indicate what steps the government will take to meet the situation revealed by the committee?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which falls within the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Industry.
(Mr. Mcllraith.]


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as the remaining part of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production, which includes the emergency measures organization, has been called for later today I suggest that the answer to this question might be left until that time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. When may we expect the maritime trustees to appear before a committee of this house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to state on what date they will appear.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate what effort he is making to meet the request of many hon. members of this house in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the request of the members of the house that a meeting with the trustees be arranged has been met. It is proposed that the trustees meet the committee of the house during this session; the only thing unsettled is the date of that appearance.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister ask the trustees to inquire whether the school in New York to which members of the S.I.U. have been sent for training by the trustees is the school which Mr. Banks has in recent weeks been heading up?


Erik Nielsen: He has just graduated.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the trustees know the members of this house have wanted them to appear before a committee for months, does the minister not think it is a little impudent on their part to continue to delay this appearance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would not agree with my hon. friend. As my hon. friend is aware, the chairman of the board wrote me a letter on this subject, gave me lengthy reasons for his thinking in this matter and said he would appear later in the fall. I wrote back and said that was fine with the government. The only question to be settled now is when

they will come, and I will raise the matter with the chairman again.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since unanimous consent was not given last night to the request of the house leader that the house not sit on October 12, the day Her Majesty the Queen will be here, could the Prime Minister not consider bringing in a motion for the house not to sit on that day?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; a motion to that effect is being put on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question?
Could the minister tell me whether the status of the general secretariat for the province of Quebec is to be changed shortly and, in particular, whether there is any basis to the rumour that the Canadian ambassador to Egypt, Mr. Chapdelaine, will be appointed to that position?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question rests entirely with the Quebec government. The question is no doubt based on an item in this morning's issue of Le Devoir.
All I can say is that during his stay in Canada Mr. Chapdelaine discussed his plans with me, but only in general terms. However, we have not yet received an official resignation from Mr. Chapdelaine who has given such dedicated service to Canada as the head of diplomatic missions.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to ask a supplementary question.
Has Mr. Chapdelaine handed his resignation to the minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have misunderstood what I said: not yet, no. In addition, I meant to
Inquiries of the Ministry say that we have appointed two new consuls in France, Messrs. Choquette and Bus-siere, both from the province of Quebec.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question? Has he been in touch with Mr. Lesage or other Quebec ministers in this connection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have had no opportunity of getting in touch with anyone of the Quebec provincial government concerning this matter which, furthermore, does not fall within my jurisdiction.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs had any official representations from the province of Quebec in this connection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question has been up two or three times during the last few weeks, and it seems to me that to get a proper reply it should be put on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: A detailed reply.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house whether the government has under consideration a further discontinuance of sections of the mid-Canada radar line?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to pose to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of allegations made on the

Inquiries of the Ministry program "Live Wire" this morning to the effect that most bakery, dairy and cleaning firms holding franchises in large apartment buildings in Ottawa are providing kickbacks to those who provide the franchises, and that in some cases compulsion to use these companies is written into a lease? Would the minister check to see whether this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the restrictive trade practices commission, and take appropriate action?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what was said on that program, but I shall refer the matter to my appropriate officials.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell the house whether it is the policy of the government to move in this direction and do this work under contract rather than under the system as developed directly within the government administration?


An hon. Member:: To what are you referring?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I refer to the question of maintenance staffs engaged for the purpose of looking after government buildings. Is it the policy of the government now to move out of the area of direct hiring of these employees and into the contract field?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We are moving back to contract, Mr. Speaker, rather than hiring the personnel to do the job.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to direct a question to the Secretary of State but, in his absence, I shall ask his parliamentary secretary to answer it.
Would the Secretary of State consider making an investigation in the case of Mr. L. Deavey who answers the telephone at the printing bureau and who, when French speaking Canadians telephone there gives the following answer:

"Another fanatic wants to speak French".


Is the Secretary of State going to investigate the case of that Mr. Deavey who gives answers which are not quite appropriate?


Mr. J. B. Stewarf (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker,
I did not hear the question in detail, but when I have read it I shall try to decide whether a suitable answer can be made.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether his officials have completed their investigations into the activities of the various groups in respect of which questions were asked last week concerning the I.T.U. strike in Toronto; and if they have completed their investigations, what report can the minister now make to this house?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a complete report, but I hope that early next week I will be in a position to inform the house about the latest developments.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce about a report published in the Expo Digest bulletin. Is the minister in a position to tell the house by how much the area of Notre Dame island will be extended for the exhibition and what will be the additional cost?


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



WATER LEVELS


Arthur Laing: That the subject matter of the water levels of the great lakes system be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters for their consideration and report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps make a very short statement in respect of this motion.
A nation rich in resources has the duty to ensure that her posterity never find it necessary to accuse their forefathers of neglectfully wasting their heritage. The present crisis in the livelihood and interests of many of our people in the great lakes basin requires that measures be taken which will not only meet current needs but will ensure the wise use of this water resource.
With these thoughts in mind I propose to introduce a motion on this subject. Before doing so I should like to report briefly to the house on measures already being taken by the government, and others which are now proposed, in regard to water levels in the great lakes. These measures form part of a comprehensive approach to the long term objective of learning to live with a natural resource of the size of the great lakes, but they also deal with today's problem.
As regards the current situation, I would remind the house that the international joint commission already has certain important responsibilities. Within the limits of natural conditions and existing authority it is regulating levels and flows from two of the lakes so as to make the best use of available supplies of water.
In April of this year all the lakes were below the average level of the past ten years for that month and, indeed, lake Huron reached its lowest level of the past 100 years. At the outlets of lake Superior and lake Ontario there are dams by which levels can be controlled but there are not present physical means by which the levels of lakes Michigan, Huron and Erie can be similarly regulated.
The commission's present authority extends only to lake Superior and lake Ontario. The international joint commission on June 25, 1964 authorized its lake Superior board of control to release water above the so-called "rule curve requirements" as long as supplies to the lake continue to be favourable and the present large differential in relation to low water datum between the 20220-549
Great Lakes Water Levels two lakes exists. This measure cannot provide an immediate end to the low water in the lakes downstream, but it will have a beneficial effect. It should be remembered that the time required for a larger portion of the benefit of this additional water to reach Montreal harbour will be well over one year because of the storage capacities of the intervening lakes and their relatively restricted outlet capacities.
Lake Ontario levels have been regulated since 1958 at the Barnhart island dam in the St. Lawrence, in accordance with the order of the I.J.C. Under the approved plan of regulation, levels on lake Ontario are maintained within a range of four feet during the navigation season, as contrasted with a range in nature of 6.6 feet. This has the effect of preventing as low a level of water in dry years as would have been the case had the Barnhart island dam not been built. There is every expectation that lake Ontario levels will be maintained within the improved range again this year. The levels of Montreal harbour are dependent on flows from the Ottawa river as well as from lake Ontario, and the approved plan of regulation recognizes this fact. In anticipation of low water supplies this year, every effort was made by the international joint commission and its board of control, in co-operation with the water users, to store as much additional water as possible in lake Ontario. This was released later in the season to alleviate expected low water conditions at Montreal and the lower St. Lawrence, when the flow from the Ottawa river fell off.
While the international joint commission is doing everything it can under its present authority, there are some steps the government can take to alleviate the worst effects of the present low water levels in particular harbours. On June 4 my colleague the Minister of Public Works informed the house of the expanded dredging program to be undertaken by his department. This dredging will relieve the local situation in some hard pressed areas, but I do not wish to imply that dredging can meet the needs of the many foreshore interests which are currently harassed by low water conditions or which may at other times suffer from high lake levels.
Indeed, the improvement of the water levels themselves is a longer term problem to which solutions must be found. One approach is to study the possibility of extending the regulation regime to make the best use of all the
8676	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Water Levels water supplies available from the great lakes basin. Until there is complete knowledge as to how the waters of the basin can be controlled and interests protected through both wet and dry periods, we should be concerned about any plan to introduce large supplies of imported waters. Experience with international regulation of levels on lake Ontario and lake Superior confirms the fact that substantial benefits can be achieved by the regulation of outflows.
As the Prime Minister told the house on May 22, the governments of Canada and the United States are proceeding with a special reference to the international joint commission on great lakes water levels. I expect that an early agreement will be reached to study the feasibility of extending the present regulatory system. This study will take some considerable time and immediate results are not to be expected.
The whole problem of water levels in the great lakes basin is exceedingly complex. As I mentioned earlier, it is welded to the greater human problem of how to live with a natural resource that is unique both in kind and in size. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain aspects in nature which we can bend to a certain extent, and there are some which we cannot bend. An understanding of causes and possible solutions involves the examination of extensive and complicated technical data. The facets of this complicated problem must become better understood by all those both within and outside this house who are concerned with the problem. A close examination of and a concentration of public attention upon the facts of the situation seem imperative at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question before he sits down? He has made a very full statement, and I should like to ask him whether he would be prepared to say something with regard to the effects of the Chicago diversion. What is being done to assure that the repeated requests for increased diversion in that area shall not be accepted?


Arthur Laing: In reply to the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am quite certain that for many years the great body of Canadian public opinion has been that the so-called Chicago diversion was one of the chief causes of the drain upon water which originated substantially in Canada. At the present time and for some years now that has not been the case. The draw-off at


Chicago is of the nature of 3,200 second feet only. It has been much higher in the past. This is a very small amount of water in relation to the problem that exists.
The right hon. gentleman implied that greater demands are going to be made. I would remind him that this tendency would seem to apply in Canada as well as in the United States, because at the present time I believe the province of Ontario is constructing a 72 inch pipe line for the sale of water wholesale to the city of London, and if this should be a continuing program in respect of drawing water from the lakes for the supply of our cities-


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Arthur Laing: I am not saying it should not be done. I say it is a good thing. I am not criticizing it at all, but it is going to create a very heavy drain upon our water. I would remind the house that much of the water that goes inland in such cases as that of the city of London will not return to the lakes but will be evaporated or lost through use inland. The huge requirements of our cities for water for multipurpose use are going to confront us with a problem probably just as great as that created by the demand that may eventuate from American cities.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask one more question. Has there been any request on the part of the corporation of Chicago for any increase in the amount of water diverted in that area?


Arthur Laing: I would not want to say definitely there has been no recent request for an increase. It is the opinion of our officials that the requirements or demands for water from Chicago are not pertinent to the problem at this time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask the minister a question. After all the conferences that have been held over the past several months in Toronto and Montreal and in Michigan with regard to this problem, has the government set no wheels in motion yet to alleviate the situation either as to the water levels or by way of assistance to the people affected? There was one program of dredging mentioned which was of very small benefit.


Arthur Laing: 
Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the minister a question? Since he has brought up the question of the prayer session, may I ask if he was asked to go and preside on that occasion?


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has referred to the London pipe line may I say that the pipe line is of particular interest in our area. It passes through the constituency of Middlesex West. I am somewhat disturbed to hear the minister suggest that the draw-off from lake Huron through this pipe line to supply to city of London and possibly some other municipalities would make any appreciable difference in the level of that lake. It has been suggested that a run-off of half an inch on the upper reaches of the Thames watershed, which is not a large one, would supply the city of London for a year. I should like the minister to tell us if possible what the percentage of the draw-off from lake Huron would be to supply the city of London. In other words, can he give us some figures that would allow us to compare the draw-off for the city of London with the diversion at the city of Chicago?


Arthur Laing: My Scottish grandmother used to say that many a mickle makes a muckle, and I think that is what applies in this case. I am not criticizing London at all. I think the action of the Ontario government in accepting responsibility for supplying water wholesale is a good policy, but one that will probably expand enormously. My hon. friend may say that the amount of water is very small but I point out again that the water in these draw-offs will have no chance to return to the lakes and that a great deal 20220-549i
Great Lakes Water Levels of additional water could be required in the future.
I would not care to make a suggestion. It would depend, of course, on the pressure in the 72 inch pipe. However, if very great pressure is used, I would advise my hon. friend that conceivably a tremendous amount of water could be drawn off inasmuch as I fully realize that the needs of London will be very great indeed. If this policy should be extended, and I expect it will expand in other areas because it would appear to me to be a reasonable policy to supply water wholesale to these cities, then this will get us into a study of the primary nature of water in so far as its multiuse purposes are concerned. I want to assure the house that I have had some indication of the briefs that have been prepared for this hearing before the committee, and I think they promise to make this committee one of the most informative and most intelligent presentations yet made to the Canadian public.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I do not know if his statement was brief in order to get the matter before the committee or if he felt that enough had been said in the house so that members are sufficiently aware of the critical situation that exists.
We on this side are well aware of the need that exists for policy and action in regard to the many problems with which the provinces and municipalities are faced. However, you cannot take action without some policy. We believe it has gone far enough. We believe at this particular stage of the game there could be some policy statement made to indicate that action will be forthcoming in the very near future. Indeed, some of the people living in the area of this great water system expected that action would have been taken before this time. The great loss that has been suffered by resort owners, and the great loss that has been sustained as a result of the lack of action and the lack of policy, are things which the people concerned can no longer tolerate.
We are aware of the conflict that exists. I do not say this to the minister today in an endeavour to suggest that this problem is new, because it certainly is not new. It is an old problem. It is a problem that has existed for a considerable period of time. We know of the extensive areas of authorities concerned within this government itself. For instance,

Great Lakes Water Levels there are a number of departments involved such as external affairs, transport, mines and technical surveys, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and even health and welfare; and of course public works is involved to a substantial degree. Action by one of these departments is not sufficient to protect the interests Of those served by other departments.
! I was interested to note that the minister himself stated lake Huron had reached the lowest level experienced in 100 years. Surely this would indicate that some type of practical action is necessary at an early date. I could refer back to the address that was made by the hon. member for Simcoe East, who brought this problem forcefully to the attention of the government on September 18. We did this previously as well. I think of the representations that were made to the government by the hon.. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue away back on May 11 by way of a motion. He felt the matter was of such immediate importance that he placed a motion on the order paper, and it was discussed at that time.
If action is to be taken, such as the development of policy, and if it is such as to bring pressure to bear upon the government, if this is the minister's own view, then we will support him wholeheartedly. However, we do hot believe government policy or action can be formulated by any such house committee. This must be the responsibility of the government. It was for this reason I stated we expected some action to be taken before this time.
I could refer also to speeches made by other hon. members, and I shall do so as briefly as 'I can, Mr. Speaker. I could refer to the contradiction which we believe has existed this year, and perhaps even before, within the government itself. I am thinking of a newspaper article that comes to us in the Vancouver Times. This article is by Mr. Dillon O'Leary, the Times Ottawa correspondent, anh the headline is "Lbing Contradicts Davis; Keep Water for Ourselves". The sentiment expressed here by the minister, that of keeping water for our own development, is certainly one with which I can agree. We believe water is one Of the most important resources Canada has today. The minister has made this statement. However, confusion 'exists when the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister makes one statement in B.C. and the minister contradicts him. This 'statement may relate to British Columbia and I realize I am getting away from the great

lakes, Mr. Speaker, but it indicates the confusion that exists.
Then I should like to refer to this well known and well documented article in the Montreal Gazette of September 12 written by the parliamentary correspondent, Mr. Arthur Blakely. This is a full page article which I think is most comprehensive. It outlines the problems which exist. It points out very forcefully some of the difficulties, such as, for instance, the way we lose this resource today. It may be that the minister will agree with me because I am one of those who believe that employing the virtuous course of prayer may be very desirable in connection with a question of this sort. Other questions have arisen here this morning in connection with which the same virtuous course might be employed with better results.
In this particular case Mr. Blakely has gone to great lengths to explain what the problem is and to outline the confusion. We on this side have known for a long time the confusion that exists. Mr. Blakely, for instance, deals very forcefully with the way we waste water. The heading on this article, of course, is "Canada's Water Going Down the Drain"; this is in a derogatory sense and not in the ordinary sense. He points out there have been floods causing immense property damage which could have been better controlled and, in many cases, avoided altogether. He deals with the question of shipping and the depletion of previously low levels; the supply of fresh drinking water without which great cities cannot exist; the virtual destruction of once great commercial fisheries. He goes into all the areas of concern such as recreation, soil, soil erosion, and so on. I think the last point he makes is a very good one. He refers to the 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.
This is the thing with which I feel we must concern ourselves. We hope, of course, that Canada's population will be much greater in the future than it is today. If we are not sufficiently cognizant of this particular problem to do something about it, then I think we are going to lose for all time part of the resources that we have.
I come back to the proposal made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. He referred to the great problem that exists with regard to these resources and men-

tioned the plan of Mr. Thomas Kierans, a Sudbury engineer, for the diversion of water to supply our various needs. I believe, however, that the answers to the many problems that exist lie within our own competence.
Mr. Blakely goes on to refer to a conflict over the great lakes, and in his article he says:
It is scarcely surprising. Under the rambling, ramshackle Canadian control system-if it can be described as a system-solutions whether of the short term, medium term or long term, almost defy application.
It is a story everywhere, and at all levels, of divided jurisdiction.
I regret the reason which necessitates the Minister of Transport being absent from the house, but some time ago I asked him if the government had any policy to bring this matter under the jurisdiction of one department or one area of control. I forget the exact words of his answer, but he explained that this could not be done because of diversification of interests. Here is the nub of the thing, Mr. Speaker; there has to be leadership. Not only do we require policy and action but we need active, positive leadership, and in my opinion we do not have this leadership.
In his article Mr. Blakely went on to explain that there is a lack of hydraulic engineering authority from which the minister can draw advice. Nevertheless I believe we have enough qualified men to give us a start, if we could only eliminate the professional jealousy that exists between departments. I will excuse any of these officials if they will just drop this pettiness so far as their departmental positions are concerned, pool their resource knowledge and do something.
I have no qualifications in this field, but I understand the problem starts in the waters of the St. Lawrence downstream from Montreal, and that any solution must begin at that particular point. I believe it is lake St. Peter, though I am not absolutely certain of that. However, the solution or remedy should be undertaken there first; then work can proceed back up through the great lakes system.
As has already been said in the house, we should see what people have done in European countries to conserve their resources; then we could take some similar type of action. However, first and foremost we have to have a separate water authority, and if necessary we must convince our neighbours to the south that they should have a separate
Great Lakes Water Levels authority too, instead of both of us having a proliferation of semi-authorities, semi-areas of control which have no function and meaning in the question before us today.
I know, as does the parliamentary secretary to the minister, that reports exist within departments, very technical, substantive reports, dealing with a solution of this problem, but somehow or other the jealousies that exist between departments cause these reports to be pigeonholed and buried somewhere as official government documents not available to the public. Slowly but surely some of them are being drawn out. Mr. Blakely referred to this in his article, although we had known about it previously, and I am very pleased he saw fit to make it public knowledge. In regard to one report he wrote:
It recommended the installation of a system of dikes in lake St. Peter which would compress the river flow in that area.
Obviously this is the beginning of the solution, but I understand that a much lesser sum of money could have been spent in solving it than has been spent to date, and the solution here would have been the answer for the port of Montreal.
When one is not a professional one can only deal with the expert information that is placed before one. Therefore I say it is not an impossible situation. Far from it; I am told that if we can control the problem at this point a magnetic study shows that the flow of water can be so diverted as to keep the St. Lawrence open for a much longer period of the year. I know this is not pleasing to eastern Canada, but the hydraulic engineers know what can be done on the basis of their own knowledge and the experience of European countries.
The minister cannot expect the committee to give him the kind of direction he requires. He must find these things out himself, and I am sure he knows them now. Today he showed a willingness to participate in the answering of questions, which was a wonderful thing. It does not happen too often when we are questioning the government benches; therefore I compliment him in that regard. He gave some of the answers our people wanted to hear.
The hon. member for Simcoe East gave a good outline of the things that have been tried, of the things that must be tried and of the policy that must be adopted in order to eliminate the low water levels. The minister says levels have been interfered with from the point of view of man-made de-

Great Lakes Water Levels
vices, and I maintain that the problem can be dealt with in a similar way.
Recently when I was in Scotland I was interested to learn how resources were conserved there. The hydroelectric company of Britain-I forget the exact name-has taken the flow of water from a lake in its northern division and used it to drive turbines that supply electricity. It has installed an automatic system whereby when the peak consumer period passes the turbines are phased out and two of them are reversed to act as pumps, raising water from a large basin dredged out at the base of the power plant. The water is pumped back upstairs and reused next day. In fact during the night time when consumption is at its lowest, six turbines are reversed to pump water back up to the lake, to be used a second or possibly a third time for the generation of electricity. This shows there is already a means of conservation in operation and this may be the answer to our problem at Kingston. If not, there are other means which can be used to halt the catastrophic waste of water.
Today the hon. member for Danforth raised the question of the Credit valley control system, without receiving a satisfactory answer. We pray that the minister will press the government to take action. We shall not plead with him to the point where we will get down on our knees, because I think there is a greater authority than the minister, but we do hope he will see fit to press the government into some action to achieve the solutions we believe are possible.
As has been stated by my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka, there have been conferences before. This is why we have not too much to say about the setting up of a committee. Surely at these earlier conferences there were people present with more experience on these questions than those who will take part in the committee now proposed, with the exception, of course, of the expert witnesses who will be called. It is, naturally, my hope that the committee will have a free hand in the calling of witnesses.
The minister has mentioned the meetings held in Michigan, Toronto and Montreal. One would have thought that as a result of these meetings some clear policy or course of action on the part of the government would have emerged. If the delay so far has been due to any watering down of the remedies put forward by the authorities, let us put an end to it now. Let us do

something constructive. We may not have the opportunity again. When the growth of our country reaches a certain stage it will be much too late to begin anything on lines which are possible today.
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with the conservation of water in areas of this country other than the great lakes and its associated system. My reference to this aspect will be brief because I realize I might be out of order, though of course this subject comes well within the competence of the minister whose motion is now before us. As I have indicated already, it is doubtful whether we really need a committee to consider water levels in the great lakes, because sufficient information must surely be available to the government as a result of the various conferences which have been held.
However, since the government has no particular policy to put forward we intend to support the setting up of a committee in the hope that as a result of pressure on the government some policy of action will evolve. I believe that if its work is to be effective the committee must be able to bring in outside witnesses such as Professor Langford, in addition to witnesses from the United States; because I think the problem in the United States is closely related to our own. There must be an indication from the government that it fully understands the efforts of our two countries in this field must be correlated. The Minister of Transport said this was not possible. Perhaps the minister of northern affairs will say the same thing, but I do not think his parliamentary secretary would agree with him. We feel there must be one policy, one course of action, one authority.
I wish to refer to the experience we have had in British Columbia; the great potential we have in the north and the fact that we may lose the possibility of developing a most valuable natural resource situated in the Yukon Territory. This most valuable resource may well be lost if we do not act quickly. I refer in particular to what is known as the Rampart scheme on the Yukon river. Its potential is many times that of the St. Lawrence seaway in hydro power alone. It involves a great body of resource water available for us to develop as Canadians.
We know there are alternatives which are currently under discussion. One is known as the Tulsaquan project and the other is the Tayia project; I believe those

are the correct pronunciations. We believe that this subject, because of its importance to the Canadian economy both now and in the future, should also be placed before the committee for consideration. If one of the alternatives I have mentioned were adopted we would lose the entire potential of the great body of water whose development is proposed. Other schemes would afford us at least a possibility of maintaining something for ourselves. I might mention, perhaps, that the Yukon river flows through Yukon Territory for a distance of 2,200 miles. It is the seventh largest navigable river in the world, and is extremely rich in resources of all kinds.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Yukon:
That after the word "system" in the first line of the said resolution be added the following words: "and the proposal for the construction of a dam at Rampart in the state of Alaska on the Yukon river."
I do so in order that these matters may be discussed at one and the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising to address the house on the question of the amendment?


Arthur Laing: I would participate now, if there were no other speakers. But I understand that by some arrangement a number of speakers have been lined up; they will probably be able to relate the main matter while discussing the amendment which has now been moved.


Reid Scott: We would prefer to have the amendment dealt with.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to speak on the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: rise to support wholeheartedly the amendment which has just been moved. It is in line with the thoughts I had in mind about enlarging the scope of the terms of reference of this committee. We support this resolution in view of the fact that the development of our water resources is a national problem. In our opinion the terms of reference should be extended to include consideration of the development of other water resources, particularly those of our northwestern rivers such as the Yukon and the other rivers in that region which were mentioned by the previous speaker.
Great Lakes Water Levels
Throughout the years the chairman of the international joint commission, General Mc-Naughton, made an annual report to the external affairs committee of proposals for the development of our water resources. Members of that committee were always delighted to hear this great Canadian scientist and engineer give his masterly report without reference to a manuscript and answer questions with great precision and in detail. Members of the committee on external affairs and many Canadians including a host of qualified engineers recognize the great contribution General McNaughton has made in the defence of Canada's best interests in war and in peace. We miss him very much. Hon. members have not seen or read very much about the international joint commission in the newspapers of Canada since General McNaughton retired from the chairmanship of the Canadian section of that body.
Now I want to refer to the question raised by the previous speaker. In doing so I want to quote a Canadian Press despatch from Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory dated September 17, 1964, a report which causes me to think along the lines suggested by the mover of this motion. It reads as follows:
Delegates to the B.C., Alaska and Yukon conference Tuesday rejected a scheme which would involve water from the three areas being exported as far as New York and Mexico.
The proposed scheme-
-and it is a scheme; that is the proper word for it.
-known as the North American water and power alliance, would divert northwestern rivers into a waterway from B.C. to the great lakes and southern U.S.
Representatives of the three regions agreed to issue a formal objection to the plan.
At Prince George Monday, John Davis, parliamentary assistant to Prime Minister Pearson, said a water exchange such as the one proposed had much to recommend it.
I dealt with that question during the estimates of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but because of the reference to the export of these Canadian waters to the United States and their diversion to the St. Lawrence seaway, in our opinion as far as development of resources is concerned this problem should not be treated on a piecemeal basis but on a total basis.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has already given evidence that he recognizes the need for a national water policy, and in this connection I would refer hon. members to page 8209 of Hansard for September 18, where I

Great Lakes Water Levels quoted from the speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, made on behalf of the minister, and an excellent speech it was. He said:
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.
I am one of those who were very pleased to see the minister's recognition of the need for this policy.
I come now to the speech of the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, who is the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I should like to quote one paragraph of his speech which I thought was in distinct contradiction to the principles and policies outlined by the minister. This was a speech delivered at Prince George, B.C., on September 4 entitled "The Great Northern Water Plan", and he said in part:
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.
In essence he means people who live in the United States.


Mr. Byrne:: That is not what he says; he was referring to southern and eastern Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, who lives to the south of the Yukon and British Columbia? Certainly he is referring to the United States, as the rest of his text gives a clear indication. The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is referring in this instance, and in other instances in the speech I have just quoted, to the necessity for the diversion of water to the south, to the United States. That is why I was very pleased to hear the previous speaker for the official opposition move the amendment he did, because I am one who believes that this problem has to be tackled wholesale, as it were, if we are going to develop a national water management policy.
The study of this question, Mr. Speaker, is of urgent and immediate importance. Many Canadians do not realize that, particularly in view of the United States proposal for the building of the Rampart dam mentioned by the previous speaker and the effect the building of this dam would have

on the possibilities for the development of Canadian waters in the Yukon territory. I am informed that this dam would be situated in Alaska about 350 miles downstream from the Alaska-Yukon border just below the junction of the Tanna and Yukon rivers, and would flood back to Canadian territory. I am informed that this dam would develop about four million kilowatts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the point. Once the United States captured this flow from the Yukon by the building of the Rampart dam, Canadians could whistle as far as proper and full development of the Yukon and other rivers is concerned. I see the hon. member for Yukon is nodding his head in agreement, and I am pleased to know that at least we agree on one or two things.
Why is this, Mr. Speaker? It is because of the insistence of the United States on their doctrine of "first in time, first in right". That means that once a dam is built in United States territory below Canada we cannot divert any waters which would affect the operation of that dam and any other use to which they wished to put the water stored behind it. If we allow this scheme to proceed we will have lost another opportunity to develop Canadian water resources for the production of Canadian power for Canadians with employment in perpetuity for Canadians, the provision of water for the irrigation of Canadian soil on the prairies and other portions of Canada, and to meet the increasing requirements of Canadians for water for various consumptive uses in Canada. It would also affect the possibilities for other developments.
What is known as the Tayia development was first proposed by the president of the Aluminum Company of America and supported by the then deputy minister of the department, Hugh E. Keenleyside. Fortunately for Canada these proposals were very quickly nipped in the bud by the minister of the department of the day, Hon. Robert Winters, and he did a good turn for Canada by doing so.


Erik Nielsen: I think the hon. member means Mr. Lesage.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. I have personal knowledge of what occurred in the Rideau club on a certain evening.


Erik Nielsen: I was thinking of Hansard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know exactly what happened at the Rideau club during a famous dinner, at which this licence was taken away from Mr. Wilson, the president of the

Aluminum Company of America, by Mr. Robert Winters, who was minister of the department at the time. This story was told to me by officials of the department.
Mr. Wardell, who is a well known person in Canada, had worked out the Taku development, which I am informed would result in six million kilowatts of power development all in Canada, whereas the Tayia development would have provided two or three million kilowatts all in Alaska. Many competent people claim that what is called the Wardell plan would make proper use of waters of Canadian origin.
Let me point out that I am not an expert in these matters; I am just expressing the opinions of a number of competent engineers with whom I have discussed this matter and who have been closely related to this department. There would be storage in Atlin bay, and I am informed that the head available for the three stage development proposed would amount to some 2,300 feet. I understand that Mr. Wardell's plan is beneficial to Canada and is an entirely Canadian development, whereas the Rampart dam recently proposed by the United States, which is being pressed quite strongly by United States authorities, would seriously affect the development of the Yukon in Canada and would provide an opportunity for United States industries to establish a monopoly on metallurgical processes in trade with Japan in such metals as aluminum, magnesium and other materials.
Because of the interrelationship of these problems, the possibility of diversion of waters to the great lakes and the danger of our losing an opportunity to develop the Yukon in the best interests of Canada, I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. These problems are so related I believe there should be an over-all consideration of them and, further, in view of the need for a national water management policy and proposals for the diversion of northern waters south to the United States and into the great lakes basin, I urge support for the amendment moved by the hon. member, and that the terms of the committee be extended to include a study and report of all these related projects as a first practical step toward the development of such a national water management policy.
As the previous speaker said, let us call and examine witnesses. Let us call General McNaughton, with all his vast experience and knowledge in this field, before this com-20220-550
Great Lakes Water Levels mittee. Let us call engineers like Mr. Wardell and others. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon knows of some witnesses we could call to the advantage of this committee. Let us call witnesses who have knowledge of the great lakes operations, from industry, from labour, as well as technical personnel of the department. Let us obtain all the facts while we have the opportunity of studying this question, because it is not isolated from the others. It is related to all the other water management proposals and to all the aspects of the development of a national water management policy.
In conclusion I urge the minister to give favourable consideration to this amendment, because we are trying to help and support him in his policy. The only thing of which we complain is that we are losing an opportunity at this time to deal with the problem on an over-all basis and get all the information required to satisfactorily deal with the water levels of the great lakes for years ahead.
I express again our wholehearted support for the amendment, and again urge the minister to consider it favourably, because we believe this is the best way to deal with this problem.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise at this time to take part in the debate, but I thought I should ask the minister by way of a suggestion whether he is prepared now to indicate to the house whether the government is prepared to accept the amendment. If he does so, and gives a favourable indication, that might shorten the debate somewhat.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I thought the
question of the admissibility of the amendment might have arisen in your own mind, because it seems to me that a study of the Rampart proposal is not in any way related to a study of the great lakes. I must admit that acceptance of the amendment will mean an immense extension of the studies of the committee. At the same time I at once admit that I have no objection to this, because we have been saying that water, its uses and conservation is one of the greatest concerns in Canada, and will be during the next 20 years. I have no qualifications in that regard because I believe that implicitly. However, I should like it understood that in any studies which will be undertaken by the committee we allot the primary time to the study of the great

Great Lakes Water Levels lakes problem, because this is why we initiated the resolution in the first place.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: The studies beyond that, in respect of the Rampart proposal-and I am sure this will be obvious to the hon. member for Kootenay West-will bring in their train a great number of other discussions and proposals. I have no objection to this amendment, and I am sure the government will not object, but I must point out that I think our first duty and objective, because of the representations which have been made by people in the great lakes area, is to study that situation and examine witnesses in that regard before proceeding with other problems.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister another question. Would the minister then say that after a study has been completed in respect of the levels of the great lakes he will move another motion for a similar type of study of the Rampart dam and associated policies?


Erik Nielsen: That is what he said.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did the minister say he would accept the amendment?


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that acceptance. I must say I am delighted by it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps before we proceed with the debate on the amendment the Chair should be allowed to say that after looking at the amendment it seems obvious there would have been some difficulty about its admissibility. There is no doubt whatsoever that it enlarges the scope of the original resolution, and I think it will be agreed that under normal circumstances it could not be allowed. If there is any purpose in giving notice of a resolution it is to make sure that throughout the debate we consider the resolution as contained in the notice. The amendment proposed by the hon. member goes beyond the scope and confines of the resolution of which notice has been given.
On the other hand, the minister is prepared to accept the amendment as proposed, subject to certain limitations as to the order of consideration by the committee. In the circumstances I suggest we go ahead and proceed with the debate on the amendment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the amendment. I think I understand it clearly, but I feel it is my duty to insist that consideration of the subject matter now before the house concerning the great lakes should be completed and a report made before we enter into a consideration of the second question. I admit there is a certain problem referred to in the remarks of hon. members, but I cannot admit that there is more than one basic problem contained in this resolution. If the committee considers the great lakes situation and makes a report, and then commences to consider the second situation, I will be glad to support the amendment. Otherwise I cannot support it.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am rising now to endeavour to deal with the very unusual suggestion made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that we give an undertaking after the great lakes study, now so long before the Canadian public, that we will then make another reference to the committee respecting these much broader studies.
I do not know whether it would be pertinent or proper for me to make any such commitment at the present time, in the light of the assurance I have given to the house that we will accept the amendment. I think hon. members will understand that because we have set out specifically to call witnesses in respect of the great lakes levels, it would be better to conclude that study before commencing another. I certainly give this house my assurance that I am aware of the much broader problems introduced by the amendment and am conscious of the necessity to study them, just as there is necessity to study the great lakes problems, but at the proper time. I am quite certain that we will be agreeable later on to a motion dealing with the much broader problems in respect of water elsewhere in the country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On that basis, Mr. Speaker; inasmuch as the minister impressed us with his consciousness of the problem, and as the hon. member for Kootenay West was unaware of the intervention he made, we will agree to this suggestion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister's statement fully or correctly, and I withdraw my suggestion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should bring to the attention of the house that the hon. member has already spoken on the amendment, and unless he is only rising to ask a

question and has the unanimous consent of the house to do so, he cannot do so at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question. I trust the minister now understands that I made my suggestion because I did not hear him fully or completely. I am delighted to know that he accepts the amendment, and I will withdraw my suggestion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, we propose to accept the suggestion of the minister, and we will accordingly withdraw the amendment at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion? The hon. member for Danforth.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to give support on behalf of the New Democratic party to the resolution before the house which will enable a committee of the house to undertake a thorough study of a most serious and complex problem, namely the water levels of the great lakes.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in a debate of this kind it is almost impossible to overemphasize or even to state adequately the importance of this great inland waterway to the economies of both Canada and her neighbour to the south. The existence of this waterway gives both the United States and Canada an inland development advantage over practically every other nation in the world. It supports the industries of some of our major cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and the lakehead as well as the limited United States cities of Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and a host of others.
Unfortunately the problem of the water levels has in some degree become a cause of friction between the Canadian government, the provinces involved and some of the neighbouring states. This is regrettable, but it does emphasize the importance to the economies of both countries. Mr. Kierans, who has proposed a rather imaginative and expensive solution to the problem, has stated in a release:
We go from crisis to crisis until we really land ourselves in a jackpot. By 1975 we'll have the biggest crisis of all. If they keep fighting among themselves they'll have a disaster on their hands.
This view of the importance of the problem and the immediate necessity for some 20220-5501
Great Lakes Water Levels action is reinforced by Professor Kenneth Hare of McGill University, who says:
I think the great lakes water shortage is more profound than even Kierans estimated.
So there seems no doubt that the committee we are setting up is undertaking the study of an extremely important problem facing the Canadian economy as a whole. When you look at the present situation-I think for the benefit of the committee some of this information should be placed on the record, although the committee will receive additional information-the picture is one which creates a feeling of dismay. One of our regrets is that the committee should be given this task in what are really the dying months of the session. It is most unfortunate that an opportunity could not have been found earlier in the year to place this committee in action so that it might have been dealing with this problem while the house was preoccupied all summer with the question of a distinctive Canadian flag.
The reports that are available, Mr. Speaker, show that lake Huron is three feet below normal, the lowest level since 1860, and that lake Michigan is just as bad. Lake Ontario is down two feet and lake Erie a similar amount. The St. Lawrence river is at its lowest level in 30 years between Kingston and Iroquois, and Montreal harbour itself is just thirsting for water. This constitutes a gigantic and monstrous problem facing the entire inland waterway system, and the results of this condition are a staggering economic loss to Canada running into the millions. The low water levels affect the lives and the pocketbooks of every citizen in central Canada as well as those on the prairies, because the movement of grain is also affected. As I have said, the losses run into untold millions.
For example, in the iron ore trade alone the loss is estimated at $13 million. A total of 6,920,000 tons could not be carried because of the low water levels, which represents the seasonal capacity of 15 ships. Resort operators in the lake Huron and Georgian bay areas face economic ruin because of low water levels, high docks and the serious cutback in the tourist trade. In the first four months of 1964 alone Ontario hydro lost one and a quarter billion kilowatts of power, and if this continues for the whole year it will amount to a loss equal to the entire consumption of the city of Toronto for a whole year.
Grain shipments have been affected. The ships cannot take full loads, and every

Great Lakes Water Levels Georgian bay port with grain elevators is losing money. The Midland elevators, for example, are down six million bushels in capacity. The Sault Ste. Marie locks can only be used by small lake freighters, again occasioning considerable economic loss.
To property owners the loss is just as staggering and personal. The St. Clair river is at the lowest level since 1934. Over the winter sewage pipes were exposed and frozen, sand beaches have reverted to rocky shores, boats and boathouses are landlocked by the hundreds. Harbours all along the system are practically useless for long periods of the year.
I put these views forward to emphasize the tremendous economic losses that we have sustained as a result of this problem. I am not being particularly critical of the minister. We all listened to his speech this morning, and I realize that he is seriously concerned *with the problem and most anxious that something should be done. The real tragedy, of course, is that nothing has been done over the past five or six years even though the problem has been very evident. I think this is a sad reflection on the apathy and indifference of previous administrations.
As far as the causes are concerned there is a variety of opinion. Low rainfall and not enough snow seem to be the major problem. Greater evaporation has taken place. Some people blame the deepening of the channel at Sarnia for pulling the plug on lake Huron. Other people have advanced theories with regard to the Chicago diversion. In any event, there is not sufficient agreement on the causes and Certainly far less agreement on the solutions.
: In order to attack the problem and devise some solutions, many agencies have been at work. The United States corps of engineers, similar to our public works department, has done an enormous amount of studies, and I hope the minister will arrange to have all these studies available for the committee to examine and perhaps to hear some of these individuals in person. The Ontario water resources commission have been making an intensive Study of the whole problem, and although their report is not expected until the end of the year there probably is a wealth of information that the committee should have at its disposal. There have been conferences between Ontario and the bordering states, and again useful information is available. What I want to suggest is that because of the magnitude of the problem and the necessity of fairly intensive study it is too


bad that some way cannot be found to treat this committee-


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member almost to the end of his text? It is one o'clock, but I should like him to continue if he could.


Reid Scott: I guess I had better call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment for lunch I had been discussing the complexity of the problem and some of the economic repercussions and damages that flow from the low levels of the great lakes. I had been emphasizing the extremely difficult and gargantuan task the committee faces. It seems almost as though the ultimate solution from a long run point of view may well involve sums of money that are far beyond the capacity of any province or any state, and may ultimately evoke some sort of international partnership between Canada, the United States and the various provinces and states bordering the great lakes. The more one examines it, the more it seems that any permanent, long run solution is going to be one involving considerable expense.
By way of conclusion I just wanted to state several propositions which, in our view, the committee should take into consideration. We hope the committee, above all else, will try to come up with some concept of the role of the federal government in this whole problem, and that it will try also to come up with some suggestions as to the nature of the over-all lake control system which will be necessary to control the flow of water throughout the Whole of the inland system, rather than go into the idea of importing water into the system at this stage. This may be a secondary consideration. Above all else, we hope the committee will have associated with it on some permanent basis people from the water resources division, people who will be responsible to and who will work for the committee rather than for any particular department of government. I do not really see how a committee of this sort is going to handle this type of problem if it behaves in the normal way that committees of the house usually conduct their affairs. Because of the complexity of the matter, we hope that

the committee will have available to it the resources to retain any technical or professional help which may be needed, and any sort of clerical staff it will require.
We would like to see the committee empowered to sit even though the house may be in recess. It is not likely we will have a recess this fall, but the work of the committee should be continued. We hope it would continue. We hope some method could be found for a committee of this type continuing to meet, even though the session itself ends. I know our rules do not provide for such a contingency, but it seems a waste of time to set up this committee approximately two months before the session is likely to conclude, then wait four or five months at the next session for our committees to be constituted and begin their work. It would seem to us the personnel of this committee should be able to sit constantly and keep abreast of the work it is doing. In short, we want to be sure that this committee has every possible facility to enable it to attack this complex task, not only financially but in terms of personnel and staff.
In order that this desire can be clarified, I should like to move a simple amendment with which I am sure the minister will be in agreement. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe):
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"and the committee be empowered to engage tech, nical and clerical personnel as it may deem necessary".
I think that if this is done it will greatly facilitate the work of the committee. We realize the important and complex task which is ahead and we wish it well in its endeavours.


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should like to speak to the amendment for a minute, Mr. Speaker.
I would preface what I have to say by saying that there have been some very constructive suggestions made this morning and this afternoon from the other side of the house. These suggestions will certainly be considered by the minister and by the committee during its inquiry into this subject.
This particular addition suggested by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) causes me to wonder if it is in order in the sense that the powers sought to be given to the committee by this amendment are usually sought by the committee itself by way of a report to the house. Surely it would be up to the committee itself, when it assembles,
Great Lakes Water Levels to consider its terms of reference and to apply for the power to engage technical and clerical personnel. In other words, I would suggest to Your Honour that the amendment is out of order in the sense that it anticipates the committee's decision. The committee, if it so decides, would have this power in any event by way of referral of its report to the house and the subsequent acceptance of that report. Perhaps the hon. member would be content to allow the committee to decide this matter itself, and report in due course to the house. I would suggest, therefore, that if the hon. member for Danforth so desired he could withdraw the amendment and the committee would have an opportunity of deciding this matter. If he does not want to withdraw, I would invite Your Honour to consider it out of order as anticipating the study by the committee.


Mr. Barnett:: If I may just say a word to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has been raised, it does seem to me the hon. member is advancing a very peculiar theory. If I may suggest, what he is arguing, in effect, is that a committee has greater powers than the house. This sounds to me like a rather peculiar line to take in raising a point of order. You probably realize, Mr. Speaker, that I do not claim to be any authority on the rules, but it does seem to me that the argument advanced, on the face of it, is a rather absurd one. The suggestion that the house itself has neither the power nor right to set the terms of reference under which one of its committees will operate is surely one which the parliamentary secretary cannot seriously support.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) might be allowed to complete his contribution, after which the parliamentary secretary might wish to participate again on the point of order, by way of explanation.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Speaker, I have only one point to make-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has completed his speech I think I should recognize the parliamentary secretary at this point.


John Napier Turner: With the greatest respect to the hon. member who has just spoken, I say he has misinterpreted my argument. I did not suggest that the committee would in
8688	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Water Levels any way be usurping the powers of the house. What I said was that usually the procedure for a committee is for it to decide if it wants such technical and clerical personnel and then, by way of interim report to the house, to ask for that power.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with the parliamentary secretary, but if I understood him correctly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member has already contributed to the point of order. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on the point of order, and the parliamentary secretary has claimed I misinterpreted his intent. I understood him to be attempting to argue that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) was out of order on the grounds that it was a matter which lay within the hands of the committee. X cannot agree that it is not within the competence of the house, if it so wishes, to give the committee power, as part of the initial terms of reference, to acquire the assistance which is set out in the amendment. The parliamentary secretary entirely misses the point of the argument I raised against his contention.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, one must admire the very ingenious argument raised by the parliamentary secretary, but the complete answer to his proposition is that while it is true in the final analysis it is for the committee itself to come to a decision as to whether or not it should engage technical and clerical personnel, yet it can only invoke that authority after it has been given to it by the house.
I think this is a very sensible step to take at this time, rather than have the committee decide later, if it so wishes, that it wants this power, and then have to come back to the house for it. This is not saying to the committee, "You must exercise this authority; you must engage technical and clerical personnel." By adopting this amendment we are clothing the committee with the widest possible powers, saying to its members, "If you see fit to exercise all or any of these powers, here is the authority to do so," thereby obviating the necessity for them to come back here for that authority.
This is something which has been done by at least four committees this year, including the public accounts committee, the joint com-


mittee on consumer credit and the fisheries committee, and money is appropriated for the use of these committees under the pertinent appropriations act. This is a sensible and useful amendment to adopt at this time, leaving it to the committee, during the course of their deliberations, to indicate whether they want to exercise this power or not. If they do not, then they do not have to come back to the house, and I submit with deference that the amendment is completely in order.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member addressing himself to the point of order?


Steven Otto: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the guidance of hon. members I think I should say the Chair feels sufficient argument has been advanced on this point to reach a decision now, but perhaps the hon. member thinks he has a contribution which might change the mind of the Chair.


Steven Otto: I do not know if I am going to change Your Honour's mind, but I think we should face the language of truth. Surely no committee has ever been denied whatever staff it needed. It seems to me the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) was chastised a little while ago by one of the local newspapers for having missed some Friday sessions and, by accident or otherwise, being here today, all he requires is a vote to be taken to register that fact.
Mr. Scot!: I don't have to take that kind of nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Reid Scott: He is the biggest absentee in parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest that the contribution of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) was rather irrelevant and certainly did not contribute to changing the mind of the Chair.
It seems quite obvious to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Danforth does not extend in any way the scope of the main motion now before the house. It does not direct the committee to do anything in particular. It does not extend the scope of it and does not anticipate, as has been suggested by the parliamentary secretary, whether the powers which it seeks to give to the committee will actually be

exercised or not. I think the amendment as proposed is quite acceptable and is in order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will accept the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Reid Scott: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to protest the statement of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) that I happened to be here by accident. It is the type of cheap, smeary thing he is used to saying, and he is well known for having that type of mentality.


Mr. Knowles:: You Torontonians are such warm friends.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: My remarks will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but at the outset I would like to raise what might be called a point of order on what took place here this afternoon, on the basis of questions and answers while Your Honour was in the chair. We could well do without this when we are sending something to a committee. It delays the house and cuts down on the amount of time available to it.
I believe it is important that we devise a national policy in connection with the problem of water and other types of conservation. Water shortage will be one of our major problems in the next decade. The motion before us deals with the watersheds running into the great lakes. The importance of this matter is apparent to the people in eastern Canada, but it should be part and parcel of a national policy.
It should be included within the framework of the policy which the government intends to pursue. I believe that according to the report which was made on the Fraser river it is proposed to build a dam on the north fork of that river, or on the McGregor river, for flood control purposes. This is another part of the same problem. We should I think be looking forward to a time when we may wish to use water for the transportation of materials in pipe lines. Plans for transportation by this means are now being made in Edmonton in connection with shipments of iron ore from the Peace river area. All these matters must be related to the motion now before us.
Great Lakes Water Levels
May I conclude by saying I do not think these water resource studies can be separated from the question of forest cover in Canada. It is important that the whole question of forest protection and sustained forest yield, the maintenance of moisture in our soil and the prevention of evaporation, should be tied in with this question of water conservation and use. The committee to which it is proposed this problem shall be sent is one which is in my view well constituted and qualified to study this important matter in relation to the others which will come before it.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, upon taking the floor to participate in this debate, I wish to point out that I shall be very brief.
I want particularly to assure the house that our party favours the motion now under study, namely that the subject matter of the water levels of the great lakes be referred to the committee.
I noticed this morning, and again just a while ago, that the members are deeply interested in this matter. The amendments which have been introduced bear proof of this.
All of us recognize that the problem of regulating the flow of this natural resource to ensure better use and service is one of great importance. I am pleased to see that the house is paying attention to this problem, and we will make it our duty to give any assistance we can when this study is undertaken.
During the summer three meetings were held-two in Canada and one in the United States-precisely to study this problem. Therefore, it is evident that not only Canada but also the United States are interested in this problem. It is almost a matter relating to boundaries. It is important that Canada study it thoroughly in order to ascertain what we can do in this respect, and I feel the meetings which were held during the summer will be beneficial to the committee entrusted with this study.
Before I take my seat, I would like to point out that suggestions were advanced to solve this problem of the water level, and I will remind you that an engineer from Sudbury, Mr. Thomas Kierans, made a suggestion which deserves the consideration of the committee; it is still being studied in certain quarters, and I hope the committee will consider it carefully.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
8690	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Water Levels


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Arthur Laing: I should like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members opposite for the important contributions they have made. I think their suggestions are extremely valuable. I should like in particular to acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) and for his friendly attitude in withdrawing the amendment he put forward in order to clarify the matter and enable the work of the committee to be concentrated upon the first consideration before it, namely the level of the great lakes.
The hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out that the committee could not establish policy, and of course that is so. This is primarily a committee before which purely technical matters will be dealt with, and we hope that out of its deliberations we can derive a reliable and sound policy for the future. I wish to remind the house that our consideration of all these questions of our natural resources, particularly our water resources, dates back to the resources for tomorrow conference of 1961. I have paid tribute to that conference in the past and I express once again the hope that the magnificent assemblage of data which resulted from that conference could be made required reading for all Canadians. We face this difficulty, that these resources, including the waters which flow or tumble within the separate provinces, are a provincial resource and our provinces are naturally jealous of their rights. But to the extent that presenting the picture in total to the public will lead the public to recognize that it is within the power of a province to do something which will cause inestimable damage to a neighbouring province, we hope we shall be in the position soon when people everywhere will realize that, particularly with regard to waters which flow across provincial boundaries, there is such a thing as a national resource in Canada in which all Canadians can share.
I do want to claim that we have done, to date, as much as we can do. We have been in touch with the provinces concerned with regard to the possibility of diverting water supplies, or of possible diversions to areas where they are required. We are expanding enormously the amount of money to be spent on making the necessary studies of a national


water policy. I want to remind hon. members that time has been on our side in respect to water development in this country. I believe that even those who in 1955 supported the agreement made in the province of British Columbia at that time between the provincial government and the Kaiser people would admit, today, that they were in error. It was suggested then that the provincial government should permit the building of dams on the Columbia river in return for an income of $1 million a year. By waiting, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has pointed out, and by realizing the tremendous importance of water in every sphere of activity, we have been able to conclude an agreement with our neighbour the United States under which by 1972 more than $500 million will be returned, in effect, for the use of that particular river.
I hope that out of the inquiry to be made by this committee, using the best technical people it is possible to obtain, there will come a conviction on the part of all Canadians of just how important these water resources are.
Motion (Mr. Laing) as amended agreed to. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
Dominion coal board-
65. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $179,400.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Perhaps the minister is going to make a statement.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the committee will recognize that earlier the major portion of the items related to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys had been passed by this committee. There was left over items related to the dominion coal board. The previous minister has spoken and has asked for some comments. I think the former minister from Pontiac-Temiscamingue will remember that in the announcement I made last year I said that instead of having an item for the dominion coal board, which was an annual item included each year, we would this year provide for this form of subvention on a five year basis. This has not yet come before the members of this committee but will come in the form of an item in the supplementary estimates and will appear within a week or two. This surely gives some assurance to the coal industry of our desire to co-operate with

them on this long tenn policy. When I say "long term policy" I would also assure the committee that both at the top political level and at the top civil service level we are studying the coal problem in the hope that eventually we can get out of the necessity of paying these subventions in this amount.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question some three or four weeks ago at a time when my estimates were coming up within the next day or so. May I say to him in reply that so far as any long term coal policy is concerned the question is getting the most active consideration, not only on the basis of a committee composed of members of the cabinet but also consideration by members of various departments who deal with coal and energy and who might be interested in it. I cannot tell him today but I hope to be able to tell him in the near future that progress has been made.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear what the minister has had to say regarding the provision of subsidies on a longer term, a five year period. He mentioned that a supplementary item would be placed before the committee to provide for this but I really do not see how a supplementary item would fit this purpose. The item, I expect, would be renewable

unless the minister has some other explanations to make-every fiscal year, so I do not see how we would really be making any progress at all.
I feel that what is required is legislation, and then with statutory authority the minister could as a matter of course have his estimate approved each year. In that event there would be no change because the statute would already have been passed and would embrace the specific period, and this would oblige this or any subsequent government to bring forward the necessary estimate. Therefore I think the minister should carefully consider the need for positive legislation in this field, legislation which has been asked for by the coal industry itself as well as by the purchasers of coal abroad, particularly the Japanese. Owing to a scarcity of coal at home they must arrange their purchasing program on a long term basis, and unless the government takes action soon in this regard I think we may lose a very important and developing market.


Mr. Harkness:: As the minister is aware I am particularly interested in subsidies paid to assist the movement of coal to Japan from western Canada. I am wondering whether the minister could inform us how much of the total amount of $14 million odd in the min-
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys ister's estimates is used for that particular purpose and how many tons of coal it will enable to be exported to Japan during the present fiscal year. He might also indicate at the same time whether this is an increase or a decrease in the amount of coal assisted in that way to be moved to Japan.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, although I may lack some detail in answering the hon. member for Calgary North, I do know he is well aware that we made an arrangement within the calendar year for an increase in this subsidy involving, I think, 200,000 additional tons of coal which was entirely exported to the Japanese market. As I recollect it, this involved an additional $2 per ton. I would remind the hon. member that while we agreed to this step, it is not entirely satisfactory or helpful to trade. I am told that the Japanese purchasers look upon this action with a little reluctance, having regard to the opportunity of buying coal from Australia without subsidy, and it is this element of uncertainty in the export market which is bothering everyone in the industry. However, we have to stabilize the industry in western Alberta and eastern British Columbia and we did agree for the last year to increase this subsidy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as the minister is aware the operators of these mines in western Alberta and eastern B.C. have done an extremely good job in improving their methods of mining and thus bringing down the cost of producing coal. As a result the amount of subsidy required to make it possible for them to move this coal to the Pacific coast so that it could be exported has been considerably reduced from what it was. I do not quite understand what the minister means when he says the subsidy has been increased $2 a ton. Actually the movement over the past several years has been in the opposite direction: The amount of subsidy per ton has been reduced because the operators, through efficient methods, have been able to reduce the cost of production and thus do not require as much help from the government to enter the market.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think I was inaccurate. I should have said that the total subsidy was increased on the total tonnage involved within the last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, this is the point I want to get at, and that is why I asked the minister for the figures for the tonnage which will be
8692	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys moved in this current fiscal year. I think the figure he gave was 200,000 tons, is that correct?


William Moore Benidickson: It is my impression that following a meeting in Japan we agreed with our coal producers here in Canada to an increase in exports of about 200,000 tons.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps the minister and his officials could supply us with those figures so that we might have that useful information. I refer to the figures in respect of the estimated exports of coal for the current fiscal year, as compared to the three previous years. I should also like to have the exact figures relating to subsidies per ton, so that we might have some indication of the cost to the taxpayer of enabling our coal mines in those areas to compete for Japanese markets. I think we should have those figures on a tonnage basis.
The operators themselves look forward to that day when they will be able to export their coal to Japan and to the United States without the necessity of a subsidy. They look upon the subsidy paid at the present time as a temporary thing to help them through a difficult period. I think this policy is helpful as far as the coal industry in that area is concerned, and as far as the attitude of the operators is concerned, but the operators do not look forward to assistance indefinitely from the taxpayer, but on the contrary to a time when they can operate this business without subsidy. The figures in respect of the subsidy being reduced are of value and importance to the members of this committee.
In order to maintain the Japanese market these coal operators must be in a position to give some guarantee for future deliveries for a period of years. The Japanese buyers naturally look at their coal needs on a long term basis and are interested in knowing whether they are going to be able to buy this coal at a favourable price for a period of three, four or five years. For that reason there has been a desire to have these subsidies placed on a permanent basis, or at least for a period of five years. In this way the Japanese customer would be assured that the subsidy would not be cut off at the end of any particular fiscal year.
My understanding is that the minister intends to make a definite announcement very soon in regard to subsidies. As was pointed out by one of my colleagues, if the subsidies were put on a legislative basis it would be much better. Certainly I think there is a necessity for coal operators and their Japanese customers to be assured that the supply


is going to continue and, with government assistance, that the Canadian producers will be in a position to fulfil the contracts for several years. Unless there is that stability I think the Canadian producers will be in severe danger of losing this market to Australia and other sources.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to sneer at the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North, but I should like to remind him that he sat in this house at a time when these subsidies were based on a one year proposition.
This afternoon I informed the house that we have given more assurance and security to the industry than has ever before been given, as a result of the announcement that we would base this program on a five year period. This program, as hon. members are aware, has been carried out until this time on a year by year basis. We have ready at this time, for presentation next week, supplementary estimates to take care of this new five year program, confirming what I said in this regard last June or July.
I am not particularly happy about the subventions. Many people are unhappy about subventions paid in respect of coal or anything else, particularly during prosperous times. We are working very strenuously in an attempt to find a way of avoiding this kind of subvention, specifically in respect of western Canada coal. I can assure my hon. friend from Calgary North that within the last year we have increased the opportunity for shipments of coal to Japan. I think we have gone a long way in helping that industry to compete with the Australian supplier of coal. I assure this committee that we desire to sell western Canadian coal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can now obtain from the chairman of the coal board the figures I asked for a few moments ago.


William Moore Benidickson: As a result of a meeting which took place last fall in Japan between our people and people otherwise interested in the coal industry, we were able to enter into a three year contract covering an amount of coal greater than ever before. I think this contract involves the sale of 200,000 additional tons of coking coal per year.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the minister's explanation in regard to how these supplementary estimates he intends to introduce next week will guarantee a subsidy on a five year basis.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as the former minister must know, these supplementary estimates have been presented to me in a form which I think is satisfactory to this house, but the presentation of them to this house depends on the House of Commons timetable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I understand from what the minister has said that there is a government guarantee which will enable 200,000 tons of coal to be moved this year and in each of the two subsequent years. What is the amount of the subsidy being provided to make that possible?


William Moore Benidickson: Of course this is an
additional amount because this is a new program based upon an agreement with Japan. The proposal came to me and to the government and involved an ultimate cost of roughly $600,000. We have agreed to this proposal.
I am informed that the unit price is perhaps closer to $3 per ton, or roughly $2.73. That price will apply to coal exported from western Canada to Japan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister now tell us what was the subsidy per ton in this regard during the years 1961, 1962 and 1963? The figure he has just given is for 1964.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I assume the hon. member is inquiring about the relationship of subsidies from the coal producing mines in Alberta and British Columbia to the ocean port. Is that it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think all members of the committee will recognize that this is quite a technical proposition. My hon. friend asked us to go back to 1961-62. At that time we moved 701,000 tons and our subsidy was $4.50 per ton. In 1962-63 our subsidy was $3.63. In 1963-64 we think we have got it down to $3.19 and our estimate for the coming year, 1964-65, even with increased tonnage, would be $2.73 per ton. That is quite a bit less than our maritime movement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In regard to how many tons? The minister did not give that figure.


William Moore Benidickson: The estimate for 1964-65
would be on the basis of 950,000 tons.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, these are figures which I think the committee should be well aware of. The cost per ton of moving this coal has steadily gone down from $4.50 per ton in 1961 to $3.19 last year and an
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys estimated $2.73 per ton for the current fiscal year. I think this is an excellent record so far as coal subsidies are concerned. In fact, it is the only case I know of where there has been a steady reduction instead of a steady increase. One thing I did not understand was the figure of 200,000 tons to which the minister referred. My memory was that we were exporting a great deal more than 200,000 tons. The minister has just said that in 1961 the tonnage exported was 701,000 tons and the estimated tonnage this year is 950,000 tons, an increase of about 250,000 tons. I take it that the 200,000 tons to which the minister referred in the beginning was the increase over the tonnage exported last year. Is that correct?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Based on the agreement made with Japan an increase of 200,000 tons of coal for that market was considered and eventually decided upon. I was not there but I received a report and I recall there was some possibility that one of the other Alberta mines might have automatically been able to take advantage of the export opportunity, but I do not think they have done so. So it was a 200,000 ton increase based on the normal formula of subsidies that we have always had for coking coal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to ask, and I would have given way to the hon. member for Cape Breton South because I know he is interested in this matter. I might say I was very interested to hear the minister's remarks with respect to the study of the coal policy being made by the cabinet, the officials and other persons with a view to placing the whole matter on a somewhat firmer foundation than arranging for a five year subvention period. I presume this was done in order to give time for a complete study to be undertaken and a policy evolved. We all recognize this is a long term project because we have very large coal resources, and many other countries are without these resources. Would the minister explain to the house briefly how this policy is being devised from the point of view of consultation with the provinces concerned, the countries which are seeking to purchase our coal, the industry in Canada, the labour organizations involved and the research institutions which are associated with the problem and play a very important role?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a year ago that some encouragement was
8694	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys given to the coal industry, both labour and management, because of the five year assurance I announced. In the meantime I have been worried about this policy. It is taking $18 million a year and I have been concerned about it. I want something solid that will be good for the future. In the meantime we have to have some stability.
I have talked to the labour unions about the new events that have taken place in the coal mines involving automation and so on. Indeed, I have gone down into the coal mines and have seen the new machines that displace labour. I have talked to some of the people who own the mines, inasmuch as I want to know what their ideas are about the future. With the resources and brainpower that we have here in Ottawa I think that in the next four years we are going to develop a pretty good policy.
My hon. friend asked what collaboration there is with the provinces. Every year we have a mines ministers' conference. All 10 provincial mines ministers meet and this proposition would be a natural one for their agenda. We discussed it last year and again this year and I think we are making some progress.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to the policy announced last June-*
I think he mentioned the date-of paying the subventions on coal over a five year period.
I can tell the minister that this announcement was very well received by both union and company representatives in the Nova Scotia coal industry.
Although I did not see any great advantage in it, I would be inclined to support the remarks made by the former minister of mines, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue, a few moments ago when he said the matter should be the subject of legislation. However, the fact the minister has announced that, as a long range policy, the subventions are going to be applied on the basis of five years rather than year to year, I hope does not mean the subventions will remain at a fixed amount. I should like the minister to advise the committee that the policy will be a flexible one and, if necessary, the amount could be increased.
We all hope that in some way or other increased subventions will not be necessary. Although, as I say, originally I did not see any great advantage in this subvention policy, nevertheless I now accept it as being possibly a very good thing in view of the fact the minister has stated he is not happy with [Mr. Benldickson.l

subventions. He has stated also he would like to be rid of the necessity of paying subventions. Tying this remark in with a remark by a member of the coal board which, although I presume it was directed to western subventions, contained implications directed at the east coast, I was happy to hear the minister inform the committee that there was no such implication in so far as the east coast was concerned. The minister himself has advocated the need for getting away from these subventions. I might say here that coal is not alone in this category. We can go right across the board and find industries throughout this country which are subsidized to a far greater and sometimes lesser extent than coal itself.
The minister remarked that he is not happy about the necessity for paying subventions, and tying in the remark by the member of the coal board with the statement by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, that coal subventions should be done away with, places the industry in Nova Scotia in a rather precarious position. The industry is always on its guard as to what is going to develop in Ottawa. Although there is nothing official in the way of a policy announcement, and although when I questioned the minister he assured me there would not be anything of this nature happen, the fact remains that there are people abroad in this city who feel that the Rand coal commission report should be fully implemented. When I say "fully implemented", I am thinking primarily of the recommendation he made to reduce coal production in Nova Scotia to three million tons per year. I am sure the minister is aware of the drastic effect this would have on coal operations and on the working force within the coal industry of Nova Scotia.
Although as I said, originally I saw no great benefit in the announcement that subventions were going to be paid on a five year basis, at least we can look to that statement as a possible protection against the wedge that people appear to be attempting to drive into the coal industry in Nova Scotia. It is not my intention to refer to the west in connection with this subject. I have not watched western developments with as much care as I possibly should have. However, I am taken by surprise by the minister's reference to the Japanese coal market. Possibly the minister could straighten me out on this, and I am just asking for my own information, but I understood that the subventions in the east were paid on transportation, and were paid directly to the transportation company. They are not paid to the mine owners or operators.

What would similar subventions on the west coast have to do with the Japanese purchasers of Canadian coal? Why should they concern themselves about that? After all, if this subvention is paid in the west as the subvention is paid in the east, why would the Japanese concern themselves about this policy?


William Moore Benidickson: My understanding is, Mr. Chairman, that anybody requiring a product as important to his industry as coal, is a little nervous about a product that is based on a subsidy in the land of export. This applies to the utilizer in Japan. There is no such thing in Australia, so far as I know and therefore, for a long term connection, the Japanese are just a little hesitant about buying from a market that is based on a domestic subsidy.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would not the purchasers have a firm contract in which the price was stipulated, and what bearing would the subvention in the exporting country have on a contract drawn up in which a firm price was stated? I cannot see the reason behind the Japanese purchasers concerning themselves over the fagt that a country would subsidize any one type of product. They would have a firm commitment on price and the subsidy, as I understand it, is paid in order to allow the Canadian product to compete in that market.


William Moore Benidickson: My point was that, for the first time, not only the Canadian seller but the foreign buyer had a little longer term as assurance than they had before, as a result of the policy I announced last summer. There will now be a five year term instead of the precarious predicament of wondering, year by year, if parliament would pass an item in the estimates.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister now give the committee assurance that there will be no policy adopted by his government to implement the recommendation in the Rand commission report concerning the three million production per year?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the Rand commission of 1960, some recommendations made earlier and even currently, must be considered. I could not give my hon. friend the assurance that we would not consider everything and anything that relates to a problem in our economy that is so great.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Gérard Laprise: This
completes the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $47,742,400.
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, before the estimates of this branch carry I want to make a few remarks to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, since I am aware he does not intend to make a further statement at this point. The older Indian people in the part of the country in which I live often say that many years ago, before the white man came to Canada in any numbers, the Indian had all the land and the white man had the Bible. These days it is the white man that has all the land and the Indian has the Bible.
I tell this by way of prefacing my remarks on the Indian claims commission and the legislation respecting it, which was supposed to have been introduced and processed by parliament. This one aspect of Indian affairs is deserving of most of the complaints by members on this side of the chamber, because the history of it is a pretty sorry mess in terms of the inability of the department to meet a most pressing need and a most pressing commitment. Because nothing has been done it is my opinion things would be better had it never been mentioned in the house and mentioned to the Indian people.
The basic obstacle separating the Indian and non-Indian people of Canada is a lack of trust on the part of the Indians in the dealings they have had with successive Canadian governments. There are countless examples in our history where the rights of Indian people were abrogated, curtailed, or taken away entirely. There are countless examples of treaties signed with the Indian people by governments that had no intention of living
8696	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration up to either the spirit or the letter of those treaties.
I can give the committee a good example from my own area in northern Canada, and which I am sure could be duplicated by many members. I have here a copy of treaty No. 11, signed on July 17, 1922 by the government of the day with the Indian people of the north. One of the statements by the commissioner in the opening part of it, talking about the difficulties they had getting Indian people to sign peace treaties, reads as follows:
The Indians seemed afraid, for one thing, that their liberty to hunt, trap and fish would be taken away or curtailed but were assured by me that this would not be the case.
That treaty was signed in 1922; yet in 1917, some five years earlier, the government of Canada had signed an international agreement with the governments of the United States and Mexico, in terms of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which specifically limited the right of the Indian people to kill certain kinds of migratory birds at certain times of the year. Thus we had a treaty being negotiated and signed by the Indian people, presumably in good faith, yet five years earlier the same government had signed away the Indians' rights in entering into an agreement with the governments of the United States and Mexico.
We do not have to go back to 1922 to find more examples of this. The first day I entered this chamber, on May 31, 1963, a question was asked by the hon. member for Skeena, who has been no slouch when it comes to standing up for the rights of Indians-and in saying that I do not indicate he is a slouch in anything else either-and his question drew the attention of the Prime Minister to a decision handed down by Chief Justice McRuer in the Ontario supreme court, ruling that the Indians' right to hunt, trap and fish must be respected.
The hon. member asked the Prime Minister to see to it that the Ontario supreme court decision be communicated to all federal officers and agencies throughout the country, and to the provincial governments, to make sure in future the rights of these Indian people would not be infringed. In that part of his answer which was not facetious the Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 502 of Hansard for that date, "Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that..." Then he went on to make a jest, but those were the key words. In actual fact he did not, and many members have been besieged by other cases involving Indian people who have continued to be persecuted in the courts.
[Mr. Rheaume.l

Law officers and various crown agencies continue to harass the Indian people when they break game and fish laws which the chief justice of Ontario categorically ruled do not apply to the Indian people. It is little wonder then that the Indian says the white man speaks with a forked tongue, because our pattern of dealing with the Indians over the years has been one of promises and trusts broken, and outright betrayals.
There are ways of building trust with a group of people who may for the time being be socially and technologically under developed. The minister would do well to look at some of the things which occurred during the administration of the previous government. You build trust in people when you give them the right to vote, and for the first time in Canada all Indian people over 21 years of age had the right to vote in the 1962 general election. For the first time there was a way for them to express their likes and dislikes and exercise their democratic responsibilities under the franchise. That was an important step.
The previous administration also appointed a senator from the Indian people, so that again for the first time in Canada's history the Indians had a representative in parliament. If you look at the estimates of the various departments you will notice there was a dramatic increase in the moneys allocated to health, education, welfare and housing matters for Indian people. It is a basic principle that a cold, hungry, sick person is a second class citizen and that you must attack those evils before trying any other kind of rehabilitation.
The history of the Indian claims commission is a shoddy one, for which some of the responsibility must rest upon the minister's shoulders. On his head will rest the blame from the Indians, should we see a repetition of this history. Mention was first made of the establishment of an Indian claims commission in the throne speech of September 1962. This gave notice of legislation which would be brought in. At the same time, behind the scenes, the machinery for consulting the Indian people was set in motion. In the speech from the throne to the first session of the twenty sixth parliament in May, 1962, no mention is made of the Indian claims commission.


An hon. Member:: The government had changed, then.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: The government had changed. But very early in the session a commitment

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
was made to proceed with the establishment. In August, 1963 I attended a convention in Winnipeg with the former minister, now the Minister of Justice. It was a convention of the national Indian council of Canada. The minister told the Indians who were assembled in Winnipeg from all parts of the country that legislation was to be introduced in the house before Christmas and that very soon the Indian people would have a commission to which they could bring all their claims and to which they could report all the injustices which everyone knows exist.
In November, 1963, when it became apparent there would be delay, I raised this matter in the House of Commons as reported in Hansard of November, 1963 on page 5898.
I recall that the minister of that day got excited when I suggested there had been a betrayal of the Indian people. He rose on a question of privilege to say that as superintendent general for Indian affairs he would not let these people down. At that time I said to the minister: If there is to be further delay, let the Indian people know about it, not just the members of this house, and tell them the new date by which it is expected the commission will be at work. If the minister were to do this, I said, he could retain the trust the Indian people had in him. And I can assure the minister from my meetings with Indian delegates, that they had trust in him. This was the suggestion I made to the minister in November-not to get excited and start protecting himself but to let the Indian people know of his plans.
The next page in this story of legislative indecision is to be found on page 319 of Hansard for February, 1964. By this time certain problems had arisen behind the scenes on the government side and there had been a change of minister. I am referring to page 319 of Hansard for February 27, 1964 where members will see that the present minister tells the house and, presumably, the Indian people of Canada, that the government does not intend to proceed with the legislation but intends to consult with the Indian bands. Almost a year after the government has taken office they intend to consult with the Indians as the only way of finding out what the Indian people really want. That is what the hon. gentleman said.
Well, in March of 1964, as hon. members will see if they refer to page 826 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on the orders of the day how the consultations were going. He replied, in effect: They are going fine but we are still consulting with the Indian people; as soon as we get their advice we will boom ahead to set up this claims commission for them. And at the end of March, speaking on the minister's estimates, I gave the minister some advice-I did so because the portfolio had changed hands and I knew that the former minister might not have passed on the advice given him by members on this side of the house. I said this as reported in Hansard for March 13, 1964, at page 900:
The Indian claims commission holds tremendous promise for the Indian people of Canada. They are very keen on it. I have referred before to the efforts the previous minister made in dealing with the Indian people to assure them that the government was going to proceed with this commission,
I assure the present minister, as I did the past, that the Indian people are keen on the commission.
These are the pertinent words:
Do not betray their trust and do not, through inaction, allow their enthusiasm to wane and permit this commission to go the way of so many other projects.
Well, Mr. Chairman, nothing happened. The next episode I wish to put on record again is to be found reported at page 2760 of Hansard for April 30, 1964. I asked the minister on the orders of the day whether he could assure the house and the Indian people of Canada that he would proceed with the matter of the commission and introduce legislation at an early date. This was at the end of April. The minister replied, in effect, that he was still consulting with the Indian people; he still wanted to find out what they thought. But he intended to introduce the legislation during the second part Of the session.


An hon. Member:: After the recess.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Presumably it was to have been after our well earned summer recess.
The next entry to which I will call attention is reported at page 3683 of Hansard for Thursday, May 28. Again I asked the Minister, because I knew the federal provincial conference on Indian affairs was being postponed, whether this would have the effect of delaying a decision on the Indian claims commission until after October. The minister said in reply that it would not. It would not delay it, he said, because there was "no relation whatsoever between those two matters". That was at the end of May, 1964.
Now we come to August of 1964. The same minister. Here he is, this man of action, speaking in the house as reported at page 6861 of Hansard. He says this:
In keeping with our wish to consult the Indians on all matters of direct concern to them, the
8698	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indian claims Bill No. C-130, as introduced in the house on December 14 last, was sent in January to Indian bands, Indian organizations and others throughout the country.
The minister added that he had received some replies from the Indians and intended to give these close study. This was in August, 1964. Now he has consulted with the Indians and all that remains for him to do is to study the replies.
Let us see what happened in September, 1964. I refer, you, Mr. Chairman, to page 8387 of Hansard and to the question directed to the minister by the hon. member for Cariboo. The hon. member for Cariboo wonders how things are going with regard to the Indian claims commission and the minister says, in effect, that he has consulted with the Indians. He has obtained replies from them. Members will recall that the last time this matter was raised the hon. gentleman was going to study them. Well, he says on September 24 that he intends to consider the answers they have given. He has studied them, but he has not had time in which to consider them. However, he intends to do that very soon.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a sorry mess the minister has got himself into. I say to him and to the government: If you don't want to help the Indian people, don't help them; but for God's sake do not hold out hope to the Indians and get them all stirred up by telling them that soon the terrible problems which have been theirs are to be solved-that soon, as the previous minister said, in effect, they would walk into the promised world of the white man. If you do not want to do anything, don't do it. But do not give us this nonsense which extends over 9,000 pages of Hansard. We asked the government to do this from the very beginning, but I ask the government not to lie to the Indian people. If it is not ready, then let the government tell us. Let them say to the Indian people: "We are sorry but this is a complicated matter and we are unable to make a decision on it now. We are sorry for you Indian people because we are going to do nothing for you". Every hon. member of this house is affected by this kind of delay, not just those of us with Indian people in our constituencies. Everyone in the house must take collective responsibility if a small group of people are betrayed.
Before the minister's estimates pass we on this side of the house want an answer to two questions. The first question is: "When is the government going to bring in the legislation on the Indian claims commission?


That should not be a difficult question to answer. The second question is: Will the government consider setting up some vehicle, say a committee hearing, where the Indian people can then take a look at this legislation? Because what I am afraid of is that this Indian claims commission, like so many other matters, is good for election after election. I can see the government bringing in the revised edition of the Indian claims commission legislation and the minister saying that, first of all, he must consult with the Indians and then consult with them some more, and then ask for advice, then for more time to study what they have said, and then he will want to consider that, and so on- just as he did the first time. Surely the questions I have put are not unreasonable ones.
I want to tell the minister why this is so important to the Indian people who happen to live in my part of the country. It may come as a surprise to some Canadians to know that there are no Indian reservations either in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. There is good reason for this. Unfortunately, the reason, as I will unfold it, will be seen to be another chronicle of betrayal. The Indian people in the Yukon territory have had land, and I quote, "set aside" for them by order in council. Here again the history of what has happened to these parcels of land which were to be set aside is not good. Every time a government agency needed some of this land the order in council was merely revised. Surely the best example the committee has of this is when the government needed more land for the airport at Teslin in the Yukon. They simply took it away from property which was supposedly set aside for the Indians.
In the Northwest Territories even this much has not been done. Earlier I referred to the treaties signed with the Indian people in the north and which have never been lived up to. I have them here and they are interesting documents. We think the United States robbed the Indians when they bought Manhattan island, but surely there was no greater robbery than that which occurred in the signing of treaties Nos. 8 and 11. Treaty No. 8 took away nearly all of northern Alberta and part of the Northwest Territories from the Indians and gave it to the crown. That is an area of some 480,000 square miles and it was purchased in 1899 for $26,974 cash. Those who think the white man was not always crooked in his dealings with the Indians should read this treaty; they would be fascinated to learn of some of the other things

we gave to the Indians to make sure they had a good deal. For example each chief, after the signing of the treaty, was to receive a silver medal and a suitable flag-which is probably of more value than any of us thought was the case in those days. The following year and every third year thereafter each chief and head man was to receive a suitable suit of clothing. Here are some more of these "goodies":
-Her Majesty agrees to supply each chief of a band.. .for the use of that band 10 axes, five handsaws, five augers, one grindstone and the necessary files and whetstones.
That plus $26,000 cash, and you buy yourself 480,000 square miles of Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
I want to digress for a moment to mention another interesting matter. The other day the minister of northern affairs and some other hon. members of the house, including myself, were present when the Great Slave lake railway crossed the 60th parallel of latitude. That was an occasion for the great speech making, handshaking and self-congratulation amongst all of us because we had all done a brilliant job of driving the last spike. On going through these old treaties I noticed this remark made by the chief of the Chipewyan Indians at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta in 1899. This was what the commissioners said in the treaty:
We should add that the chief of the Chipewyans of Fort Chipewyan asked that the government should undertake to have a railway built into the country, as the cost of goods which the Indians require would be thereby cheapened and the prosperity of the country enhanced.
So really this suggestion came in 1899 from this old Indian chief. This shows in terms of the Great Slave lake railway that the Indians thought of this in 1899, the Liberals promised it in 1936 and the Conservatives built it in 1961. At any rate my point is that these treaties were signed with the Indian people of Canada's northland and were not lived up to, and for this reason they must have some sort of court or commission to which they can go.
The Indian people were promised basically two things. They were promised that their rights to hunt, trap and fish would not be curtailed; yet we all know that this is happening every day, not only in the north but all over Canada. The other thing they were promised-and this is where this point about there being no reservations comes in-was one square mile of land for every five Indian people who signed the treaty. This was true in the treaty signed in 1899 and it was true in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the second treaty signed in 1922 with the rest of the Indian people of the Northwest Territories, but this land in fact was never set aside for the Indian people; and so the two things promised them in return for peacefully allowing the white man into their country were never advanced to them. Because of that there are no reservations. No one in the Northwest Territories, to my knowledge, wants the government to set up Indian reservations at this stage, but everyone wants the government to live up to its obligations, to renegotiate the treaties and to make good the commitments undertaken in 1899 and 1922.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that in addition to getting on with this legislation he has been dangling before us for so many months he give consideration to setting up a national advisory Indian council, much in the same way the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a national religious advisory council. More and more is required a vehicle for consultation between the government and the Indian people. I suggest that in view of the tremendous changes being made almost daily in the programs which the minister has under his department this would be invaluable. Indian peoples could be represented on it and we could consult them in a meaningful way, and thus overcome the basic obstacle of mistrust which I suggest to the minister is coming between himself and the efficient administration of his department.
In resuming my place, Mr. Chairman, I should like to terminate my remarks with a word of gratitude on behalf of the members of this house for the fine work that has been done by some of the old hands of the Indian affairs branch who have retired in the last several years. Most of us knew these men who served many years in that branch during a difficult period of administration in Canada, and who guided the Indian people as far as the position they now occupy.
There is now a new look in the Indian affairs branch, which is long overdue. The staff is new and there is a new spirit, and all of us welcome these changes. We are happy to hear of the creation of an assistant deputy minister's post for the former director of the Indian affairs branch, Mr. Battle. We are happy not only because he personally has been appointed to this post, but because this appointment gives further recognition to the important part the Indian affairs branch plays in the work of this department.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8700	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration [Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr, Chairman, at this
stage of the consideration of the estimates of the Indian affairs, I want to address a few remarks to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) about the small reservation of Pointe Bleue located in my constituency. Further to an article published in L'Etoile du Lac, a district newspaper, on September 17 last, entitled "On the war path", I have advised the minister of the small revolt that is coming on within the Pointe Bleue reservation in connection with certain methods of a certain company.
I put several questions to the minister and I told him that I believed that he was completely unaware of certain things that were going on in the Pointe Bleue reservation, in connection with the Hudson's Bay Company.
I will not read the letter as I have only ten minutes at my disposal, but further to my letter, the minister answered that he had sent investigators. And it is on this point that I should like to call the minister's attention. The investigators he has sent are precisely those we did not want. In fact, it is the same as if we were asking for an inquiry into a theft and the thieves were sent in to investigate. That is the situation I want to put before the minister. I have no grudge whatsoever against him. I merely want to throw some light on the matter and help him do justice to the Indians.
Therefore we shall examine in a general manner what is happening today on the Pointe Bleue reservation, and particularly the causes of this unrest. I will even suggest some solutions to this problem. As I said a moment ago, I wish to warn the minister before this report is received.
As I requested in my letter, the minister must study the role which was played and which is still being played by the Hudson's Bay Company in the Pointe Bleue reservation. This English firm is the only one established on the reservation. It is not there for the sake of the Indians; it is there to do business, and probably very profitable business because it has not been facing any competition for three quarters of a century. If the minister would only visit that reservation, he would see and hear all kinds of things.
For instance, it is said that during the years the company controlled the economy, not a single Indian dared stand up against it. Indeed, none of them could afford to.
You hear about winters during which the only rations issued to the Indians by the com-


pany were flour, salted pork, beans, coarse salt, third quality molasses and oatmeal. In fact, whenever a person needed a little bit of cereal, powdered milk or something else for his children, he had to trade his rations of oatmeal and salted pork with someone else to get it. It is said that pregnant women had to pass whole winters eating only oatmeal, three times a day. Perhaps it would have been too costly for the company to feed those people somewhat like human beings.
In addition to supplying them third rate goods, it bought Indian products at ridiculous prices and paid the Indians in oatmeal and flour. This is the kind of stories one hears when one takes the trouble to mix with those people.
In the last few years a number of Indians, whose patience was at an end, risked all their savings in an attempt to provide better service to their fellow citizens. From that time a few little shops were opened and sold all the goods found in ordinary groceries. The Hudson's Bay Company was not long in retorting. From that day it sold all the goods it had never dared to put on sale and, moreover, it cut its prices to such an extent that they were even lower than those asked by Indian merchants. The company even went so far as to organize a delivery system.
Today the Indians are capable of having a market of their own and if we encourage the Indian merchants by offering them the same privileges as those which were tacitly or effectively granted the Hudson's Bay Company, I am almost certain that it will be to the advantage of the entire tribe.
At the present time the Indian merchants are unable to deal with any banking or financial institution. Hence the unequal strugr gle against a company that has all the financial powers on its side.
I am therefore of the opinion that if the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), were to set up a federal finance organization serving only the Indians but having some contact outside the reservation, he would put the struggle on a more equal footing. The lack of such an organization seems to enable the company to keep the population of the reserve under its financial domination.
I am told that these days in order to subsist, the Indian must have a charge account with the Hudson's Bay Company. If he wants to work for an engineer or a prospector, he must report to the company's office and sign a slip authorizing the company's

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
employees to get his pay and administer it as they see fit.
It seems that the company carries things even further, going so far as to collect almost all allowance cheques directly from the post office. In my opinion, this way of doing things is quite unfair to the Indians.
For these reasons and many others I do not have the time to mention at this point, some Indians assisted by a large number of their fellow members anxious to free themselves of foreign influence, have launched a market in order to protect the Indians. In 1961, when the band council renewed for ten years the company's lease, it did so on one condition, which I want to mention: that the company could not develop its trade. This is, Mr. Chairman, what the Indian merchants want, supported unanimously by the band council. Nevertheless after three years the company wants to develop its trade.
The minister was told that there was a lease but without any mention that this lease included the specific condition which I just mentioned. This is the main reason that prompts me to call these facts to the attention of the minister.
When I am told that arrangements have been made for a meeting between representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Indian people, I say that the meeting took place with representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company but not with those of the Indian merchants on the reservation. There seems to have been a secret meeting of some members of the band council, even using the secretary of the reservation agent instead of the official secretary of the band council.
The Indian merchants were ignored and the representatives of the Quebec office and of the agency had a private meeting with the company.
I think that the Indians are living in a tragic period and that the minister must make the necessary clean up. People always took pleasure in hanging fear, like a sword of Damocles, over the head of the Indian authorities, through political, monetary or social threats, for the sole purpose of making Indian authorities renounce their first decisions, in order to show that the Indians cannot administer themselves.
The time has come to end such a ridiculous situation and to guarantee to the Indians their commercial freedom, their freedom of action within the limits of their reservation.
I am sure that a serious investigation carried out by officials other than those of the Quebec office or the reservation agency,
will show that the Indians can administer themselves and that if the minister will give them the necessary assistance, they could almost be self-sufficient instead of being citizens that the government pays for doing nothing.
At this time I recall an observation made to me by a good Indian to whom I pointed out that he received a social allowance. He answered: "Well yes, but what is most demoralizing is waiting for the meagre allowance without having the right to work."
What surprised me, Mr. Chairman, was to note that the small pension of $15 which an Indian pensioner receives must be reduced if he works one, two or three days.
If the minister were to get together with the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), he would see, I think, that he has a magnificent opportunity to apply usefully the ARDA program, and thus to foster the agricultural rehabilitation of the whole reserve.
Substantial loans might be granted to the band council to develop the tourist industry at Pointe Bleue.
We spend more than $30 million which produces no result, while every year thousands of tourists must turn back because there are practically no accommodations on the reservation. Yet the most wonderful tourist attraction in Lake St. John is at Pointe Bleue.
I am positive that if the government wanted to make an effort and spend a little of that money to improve that area, tremendous results would ensue; besides creating many jobs for the Indians of the reservation, it would enable them to promote their handicraft with the tourists who would certainly be attracted by those improvements. This would also help to make the Indian proud again, for he, too, would like to be able to say that he is an asset in the Canadian economy; in this way, he would be able to live a happier life, because he would have a greater awareness of the importance of his actions and his contribution within the reservation.
Pointe Bleue has all that is needed to make it a tourist attraction. The only condition is to give the required opportunities and encouragement to its people. The government has the duty to take action before the war axe is dug up, because wars were always brought on by injustice piling up.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest, as I am sure other members did, to the remarks of the
8702	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party, and while listening to him I came to the conclusion that the present minister is perhaps at least as bad as if not worse than Hon. Ellen Fairclough, when she held that particular office.


Mr. Churchill:: She is not here. Don't attack people not here.


Frank Howard: I am not mentioning that because she is not here. It is not my fault she is not here; someone else had a hand in that. In any event, the former prime minister decided she was relatively useless in Indian Affairs and moved her from that post to something else before the election took place. I only make that comment in reply to that just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in a low voice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will make it louder then. It is a scurrilous remark.


An hon. Member:: Get up and say that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will get up and say it. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very much out of order for a member of this house to attack a former minister of the crown who is not present here, and I object to that procedure.


Frank Howard: It is unfortunate that the member who just raised that point of order was not the minister of citizenship and immigration himself, because one could perhaps make a comment about his activities in the cabinet. I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a crossfire with him in particular.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you start it?


Frank Howard: It will be recalled that last year when the present Minister of Justice held the portfolio of citizenship and immigration the house was in a mood to expedite the passage of the estimates because they had been held over for some period of time and there was a desire to complete the business before parliament in order to get back on a more regular basis in the consideration of parliamentary matters and government expenditures. Accordingly, many hon. members refrained from making suggestions and criticisms with regard to the operation of the Indian affairs branch, and accepted the bland assurances of the former minister that something worth while was going to be done. So far, however, we have not seen any great example of the desire and the speed with which Indian affairs should be tackled.
I have been asked by a number of bands at home, and there are a number from which


difficulties and problems, but this is only nibbling away at the periphery of the difficulties because these are but isolated instances.
The record of successive governments is black and sterile. It is disgraceful. Generally speaking, Indian people by and large have been trusting over the years. If government has told them something they, perhaps with some naivete, have believed government. If the Indian agent has come and told them something is going to happen they have believed the Indian agent. But their patience and trust are wearing pretty thin. We should no longer permit ourselves the luxury of an annual invasion into the Indian affairs branch in parliament in this way, as we come to question the estimates of that particular branch. This is not good enough.
In the future we cannot permit ourselves to allow a situation to exist which would require the kind of speech the hon. member for Northwest Territories made today, and to have to say the kind of things which my own feelings and conscience force me to say. This is no longer good enough. There is a great and growing resentment among Indian people all across Canada, in all Indian villages and reserves. There is a growing resentment among native people who, for a variety of reasons, left the reserves and went to live in urbanized and semi-urbanized areas-incidentally living on the fringe of them because that is the only place they are accepted.
There is much talk among many people about digging up the tomahawk they buried many years ago, because they have come to believe that the trust and faith they placed in the words of government are not worth placing any longer. The older people still continue to fight as they can. In their council meetings they still continue to caution the younger generation about doing things in the normal way. They still continue to advise the younger generation that they should air their complaints and grievances in meetings of council with the Indian agent, that they should present their demands and grievances by way of resolutions, passed and channelled through the Indian agent, the commissioners and the directors up some place to the top, and eventually hope some communication will filter back to the band so that they will know what happened to their grievances.
But the younger people have had a taste of the non-Indian society. Those in their teens and twenties have had better opportunities for education than their parents, and having found it necessary to move away from the

reserve in order to work, are finding and searching out the ways of the non-Indian and are discovering from a little taste of this type of society of the non-Indian that they want more of it, and they are wondering why it is denied them.
They will not be content with the mere passing of resolutions in council meetings. They will not be content with sitting around a council fire discussing things among themselves and with their elders and advisers. They will not be content with listening to being put off by the Indian agent. They will not be content with having their grievances lost in the mass of red tape in the Indian affairs branch.
They are a rising group of people. Their population is expanding tremendously. They are a volatile group of people when they get going. Mr. Minister, you should appreciate this, coming from the province you do and having the racial origin you have. You should appreciate that what the native Indian people are seeking is almost identical with what the French people are seeking. You, with your background and your understanding of your own culture, should appreciate what this means and should be able to move with great speed to cope with the Indian's problem.
I do not envisage-at least I hope to heaven it never comes to this-that we will have an uprising of our native people, such as has been the case in other countries. But mark my words, it could happen, and the spark which will set it off will be a continuation of the practice of the past. This will be the thing which will allow that feeling of resentment to burst into flame and perhaps consume what sociological relations we have with our native people.
Please, Mr. Minister, do not take these words personally as applying to you. Do not take the words that are directed by Indian bands as applying to your government exclusively. To the members of the Indian affairs branch I say, do not take these words as applying individually and personally to you. Do not take the resentment of native people as being aimed in your direction. These feelings of resentment are directed at our society, at successive governments, and they are the outgrowth of many years of delay, of lies, of distortions of all sorts, and of the most degrading activities people can engage in. Fairly shortly we will be facing the time of truth.
There are many other things I wish to go into detail on, when we get further into the estimates. At this stage I can only echo the utterances of the older people of the
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration villages I know personally, and say they are praying as they never prayed before that something worth while will be done.


Erik Nielsen: I shall not take up too much
time of the committee; but I wish to deal with the announcement made by the minister in replying to questions I put to him on September 30 last, as recorded at pages 8586, 8587 and 8588 of Hansard for that day. The minister made an announcement on that occasion with respect to the negotiations which are now being conducted between officials on behalf of the federal government and officials on behalf of the provinces, to transfer jurisdiction of educational and social welfare matters to the provinces, and I use that word "jurisdiction" advisedly, even though a rather hairy distinction is made by the minister and others opposite between it and the word "responsibility."
Referring to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference the minister said, as recorded at page 8586 of Hansard:
As it so happens, we shall be discussing measures that would enable the provinces to extend a number of provincial services to the Indians, on condition the federal government grant compensation.


Mr. Badanai:: Would the hon. member repeat the date?


Erik Nielsen: The date is September 30, and the page is 8586. The committee will remember the discussions which took place concerning the proposals of the federal government to transfer jurisdiction over the Eskimo people of Quebec to the government of that province. The minister knows that the Eskimo people are Indians by virtue of a supreme court decision of 1939, and for purposes of the Indian Act they come under federal jurisdiction. I suggest to the minister that regardless of his own personal assessment of federal legislation and its constitutionality in this regard, any transfer of jurisdiction over the Indian or Eskimo people from the federal government to any other authority is ultra vires under the terms of section 91(24) of the British North America Act which places squarely upon the shoulders of the federal government responsibility or jurisdiction in this regard. Any exercise of a purported authority to transfer control, jurisdiction or responsibility, whatever the minister chooses to call it, over the Indian or the Eskimo people of Canada to a provincial authority is an abrogation of the power expressly given to the parliament of Canada, as opposed to the executive, by section 91(28) of the British North America Act.
8706	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
It is said in answer to this that the Indian Act gives sufficient power to the executive to transfer control and responsibility to the provinces by process of agreement. I suggest to the minister that he re-examine the legal assessment he may have placed on this situation in the light of what I have to say. If the Indian Act does purport to give this power to the executive, then to that extent the Indian Act is ultra vires and in conflict with section 91(24) of the British North America Act which places such power in the hands of the parliament of Canada. Unless and until section 91(24) is amended, the purported exercise of that power by the executive is wrong and ultra vires.
What is really happening here, one may conjecture, is that what the resources minister of Quebec has failed to get by the front door he is now getting by the back door. As a result of the pressure put on the government, and of the publicity given at the time the subject was raised, he did not succeed in getting control over the education and social welfare of the Eskimo population of Quebec as he wished to do. This is just another way of appeasing Mr. Levesque and his friends. There is no difference between that case and the considerations raised by the transfer of jurisdiction or responsibility with respect to the Indian people of that province. An attempt has been made to draw a nice distinction between those terms by the minister and by others on the government benches. But the distinction is not valid, because if responsibility were to be transferred in any other way than by an amendment to the British North America Act, which would be constitutionally proper, it would necessarily include the transfer of jurisdiction over the people concerned and no amount of nice definitions can alter that plain fact.
The Indian people of Canada were guaranteed as a minority certain fundamental rights by the treaty of Paris and the royal proclamation made thereunder in 1763. Those rights are perpetuated by the inclusion in the British North America Act of section 91(24), any any attempt to abrogate them would be a travesty of justice. I believe the minister and his advisers should take a hard second look at this whole question.
Regardless of the intention of the federal government with respect to this matter the assurances which have been given to the house by the Prime Minister and by the minister himself are insufficient. The minister and the Prime Minister grandly say that before any decision is taken the Indian people them-


selves-and I presume he intends also to include the Eskimo people-will be consulted. In all fairness to those who are most concerned, the consultation which is required here is consultation in advance, because the Indian people themselves may have some ideas, and extremely valid ideas, as to whether or not they wish jurisdiction to be transferred at all. They should be consulted in advance, not bandied about like chattels, to recall a phrase which was used by one speaker on this side of the house.
I do not know whether I am correctly interpreting the remarks made by the minister as reported on page 8586 of Hansard for September 30 but I was surprised to see this statement with respect to consultation before transfer:
I can assure the two hon. members and the entire house that the federal government will not make any major decision during this parliament before consulting the Indians themselves, as they are the first concerned in all these measures and, all the more so, the provincial authorities.
I say this to the minister that it should be "all the more so the Indian people" in order of importance, surely. The consultations to be held should be consultations with the people directly concerned, that is with the Indian people. Then once the minister has established their views and conveyed them to his colleagues in the cabinet-and the Indians may reject outright any proposal for transfer, in which case that should be the end of the matter-once their views have been ascertained, that is the time to evolve a policy which might be discussed with provincial authorities.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: I did not say it.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Hubert Badanai: We have made good progress with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration this afternoon. There are only four items remaining and I wonder whether unanimous consent might be obtained in order that we could proceed to finish our examination of the estimates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the suspension of private members'
hour?


Frank Howard: No, I do not think the house does, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the considera-

tion of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-57, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment moratorium).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my first words on rising this afternoon to speak to the second reading of Bill No. C-57 is to express both on behalf of myself and I am sure on behalf of other hon. members our regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is ill and confined to hospital. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery and look forward to having him back in the house at an early date. It was my hope he would be here this afternoon to listen to the principle which I will espouse in speaking to this bill. I might say that I first introduced it to the house on June 7, 1963 as Bill No. C-70, but it was so far down the order paper that it did not come up for second reading last year. Consequently I had the pleasure of reintroducing it in the house this year as Bill No. C-57 and it was read for the first time on February 20, 1964.
I should like to give a brief explanation to the house of the bill, and I think I could do no better than to refer to my previous remarks when introducing the bill last year, which remarks are to be found at page 771 of Hansard for Friday, June 7, 1963. At that time I said:
Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the problem of railway abandonment is becoming apparent from the large mass of applications being directed to the board of transport commissioners based on recommendations of the MacPherson royal commission on transportation. These abandonments are estimated to affect between 4,300 and 8,600 miles of branch lines. About 4,000 to 5,000 miles of this total is in the three prairie provinces, and 2,000 miles is in Saskatchewan.
The purpose of this bill is to declare a moratorium of five years on all applications respecting rail abandonment accepted and granted by the board of transport commissioners so that private persons, rural and urban municipalities, primary producers, industries, businesses, elevator companies, wheat pools, labour organizations, the motor transport and pipe line industries and all others which may be adversely affected may plan well in advance before the abandonment actually takes place, in this way alleviating as far as possible the social and economic upheaval that may occur in many communities, especially those in rural areas.
Railway Act
At that time I said I hoped the bill would receive widespread support not only in the house but across Canada, and I might say this was the reaction it received. I had correspondence coming in from a wide area which suggested that the principle involved in the bill was receiving wide support and sympathy.
I might also say that my reason for introducing the bill was because of an experience I had in the matter of the Reston-Wolseley rail abandonment which came before the board of transport commissioners in 1959. This Reston-Wolseley line commenced in the constituency of Brandon-Souris, went across my riding of Moose Mountain and into the riding of Qu'Appelle, a distance of 122 miles. I am sure hon. members realize that this abandonment was quite a shock to the people in that area, as it affected quite a large community. At that time I debated the abandonment in this house and brought forward facts and figures, as well as appearing before the board of transport commissioners to make the plea that the abandonment should not take place until the MacPherson royal commission report was brought in and proper legislation enacted. However the board of transport commissioners in their wisdom saw fit to concur in the abandonment of this line.
In this particular case, although the abandonment was very serious to the people concerned, it was not as serious as might have been the case owing to the fact that the Canadian National line ran adjacent, almost parallel a short distance away, to the Reston-Wolseley line for quite a large extent of its coverage. Therefore the shock was not as severe as it otherwise might have been. Nevertheless it was still bad enough to create a great deal of concern among the various people affected, as I outlined in my explanation when I introduced my previous bill, and as a result I felt that we as members of parliament should take a serious look at the present Railway Act.
I should like at this point to read for the benefit of the house the explanation of this present bill. It is to amend section 168 of the Railway Act by adding thereto the following subsection:
(2) Every approval when given by the board stands appealed to the governor in council for a time expiring five years from the day approval is given or until an order of the governor in council is sooner made to confirm, vary or rescind such approval.
The explanatory notes continue as follows:
The section was first enacted...by amendment to the act in 1932-33, c. 47, s.l. Prior to that year

Railway Act
railway companies could under common law, unless there were a contractual or statutory duty to continue operations, abandon the operation of the whole or any part of their lines without the approval of the board. Between 1922 and 1933 the board of transport commissioners, in a series of decisions, consistently upheld this common law right of the railways. In 1933 parliament, while recognizing this common law right of the railways, restricted the liberty of action of the companies in exercising this right by providing the companies must have the approval of the board. The board takes into consideration the interests of the company and the public. The section was a remedy to one of the economic pressures of the depression. It was not conceived as a remedy for the pressures that urge mass abandonment today. The board has held that the section gives no right to compensation by industries, primary producers, or others who are seriously affected by the deprivation of transport, or to railway workers who suffer financial loss by change of residence or earlier retirement.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel in view of the fact that there is before the house today Bill No. C-120 this proposed amendment to the Railway Act is very timely.
One of the recourses which we had to this particular act as it now applies was section 53, and I want to refer to that section. It reads as follows:
The governor in council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the governor in council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the board and upon all parties.
In 1961 the residents affected by the proposed abandonment of the Reston-Wolseley line made an application to the governor in council for alleviation or assistance in respect of that abandonment. Their application was given consideration, and the abandonment was held in abeyance for 30 days, but it finally went through.
There is one other alternative, although I do not think it is of much benefit to the people involved. Individuals can ask for the retention of a branch line after an application has been made for abandonment, provided they can find a legal or technical reason. These individuals can go to the Supreme Court of Canada for relief, but I do not think that actually happens very often. As a consequence, this alternative does not provide much assistance to people affected by rail line abandonments.
My bill asking for this rail line abandonment moratorium should be considered very seriously by the government. The knowledge that this principle was being considered

seriously by the government would lessen the concern of thousands of people across Canada who are today faced with this abandonment situation. I think there will still be grounds for concern even after Bill No. C-120 has been discussed, considered, perhaps amended and passed. The government should give serious consideration to the suggestion that the principles contained in my bill should be included in the legislative measures proposed by the government in respect of rationalization or rail line abandonment.
Many other things are of concern to the people of Canada in respect of rail line abandonment. Some of them are as follows; the abandonment of approximately 4,500 to 8,500 miles of line to which I referred a few moments ago, spiralling freight rate increases, heavy increases in the cost of marketing farm grain, captive freight rate areas, great lack of railway passenger service, widespread concern of railway workers, and social and economic upheaval of both urban and rural individuals living adjacent to proposed line abandonments.
In an attempt to substantiate my statements about this concern, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read from the front page of the Western Producer of October 1, 1964. The headline is "Legislation on branch line abandonment totally inadequate, says pool president". The reference in that headline is to the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is the largest wheat pool handling grain in western Canada. Mr. Charles Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, is one of the most qualified individuals in western Canada to speak in respect of the handling of grain and for those individuals who are seriously affected by proposed rail line abandonments. This article carries a subheading "West facing transportation crisis", and at page 38 reads as follows:
Applications to abandon branch lines totalling nearly 2,000 miles of track serving 260 communities are on file with the board of transport commissioners. The lines serve 547 country elevators with a total capacity of more than 39 million bushels. The branches are shown on the map above.
The abandonment applications have been filed by the railways over a period of two years. Consideration has been held up pending the introduction of legislation to deal with, railway matters. Most of the applications on file were made by Canadian National in response to appeals from farm organizations and the government for information to show the scope of the branch line problem. Canadian Pacific has not committed itself on its overall plans, filing only on a piece-by-piece basis.
Legislation to deal with branch line abandonment was introduced by the government September 14 as part of a transportation policy arising from the report of the MacPherson commission. Saskatch-

ewan wheat pool and other farm organizations have expressed grave concern at terms of the bill dealing with branch lines. The pools have indicated intention to request far reaching amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I could say a good deal more in explanation of this bill but I think I have placed substantial information on the record this afternoon to give something more than a general outline. I am sure other hon. members wish to speak in support of this bill.
Before resuming my seat I would again urge the government to consider the principles of Bill C-57, so that when any application by either the C.N.R., the C.P.R. or any other railway company in Canada for the abandonment of a branch line has been approved, before such abandonment takes place there will be a five year moratorium allowing the urban and rural residents an opportunity to adjust their plans so as to avoid the severe impact of such an abandonment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is not usual for a minister to speak during private members' hour, but I have taken the trouble to refresh my memory and I know it is quite proper to speak at this time. References to this effect will be found in paragraph 748 of Beauchesne's third edition, and on page 581 of Bourinot's. In any event, I felt I owed a duty to this house to bring to its attention during the consideration of this bill certain relevant matters.
The bill itself is an attempt by an hon. member to put forward a piece of legislation, by way of an amendment to the Railway Act, to assist mainly in protecting the interests of grain producers and other affected parties in western Canada, where a great many branch railway lines will possibly be the subject of applications for abandonment.
The hon. member I am sure will understand if I suggest that there should be a reservation as to the figures he used in respect of the mileage involved. Both this government and the previous one invited the railways to file applications for every proposed abandonment in the three prairie provinces. In light of the premise upon which those applications were made, it will be seen that the total proposed mileage subject to abandonment is an over-inflated figure.
Having expressed that reservation, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the problem is a very real and serious one, and I understand and appreciate the concern of the residents 20220-551i
Railway Act
in those affected areas. Without any desire to be technical, I respectfully suggest that the bill itself does not do what the hon. member wishes to be done, and if I may be allowed to develop my remarks along that line for a few moments I should like to do so.
The bill itself merely allows the appeal of every case to the governor in council, and I suggest that authority already exists. Anybody can appeal a case now to the governor in council under the existing legislation. The objection to this form of appeal under which every case would be automatically appealed is that it would change the whole scheme of the present board of transport commissioners legislation whereby they perform a quasijudicial function, and make that function one performed subject to review in every instance by the governor in council and put an inordinate work load on the governor in council without the governor in council in turn developing adequate machinery to deal with those appeals. I would submit that the legislation before us is defective on that point.
What is needed to deal with this matter is dealt with rather fully in Bill No. C-120, the bill based on the MacPherson royal commission report and now before the house for consideration. Any changes that should be made in the part of that bill dealing with this subject should properly be made by way of amendment to that bill at the committee stage. There is nothing different in principle, so it would not involve rejection of the bill. If the point of argument made by the hon. member is valid, that would be a matter to be raised by way of amendment to the particular clauses on this subject when Bill No. C-120, an act to amend the Railway Act, is before the house.
As is obvious to hon. members, that bill is a very long and complicated one. I expect it will take some considerable examination at the committee stage and I would expect that there would be a good deal of discussion on this very vital point. But I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that clause 7 of that bill provides for adding a whole new part to the Railway Act, that new part to be headed "Abandonment of Lines or Operations, Uneconomic Branch Lines", which is the very subject matter causing concern. There is of course legislative provision for setting up a rationalization authority to deal with this whole question. That rationalization authority, after a line is found to be uneconomic and eligible for abandonment under the present concept of what makes a branch rail line eligible for

Railway Act
abandonment, is given jurisdiction to deal with the subject of abandonment, the time of abandonment and to make quite extensive orders.
I do not want to argue the proposition in detail here, but it will be seen that the rationalization authority has the kind of jurisdiction that permits it to look at the services in the whole region affected by the abandonment of a particular branch line or branch lines, and it has the kind of authority required to permit it to deal, not with each individual application by itself but with each application in relation to the effect on possible patronage that abandonment of railway service will have in the area, or in relation to other applications for abandonment, so that the whole result from the decisions made will be a rational system of railway lines. That is the approach to the problem.
The criteria established for the authority in reaching its conclusions will be found on page 7 of the bill in these words:
.. .the authority shall fix the earliest such date or dates consistent with the public interest and for that purpose shall have regard to all matters that appear to the authorities to be relevant including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing-
Hon. members will note the breadth of the criteria that the authority must apply in making a decision on what is consistent with the public interest.
- (a) the alternative transportation facilities available or likely to be available to the area served by the line;
(b)	the period of time reasonably required for the purpose of adjusting any facilities, wholly or in part dependant on the services provided by the line, with the least disruption to the economy of the area served by such line;
(c)	the probable effect on other lines or other carriers of the abandonment of the line or of the abandonment of any segments of the line at different dates;
(d)	any rule prescribed by the authority for the orderly processing of applications for the abandonment of lines in the area served by the line or in surrounding areas;
(e)	the feasibility of maintaining the line or any segment thereof as an operating line by changes in the method of operation;
(f)	the feasibility of maintaining the line or any segment thereof as an operating line in the system of another rail carrier by the purchase or lease of the line to another railway company or otherwise; and
(g)	the probable future transportation needs of the area served by the line.
In other words, the government legislation before the house for its consideration and decision does attempt to deal with this subject in a broad, comprehensive way by creating

an authority having wide powers and having authority based on serving the public interest which is defined in the widest possible way in that bill. If the point raised by the hon. member is valid, and I acknowledge at once the concern of farmers and other people engaged in the whole economy of the three prairie provinces particularly, I am under obligation to point out to hon. members that the whole subject will be before them when the government legislation is being examined. While I cannot speak for the committee, which has jurisdiction over how it conducts its own business, I think it must be readily apparent to all hon. members, and a reasonable presumption, that the appropriate public bodies throughout these provinces will appear before the committee. I have reference to the elevator operators, the grain growers' organizations, the relevant farm organizations and representatives of the provincial governments as well, I presume. Therefore the whole subject will be examined rather thoroughly there.
If the provisions in the government's bill are inadequate, then any changes along the lines suggested would not be a matter for separate amendment of the Railway Act by way of a separate bill, but can only properly be a matter for amendment to the clauses on the subject, when those clauses are before the appropriate committee for consideration. I thought I ought to make that point and I thank hon. members for hearing me out on this matter.


Richard Russell Southam: Could I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Richard Russell Southam: Did I understand the minister to say at the beginning of his remarks that the amendment in my bill was in effect already covered in the act, and that it did not have any purpose or significance, or something to that effect?


George James McIlraith: No. The point I made in the early part of my remarks was that parties concerned can appeal to the governor in council, but there is no automatic appeal. They are obligated to bring an appeal if they wish to do so. The effect of the hon. member's bill is to provide that every case will be automatically appealed to the governor in council.


Richard Russell Southam: I want to make that point clear. I realize what the situation is under the existing law, but my amendment suggests that if and when people affected by an aban-

donment make application to the board of transport commissioners under section 53, the board would automatically have to allow a five year moratorium before the abandonment became effective.
The whole principle of this bill is to hold this in abeyance in order to alleviate the shock. I went on to refer then to my experience in connection with the abandonment of the Reston-Wolseley line. As soon as the application was accepted by the board of transport commissioners under section 53, they wrapped up this line and there was an economic and social shock to the area. Under this amendment I am suggesting today, and which I think should get serious consideration from the government when they consider Bill No. C-120, after rationalization and everything else had been considered, when the abandonment of any piece of line had been finally considered there should be a five year moratorium applied to it. This is the new concept.


George James McIlraith: I hope my remarks were not capable of being interpreted to indicate any satisfaction with the present legislation under which the line to which the hon. member referred was abandoned in 1961. It is quite obvious that the whole purpose of the government's bill is to attempt to correct that situation. The hon. member's bill would impose a waiting period in every case. The public bill provides that such period as may be determined by the rationalization authority up to 15 years in each case, may be imposed. It is a matter for discussion in committee as to what is the precise term, and the best way of handling it.


Mr. R. W. Priftie (Burnaby-Richmond):: do not propose to discuss the merits of the bill. I am a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and as the minister indicated we will be considering this subject very shortly. I have not spoken to the sponsor of the bill, but I should like to suggest that the subject of this bill be referred to the committee. I will not make a motion since I have not consulted him, but if he agrees perhaps such a motion could be made.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is not
my intention to speak at length in regard to this bill before us. I do think the suggestion which has been been made is a logical one, because this is a very important piece of legislation contained in Bill No. C-120. It would seem to me that whether or not the subject matter of the bill before us, strictly
Railway Act
speaking, is included in Bill No. C-120, the proper place for consideration of this bill would be that committee, when the major piece of legislation is before it. I would concur in the suggestion made by the last speaker and suggest to the sponsor of the bill that it would appear to me the subject matter could very well be referred to the committee.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Does he realize that the subject matter is contained in the public Bill No. C-120, and that any change in that would be by way of amendment? I do not know how the committee would proceed if the subject matter of Bill No. C-57 were referred to it. I do not know if the hon. member is following the procedural point I am raising. If the subject matter is referred to the committee, presumably they have to take a decision on it. If they take a decision to reject it, then that concludes the matter. If they take a decision to accept it, that concludes the matter. Then they come along to the public bill and they may want to make certain amendments on the very point dealt with in Bill No. C-57. If they do, they are confronted with the previous decision they have taken. Anything that can be done by referring the subject matter of Bill No. C-57 to the committee could be done under the reference of the public bill to the committee.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Is the minister suggesting that if we decided to refer the subject matter to the committee, then automatically we cannot discuss the subject during the discussion of Bill No. C-120?


George James McIlraith: No, but the committee would have to take a decision and report to the house on any reference of Bill No. C-57. I think anything you can do, if I understand the hon. gentleman correctly, by referring Bill No. C-57 to the committee can be done by way of amendment when Bill No. C-120 is before the committee. If you refer Bill No. C-57 to the committee, the committee has to take a decision and report back to the house, and then you get into quite a procedural jam, which I am quite sure is not the hon. member's intention.


Robert William Prittie: I wonder if I might ask the minister, then, what we mean by "subject matter"? Is railway abandonment not the subject matter of the bill?


George James McIlraith: No, it would be something narrower. It would be compulsory appeals in all cases to the cabinet, with an arbitrary

Railway Act
waiting period of five years. This is a much narrower subject than is found in Bill No. C-120.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was not moving any formal motion that this should be done. I was merely suggesting to the sponsor of the bill that perhaps this would be the best way of handling it. I have not studied Bill No. C-120 to see what specific relationship it has to the bill introduced today. If the sponsor of the bill felt that this is the way the problem he is referring to could be dealt with most adequately, whether the subject matter is referred to the committee or whether he should withdraw the bill on the understanding the matter would be dealt with, that is entirely up to him. It seems to me that since the over-all picture is to be brought before the committee, we are spending time here in useless debate so far as the objective he is attempting to achieve is concerned. I understand the point the minister is making, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the over-all subject matter of railway abandonment is completely covered in Bill No. C-120.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to speak on Bill No. C-57. The minister has said there is a Bill No. C-120 on the order paper which will be discussed later, but I should like to speak about matters with which 1 am very familiar, namely railway abandonments and the effect they will have on my particular province. I know that should this railway abandonment plan go through it will affect a great number of farmers. It will affect not only a great number of farmers but it will affect communities, towns and even villages and hamlets. At the present time there will be approximately 1,746 miles of railway line abandoned, and when you take into consideration the fact that 235 elevators will be abandoned-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Why does he use these figures, giving in absolute terms the mileage pf lines that will be abandoned, when he does not even know whether or not applications for the abandonment of these lines will be proceeded with?


Reynold Rapp: The reason I know these are the figures is because the railways have indicated them, and the towns and villages that are affected have all set up retention commit-ties which have made representation to the provincial government. That is why I mention so many miles being abandoned, because

these places have secured the figures from the railway companies.
These 235 elevators would take in possibly 64 million bushels of grain in any one crop year. If the railways are abandoned these elevators will not operate any more, and farmers who produce grain will be confronted with much higher expense delivering grain to elevators.
The Crowsnest pass agreement provides a stipulated rate for the delivery of grain, but if a farmer has to haul his grain 40 or 50 miles to a station, then the benefit of the Crowsnest pass rate will be almost useless to him. That is why the farmers in the three western provinces are so concerned about rail line abandonment. If the lines are abandoned there will be the extra cost of delivering grain to the elevators. The farmers will also suffer capital losses because the value of their farms will not be so high when they are located 20, 30 or 40 miles from a grain elevator. Further, the value of the towns affected will not be as high as they are at present. These are the reasons why retention committees have been set up in the three western provinces. I am aware railway rationalization legislation is being introduced, but I think now is the time for us to stress these points. If the railway lines are abandoned it will be the greatest disaster ever to strike the three prairie provinces.
The other day when we were discussing immigration the minister said he intended to encourage immigrants who were well educated and trained. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) then pointed out that his area could accommodate an additional 5 million people to open up the country, and pointed out that the Pine Point railway gives that opportunity for opening it up.
The minister has said that all these matters pertaining to railway abandonment should be directed to a committee for consideration, where witnesses and representatives of the railways could be called, and all these things discussed around the table to see whether railway abandonment is necessary or not. I point out that since the railways themselves have always been opposed to the Crowsnest pass agreement, by abandonment of so many lines they think they would not lose so much money by hauling grain under the Crowsnest pass arrangement.
That is all I have to say at this time.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) has

shown an interest in this important subject.
I would point out that those of us who come from areas that are badly in need of industrial development are much concerned with the question of railway policy.
I see the smiling and benign countenance of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) in the chamber, and I wish to say there should be some co-ordination between railway policies and the general policies of those of us on this side of the house with respect to industrial development, and its encouragement in those areas that have fallen behind the rest of the country. I do not think we can divorce from the question of railway policy the motivations and directions of the Department of Industry toward industrialization.
The Department of Industry is devoted to the encouragement of industrial development. It has promoted measures such as the designated area legislation, and its new branch, the area development agency, is devoted to encouraging industrial development in areas of slow growth. For that reason I do not think the department can operate without giving some thought to the government's railway policy, because one essential for industrial development in slow growth areas is that those areas should have adequate railway service. We shall not achieve industrial development, no matter how wise or far seeing are the policies of the Department of Industry, if railway policies are such as to divest designated areas of railway service.
Because of this I am pleased to note the government has already introduced Bill No. C-120, which indicates very broad thinking in this area of railway line abandonment. It certainly leaves room and scope for the thought I have in mind, which is that the whole question of railways should be correlated to the need for the distribution of industries across our broad land to a far greater degree than has been the case.
I note that Bill No. C-120 proposes to a large degree the implementation of the findings of the MacPherson commission, and while I have some sympathy with the aims of Bill No. C-57 I personally feel the implementation of the entire ambit of the findings of the MacPherson commission, as envisaged by Bill C-120, is preferable to a hodgepodge, a piecemeal approach to the problem.
I am particularly pleased to support the general premise that the findings of the MacPherson commission should be embodied in government legislation, by reason of the fact that the commission was headed by M. A. MacPherson, who has the very outstanding
Railway Act
and distinguishing mark of having been once rejected by his party as leader of that party. I think this is a mark to be proudly worn. I, too, am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is not here to consider this bill, which has some bearing on Bill C-120 which he himself introduced. We were all extremely sorry to learn of his illness and I was pleased to hear the sponsor of this bill wish him well. I should like to inform the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) who is always concerned about the well-being of the Minister of Transport that I am instructed on reliable authority that while he is in hospital his white flowing robes will be cleaned and will be purged of any stain which remains thereon from the pipe line. I know the hon. member will be very pleased to hear this, as he has been concerned about it in the past.
I think we should consider Bill C-120 in its entirety to determine whether or not the matter which is dealt with in the bill before us is not considered in a far broader way and in a far more satisfactory way, in my humble submission, in the former measure. We know that in clause 6 of Bill C-120, section 168 of the act is amended to cover the entire policy of the abandonment of railway lines. A number of clauses, from clause 6 onward, are concerned with this whole question of the abandonment of rail lines and its effect upon the economy-and not only upon the economy of the railway companies. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) that up to the present time the difficulty attached to these hearings-and I have taken some part in them in the past-is that the commissioners have had to consider the economic position of the railway companies as the main criterion with respect to applications for abandonment. Those of us who represent constituencies in which economic development is badly needed were certainly aghast at the thought that such areas might be deprived of railway service, thus ending virtually all hope of industrial development.
It was heartwarming to find that while the economic position of the railroads is given consideration in the general findings of the MacPherson report the government in presenting Bill C-120 has made its legislation so comprehensive that questions such as the future industrial development of the areas concerned will be taken into account and considered very carefully before any permission to abandon lines is given. As I have just said, it is my hope that this question of the pos-

Railway Act
sible abandonment of railway lines in areas of slow industrial growth should be considered very carefully in conjunction with the policy of the government as expressed through the Department of Industry, and the area development agencies which are working to encourage industrial expansion where it has previously not taken place. It would surely be foolhardy to promote the abandonment of railway lines on one hand while seeking to achieve industrial expansion in those areas on the other because, once the railways are gone, any hope of industrial expansion would be extremely slight.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: In the few moments left I have a few thoughts I should like to place before the house. I do so with hesitation because, coming from a seacoast constituency I am to a considerable degree a layman when I discuss railway line abandonment on the prairies. Nevertheless we in the city of Vancouver have an interest in this subject, inasmuch as we are exporters of a great deal of the grain which is grown in the prairie provinces, in the province of Alberta and on into Saskatchewan.
With the trend toward the shipment of larger quantities of grain across the Pacific we would like to ship more and more prairie grain from Vancouver. Indeed we are discussing at the present time the building of additional facilities so as to be able to handle more grain through that port, and provide the facilities needed for prairie producers to export their products to world markets as expeditiously as they can now be exported through the head of the lakes.
I wish to point out to hon. members opposite that when we pick up a railway map of Saskatchewan we see crosshatched on it more railway lines than one is likely to see on any other map anywhere in the world. I think it is safe to say that Saskatchewan is served by more railway lines operating uneconomically than any other spot on earth. In view of this fact, the question of rail line abandonment is academic. Of course railway lines must be altered in order that transportation may be placed upon a more economic basis. Our problem today is to get this done expeditiously enough that the United States to the south, which is rapidly overhauling its own transportation arrangements and improving its facilities for handling grain, does not reach a point where it becomes

highly competitive with us in moving grain to the Pacific coast and exporting across the Pacific to areas to which, because of an antipathy toward the Soviet world, there has been no great anxiety up to now to send commodities. However in the near future we can envisage the United States competing with our exports to these areas. It is only because of the political relationship between the United States and the communist world that we have been given some temporary advantage in selling our grain through the Pacific ports. So it would be unwise to place any moratorium upon the process of upgrading grain handling facilities in western Canada, thus losing the advantage we have, and damaging the prospect of keeping for Canadians an export market which is bound to continue for a considerable time.
As I say, I am not qualified to discuss this question in detail or at any length. Nevertheless I believe we should give consideration to the points I have raised and realize that upon the efficiency of our rail transport system may depend the future of a vital market, a highly competitive market which our neighbour to the south is prepared to enter.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the acting house leader whether the business for Monday and Tuesday stands as announced?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Monday we will resume the debate on the farm machinery bill, followed by the resolution preceding the crop insurance act. That will be followed by second reading of the bill to amend the acts administered by the department of insurance.
In line with the suggestion made by the chief whip of the official opposition as set out at page 8662 of Hansard, when that is finished in the afternoon I will arrange to have the leader of the house advise the other house leaders what the business will be on Monday evening.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed this day in committee of supply.]

[Stage Direction]
B-Dominion coal board-
65. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $179,400.
Supply-Items Passed
70. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, and subventions in respect of eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $15,815,000.
8717
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 5, 1964