1964-05-05

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
As related on page 2761 of Hansard, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) concerning the Indian chief Jules Sioui, answered:
Mr. Speaker, I asked to be informed on the case of Jules Sioui who has been in jail for almost a year and I realized, just by looking at the record, that this case was never submitted to my department.
In all fairness to the Department of Justice and for those who dealt with the case, I must inform the house that I myself instituted proceedings to have Jules Sioui released.
I do not want to insinuate that the minister knowingly misled the house, but I think he was misinformed by his own officials, so that the answer he gave on April 30 last was wrong.
In order to clear up any misunderstanding, I shall read the correspondence I had with the former minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, and with the attorney general for the province of Quebec, Hon. Georges-Emile Lapalme.
On June 10, 1963, I wrote the following letter to Mr. Chevrier:
Dear Mr. Chevrier:
On May 10, 1963, Mr. Jules Sioui, an Indian of the Huron reserve, was sentenced to a month in jail for having "maculated electoral lists" placed on the reserve.
And at this stage I should like to inform the house that the Indian reserve is located in my riding. I continue:
The jury had then asked for the leniency of Justice Gerard Lacroix.
Immediately after the sentence, Mr. Sioui expressed his wish to appeal from the judge's decision. He then had to sign a bail enabling him to prepare his new trial before the court of appeals. But almost immediately, a justice employee tore up the signed document.
At the termination of the jail term, on June 6, Mrs. Jules Sioui-a 75 year old woman-went to meet her husband at the Quebec jail. A jail
20220-185i
officer then told her that Mr. Sioui had to post a bond to keep the peace for a period of 18 months. The sentencing document was shown to her.
Mrs. Sioui noticed that the characters in which the mention of bail was written were different from those which had been used for the original sentence.
Mr. Sioui, who was surprised by that addition, refused to sign the document. He has been kept in prison ever since.
And, which is a fact worth mentioning, the letter is dated June 10, 1963. I go on with the letter:
We maintain that he is now illegally detained in the Quebec jail.
I therefore respectfully submit that a request for the immediate liberation of Mr. Jules Sioui is under your jurisdiction.
I trust that your intervention will ensue at the earliest opportunity and remain, sir, yours very truly.
(Signed) Guy Marcoux Member for Quebec-Montmorency
On June 26, 1963, I received from the minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the following letter:
Dear Mr. Marcoux:
I thank you for your letter of June 10 last concerning Mr. Jules Sioui, an Indian from the Huron reserve, near Quebec, who was recently sentenced to a month's imprisonment, after having being convicted of smearing up election lists. The chief electoral officer, as well as the lawyer he appointed to conduct the preliminary inquiry in the Sioui case, informed us that they had' not been aware of the developments mentioned in your letter. On the other hand, I should tell you that when the Sioui case came up for trial, it was in the hands of one of the substitutes of the attorney general for Quebec.
On the other hand, the employees of the various courts of justice are under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Quebec and the contents of your letter lead me to believe that this is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Quebec.
Consequently, and again according to the purport of your letter, it seems to be a case in which my jurisdiction does not entitle me to intervene.
I remain, dear Mr. Marcoux, yours very truly, Lionel Chevrier.
On July 5, 1963, I wrote a letter to the attorney general of the province of Quebec from which I shall read only a few excerpts:
Moreover, I approached the chief electoral officer of Canada, who confirmed the text of the sentence and the fact that the matter was under your own jurisdiction. (He wonders why it should be so.)
I ended my letter in saying:
I respectfully submit, therefore, that it seems obvious that Mr. Sioui is now being illegally confined to the Quebec jail and that you alone can order his immediate release.

Question of Privilege
On July 15, 1963, Mr. Speaker, I had to write once again to the attorney general of the province of Quebec, since I had not received any reply to my letter of July 5. I shall spare the house the reading of that last letter.
On July 16, 1963, I received a letter from the assistant deputy attorney general of the province of Quebec concerning file No. 2323363, in which it was written:
As you mentioned in your letter, on May 10, 1963, Jules Sioui was sentenced to a month in jail for an offence against section 72 of the Canada Elections Act. In addition, he was ordered by the court to provide a $500 bond as a guarantee that he would keep the peace for 18 months.
The judgment passed by Justice Gerard Lacroix stipulates that this $500 bond is to be signed at the expiration of the sentence and that Jules Sioui must not be released until it has been signed.
We are informed by the prison authorities that Sioui refuses to sign the bond on the grounds that he would be submitting to federal authority if he did.
P. Frenette
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that is quite a complicated matter which the Minister of Justice will surely wish to clarify for the house, since we learned just a few days ago that, for no apparent reason, Justice Gerard Lacroix released the prisoner at the end of the period he spent in jail.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any contradiction between what the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) has just stated on a question of privilege and the reply I gave the other day in the house. This is what I said at that time:
-and I realized, just by looking at the record, that this case was never submitted to my department.
The statement is clear, Mr. Speaker. The accusation was laid under the Canada Elections Act by the chief electoral officer acting on his own. The Department of Justice does not interfere in such cases because the chief electoral officer is responsible to the House of Commons, not to the government. He appoints his own counsel and the case was prosecuted in Quebec city with the assistance of the Quebec attorney general's office, which looks after the administration of justice in that province.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency claims that he intervened in May and June 1963. The situation was brought to my attention and although I knew that I could not intervene directly since the question was outside my jurisdiction, I asked my officials to communicate with the Quebec attorney general's office, since the case was somewhat pathetic in view of the fact that the prisoner refused to help himself. The provincial au-

thorities must have taken the necessary steps, since Mr. Sioui has now been released.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present the third report of the special committee on procedure and organization. At this time I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Your Honour's committee on procedure and organization, may I inform hon. members that we would like to move concurrence in this report on Thursday of this week. The subject matter is that of the making of statements on motions.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement regarding a matter of policy. For some time the government has been considering the establishment of a training college for new entry officers for the Canadian coastguard. It has now been decided to take advantage of the availability of surplus facilities at the Point Edward naval base at Sydney, Nova Scotia, to get this essential project started. This, of course, will be subject to the provision of the necessary funds by parliament.
In recent years the work of departmental ships has expanded from the maintenance of aids to navigation and some local surveying and icebreaking to a whole range of marine activities. This fleet now mans the weather stations in the north Pacific ocean, covers Arctic supply convoys, escorts the increasingly important winter traffic into east coast ports and the gulf of St. Lawrence, supports scientific work afloat, and provides a special rescue service.
Including ships now building, the coastguard will have grown in 15 years from 27 to 60 ships, plus some 150 large work boats, tugs and barges. The modern units in this growing fleet are increasingly complex and costly, and they are required to operate in situations of special hazard.
Up to the present the department has relied on the maritime industry to provide officers for this important fleet; but the expanding need for officers has been met by drawing on sources that cannot be tapped again, such as the former Canadian National

West Indies service, other flag transfers and direct recruiting abroad. These sources have not provided many Canadian recruits. The efforts of existing marine schools in various parts of Canada are directed mainly toward meeting local needs of a less complex nature.
To the extent that schools such as the marine school at Rimouski, Quebec, and the new college of fisheries and navigation at St. John's, Newfoundland, and other local institutions can meet the standards and syllabus requirements of the new college, arrangements will be made for cadets to take basic training in navigation and other agreed portions of their course at these institutions. This plan will prevent duplication of resources and enable the new college to concentrate on needs that cannot be met in existing schools.
In view of the critical shortage of new officers for the coastguard anticipated in the next few years, it is the intention of the government to proceed with the establishment of the Canadian coastguard college as quickly as possible, as soon as parliamentary approval has been received. Specific entry requirements and other related information will be made public as soon as the detailed arrangements can be worked out. The first step will be to find a suitable director and recruit the staff.
It is not anticipated that actual training will begin until some time in 1965, but I thought it desirable to make this statement at this time as some steps must be taken almost immediately at Point Edward, and I knew the anxiety there was in all parts of the house to make use of these facilities that are no longer required by the navy.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is very grateful to the minister for making his statement at this time because some of us may be a little busy tonight at the time of the C.B.C. newscast. I am very glad to hear the minister make this announcement covering something which is part of a general plan that was established by the previous government.
I think all hon. members know that great services are rendered to our country by the coastguard. Its fleet is an excellent one and very often operates under very strenuous circumstances off the shores of Canada. It is playing a major role so far as Canada's trade is concerned, and in the past has played a major role in very dangerous rescue operations. While I was minister of transport I had the pleasure of presiding over the modernization of the fleet and over a few changes made in it. Its vessels are now painted differently. All the ships are very
Canadian Coastguard
easily distinguishable, and uniforms have been issued to the various members of the fleet.
I am sure this college will meet a need and will give opportunities to young Canadians to find good careers in the Canadian coastguard service. The choice of Sydney is excellent, specially when one thinks of the great naval tradition of this great Canadian seaport.
There is one point the minister has not mentioned. I hope this school will be bilingual, because the great majority of the officers and men serving on these ships come from the shores of the St. Lawrence, and this would be a good opportunity for young Canadians to learn our two national languages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is taken for granted.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party welcome the minister's announcement that a coastguard college is to be established at Point Edward naval base in Sydney, on Cape Breton island. The need for such an institution has been well known for a long time, and I think this will help fill that need. With the curtailment of some of the naval installations across Canada many of the Royal Canadian Navy personnel might be suitable persons for officers in the coastguard, and this should be a very fertile field for recruitment of people to serve in the Canadian coastguard.
We are particularly pleased that the government has selected Point Edward naval base at Sydney, Nova Scotia, for this purpose. All of us who are familiar with conditions in Cape Breton know of the serious unemployment situation that was likely to take place as a result of the closing of Point Edward naval base. If this helps to meet that unemployment situation I am sure it will be welcomed by members in all parts of the house, and that it will be particularly gratifying news to people in the Sydney area. [Translation']


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I think we must welcome the minister's announcement that a coast guard college is to be established in Sydney, Nova Scotia. That college will certainly promote the development of Canadian talents.
We do hope that the government will also formulate a policy for the building up of a merchant service in Canada; that would permit not only to give training but also provide many jobs to Canadians interested in the navy.

Canadian Coastguard


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, we join the other groups in welcoming this announcement for the setting up of a training college for coast guards.
Of course, Canada is a very large country, a lucky country because of its geographical advantages; indeed, a large part of our territorial limits are joining the two largest oceans in the world. That means that our country has a part to play in the field of coast guarding.
Like previous speakers, I should like to take the opportunity to express the hope that this will be a first step toward the development of a Canadian merchant navy that will be able to fly on all the seas of the world the Canadian flag-which we hope to have soon.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Perhaps first I would be permitted to express my appreciation for the announcement made by the Minister of Transport, and no doubt the Minister of Labour had a hand in that. I should like to express my appreciation further of the fact the government has finally realized the merits of the Point Edward naval base.
My question to the minister is, what effect will this announcement today have on the notices of termination of work at the Point Edward naval base which have been received by many employees during the past few days?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Well, the administration of the naval base is a matter for the Department of National Defence. I have no knowledge what effect, if any, may ensue from this announcement.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am somewhat concerned that the Minister of Labour informs the house that he has no knowledge of employment matters in Cape Breton. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence what effect today's announcement may have on the many notices of termination of employment received by employees at the Point Edward naval base.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a broad, general question, and I do not believe it is in order.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I wish to table copies in English and in French of a report by the

secretary general of the United Nations to the security council dated May 2 on the organization and operation of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.



MINES. FORESTS AND WATERS CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, presented to the house on Friday, May 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who in addition to occupying that post is also the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, and ask him whether he would advise the house what attitude is being taken by the Canadian delegation at the conference in Geneva relative to the agricultural areas composing the European common market; and what in particular is Canada's contribution in this regard to the debate?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: In reply to the right hon. gentleman I can assure him that the Department of Agriculture is well represented at the conference by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that before my colleague left to attend the conference we discussed the problems of Canadian agriculture for many hours. I have every confidence that Canada's interests will be looked after as far as agriculture is concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister, though, to direct his mind to the question. What is to be the stand of the Canadian delegation in this connection?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister, who seems to have given away a portion of his portfolio to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The right hon. gentleman surely remembers that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement in this house about the general principles which underlie Canadian policy at this conference. He also knows that the conference is going on now, and that a good many of the meetings are held

in secret. He knows it would be most inappropriate at this stage to disclose the details of the Canadian position.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Agriculture now has another departmental helper.
I ask the Prime Minister, then, to tell the house, if he knows, what is the attitude on the subject of agricultural protection. There was no statement made which gave any particulars on that point. I am not asking the right hon. gentleman to go into detail, but we should like to know what attitude is being taken on a question as important as this, instead of keeping us in the dark.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the right hon. gentleman to read the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on this matter. Surely the right hon. gentleman does not expect the government to announce in detail at the beginning of an international conference what will be the policy of the Canadian government. That may have been the principle adopted by my right hon. friend, but it is certainly not the principle which is going to be adopted by this government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. gentleman contend that policy in this regard is going to be subject to the multiple changes which we have seen under this government in every measure which it has undertaken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure the policy of this government at these international conferences will achieve far greater success in this field than the right hon. gentleman was able to achieve during his six years.



REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL OF TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the government be prepared to give consideration to removing the discriminatory tariff on sugar, behind which the sugar companies in this country have been fleecing the consumers over the past 12 months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this and many other matters will come up during the course of this conference. I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to disclose the details of our policies in respect to important international negotiations at this time. This would be a fine way to conduct international economic diplomacy.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. I was not asking the Prime Minister this question in relation to the international negotiations which are now going on. I was asking the Prime Minister whether the government would be prepared in the near future to give consideration to removing the discriminatory tariff on sugar, which has allowed the sugar companies of this country to fleece the public so that the Canadian housewife is paying more for sugar than is her United States counterpart or the sugar consumers in the United Kingdom.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would, of course, be glad to give consideration to this as one of many matters which will be considered at the conference, and which will be one of many matters related, for instance, to commonwealth preferences and other measures which will come up for discussion at Geneva, all of which we hope will lead to a great increase in international trade generally from which Canada will be able to benefit.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: May
I ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that in any negotiations concerning sugar tariffs the interests of the Canadian sugar beet producers will be fully protected in order to encourage greater domestic production and to protect Canadian job opportunities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I can give that assurance, both in respect of the producer and also in respect of the consumer.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Since the minister of natural resources of the province of Quebec stated the day before yesterday that the province should take care of its immigration itself, would the minister tell us whether he is having discussions with the provincial minister of national resources in respect to this important question of immigration?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to bring down legislation shortly concerning periodicals which would extend protection provisions to all Canadian publications and against all foreign publications, including Time and Reader's Digest?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. gentleman does not know there is a resolution on the order paper in this regard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, my question dealt principally with whether the government intends to extend these provisions to Time and Reader's Digest.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he tell us how it is possible to conciliate his statement to the effect that there would be only one national pension plan, which would be the same for all Canada, with the statement by Mr. Lesage that there will be only one provincial pension plan in Quebec, and that this scheme will be strictly provincial?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question twice. I am sorry it has not been to the satisfaction of my hon. friend.


Léon Balcer: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us if the provinces, by accepting the proposal of the federal government, thereby lose the priority rights conferred on them by section 94A of the British North America Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; neither the provincial government nor the federal government loses any right it possesses in this field.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising from the statement made 
yesterday in Vancouver by the Minister of Finance. Would the Prime Minister tell the house if the government intends to postpone again its legislation concerning the pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no such
intention, and the Minister of Finance to my knowledge has made no such statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in securing the consent of the provinces to an amendment to provide survivor benefits under the prospective pension legislation. At the same time would he clarify the statement allegedly made yesterday by the Minister of Finance that the pension legislation will not be proceeded with now but that it will be approximately a year before it will be ready to be proceeded with?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be asked to comment on a statement allegedly made by the Minister of Finance. I will inquire of the Minister of Finance as soon as he returns later today exactly what he did say, and make whatever comment is required tomorrow.
As far as the first part of the question is concerned, we are in touch with the provinces in regard to a constitutional amendment and other matters connected with the proposed pension legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Without commenting on what the Minister of Finance allegedly said, will the Prime Minister tell the house and give the assurance to the Canadian people that the pension legislation will be proceeded with at this session, and immediately?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in proceeding with this legislation without delay, but I am also interested in including in the legislation survivor benefits, and we wish to get the constitutional amendment required for that purpose as quickly as possible. We know now that all provinces are agreeable to this kind of amendment. We have been in touch with them as to the exact form of the amendment before we submit it to the place where it has to be passed.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the progress that has been made and the fact that the provinces are in agreement, would it not be possible to proceed simultaneously with the pension legislation and get it into committee while at the same time proceeding with the

amendment to the constitution, which will be accepted by the house and certainly will not be turned down by Westminster?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely the right hon. gentleman does not ask us to include in a bill prepared for this house a provision which would be ultra vires of this house until the constitutional amendment is passed?


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the excuse for delay in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the excuse for observing the constitution. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my right hon. friend complete information. It is also the reason alleged by my right hon. friend's government for doing nothing for five years.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we at least endeavoured to secure consent and did not. The Prime Minister says he has consent, and he will not go ahead. It looks as if there is a scheme to delay this legislation.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question for purposes of clarification. If he gave the answer a few minutes ago, perhaps he could repeat it. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the pension legislation at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we hope we will have the constitutional amendment in time so that we can proceed in this session, indeed in this part of the session if possible.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: May
I ask a supplementary question. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam the Prime Minister said he hoped this legislation would go through in this part of the session. What did he mean by that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that at least we will have a long week end some time this summer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the house that Australia and New Zealand were sending troops to the United Nations force in Cyprus. This morning there was a report over the air indicating that Denmark was likewise sending troops to Cyprus. Could the Secretary 20220-186
Inquiries of the Ministry of State for External Affairs tell us whether it is a fact that Denmark is sending troops to the United Nations force in Cyprus. Could he also tell us the number of troops being sent by New Zealand and Australia, what is the total number of troops in the U.N. force in Cyprus, and finally-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -are any of these troops being used to replace troops from the United Kingdom?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that Australia was sending troops. I said that Australia had agreed to supply a police group numbering about 28. I said that New Zealand was sending a police group of about the same number, and that Denmark had agreed to send a contingent. The total number now in the United Nations peace keeping force is 6,369, and the present force level of the United Kingdom is 2,719. There are 6,341 United Nations troops now in the United Nations peace keeping force.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are any of these troops which are coming from Denmark or any of the members of police forces which are being sent by Australia and New Zealand intended to replace United Kingdom troops presently in the force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some of them, Mr. Speaker, will replace some of the permissible level of 3,500 United Kingdom troops.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. It arises from a dominion bureau of statistics release yesterday which indicates that in the past year Canadians have gone $500 million further into debt to finance companies and lending institutions, representing a 12 per cent increase. My question is, now that we have nearly reached the credit limits, where is the Canadian taxpayer going to get the money with which to pay the increased taxes forecast last night by the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is far too broad in scope to entertain a quick answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED SALE OF CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY TO U.S. INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: rTranslation]
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance being absent, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. Could he tell the house whether the government has intervened or intends to intervene in order to prevent l'lndustrielle, Compagnie d'Assurance-vie, a Quebec French Canadian firm, from being sold to United States interests?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure this question requires a careful answer, and I suggest that it should be put on the order paper.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In his absence, I should like to ask his parliamentary secretary to assure the house that he will give his immediate attention to the sale of the life insurance company "L'lndustrielle."


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: I believe this is the type of question that should be put on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mi. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs further to questions that have been asked about the Colonel Belcher and other military hospitals. May I ask the minister whether any discussions whatsoever have taken place with regard to Lancaster hospital in New Brunswick, particularly the Ridgewood annex; and if so, what have been the results of such discussions?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a communication from the compensation board of the province requesting the purchase of a part of the property at Ridgewood. They have had it surveyed. We have replied that we are prepared to talk to them with regard to part of that property. This is where the matter rests at this moment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will veterans organizations be consulted in the way that was outlined with respect to the changeover?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: In this instance, Mr. Speaker, this matter concerns property that is not now in use.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinily-Concepiion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a very urgent and important question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which has been given. In view of the approach of summer, so beautifully illustrated by the tulips in front of this building; the fact that our summer recess may be of short duration, and the lack of proper ventilation in many offices in this building, would the minister consider making temporary improvements until the rooms have been air conditioned?


An hon. Member:: Move back to the west block.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Undoubtedly this is a very pressing and heated question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Nevertheless it requires a very detailed answer, and may I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.



CANADA YEAR BOOK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State?
Could the minister tell the house why the French version of the Canada Year Book is to be published in July only, whereas the English edition has already been published?
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of
State): Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire and report to the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Is the minister not of the opinion that instead of setting up an inquiry on bicultur-alism, which will cost half a million, the government should rather be less hypocritical and do something?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend is undoubtedly aware, the government's translation services were seriously neglected under the former administration

and we must now develop them so that both editions can be published simultaneously.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am going to raise a point of order myself for a change. Under the instructions given me, answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate. The same thing goes for questions asked.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a very short supplementary question?
Can the minister tell the house why, in 1961, when the Conservative party was in power, the Canada Year Book was published at the same time in English and French? [Text]



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SECRETARIAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Did the minister make a statement yesterday in Montreal, to the effect that the federal government has established, in the privy council office, a secretariat to deal with federal-provincial relations?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of interpreting my own speeches, but for more security, I shall be pleased to send the hon. member a copy of my speech.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, after such an answer I believe I am justified in raising the matter, this evening, after ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I quite understood the hon. member. It seemed to me that his question was answered. Does the hon. member wish to put it again at ten o'clock? Is he not satisfied with the answer given?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not consider that my question was answered and I should like to have it brought forward for debate after ten o'clock.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice, and perhaps I might
Inquiries of the Ministry preface my question by congratulating the officials of the department, through the minister, for the conviction of Banks. My question arises out of a remark made by Mr. Justice Wagner and also a question I put to the Minister of Justice some time ago. Are the minister and his department considering laying a charge against McLaughlin, as was recommended by this party and carried out against Banks, and bringing McLaughlin before the courts of justice?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is presently before the courts. I think it would be out of order, therefore, for me to comment on it. However, the hon. member may be assured that in my department every consideration is being given to all the relevant factors in the circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand what the Minister of Justice means by his reference to the matter being before the courts, because it has now been decided as far as Banks is concerned; he has been brought before the court of justice and sentenced to five years imprisonment. My question arises out of a remark made by Mr. Justice Wagner with reference to Mr. Banks, and it also refers to Mr. McLaughlin. My question the other day referred to the report made by counsel to this government. That committee was appointed by this government, and I should like to know whether the report recommended that a charge be laid against McLaughlin. We put the same question to the former minister of justice and did not receive a reply at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question requires a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice, a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice, this time.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement contained in the judgment handed down in the last few days with respect to Mr. Banks, to the effect that Mr. McLaughlin was involved almost as deeply as Mr. Banks, does the minister intend to go ahead with placing Mr. McLaughlin in the position of president of the S.I.U.?


Mr. Speaker:: The same remarks apply, I believe, to this question.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES   ATTENDANCE AT ROYAL COMMISSION HEARINGS BY MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is

Inquiries of the Ministry for the Minister of National Defence. Did the minister hear the report on the C.B.C. news today that the brigadier in command at Kingston has issued orders that no personnel under his command may attend the hearings of the bicultural commission to be held in Kingston? If so, has he any comment to make on it?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the report but it has been drawn to my attention and we are looking into the matter.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to direct to the Secretary of State.

Would the minister explain to us why orders have been given to civil servants not to attend or take part in the sitting of the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism which will take place in Kingston tonight and, by the same token, can the minister tell us whether similar orders will apply to all the sittings of the commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any instruction to that effect.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question-


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State inquire about this situation, since this report was broadcast over the C.B.C. all day long?


Maurice Lamontagne: I shall be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. About two weeks ago I asked him whether federal civil servants have been instructed not to appear before the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. At that time the Prime Minister replied that he would inquire of the civil service commission. Is he now in a position to answer this question?
Moreover, I wish to remind him that we had also referred to members of the armed forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why civil servants should not appear before the commission, and no orders to the contrary have been given. The question of members of the armed forces is under consideration.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the meeting is tonight, I wonder whether the

Minister of National Defence could notify the military officials in Kingston. Cannot the same position be taken with regard to the armed forces that has been taken with regard to civil servants, and let these people participate?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have been looking into this matter. Unfortunately the Associate Minister of National Defence, who has been handling it, is in Petawawa today. An effort is being made to reach him this afternoon to see how far along with the negotiations we have proceeded, and if we can get the matter straightened out this afternoon it will be done.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations with whom?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As the hon. gentleman probably knows, appearing before a royal commission in a matter of this kind would be prohibited by Queen's regulations, and the question to be determined is by what means we might be able to make it possible for members of the armed forces to be heard.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Change the Queen's
regulations.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question. Is the minister telling us that members of the armed forces must not attend to listen to the proceedings of this commission?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, certainly not. I have already said I have not seen the order, and I have promised to look into it; so you might be patient until 1 have had a chance to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking the minister anything about patience. He has been asked a simple question by the hon. member for Royal. Is he prepared to communicate with the brigadier in that military area and tell him to make it absolutely clear to all military personnel that they may attend as spectators the meeting of the royal commission without this in any way contravening the regulations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That much at least will be done. The question to be determined is whether they will be able to make representations personally to the commissioners.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are the minister. Give an order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to

direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he recommend that the Dunton-Laurendeau royal commission be authorized to inquire into every department and crown corporation coming under federal jurisdiction?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The commission has its terms of reference, which have already been made public.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General look into the front page report in a recent issue of the Winnipeg Tribune concerning the alleged use of the mails by a finance company in a way which resulted in a catastrophic loss to a victim, to determine whether such use of the mails was fraudulent?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: I will be very glad to, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the government has not amended the Criminal Code with respect to the distribution of hate literature, can the minister advise the house why charges have not been laid against those distributing this literature?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question, as to why charges have not been laid, is that it is not under the control of the Department of Justice to lay charges, because the application of the Criminal Code is under the immediate authority of the various attorneys general. As far as the first part of the question is concerned, I might answer again that the matter of a possible amendment to the Criminal Code is being looked into very actively. As recently as last week I had conversations with my officials, and the matter is being pursued.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was this matter not discussed at the federal-provincial conference and an understanding reached?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: I did not have the honour to be Minister of Justice then and I would have to be advised by my officials as to this last question. I will be pleased to inform myself and answer.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION FOLLOWING PERJURY TRIAL IN TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A few days ago I directed the attention of the Minister of Justice to the evidence of Mr. Justice Lan-dreville in the Farris trial. Has he yet read that evidence, and if so is any action contemplated by the government?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have given the necessary instructions but the evidence is not yet in my possession, and to make myself fully conversant with all the facts I must be in possession of the evidence.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, after the trip by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the west coast may I ask him whether the victims of the tidal wave in the Albernis can now look for early relief?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer to that question is yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the province of British Columbia has yet requested assistance?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have received a wire from the premier of British Columbia today which I do not wish to make available to the house at this time because it requires some study. It does not ask for help. It does not say that the damage is beyond the capacity of the municipalities and the province to pay. We will be making some assessment of the wire, and probably I will make a statement tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if it stipulates any amount of money which the provincial government is asking the federal government to put up in order to assist the flood victims in that area?


Arthur Laing: No, no sum is mentioned.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



INTRODUCTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
the absence of the Minister of Agriculture in his dual capacity, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government at this session to introduce legislation to establish a two price system for wheat in Canada and a guaranteed price of $2 per bushel basis Fort William?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will take that matter under consideration and discuss it with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Since the Minister of Transport is in an optimistic and nautical mood today with his statement concerning the training of coastguard officers, may I ask the minister if he has noted the statement made by the S.I.U. urging the establishment of a merchant fleet, with resultant jobs for merchant seamen; and when can we expect a reply to the brief in this regard that was put before the cabinet recently?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the hon. gentleman that the most urgent consideration is being given to that brief and to certain briefs from other organizations in addition to the S.I.U. As soon as there is anything that might be described as policy to be indicated to the house, it will be communicated in the appropriate way.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can we be assured that a full statement will be made in the house on the matter, and that the minister does not plan to use the C.B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should not like to feel I was precluded from satisfying the curiosity of hon. gentlemen in response to questions.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a very important and urgent question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister intend to make an inquiry following grievances drawn to his


attention concerning the injustice that seems to prevail in Quebec harbour, among the officials, in order to do justice to those who are thus injured?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question, although very important, should be on the order paper.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss this question at ten o'clock.



The house resumed, from Monday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Dinsdale, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gregoire.



FAILURE TO DEVELOP CANADIAN WATER RESOURCES

Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, last evening when the gong sounded I had described the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris as a partisan attempt to hold the present government accountable for the consequences of a water policy which has been pursued since confederation. I had analysed parts of that amendment dealing with low water levels, increasing pollution and the necessity for conserving water. In the time that remains to me this afternoon I should like to deal with that part of the amendment criticizing the government for failing to establish what is called a co-ordinated national water policy.
I should like to point out to the house that there are grave constitutional limitations attached to that amendment, and that no federal government could be held wholly accountable since it would not have the constitutional power to prosecute a co-ordinated national water policy. Within those terms, I am sure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris must have been aware that the amendment could not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The amendment condemns the government for failing, as I said, to establish a co-ordinated national water policy, and this clearly assumes that the federal government has the constitutional power to establish such a coordinated policy.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it would be ridiculous to criticize the federal government for failing to do something it did not have the legal power to do. Surely it would be rather frivolous to criticize the federal government for failing to do something it does not have the legal power to do, and failing to fulfil

the proposals in the amendment. I say, therefore, the mover of the amendment completely ignores the constitutional position. The fact is that apart from specific federal powers in relation to navigation, and other limited areas, the water resources belong to the provinces and come under provincial jurisdiction. In that event the amendment has no constitutional footing feet.
The question was very thoroughly dealt with by the resources for tomorrow conference which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris mentioned in his opening address. Professor Bora Laskin, professor of law at the University of Toronto, had this to say about the water supply of the country at the resources for tomorrow conference, as recorded at page 215 of volume I of the conference papers:
It is a safe generalization that the regulation and distribution of water resources in a province for domestic consumption or industrial purposes are within exclusive provincial competence. While some qualification has to be made, as for example, in respect of public rights of navigation or in respect of interference with federal property or competent federal law, it yet remains true that appropriation of water for private use is subject to definition by provincial law.
The constitutional position, of course, does not mean that the federal government has no responsibility and can do nothing. Clearly it must be part of its general responsibility for the welfare of Canadians to take an interest in policy and measures with respect to water, and to assist in its conservation and wise use. Much has been done over the years by the federal government, and by the federal government and provincial governments in co-operation, and I trust I dealt with this aspect in some degree last night.
But what the federal government cannot do is precisely what this amendment implies it should do; that is, exercise federal jurisdiction over a co-ordinated national water policy. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, that is beyond the jurisdiction of any federal government. But a federal government can try, as the present administration is doing to encourage provincial co-operation and concert action by and with the provinces.
Last evening I described the measures this government has taken-


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


John Napier Turner: I have not much time. I am limited to ten minutes this afternoon, but if I have time at the end I will be glad to see to the hon. member's question.
What the present administration has done is to encourage a co-ordinated national water policy, but in co-operation with the provinces under the Canadian council of resource ministers. Recently the Prime Minister announced
Canadian Water Resources the establishment of a provincial relations secretariat to improve co-operation with the provinces, and in our federal system the manner of approach must be by co-operation with the provinces which have the constitutional jurisdiction over water.
That being so I think we can say the present administration recognizes, as the author of the Royal Bank of Canada monthly letter of December 1963, in an article entitled "Saving Our Watersheds" says:
Water is so important in life that its conservation and distribution must override the geographical boundaries of private property, counties and provinces; the political boundaries of federal and provincial jurisdictions, and the economic domains of agriculture, forestry and industry. If jurisdictional disputes prevent effective action, our heritage will be lost by default, because above all boundaries is the supreme natural law whose edicts are indisputable.
That is so, but we have a constitutional limitation which the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris has failed to recognize. In answer to that I would make reference to the arguments that I attempted to bring before the house last evening, that over the last 12 months this administration has used the only consultative constitutional avenue it could. It has brought water control, use, distribution and sewerage before the Canadian council of resource ministers where, in conjunction with the provinces and the regional authorities, this government intends to fulfil its responsibilities within the limitation of the jurisdiction given to it by the British North America Act.


Erik Nielsen: Since the hon. member has a minute left, would he permit a question? Does he think it is unconstitutional to set up a national advisory committee comprised of representatives from all the provinces and federal representatives, in the same way as federal-provincial conferences are established?


John Napier Turner: Any national advisory committee that is set up in conjunction with the provinces is constitutional, but what this amendment is attempting to do is condemn this government for neglecting to establish a co-ordinated national water policy, thus implying that it is solely responsible for that policy.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for bringing the very important question of water conservation to the attention of the house; also to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for pointing out the great problem we have, and also to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who dealt with the problem and gave the previous government credit

Canadian Water Resources for building the Saskatchewan dam, for the resources for tomorrow conference and for ARDA. One of the things he omitted to mention was the help it gave for the building of sewage disposal plants across Canada.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George raised the constitutional issue as an excuse for not doing anything. This put me in mind of what Nero did many years ago, when he fiddled while Rome burned. We in Canada have been slow in recognizing that water is one of our great natural resources, that men cannot live without it and that industry and the economy of the country cannot advance without it. In the great lakes area we have many tourist operators who will suffer severe financial losses as a result of the low water levels in the great lakes. Motel and hotel operators all around this area will lose millions of dollars in business because of the low levels, and many of them will be forced completely out of business.
For months hon. members of the house have been drawing this to the attention of the government but there has been little or no realization on its part that it interprets the facts as they exist; or, if there was a realization, it did not know how to meet the problem. We pride ourselves on having half of the available fresh water in the world right here in Canada. We feel it is inexhaustible, but when shortages occur all we do is pray for rain or else wait for the cyclical periods that bring it back up.
I remember it was said that the six or seven year cycle would correct the present situation. Well, the seven year cycle has ended and the situation has not been corrected. In fact none of the cycles will completely correct this problem of low water levels in my riding. The quantity of water in the world remains the same, and we must not forget that fact. It is when the quantity is out of balance that we have problems, and today we have those problems on the great lakes.
Average annual rainfall in the lake Huron-Georgian bay area ranges between 30 inches and 35 inches, but if you take the figures that were given in the house yesterday and add them up, you find that the average rainfall in that area over the last 12 years was 31 inches, and in the same period of time the high water mark has fallen six feet from the average.
This would indicate that precipitation has only a minor effect. It has been said "Leave it alone. It will right itself. It is a gradual process". Well, this gradual process is going to spell financial ruin for many of the operators in our tourist industry, and a lot of them have every penny they own invested in this

business, a business which in the long run brings many millions of dollars to this country. It is, I believe, the third biggest industry we have.
We have been told "Just wait for seven years and it will be all right". Those years have come and gone. I want to read a comment made by Mr. James Lamb, the publisher of a paper in my area. He is well acquainted with the great lakes. This article was reprinted in the Toronto daily Star of May 1, 1964. Mr. Lamb had this to say:
While the great lakes run steadily down the drain, with long established ports now high and dry and Georgian bay down four feet from normal, there is not a man, or a group of men, in Canada or the United States, who has any real idea of cause or cure.
For the shocking truth is that each of the regional developments which has affected the levels of the system has been considered separately, with lake and river problems being attacked piecemeal, rather than in one over-all program.
This, from the same article, is also striking:
One of Canada's best qualified experts on waterway development admitted to a private gathering last year that neither he nor any other engineer or official had any conception of the ultimate effect on lake levels of such revolutionary undertakings as the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, with its enormous alterations in the flow and depth of the river; of the huge additional diversions at Niagara and Chicago; of the deepening of the channel at Sarnia.
The writer goes on to say:
If this is so, then surely it is time the two federal governments concerned-
The United States government and the Canadian government.
-instituted an over-all lake control system, and took steps to conserve what water is left before lake Huron is reduced to a fraction of its former size, and the lower lakes bereft of half their ports.
For years now official reaction to public complaints about the alarming drop in lake levels has been to place the blame on dwindling rainfall. I have shown that the amount of precipitation is a minor factor having regard to the situation as we know it. Let us face a few facts. More water is being used by householders. A man said to me the other day, in our house "A few years back we used four to six pails of water a day; now, to get breakfast over and everybody up and washed, we use more than that". Today the average person in many of the cities of Ontario uses 100 gallons a day, a striking figure. Industry uses tons of water today whereas a few years back it was using gallons by comparison.
The second point I wish to make is this. We are not conserving the run-off from our lakes and rivers. The obvious conclusion is that dams must be built, because the experts say there is enough overflow from the St. Lawrence run-off to look after all the water needs

Canadian Water Resources
of householders of the rest of Canada for a whole year. If that is true, it follows that the run-off into the lakes and rivers flowing into the great lakes basin is very important and that we must consider what can be done in this respect, in conjunction, of course, with the provinces. However, the great lakes are run by the Department of Transport. They are responsible, and this government is responsible. When this matter was brought to the attention of the government last fall they should have moved quickly to call a conference and clear the way for action of some kind.
The question of water conservation is being approached from other directions. The province of Ontario has recognized the existence of this problem and will allow to farmers 50 per cent of all expenses incurred in the construction of ponds. The previous government recognized the problem when we established a reforestation program under ARDA. This program will give us big sponges of reforestation and ponds to hold the water in many of these areas. Then of course there is the Chicago diversion, which takes about 2 per cent of the water out of the great lakes.
The fifth point I wish to make is that we already have a control on lake Superior; we have a dam. On the other hand, we have no control on lake Huron and Georgian bay. In addition, the area around Sarnia had to be dredged in connection with the building of the St. Lawrence seaway.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George put some figures on the record in this debate regarding slower flow. I want to say this. The river St. Clair is flowing faster than ever. When this channel was lowered by six feet the official pronouncement was that the effect would be negligible. Just how this can be reconciled with the actual increase in outflow from 160,000 cubic feet per second to 185,000 cubic feet per second has not been explained. That completely repudiates the arguments put forward by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
I wish to dwell for a minute on this increased output of the river St. Clair, taken in conjunction with the fall of six feet in the level of the great lakes in the Georgian bay area. If we are to control lake Superior we must have some control on lake Huron. I think this is definitely indicated when the outflow is 25,000 cubic feet per second more than it was prior to the dredging and deepening of the St. Clair river. It follows that this government must get busy at once, in conjunction with the government of the United States and the international joint commission, to find a solution to this problem and a means of lessening the immediate
difficulties. This should be done, too, in cooperation with those people in Michigan and elsewhere who are vitally concerned.
The government already has the machinery to use if it wishes to get to work on damming the lakes and rivers which flow into this area. I am most concerned about this matter.
I am wondering what responsibility the government must accept for the position in which these marine operators, hotel operators and others on the great lakes find themselves. These people have invested thousands and thousands of dollars from their savings. Many of them have mortgages and they are likely to lose their property in this great catastrophe.
I am wondering whether the government has not some responsibility to those people for the losses which will be incurred. I am not saying that the government should subsidize or should look after all of those people, but I am saying that many of these young operators, on the strength of making Canada one of the great tourist centres of the world, have invested their all, but they find their docks are today six to seven feet out of water. Although they were erected to be of proper height at high water level they are today standing stark naked six to seven feet above water level. You would find, Mr. Speaker, that some of the channels in that area cannot be traversed by boat and tourist places are completely isolated. It does not seem fair to me that we should expect those people to accept the responsibility for this disaster in its entirety, and I hope the government will give serious consideration to providing some form of assistance to these people who, as I say, may lose their all.
Some of the papers in the area, including the Midland Free Press and the Angus Times, have pointed to the distress which is going to be caused in this connection. I know that the government is going to dredge all the harbours and is going to dredge the harbour at Midland and Port McNicoll and Colling-wood. But in the meantime, although ships are carrying lighter loads they are getting bogged down. These boats have to be pulled off mudbanks and so on, and this is costing the economy a great deal of money. Therefore I would appeal to the government to stop this laissez faire attitude which is prevalent today, and get busy and do something for these people, because over their property today rests the pall of loss. We in the house may regard such matters as affecting only one part of Canada, but I suggest that this goes deeper and affects the prairies and the whole economy of Canada. Instead of talking about cycles and other matters it is high time the government did some sound thinking, set up some machinery, put it to work, and

Canadian Water Resources considered the problems and financial losses of the people who live in those areas.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, when my predecessor moved his amendment yesterday I think he took a great many people by surprise. Indeed, I am of the opinion that he took a great many members of his own party by surprise, judging by the participation of hon. members on the other side of the house in this debate. I was certainly taken by surprise. I wanted at once to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) for his generous statement that he "cannot hold it against this new government and the new minister in his first year". I wanted to thank him for that statement, but I hope to be able to prove in the few minutes I am going to take today that we do not need his generosity. Because I think I will be able to point out that we have undertaken a larger number of measures in regard to the full use of Canadian resources in this past year than were ever undertaken for quite a few years prior hereto; and some of the measures we have taken have been relatively successful.
The very splendid speech made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) was, I think, quite encompassing in that he pointed out the limitations, the very real limitations, which exist in this particular field. I am sure my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam, among others, is aware of them because at one time he was the head of a provincial government. In the field of resources our provinces are extremely jealous, and of course understandably so, because they derive their revenues from the resources which have been developed within their boundaries. We are now in a position where, to the great advantage of the nation, and I would think, in the end, to the great advantage of each individual province, we are trying to establish a mutuality of interest which does not know provincial boundary lines.
In that respect I think that one of the better jobs which we did last year was as a result of a metting which was held in Regina, which I attended together with a number of members from both sides of this house. We received, I think, a good education apart from having an interesting time. We had been invited there by the premier of Saskatchewan to meet resource representatives not only from Saskatchewan but Alberta and Manitoba as well. Out of that meeting an advisory committee was set up which has since held no less than five meetings. The political end delegated its responsibility to the technical men in the 
various departments. This is all leading to a request which will be made of this government for a very considerable study of the possibility of bending some of these northern rivers into the Saskatchewan system and of diverting some of the waters which today seem to flow uselessly into the Arctic across the prairies where they will be of more value.
Canada is a fortunate country with respect to water in that 7 per cent of its total land mass is covered by water. Of the tremendous amount of water which is annually drawn up by the sun from the ocean and dumped on Canada no less than 8,000 billion tons of it is dumped on the land in the form of rain or snow. Therefore we in Canada are exceedingly fortunate, as I say, in our water resources; our job now is to redirect these resources before they return to the ocean. This involves a tremendous job for the future but we are making a move in that direction.
Certain hon. members on the other side of the house, particularly those down in the corner, have for years been asking about water pollution. We have written a letter to the resource ministers suggesting that the question of the pollution of our waters should be one of the first subjects to be dealt with at the plenary conference of resource ministers when they meet in Charlottetown. This suggestion has been agreed to. We have received affirmative replies from five or six provinces, only the province of Nova Scotia being of the opinion that this is a matter of provincial rather than federal-provincial jurisdiction.
We are also moving in the direction of a very complicated, extended and what will be a very expensive study of the resources of the Nelson river in the province of Manitoba. This study is designed primarily to assist the ultimate development of power, in which more than the province of Manitoba is interested, quite apart from the interest of the government of Canada. This study will be extremely extended and, as I say, very expensive. This is evidence of co-operation with the provinces to develop to the best advantage their resources, to the benefit not alone of the individual province concerned but of the nation as a whole. For example, where rivers cross provincial boundaries it is quite possible for one of the provinces concerned to take action within its provincial borders which would prove extremely harmful, if not disastrous, to its neighbour. There is an increasing appreciation of that situation at the present time and we find the provinces are discussing this matter more and more with one another.
I indicated to the ministers concerned, as recently as January 8 last, the need for the expenditure by us of a great deal more

money in studying the water resources of Canada. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to quote one paragraph from that letter, which was sent to all the resource ministers of the provinces:
Recognizing the accelerating needs for water data to enable the responsible agencies to plan for efficient use of our water resources, the government of Canada has agreed to an intensified five year program of expansion and improvement of surface water and sediment survey data collection and analysis facilities by the water resources branch of this department. It is my hope that under this program and through the existing cooperative arrangements with the provinces, we can at least double the existing coverage in the next five years, as well as improve present installations.
We have received replies from the ministers concerned, I think in every instance offering their greatest co-operation.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he will table a copy of that letter?


Arthur Laing: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to table a copy of the whole letter.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would it be possible to have the replies as well? I would like to see the letter tabled, and are the replies available also?


Arthur Laing: I have not the replies here, Mr. Speaker. I think they might best be secured by placing a question on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That would have to be done with the consent of the ministers involved.


Arthur Laing: We are faced today with an amendment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it agreed that the hon. minister has leave to table the letter in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are faced today with a motion which condemns us for our inactivity. I wish to tell the house that we are not inactive, but this particular branch has been extremely active in the last year. In addition it is suggested we are negligent because we have failed to establish a national advisory committee. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) pointed out some of the difficulties in this regard. We will have it as time goes on, and I would say that we will have it through the means we are attempting to effect at the present time; that is, by working with the provinces and encouraging their support and co-operation. But the condemnation is that we had not established a national advisory committee.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) to the proposal made by the present Leader of the 20220-1861
Canadian Water Resources Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on October 23, 1961, in which he declared that such a committee should be established. I merely want to point out that the government of that day remained in power for some 18 months thereafter and did not establish such an advisory committee. The difficulties are apparent. However, with the establishment of the secretariat to the resource ministers conference now operating out of Montreal we will be able to achieve the same type of co-operation with the various provinces and, in the end, the same objectives that might be achieved by suddenly setting up a national advisory committee in respect of these matters.
I want to say something in particular about the great lakes system, to which so much time was devoted by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). I am fully aware of the deep concern in this respect and of the consequences of a cycle of weather which again is becoming apparent to this region. I say it is a cycle of weather because I had gone back to February 28, 1956, when these remarks were made in the house by Mr. Murphy, the then member for Lamb ton West:
I was not concerned about the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway project on the great lakes levels.. .My concern was about the damage to property from high water levels even at the present moment.
That was in the days when members of parliament were rising in the house and saying that the government had to do something, had to make some release of water somewhere and get the water down the St. Lawrence river because of the damage being caused in the lakes by high water. This is a situation that has been evident to those who have been keeping records over a great number of years. We do have times of heavier precipitation, with resultant damage from floods. I want to tell the house, Mr. Speaker, that the situation in respect of the great lakes system is a very, very complex one; indeed, it has been declared to be the most complex system in the world.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question? I do not know the answer with regard to this cycle business he is talking about, but would the building of dams and controls control the cycle?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question but I have to tell him that in a circumstance such as we are suffering from it is necessary to impose as little loss as possible on each person. The tendency is to reduce water here, to effect a little damage to shipping, shall we say, in one instance and yet do as little damage as possible. In other words, it is spread all around. This is a situation with which we in British Columbia are familiar. In 1958 I watched the
2934	HOUSE OF
Canadian Water Resources water rise to within six inches of the dike tops at Creston. Creston had been flooded once before. That particular year we saved the Creston dikes, but the Americans lost out down below. There was another occasion on which we and the Americans down below were co-operating to try and save both. We saved theirs but we lost the dikes in Creston. It seems to me this is a case of making the maximum use of water for all purposes and bringing to bear as little damage on individuals as possible.
I have been accused of being flippant because on one occasion I said that prayer might help. I still think it might help. I want to say that at the present time we have a most abnormal situation in British Columbia. I do not want to be an alarmist, but those of us who are members from the province of British Columbia will admit right now that in the next few weeks we are going to go through very trying times in that province. This will not be for want of moisture, some of which I would have hoped we could make available elsewhere, but because the other day, not in northern British Columbia but on the coast in central British Columbia, I flew over an area that is carrying 75 feet of snow; and in parts of the Columbia watershed today-I visited the area some six weeks ago-there are places in which the snowfall has been recorded as being 40 per cent above that of last year. We are hopeful that we can get by, and I think possibly we will; but we have had cool nights lately. This is a situation over which we have as yet, as is the case with most governments of the world, no control. There may be scientific weather controls in later years, but we do not have them yet.
The great lakes is a particular case in point, because the area of drainage into the great lakes is only 201,000 square miles, whereas the great lakes themselves cover
95.000	square miles. Here again the difficulty that occurs is that there is a different ratio of drainage area in the case of each of the lakes. In the case of lake Superior it has a drainage area of only 48,000 square miles for
31.000	square miles of lake. In the case of lake Michigan it has 95,000 square miles of drainage area against 45,000 or about two to one. In lake Erie it is 30 to 10 and in lake Ontario there are 27,000 square miles of drainage area for only 7,500 square miles of lake. So that in this complex pattern with these enormous variations even the arranged feeding of water would be most difficult, costly and time consuming in that you might have to start the water 18 months ahead of the time it would flow out the other end of the lakes. These are complicating factors of the great lakes system.


We are fully aware of the consequences of the present situation. We have been keeping in communication with the Americans on all these points and any of those man-made things to improve the situation which are possible at this time will be done by us from time to time in full co-operation with the Americans.
Again I want to say that in these circumstances the total accomplishments of man, compared with nature's count for very little at all. Those members of the house who are familiar with the situation will agree with me, I think, on the figures I am about to quote in respect of wheat production in the province of Saskatchewan. Last year, under ideal circumstances both in respect of volume and quality, the province of Saskatchewan produced 493 million bushels of wheat. I think it is also absolutely accurate that in the year 1938 the province of Saskatchewan produced 29 million bushels of wheat. It was not because the soil was poorer then than it is now. New methods of soil culture are being used and I rather think that members from Saskatchewan will confirm the fact that there was more fertility in the soil then than there is now. But what was lacking, of course, was water.
We are subject to these circumstances and must do the best we can with them. We have made very good progress in a great number of fields in dealing with the provinces. We are budgeting for over $2 million more for the water resources branch alone this year than the year before, but I must be fair and point out that about $1,300,000 of that amount represents additional sums of money paid in respect of the Winnipeg floodway over those spent the year before. But we are spending more money. We are taking on more staff, and we have been very successful in working more closely with the provinces on the matter of resources that lie within their own boundaries.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I should like to ask the
minister a question. Would he be prepared to recommend to the government that feasibility surveys be carried out immediately in regard to the diversion of the Hudson bay watershed or parts of it into the great lakes system?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in that regard the waters concerned which flow westerly into James bay from Quebec are the property, of course, of the province of Quebec. We are aware only in the roughest detail of the proposal to which the hon. member has referred, known as the grand canal scheme, and I do not know that any economic studies have been worked out in that regard yet. But we will hear more and more of these things.

But I think one of the better things I could do would be to endeavour to refer the whole matter we are concerned with at the present time to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, not so much from the point of view of bringing out more information, although undoubtedly a number of briefs would be presented that would be extremely valuable, but rather to provide the public with an understanding and appreciation of the problems that we have in various parts of Canada and, probably more important, the tremendous asset we have in the great over-all supply of water that we in this nation possess.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Can the minister advise the house whether or not the entrance to the St. Clair river has been deepened in recent years?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that. I could obtain the information for the hon. gentleman, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of discussing particularly the subamendment, and then I will make some references to the speech of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) which in my opinion represented a completely negative and defeatist attitude on the part of the government. Because of the fact that there is a subamendment I wish to read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).
This house condemns the neglect of the government in failing to establish a co-ordinated national water policy and in ignoring the imminent national crisis in water resources management, which is evidenced by the critical low water levels of the great lakes and other national waters, the increasing pollution of national waters, and the urgent necessity of conserving water resources. ..
And urges the government, in the interests of national development, to take immediate action...:
(1)	establishing a national advisory committee on water resources...
(2)	accelerating the application of ARDA policies to the problems of national resource development, and,
(3)	vigorously continuing and expanding the water and other resource development programs conceived and established by the previous Conservative government.
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) simply removes from the amendment moved for the official opposition most of the effective terms thereof. It entirely ignores the national crisis in water resources management. It entirely obliterates the necessity for the establishment of a national advisory committee on resources. Indeed, it emasculates the amendment and substitutes therefor one matter:
That in the best interests of national development, the house urges the government to take concrete steps immediately to accelerate the application of ARDA.
Canadian Water Resources
We can concur entirely with the particular item in the subamendment and its objective, but if we were to vote for it we would be removing the major portions of our amendment and, indeed, would defeat the purpose for which our amendment was moved. As far as ARDA is concerned, which was established under a Conservative government, it is one of the most forward, one of the most effective programs ever enunciated in legislative form in the history of our country. It was entirely in keeping with the general attitude of the Conservative party, whose basic principle is to conserve these things that are good.
The Bennett government brought into effect the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which, in my province of Saskatchewan and the adjoining prairie provinces, brought about advances that were not even thought possible. The minister referred to wheat productivity in Saskatchewan in 1938. I recall the days of the dust bowl, the frightfulness of which cannot be translated into terms understandable today. Out of the experience of that drought era from 1929 or 1930 to the latter part of the thirties, there was born the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and through P.F.R.A., changes and improvements have been made.
There is no doubt at all that if we were to accept the subamendment we would defeat the purpose for which the amendment was moved. Since the subamendment does remove the major portion of the material part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), we cannot support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). We think that in the best interest of national development the government should take concrete steps immediately to accelerate the application of ARDA. We believe that this government has dragged its feet on the ARDA program. Indeed, as one reads the evidence that was taken before the committee of the Senate on land use in Canada, one cannot but conclude that there has been a total lack of initiative and effort on the part of this government in carrying out the basic principles of ARDA.
This plan was a great step forward for soil and water conservation, and it has been left practically unimplemented, except in a comparatively minor degree. I am not going into the particulars in this regard, but they are set forth in the No. 2 report of the committee to which I referred a moment ago. Incidentally when so much is said by way of criticism of the other place, the work done by the committee under the chairmanship of Hon. Arthur Pearson and the deputy chairmanship of Hon.

Canadian Water Resources Austin Taylor, has been worthy and commendable indeed. The information assembled by the committee, if used by the present government, could extend beyond one's imagination the benefits of ARDA, were that the desire of the government. When I look at what has happened on the western prairies I think of the words of Jeremiah when he said:
And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.
This applies to what we have done. We have been wasteful and destructive of the great resources we have in our country. In the years ahead, 30 or 40 years from now, water will be more valuable to Canada if we maintain its purity than many of our other resources. I believe it was a great United States political philosopher who said that within 50 years water will be a more valuable resource than oil itself.
The minister always speaks delightfully and in the best debating traditions of parliament. I enjoy listening to him. However, at the conclusion of his remarks today I could not but conclude he realized he did not have any case, and therefore he had to speak in that kindly way that always characterizes him when he realizes he has a difficult, if not impossible, task.


Arthur Laing: Others shout loud.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and the minister never shouts because he has nothing to shout about. I am glad he interrupted because he speaks with power and authority when he really has something to say. Today, he spoke with that deftness that comes about when he finds it necessary to adopt a conciliatory attitude to the house.
This problem has not come about recently. There was a warning issued by the Family Herald on July 4, 1963, and I should like to quote:
Canada faces a serious water shortage. It's threatening the health and pocketbooks of a large part of our population right now and before long it's likely to affect us all in many ways. Within the life time of many readers not only the drier sections of the west but most of Canada will feel the pinch. A big, well-directed conservation and development program, launched right now, could keep a lot of people from being hurt. But any delay will increase the needs and lessen the effectiveness of control measures. Immediate action is urgently required.
This warning came from a responsible magazine, one that has served Canada well for many years. Then, it says:
Although it can be argued that we faced unusually bad weather conditions this year, the fact remains that we are still grappling with a problem which has been created by our expanding population, the rapid advance of industry and agriculture, and modernization of life in the cities and towns and on the farm.

This is a serious and a difficult problem. Mention was made in a most able speech the other day by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris of the action taken by the government of which I had the honour to be the head. We founded the resources for tomorrow conference. It was founded on full co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments. We did not do our consultation in reverse. We did not wait until we found we had entered a field of provincial jurisdiction and then, in a spirit of frustration, have to back up and commence consultations. We brought about a degree of co-operation with all the provinces of Canada that promised well for the future of these resources, which come primarily under provincial jurisdiction although actually have a tremendous effect on the national economy.
One of the most striking statements made by any of the visitors to our country was made to me by the then prime minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion some years ago. His general statement might be summarized in this way: You have a great resource, a resource of particular value in your water, but how you waste it. We have done that. We have polluted our streams, and polluted streams are just as detrimental to Canada's economic future as would be a total absence of water. During the period we were in office we faced the problem of pollution by taking the first, the initial step towards giving assistance to municipalities to provide the necessary measures to meet the pollution problem.
These were steps forward. I do not say that a government can do everything in this regard or a group of governments operating together. But what has this government done? It simply sat, looked at the problem and failed to take any measure whatever of an effective nature. The spirit of resignation could not be better described than it was by the minister in early April-and I have not the quotation before me-when he said the answer to the lakes situation might be to pray for rain. There are many people across Canada today who are beginning to believe that prayer for a change of government might bring a changed attitude towards this problem.
The problem is a tremendous one. It is being faced in all parts of the world. Here in Canada, with the limitless resources we had and which we believed would last for all time, we now find that within a period of three or four decades our country will be a potential dust bowl unless governments act now.
I had hoped that the minister would give us a picture of what the government had in mind, but there was nothing of the kind.

There was simply uncertainty, simply a spirit that the problem is there-"but what can we do about it"? He said the provinces must be consulted, and so they must. In part it is an international problem, but the minister did not give one word concerning the government's plans to meet it. There was just the expression of a pious hope that possibly something will be brought about.
The minister said nothing to indicate that this matter was faced up to at the recent discussions between Canadian ministers and their counterparts in the United States, which were held here in Ottawa. He said nothing to indicate that even small projects are contemplated.
The province of Ontario has made a serious endeavour to meet the problem so far as it can, but it cannot meet a problem which has international and intranational difficulties that must be solved. There was not one word of hope in what the minister had to say.
Some countries are trying to meet this problem by desalinization of sea water. Must we in Canada follow that course? I hope not, but certainly there was nothing but hopelessness in what the minister said today. I saw something of this problem last fall when I was in the Middle East, where they are endeavouring to bring about a solution by breaking down sea water; but the costs are tremendous.
It is estimated that a $840 million nuclear plant could meet the water needs of 3 million to 6 million people. It is also estimated in our own country that within the next 20 years we will have to spend about $5 billions if we are to meet the problem of pollution and the wider problem of the preservation of our water resources. It is a challenge, one that is tremendous in scope. It needs a concept. But what is the concept of the government? After the minister had spoken for a while he finally concluded that to meet this problem, which was so frighteningly described by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and the other hon. members who have spoken, the whole matter ought to be submitted to a committee of parliament so that briefs might be given thereon.
If the minister had presented some emergent program, something to meet the immediate problems, the larger and more extensive one that will take years to solve could possibly be postponed. But what is going to be done now? What is the situation in Chicago? Is the diversion that is taking place there extending beyond that which is permitted by international agreement? That is a matter upon which we have no information. What a spirit on the part of a government new in office and tired already, overwhelmed, and fearful. Its
Canadian Water Resources members say there is nothing they can do about it and that there are all kinds of constitutional difficulties. Surely there is somebody over there who will say there is some hope that something can be done. Unless there is emergent action taken now, the tremendous tourist traffic Canada enjoys, by reason of the action taken by the Conservative government in the devaluation of the dollar, will be lost and, once lost, not regained.
What of the people engaged in the tourist business? They are actually elevated into space, with their marinas up in the air- occupying a similar position to the government in this regard.
The minister went far afield. He went out to British Columbia. It is a wonderful place to go, a wonderful province; and he went out to the prairies. I say, let us get back to the problem that exists in Ontario and to a lesser degree in Quebec, the problem that is covered by this amendment.
There has never been a government shown so barren of ideas as this one in the address by the minister, assisted during the past two days by two others on the periphery of the cabinet. I ask the government, why are you opposed to the establishment of a national advisory committee to assist in co-ordinating national resource development? Why have you allowed ARDA to become almost a dead letter? A comparison was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), but the figures he gives are meaningless in face of the great opportunities that ARDA provides. If ever a government stood convicted by its defender, that government sits opposite today, for the whole defence consisted of coming before parliament and saying, "Things are bad; they could be worse. They may be worse, but we have not a suggestion of an idea as to what should be done, either by way of emergent action now or for the future." That is not enough.
I am not dealing with the major problem of the future, though it is one that will have to be tackled. These rivers that flow into Hudson bay will have to be reversed and their waters brought into those portions of our country which need them, both because of their industries and their populations. These will be tremendous projects; but what is the hope today for the tourist operator on lake Huron? What hope is there for him in a government that simply points out this is a grave problem, but it has not a suggestion of an idea to deal with it, and that it has to get in touch with the provinces with regard to what could be done? What about co-operative action between the provinces and the dominion? We have not heard one word of what has been done to ensure that the great lakes shall not continue to get lower and lower.

Canadian Water Resources
All we have from the minister is the answer that some years ago the water levels were higher than usual, therefore the fact that they are lower today than they have ever been, and that the trend is downward, is something they have not had time to look into while looking into the other problems they have faced with equal determination and effectiveness. Surely there is someone sitting over there who will rise up and say: These are a few plans we have in mind. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and others who spoke, placed the problem before the house and asked for action to be taken on behalf of their constituents.
Some people ask: Why do you move a vote of non-confidence on a matter such as this? Well, such votes as this are moved simply in pursuance of the rights of parliament. These votes of non-confidence have been moved throughout the years. Sometimes I read of ministers sitting opposite, together with some of those who are in the outer realms, looking generally to the opportunity to serve in the future in the higher ranks of cabinet posts and saying: Why these votes of non-confidence? I shall not go into that matter now, except to say this, that during the period when we were in office, with the opposition a comparative minority of the house, with one exception in five and a half years every one of the motions to go into supply had an amendment which constituted a vote of non-confidence. How are we to get this matter before the house if we do not follow this course? There is no opportunity to raise it on any other occasion and get the view of the government. We cannot obtain it through questions. Look at the order paper and see the number of questions which remain unanswered, many of them because they represent embarrassment to the government. We cannot bring this up in any other way. Bring it up as a private member's bill, and what happens? It comes, and it goes. Bring it in as a resolution and it is talked out after an hour and goes to the bottom of the list. There is only one way in which the opposition can declare its policies or call upon the government to act in an important matter facing the nation, and that is through the instrumentality of motions to go into supply.
Today, one of the reasons parliament is criticized is because it is said there are so many of these motions. Well, there are no more motions this year, or last year, than there were in every year when we were in office. The only difference is that we spread
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
them out and people forgot about them, whereas this government brings them along week after week.


Arthur Laing: Could we get back to water?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad of that interruption. The hon. gentleman was not thinking very much about that subject when he was talking about it. He did not at any time address himself to the amendment or attempt to deal with the problem. He simply threw up his hands in a spirit of resignation and indicated to the people of Ontario, of Quebec and of the rest of Canada: This is a tremendous problem and we have not an idea in the world as to what should be done; we have, to all intents and purposes, rendered ARDA nugatory, so what should we do but pray for rain? Laudable as is the recognition on the part of the minister of the power of prayer, we are dealing at the moment with a problem which the government of Canada cannot place on some supernatural level. We want it at this level.
What does the government intend to do? What lies ahead? I listened to the minister and the two other hon. gentlemen who spoke from that side. These were able young men; I like to hear young men going into parliament and making an effective contribution. Those two young men did the best they could, but what a brief they had-nothing to stand on, nothing to answer the amendment, excepting an unusual collection of bureaucratic generalizations brought together with a desire to befog the issue.
All I can say is that here is a problem which is emergent at the moment, a problem which will become national in the years ahead. What action does the government intend to take to meet this emergency? Not one scintilla of evidence has been advanced with respect to a single idea which the government may have on this subject, except to exercise an appeal for guidance from above. The people today are asking this government to give them guidance here and action now instead of this pusillanimous pursuit of uncertainty and evasion.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: When I was listening to the minister delivering his oration and, later, when listening to the observations of the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) I could not help thinking of the story of the old countryman who, when he was asked by a friend if he could read, said: "Well, to tell the truth, I can and I can't". His friend asked: "What do you mean?". "Well," he says, "I tell you. When I sees a sign on the road going somewhere I can read how far, but I can't tell

where to". I thought of that when I was listening to the observations of those hon. gentlemen.
I was impressed by one thing about the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition; I can go away convinced, and tell everyone, that he has a full knowledge of the value of pure water. As far as the minister is concerned-and I listened carefully to what he said-I think he laid greater emphasis on the necessity for prayer than on the need for government policy in this respect, and I support the criticism made by the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. I would judge, from the hon. gentleman's speech this afternoon and from other speeches he has made- and I know he is a person with the best of intentions-that he depends on meetings and press relations without conclusions. He depends on the studies by his officials and by his staff in the water resources branch, without sufficient funds to undertake adequate research. That is a general criticism of his branch. I do not blame the individuals concerned. They can use slide rules and make calculations as well as anyone else. But the water resources branch lacks the funds, lacks the staff, and lacks the support of government policy, plus an over-all plan in cooperation with the provinces, to enable it to do really effective work. I think this is basically the reason we have made so little progress in introducing these programs in Canada as compared with what has been done in the United States.
This is a question which, I think should be treated from a non-partisan point of view and I intend to take my usual position in that regard.
Now I wish to deal with the amendment, Mr. Speaker, which starts out to condemn the government and then concludes as follows:
(3) vigorously continuing and expanding the water and other resources development programs conceived and established by the previous Conservative government.
I do not like that partisan approach to this particular problem. We condemn the government for their activity rather than their inactivity in some respects, but I will come to that later.
Then I come to the subamendment, which is based on the belief of the party supporting it that the question of the development of water resources is a provincial responsibility and is a matter only of provincial concern. We cannot agree with that contention. While we give every support to the ARDA policy and give the former government credit for its introduction, let me truthfully say-I do not want to appear self-righteous because that is not a habit of the members of this
Canadian Water Resources party-that we are the only ones who have had a consistent policy regarding the development and conservation throughout the years of our natural resources, our outlook being based on the over-all philosophy of life with regard to human beings, not on political expediency or the ebb and flow of political tides.
I am rather pleased to see that we have had some influence on the members of the official opposition in view of the fact that the major content of their amendment follows along the lines we have been developing for many years. On behalf of this party, for a period of over ten years I have moved this following motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division, composed of representatives of the ten provinces, within the framework of the proposed national resources council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate, and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces; in addition, to further the study of water pollution control problems of a national character.
In moving this motion, we in this party recognized the need for an over-all approach to the problem, as well as the need for cooperation between federal and provincial governments. This includes the necessity for a policy which is based on research information and co-operation. For years this motion has been embraced with great affection by members on the government side of the house, without regard to which party they belonged, but the motion was always finally talked out. However, I will give the minister's parliamentary secretary credit in that the last time this motion was debated he agreed that the motion would be referred to the ministers council which was formed after the conference on resources for tomorrow, and I hope those ministers will give some consideration to this aspect of our water resources problem in Canada.
I think it is correct to say that all through the history of Canada, to date, governments on the whole have shown a shocking neglect of the establishment of policies to meet this growing problem effectively. This opinion has been placed on the record repeatedly and I am not going to labour it at this point. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who made some quite appropriate remarks yesterday on this topic. He dealt with the seriousness of the question, and then as reported at page 2906 of Hansard went on to say this:
Getting back to the question of water, Mr. Speaker, and the preservation and conservation of our water resources, I think it is well for us to consider the position of Canada today in relation to the water resources that we have, and also to

Canadian Water Resources rely on some of the experiences other nations have had, so that we can in fact look into the future and develop programs which will help Canada to avoid these other problems.
I could go on and refer to the figures he quoted regarding the value placed on water in the United States, but I hope that when the hon. member comes to consider other important water problems facing Canada at the present time, including treaties and legislation, he will remember these words and think of the experiences of other nations whose interests were not protected at the time certain arrangements were entered into.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, the basic importance of water for human existence. Quite recently Sir H. Broadley of the United Nations said at a London University lecture:
There is the problem of water supplies; just imagine what quantities of water would be required if all the world adopted our domestic habit of bathing, and at the same time developed factories, atomic energy plants and all other increasing ways for which water is used in great quantities.
In that respect I think the members of this house would be well advised to use their imaginations.
This subject is not a colourful one. It is an important subject but it does not get recognized by the press as one which is, shall I say, colourful enough to justify making a long report about it. There are a small number of the members of our press gallery who are interested in this problem and report faithfully in a few of our newspapers the debates on this important question. I am glad to say that one of these is a young and delightful member of the press gallery, and I hope she makes a very good report of my speech this afternoon.
We have been talking of water in terms of power; but when we think of human existence and human happiness we think of water first of all from the point of view of its domestic use and its consumption by human beings. Second, we think of its recreational values for the enjoyment of human beings; we think of those pleasures that can refresh a man to a far greater extent than attendance at a beer parlour on most occasions, or at a movie show. Then there is the development of fish life and that sort of thing. Next comes industrial uses upon which are based industries from which people earn their livings. Then there is navigation, which is followed by irrigation, the flowing of water on to the soil to produce larger crops which are required to feed the increasing population of the world. Finally there is power production. Over the years we have been able to develop power by various means; but we have never yet discovered a way of producing fresh water in large quantities at economical cost.
[Mr. Herridge.l
The pollution of our streams, the lowering of water levels in the lakes and the lowering of our water tables generally throughout the land, as well as floods in many places and, I am sorry to say-I hope I am forgiven for mentioning this fact-the existence of treaties like the Columbia river treaty, all indicate the great need for a national policy with regard to the conservation and development of our water resources. To indicate the concern in my own district perhaps I might mention a matter which has been of interest to numerous groups throughout the years. I remember when I first came to the house in 1946 receiving letters from Legions in Medicine Hat, Alberta, from the Medicine Hat trades and labour council, from the municipal district of Bow Island and from the water conservation committee of Medicine Hat and Lethbridge, the content of which dealt with the necessity for a water policy and with the great need for canals and the conservation of water to service the thirsty land of Alberta.
This was in 1946. How far have we got along this course? Then we come again to 1949. I remember that the agricultural institute of Canada, of which I have the honour to be a chartered and a life member, presented resolutions to the minister of agriculture of that day urging a similar policy; the need for a national policy for the conservation of our land and water resources. There was a great deal said at that time, but we have not any national policy for the conservation of our water resources today; we have a bits and bobs policy. I am not going to take the time to read the resolution, Mr. Speaker.
Then in 1952 we had the Canadian forestry association dealing with the same problem and mentioning the necessity for a national policy on water conservation. They gave evidence of the depleted water resources found all across our country in dried up streams, lowering water tables, and ever more frequent floods. That was in 1952. It is now 1964 and we still have no national policy with respect to water conservation. Then we come to a conference that was called planning Canada's resources for the future, the first conference of its kind, called by the Canadian forestry association, at the Chateau Laurier hotel, Ottawa, on April 22 and 23, 1954. I attended that conference. There again, Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion of this very important problem. One of the resolutions passed asked for a national policy for the control and development of the nation's water resources. As I said, this was in 1954, and this conference was called as the result of provincial conferences and the activities of other groups. I give credit to the community groups throughout the nation that

have been interested in this problem throughout the years; but if we are going to be effective there has to be leadership at the federal and provincial levels to give effect to a program that will preserve these water resources for the Canadian people.
I want to bring to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, a rather unusual situation that occurred recently in .Kootenay West. The people in the Kootenays are concerned with the question of water pollution particularly, and also with the question of the use of the waters of the Columbia basin in Canada for Canadians of this and future generations. I have said that before. They are concerned about pollution. Municipal councils have met and regional groups have met to study this question. On the whole our waters are free of pollution, except in the lower portion of the Columbia river, say from Castlegar to the international boundary. But people are very concerned with the problem of an increase of this pollution and they called in the deputy minister of health for the province. I want to read this editorial to show the approach to this problem on the part of our provincial government. This is an editorial which appeared in the Trail Daily Times, a newspaper that takes a great deal of delight in hammering hell out of me. In this case I agree with what they have to say; I always give credit to my opposition when they say things of which I approve. Just listen to this, Mr. Speaker. This is the approach to this water problem:
We Can't Drink "Averages".
"How do you drink an average?"
It sounded like a joke when it was asked at the annual meeting of the West Kootenay union board of health this week, but there was really nothing very funny about it at all.
The question arose out of a completely inadequate answer given by Dr. James Taylor, the deputy minister of health, to some other questions about the state of the Columbia river.
Dr. Taylor implied that pollution control board secretary Keenan hadn't really meant it when he wrote to the Kinnaird council warning that we were rapidly approaching the point where chlorination would become ineffective as a method of treating Columbia river water.
They are particularly concerned about this because of the tremendous pollution that will occur if the High Arrow dam is built. This editorial continues:
He said that Mr. Keenan's water sample statistics should be regarded from the standpoint of average. Conditions in the river, Dr. Taylor said, "fluctuate".
In other words, chlorinated river water may be "safe" one day and "unsafe" the next; but on an average over a period, statistically the river is "safe".
Unfortunately, the people of the Columbia riverside communities don't drink statistical averages. They drink water-
Canadian Water Resources -like the right hon. leader of the official opposition-
-and it is a bit thick for some hidebound civil servants from Victoria to come in here and try to kid us to believe otherwise.
It is patent nonsense to propose that because the Columbia bacteriological count is well down some of the time and dangerously high at other times, that you can go on to strike a mathematical average and call the water "safe".
The pollution control board and the department of health have got to do better than that.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, to indicate how they are trying to deal with a question like this which is of such great importance to the people directly concerned. This is another indication of the necessity for federal leadership and some co-ordination of policies. They are getting absolutely nowhere with the provincial pollution control board. They simply come in and hold meetings; they do not take any effective action. This editorial was sent to me and brought to my attention, as a matter of fact, by quite a prominent supporter of the government-and I have some of those as well.
I just want to deal with another aspect of this question and quote from some speeches, copies of which have been sent to me. These speeches were delivered in Portland, Oregon, on November 5, 1963. The first one from which I wish to quote was an address given by Major General W. W. Lapsley before the inland empire waterways association. The title of his talk was "Thirty Years of Water Resource Development", and he said:
As an indicator of future development-we have $1.8 million in the FY 1964 budget for some 35 general investigations, including-
Listen to this. We were told that precedents were not set by the treaty:
-the unprecedented Rampart project on the Yukon river in Alaska.
You see where they are starting. They have already voted money for these investigations. I hope the minister has noticed this, because this money has been voted by the United States senate:
By FY 1966 we will need about $3 million for general investigations. Funds for comprehensive studies of the Willamette and Puget Sound basins are included in the FY 1964 budget and a comprehensive study of the Columbia is authorized.
Here is the interesting quotation from the speech of this well informed American. He is dealing with the Columbia all through the speech, and he said:
The future looks bright. You might even say it looks as if we "have made it"-but don't be too sure.
He was dealing with the procrastination on the part of the Canadian parliament in ratifying the treaty. I want to quote from the remarks of Mr. H. T. Nelson, regional director,

Canadian Water Resources bureau of reclamation, at the 30th anniversary of the inland empire waterways association, Portland, Oregon, on November 4, 1963:
Now let's compare what this economic growth, as illustrated by our experiences on the Columbia river basin project, could mean in future years along the Columbia. Looking at the part of the Columbia river basin along the main stem of the river itself, and up the tributaries to the limits of commercial navigation, we find that there are presently about one and a half million acres irrigated. In future years supplemental waters could be supplied to somewhat over 800,000 acres, and over two million acres of new lands could be brought under irrigation. Just looking at it from a conservation standpoint, in the future we can foresee the irrigation development of from five to six times the area which was actually irrigated on the Columbia basin project in 1962. This would mean, then, that if a similar growth pattern occurred, as was experienced on the Columbia basin project, that there would be a tremendous upsurge in the basic economy of this area.
This is to indicate what they are thinking all the time. You must remember that in this case these gentlemen are talking of the basin to the south of us, the Columbia basin, the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana and California to the south. I am going to requote a paragraph from the Phoenix Gazette of Tuesday, April 7, 1964 which was brought to the attention of the house by my leader last night. The newspaper contains an article dealing with the question of the need for water in Arizona. What does it say?
So this leaves outside sources, and while officially no one would say just where these sources might be, privately some agreed that the huge Columbia river probably would hold best promise of a future supply. Water experts have said the state might possibly get up to 12 million acre feet annually from such a source. The Columbia river is in the Pacific northwest.
You can see how these people are short of water, and I do not blame them for being concerned.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Willingly.


Arthur Laing: Would he be surprised to know that the projects which we are either pursuing in active co-operation with the provinces now or are negotiating with the provinces will embrace an expenditure of several times the amount of money that General Lapsley referred to in respect of Rampart.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First of all, I am both pleased and surprised, but the minister is quoting national figures. The figures given here are for a very small area of the United States. I want to give a quotation from "Men and Water", a speech made by Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman, interior and insular affairs committee, at the 30th annual convention of

the inland empire waterways association, Portland, Oregon, November 4, 1963. This is interesting. After talking about what the development of the Columbia will mean to them he says that these are the benefits:
First, and not necessarily in order of importance, by 1980 our present population of about 51 million is expected to increase to about 8 million. While this poses the problem of finding a million new jobs, the very increase in population itself will tend to stimulate economic growth by increasing consumer demand.
This is the Columbia river basin in the United States about which he is talking.
Second, our basic lumber products industry appears to have weathered the worst and is shifting to more sophisticated forest products.
He goes on to refer to refinements in manufacturing and the building of more paper mills. We sell our timber to pulp mills and so far as paper is concerned, allow the processing to be done largely in the United States.
The greater degree of finished processing of northwest forest products offers opportunity for new jobs and, at the minimum, stability in a field that historically has provided our region with two out of every five jobs.
Third, our large and abundant supply of cool, clean water which industry increasingly requires.
Fourth, the ingenuity, resourcefulness and aggressiveness of our northwest citizens in developing new economic opportunity.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, there is our great supply of low cost hydroelectric power, with more yet to be developed, which provides the lowest cost energy base in the nation for industry.
I have quoted these extracts from this speech made by this gentleman at this most important conference to show that the people there realize what this treaty means to them, what this additional water from Canada means to them in terms of power, in terms of flood control, in terms of irrigation, in terms of jobs, industry and so on.
I think that the conditions we find in Canada in many cases with respect to pollution of our streams, the lowering of our great lakes water levels, the circumstances we find ourselves in with regard to the Columbia treaty and the multitude of investigations that must be done before we can develop our water resources across this country logically and efficiently, indicate more than ever the pressing need for a national water resources policy developed as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, based on research, based on adequate information, based on an educational program and based on the necessary publicity to inform the Canadian people of what is being done and of the purposes and objectives of such a policy.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, in proposing their amendment

and subamendment, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) both condemned the attitude of the government toward the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, also known as ARDA. Some members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) also referred to ARDA and the government's approach to it.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like, in a purely non-partisan frame of mind, to sketch the history of that legislation and describe what happened. It was in June 1961, you will recall, that the house passed the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. A few months later, the government of the day appointed a director in charge of administration of this legislation, and agreements between the federal and provincial governments were signed in 1962.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we must give credit to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), now sitting in opposition, because he was mainly responsible for the implementation of this legislation which, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, is perhaps the most interesting legislation passed by both houses under the previous government.
The Prime Minister of Canada has recognized the importance of this legislation and that of rural development. That is why, in February last, he entrusted me with the responsibility of administrating this legislation, and I am proud that, to the responsibilities of the Department of Forestry, the Prime Minister has added those of rural development and, more particularly, the administration of ARDA.
I have been responsible for the administration of that act for two months, and I wish to tell the house how happy I am about this, not only because this piece of legislation offers tremendous possibilities, but also because it is imbued with a spirit that is quite special. It is an act that does not fall within the ordinary framework and which allows the government to accomplish many things with the provinces for the development of rural resources.
It will be remembered also that, at the outset, this act was of an agricultural nature. But it was easily realized that rural problems could not be solved if rural resources as a whole were not dealt with at the same time, that is, forestry, tourists, fishing, the establishment of small industries and the elaboration of policies likely to promote the development of certain rural areas.
Canadian Water Resources
What is known as ARDA constitutes a joint program, which means that it calls for the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. It is up to the people living in rural areas to take the initiative of suggesting to their respective provincial government programs for the development of their district. Then, provincial governments having approved such programs submit them to the federal government. Therefore, the initiative is not ours. We discuss programs and projects which are submitted to us by provincial governments.
When I assumed the responsibility for the administration of this act, I undertook to visit each and every province in Canada. I think that discussion with provincial ministers responsible for the administration of the act and with provincial officials responsible for its application is the best way to know what they think about the act which, after all, was passed only about three years ago. I also think this is one way of livening up cooperative federalism about which we now hear so much.
Hon. members are aware that the agreements signed with the provinces will expire on March 31, 1965. I hope that, within a few weeks, I will have called on all provincial officials responsible for the administration of that act and that a few weeks later, in June or July, I can hold a meeting with the most interested parties from the provincial and the federal government to review the very basis of that legislation, problems resulting from its administration and improvements that will have to be submitted to the approval of the house next fall.
A few hon. members said that the government had failed to deal with that legislation since coming into power. You will understand that I do not want to indulge in party politics but figures indicate that quite the opposite is true. I do not blame in any way our predecessors, who did not have time to apply that legislation, since it started to operate in the fall of 1962 only, and, as we know, in April 1963 there was a change of government.
The fact remains that since the change in government a great many projects have been approved by the federal government following submissions by the various provincial governments; projects are under way in every province of Canada, and every province is interested in ARDA. To date, 450 projects requiring commitments of $14 million from the federal government have been approved by that government. It would be difficult for me to say exactly how many projects have been approved since the new government took over, but I am under the impression that at least 50 per cent of those projects-

Canadian Water Resources


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What is the province's share?


David Réal Caouette: May I ask the minister a question? While he is dealing with the subject could he give us the figures by provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: I shall be pleased to give you the figures for each province, if that may be of interest to you.
In Newfoundland, 32 projects were approved, the federal government being committed for more than $488,000. Prince Edward Island, 18 projects were approved, the share of the federal government being $130,000. In Nova Scotia, 34 projects were approved, the federal government being committed for $425,000. In New Brunswick, 25 projects were approved, the federal government's share being $438,000. In the province of Quebec, 103 projects were approved, the federal government being committed for $2,842,000. In Ontario, 29 projects were approved, the federal government being committed for $2,185,000. In Manitoba, 49 projects were approved, the federal government being committed for $1,745,000. For Saskatchewan, 77 projects have been approved, with a commitment by the federal government of $4,127,000. For Alberta, 22 projects have been approved, with a commitment by the federal government of $1,253,000. For British Columbia, 16 projects have been approved, involving a commitment by the federal government of $508,000. This, therefore, makes up a grand total of 405 projects, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, involving federal government commitments for the sum of $14,143,000.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to ask a question.
Can the minister tell the house what main areas of the province of Quebec will be affected by ARDA, without giving any details?


Maurice Sauvé: I do not want to give a detailed answer, but I can tell the hon. members that, in a few days, we shall have the pleasure of sending them a paper that I have here, before me, showing the ARDA projects as a whole, as of March 23, 1964. You will find here plenty of details; moreover, we shall send you documents which may enable you to evaluate for yourselves the scope of ARDA.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I thank the hon. minister.


Maurice Sauvé: These sums of money have been spent where there were commitments. Many problems still have to be reconsidered, and probably a new direction of ARDA will be proposed to the house. I am not sure yet, because until I have visited all the provinces to discuss with their representatives the application of this act and its consequences on the betterment of standards of living in the
[Mr. SauvS.l
rural class, it will be impossible for me to say exactly what the final direction of this legislation will be.
However, it is clear, since this legislation was discussed during election campaigns, that great hopes have been instilled in rural areas. Quite a few citizens thought that once ARDA was approved, every problem facing the rural classes would be settled. I do not want to criticize anybody. It often happens that, during an election, people become enthusiastic and you feel that, for reasons known to everybody, you have to stress certain hopes which, a few months later, prove impractical.
In most provinces, and more particularly in eastern Canada, farmers and other rural people, who are perhaps not farmers and do not earn their living through farming, would like to see immediate results. People complain that it takes too long to consider and reconsider problems; and I think that, on the whole, they are right to ask for immediate results and the concrete solution of certain problems. To my mind those problems could be immediately solved by the programs devised to improve the various areas.
The people in the rural areas are concerned about what will happen when the studies are completed. As you know, intensive studies are being made in several areas of Canada, but the people wonder if the government will consider its task as completed when the studies are over. I think that we will have the responsibility to show those people that the government is serious when it talks of the development of resources in rural areas.
I also found during my visit that the people were concerned because the authorities had not always succeeded in interesting them in the improvement of their living conditions. In several provinces, they have started to set up organizations of social leaders, that is organizations made up of persons having the responsibility of explaining to the people what ARDA is, what projects are under way, why research is being conducted, why such solution is proposed. The idea is to associate the people living in rural areas with the solution of their problems.
Mr. Speaker, during the first two or three years ARDA has been in existence, it has been found that this legislation really had wide applications. In the interest of the persons concerned themselves, that is people in rural areas who have a low standard of living, it will probably be necessary to restrict the scope of ARDA, in order to actually work for the improvement of living conditions in rural areas.
I do not want to conclude those few remarks without mentioning an exceptional experiment which is now going on in nine

ridings of eastern Quebec-under the supervision of the eastern Quebec development bureau-which is described as a pilot area of ARDA.
There, for almost a year, some 60 persons have been thoroughly studying all the resources in the area and looking for solutions that would improve living conditions of these rural dwellers, who have often been neglected, as we were inclined to solve part of their problems through social security measures rather than through a rational organization of local resources.
The rural development office for eastern Quebec is something unique in this country; it is headed by young economists, sociologists and scientists who, under the direction of the lower St. Lawrence guidance council and the Gaspe peninsula economic guidance council, have endeavoured to find a solution to the local problems.
In a few weeks from now, we will invite members of parliament and newspapermen to come and see for themselves the extraordinary work which is being done in Gaspe in co-operation with the Quebec government and with the approval of both the federal and the provincial governments.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to ARDA, a truly remarkable piece of legislation which deserves the support of all hon. members, regardless of party affiliation. In my opinion, it offers the means to solve the problem of low income in rural areas.
Obviously, it will be impossible to do so overnight, but within a certain period of time, and with the support of all hon. members, I hope we will be able to improve the condition of rural residents.
Then, people will say that for once we, on the government side, and hon. members of the opposition have unanimously agreed on the need to work together to improve the standard of living of our fellow citizens.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, on quite a number of occasions during the past few weeks I have indicated my concern to the house with respect to the great lakes water levels. Some people have failed to understand the importance of this problem and I would direct their attention to the headline in today's Globe and Mail which says, "Government under fire on issue of lake levels." Anything with which the official opposition can hit the front page of the Globe and Mail must have real significance. A further indication of the widespread interest in this problem is a reference to it in the Mount Forest Confederate, a newspaper in a town which is many miles away from the
Canadian Water Resources great lakes area, and many miles from my radio station, but nevertheless it picked up my radio address on water levels in the great lakes and gave it front page headlines. Therefore the problem does have some significance.
The water levels in Georgian bay have become progressively worse over the past three or four years. Early this year indications were coming from reliable sources that the water would reach an all time low in the great lakes, especially in lake Huron and Georgian bay. To build my case, Mr. Speaker, I must present the following evidence so that I can point out something specific.
On March 24 last, as recorded at page 1405 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) the following question:
If low water levels create a hazardous situation in any harbour on the great lakes, will the minister give the house his assurance that he will give the problem his immediate remedial attention?
The reply was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not follow very well the point the hon. member has in mind, but I am going to look into this matter.
Then on April 6 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the following question:
What measures does the government plan to take to cope with the serious low water situation in Georgian bay and lake Huron?
Mr. Speaker suggested that this question go on the order paper. I appealed to the Speaker and said, "This is a serious situation in my riding," but Mr. Speaker insisted that similar questions had been asked. I then put this supplementary question to the Prime Minister:
-owing to the fact that this is a matter of international consequence, has he been contacted by the United States government in respect of this problem?
The Prime Minister replied:
Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I know it is a serious matter, and if the hon. gentleman would put his question on the order paper, that would give us a chance to make a thorough examination of the matter.
Within a few minutes a note was brought to me from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) which said that in reply to a question a few days previously he had promised to make a statement on the matter but, owing to the report of his department being incomplete he had asked for further information. When I was in conversation with him later, he promised to bring in a report the following Wednesday or Thursday.
Late during the question period on the following Thursday, when it had become

Canadian Water Resources apparent he would not make a voluntary-statement, I asked him the following question:
Is the minister prepared to make a statement with respect to his findings concerning water levels on the great lakes?
The minister replied:
Our branch officials concerned are finding this a very complex matter. A complete statement is being prepared, and it will be of such length that I think I shall be asking the house to agree that it be printed without being read. However, it is not completed yet.
On April 10, at the conclusion of the four day, semi-annual meeting of the international joint commission, a press release underlined the seriousness of the situation. In the hope that information was available other than the press release, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) if he would table the report received by our government from the commission. A day or two later the Prime Minister tabled the report, which was so vague I could hardly believe it to be the commission's release. I have it here, and with the exception of two paragraphs it is chiefly statistics. I would like to put these two paragraphs on the record. The first reads:
As the prospects for this year are not encouraging and supplies in the upper lakes are below normal, the international joint commission and its board of control will direct their efforts to alleviate the effects of low water conditions to the maximum extent possible.
The final paragraph reads:
It feels, however, that all affected interests should be forewarned that notwithstanding the fact that all regulatory works will continue to be operated in accordance with the order of approval, a continuation of the existing drought could result in water supply conditions worse than experienced last year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here a clipping of an article from the Montreal Gazette of April 13, which gives more detail and offers more constructive suggestions. It states that the-
-American co-chairman of the two nation supervisory body, revealed that the levels are the lowest in some 100 years and that a bold, long term approach must be made to divert rivers and streams to feed the lakes and prevent damage that could reach into millions of dollars.
"We need men of vision to consider radical new plans if we are to overcome this adverse cycle of nature" he claimed.
Arnold Heeney, Mr. Roncalio's Canadian counterpart, agreed that the situation is "very bad". Mr. Heeney disclosed that the commission's appraisal of the situation would be forwarded immediately to the two central governments.
This marked the first indication that the situation has reached the stage where the two federal governments might become involved at the top level.
Neither side was willing to disclose details of their report but it was understood the commission informed the governments that no water level improvement is likely this year or next and that the commission will do what it can to minimize any hardships that may occur.

The situation now has alarmed American interests to the point where a committee of 10 senators from states in the great lakes area conferred with their chairman in a special private conference to explore what could be done to alleviate the crisis.
Their chairman informed them the only longterm solution appeared to be one of diverting streams and rivers that feed into Hudson bay or other adjacent areas into the great lakes.
He said there is a limit as to how much diversion would be feasible but some major new plan had to be considered or the lakes basin would face more trouble in the future.
"There is no quick solution in sight," he explained. "We've got to have men of vision and guts to explore sweeping new programs or we will face more hardship and more financial damage in later years."
Then, on April 17, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, put in his report-a report which was rather in the nature of a review of the situation than a recommendation for relief measures.
The narrow catchment area south of the great lakes has become one of the most heavily populated and highly industrialized parts of the entire world. This applies also to the Canadian side in southern Ontario. The huge inland reservoirs constituted by the great lakes have been treated as though they were inexhaustible, but the toll is becoming more and more evident as the problems of the dwindling flow from the watersheds are multiplied through the drain of increasing consumptive use and the relentless pressure of withdrawals to the water-deficient parts of the Mississippi basin only a short distance to the south.
The situation is forcibly brought home to us in reports such as the following-this one appeared in the March edition of "Ship-Shore", and I should like to quote from it:
It has been estimated that each one inch that the level of lake Huron goes down represents a power loss of $1,000,000 a year, with shipping losses in freight unable to be carried, at a quarter of a million.
Then I have another from the Telegram of April 4, 1964. I should like to put this on record, also.
Big cargo vessels can't get into ports early in the season without cutting tonnage.
Captain Bert Bazelev, fleet manager for Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd., Toronto, says each of the company's 10 large carriers is shipping 1,000 tons light every trip.
It's the same story with other fleets.
Tourist operators, commercial fishermen and cottagers on Georgian bay have literally been left high and dry.
Heavier boats will have to be dragged to water which once lapped at boat houses and docks.
I do not think the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) will have an opportunity to speak. This matter affects his riding and I will, if I may, read the following quotation also from the same paper:

The water is so low at Collingwood that the town's main industry, Collingwood Shipbuilding Ltd., may have to shut down, throwing 1,000 persons out of work.
I have a short quotation here, too, from the Toronto daily Star which I should like to place on record:
Ontario hydro's coal bill is going up. When water levels are low, it has to burn coal to produce electricity at steam generating plants to make up for lost production at hydraulic plants.
Last year it lost 3.5 billion kilowatt hours of production on the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers, had to buy $13 million worth of coal. In the first three months this year, lost production was 60 per cent higher even than in the same period last year.
My concern, now, is the need for immediate attention to the problem which has arisen in the Owen Sound harbour, affecting in particular the Russel Brothers boatworks in the outer harbour. Russel Brothers have operated successfully in Owen Sound for many years. The original owners are now deceased and the firm was taken over by three employees. These three men found it a large and difficult undertaking to carry on with limited means. Nevertheless, they have managed to keep their staff of 180 men at work. Now they are confronted with the problem of getting new vessels launched. A harbour firefighting tug for Toronto was completed for April for delivery on May 1. Knowing of this delivery date and the condition of the approaches to the plant, I alerted the government with questions on the subject as early as March 24 when I directed a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets). A few days later I directed a further question to the Prime Minister and, in addition, I spoke privately to two other members of the cabinet. I also got in touch with the district engineer who was familiar with the situation, and in a letter to myself dated April 16, he said:
Thank you very much for your letter of April 13, 1964. The problem of Russel Brothers Limited, Owen Sound, due to low water is indeed distressing. Each mail now brings to my attention a request for assistance in a similar situation. The Georgian bay level is the lowest on record and it is forecast to go even lower. The cost of remedial measures could be monstrous.
I am making a full report to the department on the problem you have outlined and I hope something can be done to relieve it. I share your concern and am giving this matter my personal attention.
I have a further letter from the district engineer dated April 30. Hon. members will note there is an interval of two weeks between the time I received the letter I have just read and the time I got this one.
I have deferred replying to your letter concerning dredging at Russel Bros, at Owen Sound, awaiting word from the department. No word has 20220-187
Canadian Water Resources come yet, nor have funds been authorized for the work. The dredge at Wiarton belongs to Simcoe Dock and Dredge Co.
I had found out that there was a dredge at Wiarton, only a few miles from where this relief work needed to be done, and Mr. Henderson advised me that this dredge belonged to the Simcoe Dock and Dredge Company. The letter continued:
It would be necessary to have the project approved and funds authorized before I could hire a dredge to do the work.
Every day brings correspondence from someone suffering from low water on lake Huron. The water level is at an all-time low and we have a heavy volume of requests for dredging, extension of marine structures, floats, lowering of decks, of docks, etc.
I will not quote any further-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Percy Verner Noble: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock are as follows: the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm	(Mr. Pigeon); the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) on a matter having to do with lay-offs at Enamel and Heating Products, Limited, Amherst, and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) on a question dealing with immigration.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Dinsdale, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gregoire.
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks at the point I left off before the dinner hour. I called the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) twice to this matter but was informed he was not available. However, a member of his staff said he would have the matter looked up and would call me back. The following day I was informed that the Department of Public Works could not assist. As a last resort I wrote a letter to the Minister of Industry and sent copies to the following ministers: the Minister of Public

Canadian Water Resources Works, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith). I want to read this letter into the record, Mr. Speaker. It is addressed to Hon. Charles M. Drury and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Minister:
Re: Russel Brothers Limited (Ship builders-Owen Sound)
The low water in the great lakes is having a very bad effect on this industry. Dredging will help, but the officials of the Department of Public Works have informed me that they will not do any dredging because it will benefit only this shipyard. However, unless something is done, the jobs of 180 men in Owen Sound are in serious jeopardy.
The company is required to deliver a fire tug to the city of Toronto by May 1, and they can only move it by building sponsons. I am also advised that they have had to refuse two large repair contracts because of the condition of the approaches to the shipyard.
The amount of dredging required from the shipyard property to the main channel will cost only about $15,000 and the company has offered to pay half of this amount, as a small portion of the dredging will be on its property. The dredging could be done quickly because a dredge is already at Wiarton doing less urgent work.
Having regard to your department's duty to maintain and encourage Canadian industry-particularly in areas such as Owen Sound where alternative employment is not readily obtainable- I would ask you to use your influence to have the Department of Public Works reconsider its decision and allow this industry to continue to provide much needed employment.
To date I have had a reply from only one of these ministers. I should also like to put that reply on the record; it is from the Minister of Transport. I received it yesterday and the letter I sent out was on April 23. Dear Mr. Noble:
Thank you for passing to me a copy of your letter of April 23 addressed to my colleague the Hon. Mr. Drury, asking him, in the interests of maintaining an important Owen Sound industry, to attempt to persuade the Department of Public Works to carry out some dredging in the Owen Sound slip.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: What is the rest of it?


Percy Verner Noble: That is all there is. We have heard a lot about designated areas and how the government propose to assist. My area might be a borderline example, as it is an area to which it is difficult to attract industry; but surely when the government are presented with an opportunity just to help us hold what we have they will not continue to turn their backs on us. The people of Canada will surely lose confidence in an administration which says one thing and then does another.
To illustrate my point, and especially after the experience I have just related, I should like to quote two excerpts from a speech

made by the Minister of Public Works on May 1, as reported at page 2834 of Hansard. The first quotation is as follows:
I think we should take resolute action to the effect of contributing, through major improvements in strategic sites, to the establishment of important industries, which would have repercussions, not only inside our boundaries, but also with regard to foreign trade.
Then he continued:
A private company told us: If the government agrees to build a wharf, a breakwater or agrees to do some dredging according to the plans submitted, we will build there a plant that will give work to hundreds of people.
I know the house will be interested to know what happened to the Toronto fire tug to which I referred earlier in my speech. When it was evident that the government did not intend to dredge the channel, huge pontoons or sponsons were constructed on which the tug was mounted and floated through the shallow water to deeper water in the bay. These sponsons were then pumped full of water to sink them away from the hull. This operation cost the Russel Brothers boat works quite a large sum of money which they could ill afford to have taken from the limited margin of profit on such a contract. I compliment the management of this plant and their employees for their efforts to keep the plant operating in spite of government neglect.
Owen Sound harbour proper is in need of immediate attention. The grain carrier Agawa arrived at our elevator about two weeks ago and when proceeding to turn around after having unloaded her cargo became grounded. I might say that this elevator has a four million bushel capacity, and on speaking to the manager of the elevator last week end he told me they handled between seven and eight million bushels in one season. Then last week the Canadian oil tanker W. Harold Rea came into Owen Sound with a cargo of oil. She also had difficulty and her draught is only 19J feet when loaded. Under these circumstances how long can we expect shipping to be directed to our harbour?
The Minister of Public Works stated during his estimates that he did not think that dredging could solve the problem. Dredging is a dire necessity in Owen Sound and Colling-wood. This low water level is affecting every aspect of our economy right across this nation. Movement of all commodities by this cheapest of all transportation into our many ports either for use there or for transshipment is so very essential. The tourist industry no doubt will suffer. Our own citizens will undergo many inconveniences. The government has intimated that providence has dealt us a cruel blow and from this they have taken

consolation-and an excuse tor inactivity. Such a phenomenon has happened in other parts of the world and history has proven that men and governments must face up to their responsibilities and implement corrective action.
Many corrective suggestions have been made by previous speakers. The United States government has indicated its alarm, and its willingness to initiate some immediate action on proposals which have been presented to them by their engineers and by a private Canadian engineer. Why does this government not show a little leadership and intestinal fortitude, make their stand known and join with the United States in a joint program and get on with the job that must ultimately be done? The water table throughout much of western Ontario is such that farmers are required to deepen their wells or to drill new ones. The Ontario government has come to realize the great urgency for water conservation and is paying a 50 per cent subsidy toward farm ponds. I have in front of me an excerpt from the London Free Presx which I should like to put on the record at this point:
The provincial government is sending an engineer into western Ontario to assist farmers making plans to alleviate the water shortage.
Further down this article it says:
An expert in water problems, Vernon I. D. Spencer, will assist farmers in the construction of water-catching ponds and reservoirs.
We cannot continue to denude vast areas of our country of forests by timbering and by fires if water levels are to be maintained. In my time I have seen many springs, which were the feeders to our streams and rivers, dry up and cease to exist. Streams that once carried water to the lakes 12 months of the year now dry up after the spring freshet.
I would like to add one more suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to the list already proposed by other speakers. In my opinion reforestation and water conservation in all areas of the great lakes watershed could be enlarged upon. The governments of both the United States and Canada could add much momentum to such a program, where an army of people would be willing to co-operate if given encouragement and direction. This development will have to come eventually, so why not start at the earliest possible time? The population of 40 million in the great lakes area is increasing at a rapid rate and water requirements will have to be met, so it is essential that any plan to conserve water should be carefully considered and, if found to be sound and practicable, should be put into effect. Water must be maintained at satisfactory levels, otherwise circumstances could become disastrous.
Divisions
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there are many things we can get along without, but water is not one of them. Water has a multitude of uses; indeed, it is essential to life itself.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.15 o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.
The house divided on the amendment to the	
amendment (Mr.	Gregoire) which was negatived on the following division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs:
Beaule	Gregoire
Belanger	Langlois
Boutin	Lap rise
Caouette	Latulippe
Dionne	Plourde
Gauthier	Rondeau-12.
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Aiken	Dinsdale
Alkenbrack	Doucett
Armstrong	Douglas
Asselin (Richmond-	Drouin
Wolfe)	Drury
Badanai	Dube
Balcer	Dupuis
Baldwin	Emard
Basford	Eudes
Batten	Fairweather
Bechard	Fane
Beer	Favreau
Bell	Fleming (Okanagan-
Benidickson	Revelstoke)
Benson	Flemming (Victoria-
Berger	Carleton)
Bigg	Forbes
Boulanger	Forest
Brown	Forgie
Byrne	Francis
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Frenette	
Cadieux (Terrebonne) Gelber	
Cameron (High Park) Gendron	
Cameron (Nanaimo-	* Girouard
Cowichan-The Islands) Godin	
Cantelon	Gordon
Cantin	Grafftey
Cardin	Gray
Caron	Greene
Carter	Guay
Casselman, Mrs.	Gundlock
Chatterton	Habel
Choquette	Hahn
Churchill	Haidasz
Clancy	Hales
Coates	Hamilton
Cooper	Harkness
Cote (Chicoutimi)	Harley
Cote (Longueuil)	Hellyer
Cowan	Herridge
Crossman	Horner (Acadia)
Crouse	Horner (The Battlefords)
Danforth	Howard
Davis	Howe (Hamilton South!
Deachman	Howe (Wellington-
Deschatelets	Huron)
Diefenbaker	Jorgenson

Divisions
Kelly	O'Keefe
Kennedy	Olson
Kindt	Orlikow
Klein	Otto
Knowles	Pascoe
Konantz. Mrs.	Patterson
Korchinski	Paul
Lachance	Pearson
Laing	Pennell
Lamb	Pepin
Lambert	Pickersgill
Lamontagne	Peters
Lamoureux	Pigeon
Laniel	Pilon
Laverdifere	Prittie
Leblanc	Prud'homme
Leboe	Rapp
Leduc	Rheaume
Lessard (St. Henry)	Ricard
Lloyd	Richard
Loiselle	Rideout
Loney	Rinfret
Macaluso	Robichaud
Macdonald	Rochon
MacEachen	Rock
MacEwan	Rouleau
Mackasey	Roxburgh
MacLean (Queens)	Ryan
MacNaught	Rynard
Macquarrie	Sauve
MacRae	Scott
McBain	Smallwood
McCutcheon	Smith
Mcllraith	Southam
McIntosh	Starr
McLean (Charlotte)	Stefanson
McMillan	Stenson
McNulty	Stewart
McWilliam	Tardif
Madill	Teillet
Mandziuk	Temple
Marcoux	Thomas
Martin (Essex East)	Thompson
Martineau	Tremblay
Matheson	Tucker
Matte	Turner
Millar	Valade
Monteith	Vincent
Moore	Wahn
Moreau	Walker
Morison	Watson (Assiniboia)
Muir (Lisgar)	Watson (Chateauguay-
Mullally	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Munro	Webb
Nesbitt	Webster
Nicholson	Weichel
Nielsen	Whelan
Nixon	Willoughby
Noble	Winch
Nowlan	Winkler
Nugent	Woolliams-210.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is on the amendment to the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Skoreyko:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted tor the amendment.



INCOME TAX


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the grievance I want to voice tonight in the house concerns the administration of the Department of National Revenue in respect of income tax, and more particularly the receipts for charitable donations which the taxpayers submit to their respective taxation offices throughout the country, and more particularly in our province of Quebec.


Mr. Valade:: In that case, why do you vote with the Liberals?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if we all speak at the same time, I think it will be rather difficult to understand each other and to make ourselves heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Some time ago I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question. And I shall quote it as well as the answers which were given to me. The question, which was listed under No. 946, can be found on page 2874 of Hansard. I quote:
1. Does the Income Tax Act provide for a maximum deduction of 10 per cent of net income for charitable donations and, if so, is this provision applied uniformly across Canada?
And the minister's answer was:
1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
5, 1964	2951
Deductions for Charitable Donations
That is to say that Canada has a uniform policy which is uniformly applied throughout Canada.
Part No. 2 is as follows:
2.	What procedures do departmental officials follow when processing income tax returns claiming: deductions not exceeding 10 per cent-
1 would ask you to note that under the act, the Canadian taxpayers are entitled to a maximum deduction of 10 per cent of their net revenue for charitable donations.
-and accompanied by receipts for charitable donations?
The answer was as follows:
2.	The amounts claimed as deduction are granted, except if there are good reasons to believe that the submitted receipts are not genuine or that the amounts for which they were made out are mere estimates and not based on any bookkeeping with regard to the sums actually received from each donor by the charitable organization.
Part 3 of the question read as follows:
Are receipts for charitable donations ever questioned and, if so, are deductions ever arbitrarily reduced by departmental officials?
Answer to part 3 of my question was as follows:
3.	(a) Yes. (b) No. Not if it means "without reason". If a charitable organization does not keep books showing the amounts received from each donor, and if the total deduction claimed by all donors is higher than the total amount actually received by the organization, the deduction claimed by each donor may be reduced accordingly.
Part 4 of my question read as follows:
4.	In the reduction of allowances for charitable donations are officials acting within the authority of the Income Tax Act or by some special authority granted to the Minister of National Revenue and exercised with his knowledge?
Answer to said part 4 of my question was as follows:
4.	Within the authority of the Income Tax Act.
Here was part 5 of my question:
5.	What appeal is open to taxpayers who feel that they have been dealt with in an arbitrary manner?
Answer to last part of my question number 946 was as follows:
5. The taxpayer should first of all communicate with the district taxation office and supply detailed information concerning the contributions he actually made to the organization concerned as well as every available evidence or proof thereof. If he is unable to convince the officers of the taxation office that the amounts involved are higher than the deductions granted at the time of assessment he may produce a notice of opposition on form T400A. Two duly filled-in copies of that form should be sent by registered mail, within 90 days of the mailing date of the notice of assessment, to the deputy minister of national revenue (taxation), in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, all those answers are given to further confuse the situation and the Canadian taxpayer.

Deductions for Charitable Donations
I have here a bulky record of complaints concerning the treatment received by Canadian taxpayers in my area, in this case, people who had properly filed their tax return, presenting it to the taxation director in Rouyn and claiming exemptions for charitable donations.
For instance, I have here the case of Mr. Roger Dery, of Bourlamaque, P.Q., who wrote me on April 29:
I am forwarding my notice of assessment asking me to pay $12. I earned this year the amount of $3,221.61.
A big salary-
And with my charitable receipts, I had $4 coming back to me. I had charitable receipts in the amount of $200-
That means a little under 7 per cent, around 6 per cent of his net income in charitable receipts.
I had $200 and they cut off $100. So, I would owe them $12. That is not fair with the starvation wages I am getting.
I wrote to the taxation director in Rouyn on May 1, concerning Mr. Roy.
The taxation director, Mr. Merleau, M-e-r-l-e-a-u, a fine bird, replied as follows:
Sir:
He does not even address me as a member of parliament, and he, a government civil servant.
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated April 27, 1964 concerning the charitable donations of Mr. Roy.
I regret to inform you that the charitable receipts presented could not be accepted by the Minister of National Revenue-
By the minister, not by himself; the minister cannot accept receipts for $200.
-because the issuer does not keep adequate records.
They went to rectories to see if there was an accounting system, because the government does not have any. I should tell the house right away that all the parish priests in the province of Quebec who are bothered or visited by income tax inspectors should simply throw them out. They should not tolerate them.
-the Minister of National Revenue cannot accept them because the issuer does not keep adequate records.
Would you kindly remember the instructions issued by the deputy minister (taxation) in 1962-
Although the minister cannot accept those receipts, the deputy minister issued instructions in 1962, following the election no doubt-
-which clarify the act on that point for the benefit of charitable organizations which issue receipts for income tax purposes to those making donations. The last paragraph reads as follows:


Charitable organizations which issue receipts for income tax purposes must keep records enabling inspectors to check the authenticity of receipts and the nature of donations.
I shall be glad to have the appropriate corrections made on presentation of any further evidence that the taxpayer might hold to justify his charitable donations.
Mr. Speaker, that letter is probably the most stupid and idiotic I have ever received from a high official of the income tax district office. It requires the taxpayer to supply further evidence, when he sends a receipt in proper form for charitable donations.
The director of the Rouyn income tax district office, the director of the Quebec district and those of the other districts throughout the country, the minister himself, in brief everybody knows that I do not mean charitable donations that we give only on Sunday collections at church. There are many charitable organizations which request our help, week after week and day after day. Those are the boy scouts, the ladies of Ste. Anne, the children of Mary; it is a tag-day here, a tag-day there, the Richelieu club, the foreign missions, ail kinds of organizations which ask for our help the year round. We give 50 cents, a dollar, two dollars, but we do not keep a record of all those sums.
I have here the example of a workman, under 21 years of age, who earns $3,221 a year, a married man with children. He files his income tax return, sends a $200 receipt for charitable donations, and the director of the Rouyn income tax office decides, in an arbitrary way, to cut this receipt by $100 and claim from him an amount of $4 instead of refunding to him the $12 to which he was entitled.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great shame for us, federal members of parliament, to face our electors concerning the arbitrary enforcement of the Income Tax Act. That is why we ask the minister and the officials of the department whether, in the Income Tax Act, it is stipulated that every citizen is entitled to a maximum deduction of 10 per cent of the net income for charitable donations. If the answer is in the affirmative it should be applied and all Canadian taxpayers should be granted a maximum of 10 per cent for charitable donations, and charitable organizations, parish priests, ministers, the Salvation Army or any other welfare organizations should be left alone. A taxpayer should not be asked if he can explain a certain amount or whether he has some special system of accounting to please the income tax deputy minister or the director of the Rouyn district income tax office or any other district office in Canada.
I have another letter from Bourlamaque which reads as follows:

Sir, I am sending you my notice of my assessment. According to my income tax return, I was entitled to a refund of $102.15. The $200 deduction which I claimed for charitable donations has been reduced to $100.
Another $100 cut.
So, I got only $80.15. There is still $22 coming to me.
Mr. Speaker, why be mean with people who earn their living by the sweat of their brow and who are not entitled, like business owners, to deduct from their income tax the cost of their equipment and of their working material?
Doctors, dentists, lawyers, garage operators are entitled to deduct from their income tax the cost of the material they purchase, and of the machinery or equipment they need. We have the right to deduct such costs from our taxable income, whereas the poor miners, the labourers and the mechanics who buy equipment for hundreds of dollars are not entitled to deduct from their taxable income the cost of the tools they use to earn their living by the sweat of their brow.
Not only are they deprived of the right to do so, but even the amount of income tax that they must pay each year is increased, especially since last year.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly object to that arbitrary attitude taken against the Canadian taxpayer, the man who earns his living by the sweat of his brow-


Mr. Langlois:: The Liberal gestapo.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Megantic is certainly right in calling it the Liberal gestapo, but in the past we had the Conservative gestapo which used to act the same way, in the same arbitrary fashion.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) to the fact that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) has been trying to get a word in for the last few minutes. In view of the fact that he does not often get the opportunity to speak, I feel that he should be allowed to say what is on his mind.


Mr. Dapuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the hon. member for Levis. Since, when he speaks, his remarks are barely audible, I feel that they are not very interesting. However, he is a gentleman, I have a lot of admiration for him and I will undoubtedly give him a hand in his riding.


Mr. Guay:: Do come back, as it helped me the last time; I won.
Deductions for Charitable Donations


David Réal Caouette: I will go and help you put the Lauzon shipyards into operation.


An hon. Member:: Look after your own garage.


David Réal Caouette: If my hon. friend wants to have a look at my garage, he will find out that it is much better administered than this country under the present government.


An hon. Member:: What about your system?


David Réal Caouette: It is not our system, it is yours and I am against it. But at least, I have enough pluck to fight against it.
Mr. Speaker, if there are that many blockheads we will have to shut them up.
In any case, the district income tax director of Rouyn wrote another letter similar to the one I referred to earlier, that is in exactly the same terms. This time, he did not have his letter photocopied; it is the original. There again, he writes:
Charitable organizations giving income tax receipts must have a bookkeeping system which permits tax inspectors to verify the authenticity of the receipts and the nature of the donation.
I shall be pleased to cause appropriate corrections to be made on submission of supplementary evidence which the taxpayer may have in order to justify his charitable donations.
I hold in my hand a letter from a taxpayer of Sullivan in which he says:
I am sending my income tax papers for 1964. X have no receipts I can send you to prove anything, because the government has all my receipts for charitable donations which amount to $250.
And there again, a notice of assessment was sent to him from which I quote a paragraph:
Your deduction for charitable donations has been reduced to the amount deductible according to the admissible receipts produced.
There was only one receipt involved in the amount of $250, but according to the admissible receipt produced, which was refused, these charitable donations amounted to $250. They were reduced from $250 to $100. And while the taxpayer had claimed a refund of some thirty odd dollars, he is now asked to pay the sum of $12.80.
That is a taxpayer who, in 1963, earned $3,540. When he is asking for an exemption on $250 in charitable contributions, what does that mean? About 6i or 7 per cent of his taxable income.
Here we have a family whose income for a 12 month period amounted to $3,540, and the head of the income tax district office decides, just like that, to take $20 away from it.
And the same thing happens over and over again in all fields of activity.
2954	HOUSE OF
Deductions for Charitable Donations
I have here a letter from Mr. Gilles Le-jeune, of Bourlamaque, who claimed an amount of $250 in charitable donations.
He was allowed a deduction of only $100, and the income tax officials took a similar arbitrary attitude.
I have a letter from another elector from Val d'Or. Everyone knows that you do not need to produce receipts if you claim only a $100 deduction. Why bother about that then?
In fact, is there anyone in Canada who does not give to charity, one way or the other, at least $200 a year? As I said a while ago, we are constantly besieged with request for assistance to the poor and the needy. Requests for help to needy children, to the destitute, etc. come right and left from organizations like the Federation des femmes canadiennes-frangaises.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from Mr. Andre Cartier, of Val d'Or, who writes to me as follows:
Dear Mr. Caouette,
I am writing to you about my income tax return. I was supposed to get a reimbursement of $55.40 but I have received only $19.40. I submitted a receipt of $350 for charitable donations but it was cut down to $100.
The situation is the same for all Canadian taxpayers, but I wonder to what extent that discrimination is restricted to certain counties of the province. Could it be that the counties which elected a government member are less affected by that cut in charitable donations than those which elected an opposition member? I wonder.
I know that our friends opposite are also confronted with such problems and that they were faced with several such claims, but is this arbitrary action carried to the extreme in their county as it is in ours, that is the counties represented by opposition members?
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote another letter from Bourlamaque:
As you have suggested this afternoon in Val d'Or, I am forwarding the notice of assessment I received from the income tax division-
-Income $4,652.03-
Personal exemptions, $2,900.
Medical expenses-
His charitable donations were reduced from $250 to $100, that is less than 5 per cent of his net income.
This inspector-I mean the director, Mr. Merleau, that is the dictator-replies again:
Your statement for charitable donations-
It is always the same letter. Why? All he can say is that the minister cannot accept the receipt, that in 1962 the deputy minister has given instructions to the inspectors to check the accounting of parish priests and of charitable and welfare organizations in Canada.


Therefore, Mr. Alphonse Marcotte's charitable donations were also cut down to $100; he lives in Bourlamaque.
Another taxpayer, Mr. Octave Mercier, who earns $3,894 per annum and who submitted a statement for charitable donations amounting to $207.50-which does not even represent 6 per cent of his annual income-also had his charitable donations chopped down to $100.
All members of the house could say the same thing, for we all get similar complaints from our voters, the Canadian taxpayers.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the grievance I am making tonight, I would like to submit to the minister that income tax inspectors-be they Mr. Merleau, of Rouyn, Mr. Gingras, of Quebec, Mr. Audet, of Quebec, or whoever they may be-should not be authorized to go and investigate in our parochial presbyteries.
The minister should see that the legislation now in effect is applied, that the provisions of the said legislation are enforced and that their application is generalized throughout the country. It would be less expensive for the department to make refunds to Canadian taxpayers than to pay those inspectors who call at rectories and make the Canadian taxpayer ridiculous by compelling him to comply with provisions which he cannot understand. For instance, they say that the taxpayer should provide further evidence, when the income tax inspector knows very well that there is no other evidence for those charitable donations than the receipts filed with the local or district income tax office.
Mr. Speaker, the government should show more concern for the Canadian taxpayers. Some people who hardly earn $3,000, $3,500 or $4,000 per year are pestered by income tax inspectors when they are already hard put to manage their budget or are unable to make ends meet.
Why allow those people to be tormented any longer by income tax bureaucrats who refuse to pay them amounts as ridiculously low as $4, $12, $25, or $30? They would spend that money on groceries and it would increase their purchasing power.
But no. The government swallows everything at the expense of the small taxpayer and the low wage earner. We shall never protect those people enough, because, as I said earlier, they deserve the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. There is discrimination against the little people who have trouble keeping alive under the present system.

When the minister orders his officials to grant the 10 per cent deduction for charitable donations, he will make things much easier for present as well as future administrators.
It is in the name of those workers, miners, labourers, small wage earners, white or blue collar workers that we protest tonight against that arbitrary way-and I will never say it often enough-in which income tax inspectors and directors treat the Canadian taxpayers.
Let us try to take a stand, once and for all, and solve those problems in order to stop complaints from our own electors about such discriminatory measures taken against them by an administration which I would call fundamentally dishonest.
When we have won on that point, Mr. Speaker, we will not endeavour to get credit for it. The Minister of National Revenue can take credit for it; let us stop, as I said, torturing workers in our area and in the province.
I have also before me a letter from Mr. Germain Houde, of Bourlamaque, whose receipts were cut down to $100.1 have another one from Mr. Albert Santerre, 1 Main street, Sullivan, in Abitibi, whose receipts for charitable donations were cut down to $100, whereas it is stipulated in the guide accompanying the T4 form that everyone is entitled to $100 deduction. We do not need a Mr. Mercier or a Mr. Merleau, of Rouyn, to tell us how to fill our forms. We know how.
I have also a letter from Mr. Rosaire Tousignant of Val d'Or, who claimed $300 for charitable donations which were cut down to $100. Why? Because an income tax inspector was not satisfied with the accounting system and because the minister refused to accept the receipt, according to what Mr. Merleau wrote to me on May 1.
The charitable donations of Messrs. Stanislas Tremblay, Sullivan and Conrad Godin, of Val d'Or, were also cut down to $100. It is always the same thing. At least, they could save on all this paper which is paid for by the workers.
Why not merely say, whenever the opportunity arises for the minister to make a speech, that from now on, nobody can claim more than a $100 exemption for charitable donations, since we do not believe any more in the parish priests, the ministers or the welfare associations in this country? Why should we question the sincerity and honesty of people such as parish priests and ministers? Moreover, why should we question the Canadian taxpayer's honesty?
Deductions for Charitable Donations
Could it be, by any chance, that the income tax inspectors and directors that we have today in Canada are nothing but thoroughly clever people whose only wish is to preserve Canada's economy by swindling and robbing further the Canadian worker?
Mr. Speaker, there are limits to injustice. The minister will have to answer for his many injustices to Canadian workers if he is not willing to answer at this time. Those people should be treated with a little more respect by income tax district offices, and when they submit a proper receipt, signed by a parish priest or a charitable organization, it must be remembered that in addition to the donations vouched for by the receipts, there are often other large amounts which are given occasionally, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, when parties are held by parish, local and other organizations in order to help the very poor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to make a statement as soon as possible, not in favour of income tax directors and inspectors, income tax deceivers and blood suckers, as I call them quite often, but in favour of the Canadian workman, the day labourer who is tired of being fleeced the way he is at present.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suppose that the hon. member wishes to speak about the same matter?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Department of National Revenue often rejects, without reason, the receipts for charitable donations filed by Canadian taxpayers.
I therefore ask the minister to use his influence and I also appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) who is supposed to have gained some influence lately, to convince the government to amend the legislation in order to make it more flexible and thus avoid many criticisms coming from all parts of the country.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) blamed the civil servants. He blamed them for doing their duty. He should not blame civil servants but rather the fact that the legislation is not amended so as to be more equitable towards Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve said-


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I do not want him to ask me any question, he talked enough when it was his turn-

Deductions for Charitable Donations


David Réal Caouette: Just one question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not allow it.
The officials of the Department of National Revenue apply the provisions of the legislation. It is essential that the legislation be amended by the government to make it more flexible and meet the needs of the Canadian taxpayer since the great majority of Canadian workers are now complaining about the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The hon. member for Villeneuve suggested that 10 per cent should be deducted automatically without any consideration. I would prefer that the government amend the act and automatically deduct an amount of 10 per cent up to a $500 maximum, because otherwise, it is the people from the more prosperous provinces, enjoying the higher incomes in Canada and living mostly in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario who would benefit from it and, by the same token, if the government were to carry out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Villeneuve, it would discriminate against the people from Quebec and the maritimes who have a lower average income than those from British Columbia and Ontario. This would be necessary in order to avoid any criticisms.
Often, that is, most of the time, the Department of National Revenue rejects receipts for charitable donations without any explanation.
As far as I am concerned, whenever a constituent submitted his case to me and I made representations on his behalf to the Department of National Revenue, most of the time I got satisfactory replies. But in order to prevent electors from coming to their member's office, which is not normal in such cases, I feel it would be advisable to amend the act and make it more flexible.
I trust that the Minister of Justice will put pressure upon his colleague so that this act will be amended and brought more in line with the best interests of the Canadian people.
It is not normal that hundreds of complaints should be made across the country against the Income Tax Act, especially by people in the low income brackets. I feel some discrimination really exists and that this legislation should be made more flexible in order to comply with the wishes of the population.
There is one thing I cannot tolerate, and I refer to those raids carried out by employees of the income tax division, acting on the instructions of their superiors, upon members of the Canadian clergy. That, I submit, results in weakening the authority of our clergy. It is not normal that income tax employees


should be allowed to question the value of our clergy across Canada by submitting them each year to numerous raids and visits on all sorts of pretences.
I think the act or rather some of its provisions should be changed, adapted and made to conform to the requirements of the Canadian people.
Consequently, in view of the numerous complaints made throughout the country, I believe it is the duty of the government to take the necessary steps to correct the flaws existing in that field.
I heard some members on the government side make certain remarks. I would be very pleased if at least one of them would take the floor, after me, and say, according to his conscience, whether he approves of the visits made to presbyteries across the country and is happy to see the disappointment of the working class in regard to the manner in which income tax returns submitted by the Canadian workers are treated. I would be particularly pleased to hear the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), or the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) or the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). If they are really aware of their responsibilities, they will take the floor, after me, to say what they think of the act and make appropriate suggestions to the government so that the latter may implement the promises it made to the Canadian people during the last election campaign.


Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker, it may happen sometimes that I disagree with the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) but with regard to the grievance he raised tonight about receipts for charitable donations, I fully agree with him.
In my opinion, that legislation is revolting when you consider how it is applied at the present time. Few acts are more revolting for the people.
All hon. members, at least most of them, are swamped by the protests they receive from their constituents. They spend a lot of time interceding for their electors who are robbed, so to speak, who are done out of money by the Income Tax Act.
What happens is that by applying that act, they want to use their power to distribute the income of those who have more money to those who have less. In fact, it is mostly the poor people who are deprived of their income through that act. When you consider how they proceed, going to rectories, it shows clearly that they suspect the members of the clergy and do not trust those who file their income tax returns. I think that is one of the most preposterous things you can imagine.

In my opinion, it is an unfair method which resembles those used in bolshevist Russia where the police, called the tcheka, broke into homes, or by Hitler's gestapo.
The same thing happens in the way that legislation is applied in this case; there is no difference between the two-a little more tactfulness, in a certain way, may be used- but, in fact, it boils down to the same thing.
It seems that civil servants in charge of administering the Income Tax Act, when it comes to that matter of receipts for charitable donations, go over the minister's head. If I were a minister, I would certainly never allow civil servants to go over my head. I think they would have to go, rather than go over my head.
In my opinion, such an attitude taken by civil servants is the most odious thing one can visualize in a democracy. For me, it is the most astonishing form of abuse of authority in a country such as Canada. It is quite unacceptable and we cannot tolerate such a behaviour in our country.
Besides I have the clear impression that the accounting which is done in an effort to recover some money is more expensive than the amount recovered by cutting the amount shown on receipts for charitable donations. After all, what is the use of so much zeal? What is the purpose of applying coercive methods which, as it were, disgust the people?
I have hundreds of cases in my county to prove that attitude. I went personally to check some cases in rectories where the tax auditor refused to accept the figures shown to him. When one sees such things, one begins to wonder about the country we live in. Sometimes, it seems as if one were being carried away to countries where war was raging not so long ago.
Before concluding, I should like to say that one of the bitterest criticisms the Hon. Mr. Garland, who died recently, had to bear concerns the act we are now dealing with. In fact, I would not be surprised that the Hon. Mr. Garland was so affected by the way that act was applied, that he could not bear the worries it caused him. I am inclined to think that it is one of the main causes of his untimely death. That is why we must take steps to exempt our fellow citizens from a tax equal at least to that claimed in receipts for charitable donations, that is increase exemptions by at least 10 per cent in order to eliminate that coercion overburdening the Canadian taxpayer.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes of the time of the house to outline my opinion on the point raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
20220-188i
Deductions jor Charitable Donations
I must say at the outset that while agreeing: in part with the concern expressed by the-hon. member for Villeneuve, I want to make myself clear and say that I do not approve of the demagogy he showed in outlining a problem which should the house consider it, not to>
make political capital but to rectify a situation which I feel, is absurd and glaringly unfair for a great number of Canadian taxpayers, especially in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Villeneuve would have shown more sincerity and practical sense if, a few minutes before explaining his grievance against the government and the Minister of National Revenue, he had voted against and contributed to overthrow the government. He would thus have stressed the importance of his grievance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion the remarks of the hon. member for St. Mary have no bearing on the grievance under consideration which deals with income tax and not with the attitude of the hon. member for Villeneuve. Consequently, if he is sincere and truly wishes to have the act changed, I would ask him to limit himself to the topic under discussion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. member for Lapointe should be the last one to speak of sincerity. Besides, he is not in a position to teach me what to say.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for St. Mary has made unparliamentary remarks and I rise on a question of privilege. If he challenges my sincerity, I will not hesitate to compare my sincerity with his. I have never been in a situation such as his and his sincerity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think
we will make much progress on the grievance if hon. members allow themselves to be led astray by comparisons between their respective sincerity; that is highly irregular. I would therefore ask the hon. member for St. Mary to keep to the subject under consideration.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have ruled that there is no question of privilege and I would suggest that the hon. member limit his remarks to the subject under discussion.


Georges-J. Valade: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing out the sincerity of the hon. member for Lapointe.
Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that when a grievance is raised against a minister of the crown or a government, it is not necessary to act in a demagogic way, but to the con-

Deductions for Charitable Donations trary one must be consistent and logical in the attitude that one adopts in the interest of those one represents in the house.
When a member raises a grievance against the government he must take into consideration the fact that through this grievance he is the interpreter of the constituents who sent him here to represent them. Now, if the member is serious and eager to take every means available to him-for instance a vote to topple the government-in short, if he is honest with himself, he will take the necessary steps.
I should like to point out to the house that I think great harm is being done the province of Quebec in that some accounting or contributing systems prevent certain citizens from that province from deducting from their income tax a percentage equal to the one claimed by industrialists and business men in the other provinces.
Now, I agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve in this respect. However I do not wish to limit myself merely to political considerations but I should like to make suggestions to the Minister of National Revenue so that he may take them into consideration in the preparation of his estimates. I am making these suggestions to him, not in a partisan spirit, but to serve the people I represent. Now-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Mary has no right to impute ulterior motives. All he has to do is to deliver his speech in an intelligent manner if he has any intelligence; let him stop bothering people and let him make suggestions to the minister and by so doing, he will prove that he is a better man than he has led us to believe from the impression he has made upon the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not believe there is any point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Villeneuve, it is rather difficult to discuss anything intelligently.
Now, to return to the suggestions I have to make to the Minister of National Revenue, I would like to ask him if he could not redress the injustice that is being made against the working class who must pay morning and night for travelling from home to the plant and return.
Now, if a worker must pay approximately $150 a year for bus tickets or other means of transportation to go to work-


An hon. Member:: Or for lotteries tickets.


Georges-J. Valade: -I maintain that the government should consider my suggestion and that the workers should be allowed to deduct, in his income tax return, his transportation expenses or a certain amount of expenses, as


provided for travelling salesmen or businessmen. The worker should be allowed to deduct from his income tax an amount of approximately $150, which would represent his transportation expenses to and from work.
The minister should also consider that the strictness of the act goes beyond the moral limit. We should abolish the provision which threatens the taxpayer with imprisonment if he makes a false statement in his income tax return. I think that this is immoral-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if some hon. members of the Ralliement Creditistes want to remain in the provincial field, I ask them to listen to me.
I think that, by threatening a taxpayer with imprisonment when he is late in filing his return or who makes a false statement therein, a serious prejudice is caused to thousands of human beings.
We should take the example of the courts, where somebody who has incurred some liability, may file a suit, according to civil law. I cannot conceive that the Minister of National Revenue should resort to threats of criminal proceedings against a taxpayer who, for quite understandable reasons has been late in filing his return or failed to give some information required by the Income Tax Act.
I also think that we should come back to a formula highly appreciated in the business field. I am thinking of the method of allowing businessmen to file an interim tax return. We should give those taxpayers a chance to file their final return within 30 days after the interim return has been filed.
Also, in relation to that suggestion, I should like to point out to the house that in the business world when our income tax returns are filed at the end of April, there follows an upsurge of the economic activity, of construction. Contractors and material suppliers face a period of feverish activity. Now, it is practically inconceivable that they should be required to file their income tax return at the end of April, under the threat of imprisonment or legal action, at a time when their business is extremely active.
I think it would be wise to do away with that system and ask the taxpayers to file a final report within the 30 days following their interim return.
Mr. Speaker, I think the government is unfair towards certain Canadian taxpayers. In fact, when certain taxpayers have made overpayments, the federal administration sometimes takes four, five, six and even seven months to pay back that amount and, of course, it is without any interest. But if

taxpayers have not paid the total amount of
their income tax on time, they must pay a 6 per cent interest on the balance.
Therefore, I think that if, on account of an inefficient administrative machinery the taxpayers are wronged, since they do not receive, within a very short time, the reimbursement of the income tax overpaid, the government should also pay them interest for that same period. In fact, they should be paid the same interest as is charged taxpayers who have not paid their tax.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe the Income Tax Act contains inconsistencies, and that some of its provisions rather offend Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: On a point of order, it seems to me that the hon. member has departed from the grievance which was raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). That grievance had to do with deductions in respect to charitable contributions. The other hon. members who spoke immediately after him also discussed that grievance. The hon. member is now raising a new grievance on related matters. I wonder if he could not stick to the one subject in order that a reply could be made more conveniently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point raised by the minister is well taken. I had hoped that the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) would eventually relate his remarks to the specific grievance now before the house, and I now ask him to do so.


Georges-J. Valade: On the point of order made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), may I say I agree that the hon. member for Villeneuve did raise a point dealing with one aspect of the administration of the Income Tax Act. But I believe his grievance was concerned with the operational methods used by the department. I do not think it was directed specifically to this one aspect.


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Georges-J. Valade: The hon. member for Villeneuve even read letters from some of his constituents to supplement what he said, and I do not think the point of order is well founded because my own remarks relate specifically to the administration of tax collection. I do not know if the minister is right-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think I should amend the decision I made a moment ago to the effect that a specific grievance was referred to the house, and the hon. member should strictly confine himself to the question of charitable donations in connection with
5. 1964	2959
Deductions for Charitable Donations income tax returns. Consequently, I would suggest that the hon. member limit his remarks to this subject.


Georges-J. Valade: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, with all due respect for your authority, I am pleased to revert to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve and pursued by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
This also allows us to note that when we speak about administration the Liberals are quite ill at ease.
As concerns the charitable donation receipts, I believe the Quebec population suffers a flagrant inequity, for in the province of Quebec, Canadian taxpayers perhaps do not understand business administration as in some other provinces.
For instance, merchants, manufacturers and contractors in other Canadian provinces include in their yearly budget a certain amount intended for charitable organizations. Now, these sums of money paid to charitable funds are automatically deducted from income. But the small contractor, the small restaurant operator, every ordinary citizen in his or her daily field, does not keep a record of his charitable donations to the church, leisure organizations or other spheres of public charity.
Now, I am of the opinion that this practice of the present government requiring its officials to refuse or investigate charity receipts given by our parish priests is an injustice, an insult to the Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy, because in my opinion they represent very well two honest denominations.
Mr. Speaker, since I have only four minutes left, I should like the Acting Minister of National Revenue to answer the objections which were made during this debate.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I see I have been left with four minutes in which to reply to a grievance which hon. members opposite took something over an hour to discuss. In any event, I shall try to deal with it to the extent possible in this extremely limited time.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) made it clear he accepted the proposition that the law as it exists was being administered properly, and that the difficulty lies with the law itself. If that is so, a strong doubt is raised in my mind as to the propriety of raising this subject as a grievance. I say this because the grievance period was intended to allow hon. members to raise grievances against the administration, rather than to provide opportunities for discussing legislation on the statute books or on

Deductions for Charitable Donations the order paper. In the second place if I may give another answer to the hon. member, it is interesting that he should be critical of the present government for not having changed the law, although he did not, as far as I know, raise the matter previously during the period when the government he supported was in office.
Be that as it may, the hon. member for Villeneuve did relate his remarks to the administration of the Income Tax Act as far as it concerns charitable donations. While he used excessive language-quite improper language, in describing employees of the administration; I merely mention this so that I may be on record as rejecting his improper language in this respect-I wish to indicate to the hon. member that, in so far as he raised examples of grievances having to do with the administration, I will go through his remarks tomorrow and direct that the appropriate files be examined in order to see whether or not there is substance in those grievances and, if there is, to have them corrected. The hon. member gave several names by way of example-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, I have no objection to the minister speaking or, as he said, replying to these grievances which have been raised, but I think there is an important point of order here and one which should be watched very closely. It is this: We may set a precedent and have ministers of the crown using up the time allowed for a grievance period by answering the grievances which have been raised. I think it was only a few days ago that a similar situation arose. A minister of the crown elected to use some of the time allotted to the grievance period, thus taking time away from members of the opposition, and my concern is that this should not become a precedent for the future.


George James McIlraith: I will forgo my right to discuss the point of order. We undoubtedly have the right to reply.
The point I wish to make in the few moments I have left is that in so far as the hon. member's remarks did pertain to this aspect of the act, I will carefully examine them myself and have the points he raised considered in relation to the cases he mentioned.
In the course of some further remarks, the hon. member advocated changes in the legislation. I think that either he misunderstood the law itself, or he was imprecise and inaccurate in stating what the law is. It provides that only the actual charitable contributions are allowable by way of reduction, and then only up to 10 per cent. The principle is not that 10 per cent is allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I see my time has expired and I must desist.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Churchill:: On division.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $4,677,100.

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $208,861,000.

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration (including the former vote for the operation and maintenance of official railway cars), $3,773,800.
Proceedings reported.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader whether he would record on Hansard the business for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, beginning tomorrow we will take the Estate Tax Act resolution. The second order of business will be second reading of the Customs Tariff bill. Then in the field of legislation we will take the resolution to appoint the special committee on defence, after which we will proceed with the second reading of the bill to amend the National Defence Act. Then we will take the resolution introducing a bill to authorize certain crown corporations to pay certain provincial fees and taxes, after which we will be dealing with the resolution introducing the bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act. We intend to take these legislative measures one after the other until each has been finally proceeded with, the only interruption being on Thursday when we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Mr. Speaker:: Order. According to provisory standing order 39A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is that the house adjourn. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have put this question many times to the Minister of Public Works to give him an opportunity to answer it. I know the minister is dedicated to the public interest, that he is a hard working and conscientious man who, unfortunately, belongs to the wrong party, but I know he is working in the interest, not only of eastern Montreal constituents, but also of the Canadian people as a whole.
I for one was satisfied with the speech he delivered on the administration of the Department of Public Works. If I refer to La Presse for April 20, 1964, I read an article entitled:
Deschatelets will resign from the cabinet and the federal government if his desires are not met.


Mr. Habel:: Do you take the responsibility for it?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Which?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Of what you read.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I read the article written by a distinguished journalist, Mr. Luc Beauregard of La Presse and I will leave to the minister the opportunity of telling whether I am wrong in reading such an article.
Surrounded by sobbing women and men cursing politics, the Minister of Public Works of Canada, Mr. Jean Paul Deschatelets stated last evening that he would put his career at stake to satisfy the claims of the constituents of Hochelaga and Mai-sonneuve: "If nothing is done after a first request addressed to the government of which I am a member, I will resign", said the minister.
It was at the end of a meeting, that was lively, and even dramatic at times, that Mr. Deschatelets emphasized that he was ready to assist the people of eastern Montreal at all costs, even at the expense of his own career-
The same article further reads as follows:
Trans-Canada highway-The minister has emphatically promised he would refuse to sign any plan for a future trans-Canada highway which would not pass exactly where the C.N.R. tracks stand at present. He intends to set up a committee with his colleague, as soon as possible,-
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has made or intends to make appropriate representations to the Quebec department of highways so that the trans-Canada highway route be changed to bring
5, 1964
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion satisfaction and grant a fair treatment to the people of eastern Montreal.
The minister is aware of the inconveniences resulting from the Canadian National railway track: some disastrous accidents have occurred and the people of this important Montreal area whom the minister is representing are complaining because the trans-Canada highway is once again dividing that part of eastern Montreal. This is not only a disadvantage for workers who will have to cross the trans-Canada highway, but also a serious danger for children going to school, etc.
I know that the minister was in a position to appreciate the concern of the people of eastern Montreal when he attended the meeting. I wish to tell him that I admire him very much for the firmness which he showed when he made his formal promise. He was ready, Mr. Speaker, to give up his political and public career if he did not succeed in convincing the C.N.R. president to remove that track and if he was not successful in convincing the provincial minister of highways to change the lay-out of the trans-Canada highway in the eastern part of Mont-treal so as to give satisfaction to the people living in that important section.
I know that the minister has important duties to carry out. It is not up to the federal government to decide on the lay-out of the trans-Canada highway, because it is rather a provincial responsibility, but I should like to know whether the minister succeeded in convincing the provincial minister of highways of the necessity to change this lay-out in order to do justice to the population of the eastern section of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to allow the minister, in addition to the three minutes to which he is entitled, the time I did not use.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I must say first of all that the preliminary remarks of my hon. friend from Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm reminded me of the old saying: "I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts". I must say, following this statement, that the trans-Canada highway going through the city of Montreal is one of the greatest projects of this government, a project which should have been planned and carried through in the last six years. It was not done, but we are very pleased to associate ourselves with this great venture.
Therefore, there will be an expressway bypassing the city of Montreal which will have nothing then to envy any other city on the North American continent.
Plans for that expressway which will start from a certain point on the Metropolitan

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion boulevard, at Decarie boulevard, will go south then towards the east end of Montreal, parallel with the Montreal harbour up to Papi-neau street, those plans, as I said earlier, have been drawn up, approved and registered.
This means that, from Papineau street to the east end of Montreal, plans have not yet been drawn up by the provincial government. But I must say to my hon. friend that it is quite in order for the Quebec government, in this case, to prepare plans. However, they must be submitted for our approval, because the federal government is committed to pay 90 per cent of construction costs of two lanes, after approval of the plans of course.
That does not apply only to the province of Quebec. It has been done in all the other provinces in the last 10 years.
Now, my hon. friend mentions a newspaper article. In that respect, I must tell him that unlike what happened with regard to several of my former colleagues, I have nothing to delete from that article which gives a good picture of what took place.
With regard to a commitment I would have made, I want him to feel at ease and I tell him that when a man of honour makes a commitment, there is no need to remind him about it.
I got in touch with the provincial minister of highways, Hon. Mr. Pinard, about two weeks ago concerning the plans for that expressway in the east end of Montreal. No final decision has yet been made concerning these plans. I must tell my hon. friend that the original plans provided that this expressway would follow the lay-out of the old railroad in eastern Montreal, which goes as far as Moreau station. It is that old railroad that I would like to see removed.
I said to the provincial minister of highways that I hoped it would be possible to provide in eastern Montreal for an expressway in eastern Montreal that would not only run parallel but follow the lay-out of that railroad coming from Montreal east to Moreau station, and which would allow the removal of tracks which have become a public nuisance in eastern Montreal. It would also allow the city of Montreal to undertake urban redevelopment in an old part of the city where it is needed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time is over.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-AMHERST, N.S.-ACTION TO OFFSET PENDING LAY-OFFS

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland on the question of lay-oils at Enamel and Heating Products Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I pose this question to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) in an effort to secure information regarding the lay-offs that have been effected at Enamel and Heating Products Limited plant at Amherst, Nova Scotia, in relation to aircraft component overhaul and repair work. My reason for posing the question is the concern felt both in the town of Amherst and in the constituency of Cumberland regarding the future of this plant and its operations.
The plant in question has been carrying out aircraft work for many years and has, among other things, secured a great deal of work from United States firms on a production sharing basis. The work in question, I understand, totals approximately 75 per cent or more of the total work load in the aircraft plant. The problem facing the plant is that there is not a sufficient amount of overhaul and repair work on aircraft components to keep the plant in operation at a production cost which would allow them to fulfil the obligations they have undertaken with United States firms.
The problem here relates to production costs. When the officials of Enamel and Heating Products Limited accepted the contracts from United States firms they accepted them on the basis of a certain production cost that was available to them as a result of the employment in their plant. As a consequence of the depletion of overhaul and repair work their work force has declined and their production costs have increased. If no new work is made available to the plant through the Department of Defence Production, then there is every cause for concern about the future operations of the plant. It could well mean that they could not meet the commitments they have made to these United States firms because of spiraling production costs. This could mean the closure of the plant and a very serious economic blow to the economy of both the town of Amherst and the county of Cumberland, in view of the fact that the employment does not come from the town of Amherst alone but is spread throughout the county of Cumberland.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Industry has a problem here. He is operating on a much smaller budget than was the case when this company accepted the contracts from United States firms and anticipated a future workload from overhaul and repair work. At the same time, I think the minister will recognize that this company has done a tremendous job, a really remarkable job of going into the United States on their own and securing a substantial amount of work from United States companies. The

company has had a history of efficient operation, a history of efficient work indicating to the United States firms that they could do the work in an efficient manner and provide them with the type of aircraft components that the company promised it would produce when the contracts were accepted. In view of this, it is my hope the minister will be able to indicate, both to the employees who have been laid off and the residents of the county of Cumberland, that action will be taken through his department that will eliminate the concern that is now very evident in my constituency.
I want to say that the Minister of Industry has been sympathetic to the problem of this firm. However, it is my hope we will be able to secure something more than sympathy because I would not want to think there was nothing else available to my constituents in the days ahead. I feel that if the minister can indicate he is taking the type of action that will put these men back to work, we will eliminate the concern in the minds of my constituents generally that I want to see eliminated, if that is at all possible.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the facts as outlined by the hon. member are substantially correct. The Department of Industry and the Department of Defence Production have been concerned over the past few months about the problem which has been outlined by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates). There have been continuing, and there are still continuing, discussions with the firm with a view to alleviating to the greatest extent possible their problems. The fact of the matter is, however, as the hon. member for Cumberland has pointed out, the number of aircraft both by types and in total numbers required to be repaired and overhauled by the Royal Canadian Air Force has declined very substantially.
Over the past few years, as a consequence, there has been a need for considerably less in the way of repair and overhaul facilities in the aircraft industry generally than had been the case in the past. There has had to be, as a consequence, a shrinkage of Department of Defence Production orders. Seeing this coming, the Department of Defence Production has encouraged aircraft overhaul organizations to seek production sharing work and has been prepared, and has in fact, provided considerable assistance, to firms in securing contracts on a competitive basis with United States firms.
As the hon. member for Cumberland has pointed out, Enamel and Heating Products Limited have been more than usually successful in this particular regard. In this field they
5.	1964	2963
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are one of the more enterprising and more successful companies. The Department of Defence Production has been concerned to see that the base from which they make their competitive bids in the United States will continue in operation, this base being provided by contracts from the Department of Defence Production for overhaul and repair of R.C.A.F. aircraft.
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member that agreement has been reached with the company on what I think is a workable arrangement, a workable and practicable level of work which will enable them successfully to carry out the contracts in the United States.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, last Monday's newspapers carried an account of the conference held on Sunday in Montreal, before a Jewish organization which provides assistance to immigrants, by the economist within the cabinet. Allow me to quote one of those reports:
Mr. Rene Tremblay stated that far from taking jobs away from Canadians, qualified immigrants create employment for less specialized labour.
I am sure that the minister must have gone over what he said over the week end and even though we have nothing against selective immigration, that is precisely what led me to put the following question to the minister yesterday:
During the week end, the minister said that Canada and the province of Quebec would need several thousand immigrants to ensure Canada's economic development. Now, could the minister, whose competence as an economist is well-known in certain quarters-not everywhere, but in certain quarters only-tell us what measures he intends to take so that our 500,000 unemployed may find suitable employment that will permit Canada's economic development?
I know that the minister is going to tell me as he did in Montreal, that we need highly educated people and recognized technicians, that we can no longer look to Europe for those people, since Europe needs all its technicians, and that we must look to other parts of the world, such as Asia, India, China or Japan.
During the week end, I was in Thetford Mines, where about 600 or 650 Canadians will be dismissed from work within 60 days. Yet, they are people with 20 to 25 years' experience in mines and they do not know where to turn if they lose their job in Thetford Mines.
The same thing happened a few years ago in Elliot Lake where hundreds of Canadians lost their jobs. Remember that a

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion man with 20 or 25 years' experience in mines must certainly be a technician in his field, he must certainly know the work he is performing and must certainly be capable of doing something in that field. He is a technician or a mechanical worker or some other thing.
Now, why did the minister tell the Jewish association for aid to immigrants that there is an unquestionable need for immigrants in Canada, whereas, in the province of Quebec alone we have 240,000 jobless people and from 500,000 to 550,000 in the whole of Canada. And those are the officially unemployed, without counting the unofficial ones. Now, we are told that we should have more educated people. There probably will be educated instead of uneducated people without jobs.
I would like to draw the hon. minister's attention to a very important point.
At a time when he, an economist from Quebec in the federal cabinet, talks to us about that immigration that would spur the country's economic expansion, we read in yesterday's Montreal Star:
Automation effects studied.
That appeared yesterday in the Montreal Star. It can be said knowingly that automation will have the same effects here in Canada as in the United states, where it is claimed that 40,000 jobs disappear every week, whereas a tremendous number of young people come on the labour market. That is when Mr. Snyder, Jr., president of United Industries Incorporated, a large U.S. corporation, tells us that the government will have to take drastic and radical steps to meet the situation.
Now, the minister who is also an economist in the federal cabinet, tells us that immigration will not prevent the creation of jobs, when automation is throwing more and more people out onto the streets.
The minister might say that I am making a statement, but I am asking this question: How does he expect to solve the unemployment problem in Canada, by encouraging an immigration policy as he suggested in Montreal during the week end?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, first, I must correct the statement of the hon. member for Villeneuve, who said that there are now more than 500,000 unemployed in Canada. He even quoted the figure of 550,000 jobless.
May I remind him that the last figures published by the Minister of Labour are
400,000	and not 500,000 or 550,000.


Gilles Grégoire: Those are the unemployed who receive benefits.


René Tremblay: Then if we take the standard advocated by the hon. member for Lapointe, a real expert in the field of statistics, any figure can be used.


Gilles Grégoire: In our statistics, we do not forget anybody.


René Tremblay: Besides, it would take more than three minutes to answer such a question. Nevertheless, I should like to point out that unemployment is a very serious problem in Canada and one which will never be solved by doing away with immigration. On the contrary, positive and progressive steps such as the ones taken by the present government will succeed in dealing with unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Which steps?


René Tremblay: Those designed to boost the economy in certain under developed regions, to increase the building of homes, to promote the growth of new industries. All those steps will gradually increase employment and reduce unemployment.
Last month there were 93,000 fewer unemployed than the corresponding month last year-


An hon. Member:: Those are not the same statistics.


René Tremblay: -consequently, there has been an upsurge in the economy. It is by positive action, not by closing our doors to immigration, that we will solve the problem of unemployment.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Villeneuve that there is no question of bringing in all kinds of immigrants. What we are considering is selective immigration, which means the entry of contractors, technicians and other workers who can easily be absorbed into our economy. It must be remembered that while there are thousands of unemployed in Canada, there is a shortage of labour in some areas of the country.


Gilles Grégoire: Name them.


René Tremblay: It is precisely by means of a selective immigration instead of restrictions being imposed to the economic activity that we shall be able to increase our prosperity.


Gilles Grégoire: We entirely disagree with that.


René Tremblay: Therefore, I believe that an aggressive and dynamic immigration policy, provided it is sensible and selective, will be likely in the long run to bring about an increase in the economic activity and a more rational development of our natural resources.


That is what happened in the United States and in every country which enjoyed prosperity resulting from a large increase in population. Whether this increase is due to normal growth or to the excess of immigrants over emigrants, or to any other basic factor, it is admitted everywhere in the world that an increase in population means an increase in national revenue and prosperity of a country, and it is because we want our country to be more prosperous that we want to attract those immigrants over here.
5,	1964	2965
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We want to develop our resources systematically where they exist and if immigrants can help us to do it, they and their children will benefit by the prosperity which we will all have created together.


Gilles Grégoire: Pure sophism.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Wednesday, May 6, 1964